Note to the other moderators in this forum: As it is, I’m just looking to share something exciting that happened to me; yet I also recognize that if people want to start discussing the underlying issue, it could be better suited to Great Debates. If that happens, I don’t mind it being moved there.
Two or three weeks ago, the* L.A. Weekly *“alternative” biweekly published its inevitable slam against the proposed West Side subway extension, the occasion being the release of a draft Environmental Impact Report. The EIR indicated that the Purple Line Extension would do little or nothing to relieve traffic congestion in the western reaches of the city. Conveniently glossed over, however, was the underlying reason for this, which was that any benefit gained by extending the rail line would be negated by population growth. In other words, another possible conclusion was that we’d better build it, because the people are coming regardless.
Hundreds of L.A. Weekly readers responded on that paper’s website, and the overwhelming majority of responses castigated them for their shortsightedness, their misguided love of rubber-tired, fossil fuel burning surface transit, and their hewing to an outmoded image of an L.A., comprised mostly of single family houses, which is no longer sustainable.
Today, in the Times Arts & Books section, there’s an critical essay “Connection Disconnect” on the contention between those who would keep alive their ideal of L.A. as a suburban, car-centric metropolis, and those who envision a more transit and pedestrian oriented future. What perplexes the author of this piece, Christopher Hawthorne, is that the L.A. Weekly is generally progressive or liberal on social issues, but when it comes to transit in L.A., on the other hand, is obstructionist and reactionary. And to illustrate the general tenor of the readers’ commentary, they quoted me verbatim:
The article is here.
