The LA Times has a front-page article, apparently free of irony, that laments the glacial rate of progress on constructing a world-class subway system for the city, and imagines wistfully how much easier it would be if only we lived in a one-party communist state. In particular, they look at the progress that Shanghai has made in building its own subway, and pout about all of those nefarious restrictions that Americans have to put up with because we give actual citizens a say in the process.
“If the government wants to do something, even if the conditions are not ready for it, it will be done,” said Zheng Shiling, an influential Chinese architect who teaches at Tongji University in Shanghai.
At the risk of only slight oversimplification, the system works like this: Planners draw subway lines on a map. Party officials approve them. Construction begins. If anything is in the way, it is moved. If they need to, Chinese planners “just move 10,000 people out of the way,” said Lee Schipper, a transport planner who has worked with several Chinese cities in his role as director of research for EMBARQ, a Washington-based transportation think tank. “They don’t have hearings.”
Schipper recalled consulting with one Chinese metropolis whose ancient city wall stood in the way of a transportation project.
“One of the members of the People’s Committee said, ‘Oh, I know how we’ll solve the problem. We’ll move the historic wall.’ ” It was, he said, as if a planner in Washington proposed moving the Potomac River to make way for construction.
One searches the article in vain for the part where they say “Of course we live in a democracy, and some people think that there are certain benefits to that kind of system, even if the government does have to ask permission before tearing down historic sites,” but the moment never comes. Instead, we are treated to stirring stories of the plucky citizens of Shanghai, who don’t raise a peep when construction displaces them from their homes — no, indeed, they are happy to be displaced, as it gives them a chance at a new life! (It might be that voices of complaint are not heard because they are actually silenced, but that smudges up the narrative.)
As a dweller in downtown LA, where a better subway system would be a life-altering good and the lamentations of fragile newcomers who are shocked at the presence of construction noise in a booming high-density urban core form a constant background chorus, I deeply sympathize with frustration at the demands the democratic process force onto city planning. But I’ll tolerate the delays if it means that, if the Mayor wants to tear down our apartments, he at least has to hold a hearing first.
Sean, since you live in Downtown LA & work in Pasadena, do you commute on the Gold Line?
Stevie, it’s a shame you never tried the LA light rail yourself. It’s not an all-in-one solution, but for limited applications from Pasadena, it’s pretty good. (to Union Station to catch the Flyaway shuttle to LAX; to downtown museums; to the Fashion District; to parts of Hollywood; to the South Pas farmers market.)
It’s worth re-iterating Peter Erwin’s comment that LA once had an extensive network of streetcars & trains — LA got sprawly on mass transit, not cars.
Expanding LA’s infrastructure is a waste of resources. Instead, one should build new cities and evacuate LA. At least, that’s what the Chinese would do. Just think about the big Chinese projects like the Three Gorges Dam and the South-to-North Water Diversion Project
AD, I drive into work rather than commuting; the Gold Line doesn’t stop as close to Caltech as it would if the world were arranged for my personal convenience. But I keep telling myself I will start doing so on occasion.
Pingback: sysrick.com
Sean, I think the more interesting point here is the issue of delayed gratification.
I think few in the US want the sort of situation that exists in China.
However it is a fact that much of the US infrastructure is basically frozen in 1970, apparently unable to move on because of complaints by various groups. A more obvious example than LA subway issues is the completion of, say, highway 710 through Alhambra, and highway 110 through South Pasadena.
The larger issue is that we seem to have created a situation now where nothing substantial can happen wrt infrastructure. On the one hand we have (often for goood reason) people who aren’t willing to accept govt reassurances about how they will be compensated; on the other hand we have governments that seem unable to comprehend the simple idea of buying out people for a FAIR price rather than insulting compensation; on the third hand we have various (usually very much minority) organizations who for whatever obsessive reasons of their own want to throw a spanner in the works regardless of honest assessements of cost/benefits for society as a whole.
What we really want is honest assesment of the situation, and some ideas of how to resolve it. I do think that, until each of these three pathologies is admitted by the relevant parties, no progress is possible.
On more general points:
(1) The LA subway is not perfect, but it is nice for the situations when it works. For example I’ve used it to get to theaters, which is otherwise a nightmare for parking.
(2) LA traffic is far more bearable if you get yourself organized, subscribe to some good podcasts, and listen to something interesting as you drive. I really recommend this way of doing things rather than letting yourself stew, or relying on whatever random stuff comes over the airwaves.
A good subway service is completely doable in LA, and would of course be beneficial economically and environmentally in the long run. It just require that the state and city coordinates a sensible plan over several years/decades to finance.
It would of course require cuts in other sectors to help pay, and given how spend thrifty they are, I doubt we will ever see such a thing (Californians love their local program initiatives). Ahnuld’s green push gives some incentive to completing this task in the not so distant future, but by most expert accounts it seems hopelessly ambitious and difficult. Still at least they’re trying, and thats ok.
Ugh, and another thing that really bothers me is all those radical anti-government artists. If only …
And of course, in theory, the government agency in a one-party state is all-knowledgable and cannot make a mistake, and there is no need for citizens to have input into the process – a little like agencies in a centralised planned economy making decisions as to what will be required in the next five years. Now weren’t centralised planned economies such great successes?
But real life is more complicated. By having open systems, information more readily flows, and there is a greater chance that information pertinent to the building of some subway will come to light. So what if it’s harder or messier – there is no guarantee that the end result will be better in a one-party system – it may be more quickly built, but the relative lack of information flow will mean that any problems with the construction may not come to light as quickly in a more open system. Think about the SARS outbreak – the Chinese govt denied the existence of the outbreak of SARS at the start, and was that a good thing to do?
This brings back lovely memories of places like parts of Hollywood Blvd collapsing when I was in high school. I continue to be amused by the effort to build a subway in the face of the massively stupid decision to let GM buy and destroy the street car system to help automobile sales/freeway development back in the 50s (40s?). Anyone who has ever been a teenager without a license in LA knows to have a good sense of humour about the concept of public transportation 🙂 In the face of all this, I remain a proud product of East Los!