You're right, I was (happily) proved wrong about the subway vote, and I should probably have made some mention of the fact that I am not the world's greatest prognosticator.

My apologies.

As for using scarce transit monies to buy art, rather than relieve bus-overcrowding for transit-dependent working people, I suppose "worth it" is in the eye of the beholder.

Caryn addressed this in the comments over on art.blogging.la, but I think there's a very large difference between disagreeing with the MTA's spending priorities and disparaging the output. I think the art that Metro has had commissioned has been visually excellent. Metro's Art Program has been spending that 0.5% of rail construction costs on art since 1989. I'm sure the money for these new purchases has been earmarked for quite a while. It would be no easy task (and a bad precedent) to go back and de-allocate it now.

There is no question that Los Angeles has a transportation problem and that creative and resourceful thinking on funding will be required to come anywhere close to solving it. That being the case, I don't think the MTA should skimp on station amenities that will last for a very long time. The MTA needs bus drivers to get more vehicles on the street. How are we going to solve that problem? -e;

I'm not disparaging art, I'm criticizing the way the MTA is (in my mind) wasting money trying to enliven poorly designed public spaces with art. The NY subway is not known for being chock full o' art, and yet it is one of the most beloved and heavily used transit systems in the world. Why? Because the NY MTA is focused on providing a useful, efficient transit system.

Does L.A. need public art? Absolutely! Is the MTA the best agency for that job? In my opinion, no.

As to the question of how to get more bus drivers on the road, that's a bit of a sticky wicket for a pro-union guy like myself. I think it's clear, though, that the union's existing membership has gobbled up so much payroll that they've made the pay for new drivers uncompetitive with other entry level jobs. Would concessions from the drivers help relieve the problem? Absolutely. Will they offer those concessions? Probably not.

Crap, there I go prognosticating again!

Scott, simple question: Do you think the public art the MTA has commissioned is, on the whole, good art? I would say that it is. As I've said, of the new pieces I've only seen "In the Living Rock," but I immediately noticed that piece walking by and felt it livened up a previously dead space. That doesn't just help the subway, it helps the whole neighborhood.

You say you're not disparaging art, but you are specifically calling the pieces introduced by the MTA "plop art," which I think most would consider a fairly derogatory term. Attack what you want to attack, but don't badmouth something and then say that it really isn't what you don't like.

I am a transit dependent individual. I take the bus or the train at least five days a week. I have to endure routes with long headways, and others that are often full. And yet I absolutely support the MTA's art program because I think it creates a system that is different. LA is not New York and it never will be. The Los Angeles rail system will never be the New York City subway. The reality is that our geographic constrains are different and that this is an insanely expensive day and age in which to build subway. When I went to San Francisco last summer I rode BART. I love BART, but the first thing that struck me was "hey, LA's stations are a lot cooler and more distinctive than this." That's important. It's worth spending one half of one percent of construction costs to make a system that stands out. I've taken up my differences with the MTA on other issues, but this is one in which I fully support them. -e;

in 1989, the city of los angeles passed a law allocating one percent of all capital improvement costs to commission public artwork. (from here.) i would guess the mta's decision to spend rail construction money on public art was driven by similar interests, given the timing.

it's too bad that nobody has tried calling the mta and finding out why the decision was made to spend 0.5% of the rail construction budget on public art. i guess it is just easier to take potshots at the artwork as some sort of oblique way of saying they should buy another bus with the money. is that what they mean by invoking the lazyweb?

oh, and that beloved new york metro system? here's info on their arts program. in fact, "up to one percent of the budget for each station [on the canarsie line] is allocated for the design, fabrication, and installation of permanent artwork". better hurry, though. applications are due in just a few hours.

Thanks Jim, I had forgotten about the city program. I don't have the article in front of me right now, but I was reading through a couple LA Times articles yesterday that ran in 1990 or 1991 (the Blue Line was just getting into 7th/Metro) and an emphasis was made on spending the money in order to create an environment people will feel comfortable with and attracted to.

It would be interesting to know, though, if the city's Public Percent program and and LACTC's (Los Angeles County Transportation Commission, which later merged with the RTD to make the MTA) 0.5% for art came out of some driving impetus. It would seem likely, given that the Public percent program and Metro's Art Department were founded in the same year. -e;

Interesting blog, Scott, and thanks for the link to 6-4-2. I wonder what the general populus will say about rail if gasoline gets to $5/gallon? I haven't been following the subway vote too closely because I live in OC (work in Culver City, though -- nasty commute, that), but I used to work for a company that made light rail control systems (including for LA MTA), so I have a definite interest.

D'oh!