transportation in L.A. (Los Angeles, Orange: vacation, rental, work)

[matt345]

Originally Posted by CESpeed

I'm all for helping the environment. I do other things, I drive as little as possible, I go to the Green Gas station, I recycle, every bulb in my home has been change to the environmental lights, I help on beach clean up day. I can't think of anything more stressful than wondering if you are going to get to work on time. But what good is me helping the environment if I don't have a job?

Why is it so hard for you to accept that some of us have actually had good experiences with public transportation in LA? Is it the best system in the world? Not at all. But they are currently building the Expo Line, which will eventually connect Santa Monica to Downtown. They're also building the Gold Line extension into East LA. They're trying to build the purple line subway extension to Santa Monica as well, but that's going to be extremely expensive.

I'm having trouble telling if you have a problem with LA's system as is or if you're just anti-transit. In another thread, you posted the following:

Originally Posted by CESpeed

I lived at Wilshire and Normandie while they were building the Red Line. Mom and Pop businesses that depended on sidewalk traffic that had been in existence for thirty plus years went out of business while they were building it. It was messy and dirty and it was just miserable. Having lived through the construction, I can fully understand why no one would want their neighborhoods and businesses disrupted by the construction.

Originally Posted by CESpeed

Personally, I don't think people should lose their homes for a freeway. But I didn't hear those people complaining when they got checks in excess of what thier houses were worth to move. And the businesses that were closed (people's lifelong hard work) have never reopened and they did not receive the value of their businesses.

To me, this sounds like someone who is against the expansion of the Metro rail. But yet, you also post this:

Originally Posted by CESpeed

If our transit system consisted of mostly trains as you try to make it sound, then I wouldn't have a problem with them because, like SandyCo said, the trains are usually very reliable. The busses which make up over 95% of the transit system are not good for regular transportation. Especially not if you need to be anywhere at a specific time.

This sounds like someone who is pro-rail construction, but yet you talked about how awful Metro was for all that construction on Wilshire Blvd. Do you support the expansion of the Metrorail or not? Or are you one of those typical Angeleno complainers who just likes to whine about how unreliable transit is simply as an excuse to continue LA's unsustainable car culture?

Also you talk abut how the trains are usually reliable and if LA's system was mostly rail, you would support it. But yet, you also posted this:

Originally Posted by CESpeed

On extremely rare occaisions the rail is good.

So are trains reliable or are they not? Your posts are full of contradictions.

[CESpeed]

Because I'm an honest person, I have conceded that the rails run well. I rode the transit for thirty years all over L.A. County so forgive me if I understand the ins and outs of the system and choose to tell people the truth about the system. I didn't get into how the MTA has systematically destroyed services in the system and do not make decisions based on what's best for riders but what they can sqeeze out of the system. MTA is a HORRIBLE company. Believe it or not, like it or not. I would never recommend anyone who needs relaible transportation use the MTA. I've actually sat on the tracks riding the blue for over half an hour without any explanation. At 11:00 in the evening I've been passed by full buses. Once upon a time, you could call MTA 24 hours a day and get someone who actually knew the bus sysytem. Now, you can only get directions from a person from 8 - 6 and not only will the person not know anything about the buses or the rails, but they will only give you two sets of directions. The bus drivers don't know anything about the system. You'll be fortunate if they can tell you anything about the route.

Yes I think it was crappy that those Mom and Pops were destroyed by MTA. And if asked, I would say it was not worth it. If they can find a way to build the rail without destroying people's homes and businesses, fine go for it. But don't delude yourself into thinking that they are building it for the good of L.A. They are doing it to make money and have people like you and nick convince people that the MTA is a good company.

The rails are more reliable than the buses. The buses are 50% relaible and I'm being generous. Unless one is traveling a great distance, the bus is becoming less reliable as they de-activate bus stops. And they have fewer buses to service local stops.

In actuality, I believe that the politicians of this city are trying to turn it into New York. If we had access to cars with renewable energy, L.A.'s "car culture" would be sustainable.

[nickdahammer]

"They are doing it to make money and have people like you and nick convince people that the MTA is a good company."

Well, I guess you and I may as well work for the MTA, according to CESpeed.

Why? Because we had a positive experience or two riding a train.

[matt345]

Originally Posted by CESpeed

If we had access to cars with renewable energy, L.A.'s "car culture" would be sustainable.

No it wouldn't be. How is changing energy sources going to reduce the horrible gridlock that is literally paralyzing the entire city? You can give everyone in LA a car with renewable energy. It would still be the same amount of cars on the road and traffic would be just as bad, if not worse. Maybe it's fine with you that it takes over an hour to go from Hollywood to Santa Monica, but it's not fine with me. I want LA's traffic problems fixed. How in the world is switching energy sources going to do anything to solve our traffic problems? LA's car culture isn't sustainable because we are in a constant state of gridlock, no matter what the energy source.

I have never seen anybody with such a strong hatred of a transportation agency. Someone who has absolutely no tolerance for people who have had different and more positive experiences with that agency.

[CESpeed]

I can assure you there are way more people who feel the way I do about the agency than the way you feel. I'm glad there's someone who likes them and isn't getting paid for it. They just aren't on this forum. Have you been to a bus riders union meeting? When you have been riding the bus for twenty years, talk to me.

Gridlock is only paralyzing the city because of overpopulation. Look at how many buses run on Wilshire. That still hasn't alleviated traffic at all.

[matt345]

Originally Posted by CESpeed

Gridlock is only paralyzing the city because of overpopulation. Look at how many buses run on Wilshire. That still hasn't alleviated traffic at all.

That's because buses aren't subways. And even subways won't totally eliminate traffic, but they will provide alternatives to driving. So what's your solution for LA's transportation problems? You still haven't addressed my question. You stated that if we found renewable energy that would make LA's car culture sustainable. I responded by stating that even if we replaced the energy source, there would still be the same amount of cars on the road. So I'll ask again, how in the world does renewable energy alleviate traffic problems, thus making total car dependence a sustainable way of life? At least with subways and light rails, you are taking potential drivers off the road. The red line subway is always packed near capacity. You're telling me that putting each one of those people in a car wouldn't have a negative impact on traffic?

I'm sorry that you had bad experiences with MTA. However, you posts are starting to show that you're willing to say anything just to bash MTA, whether you contradict yourself or not. First you stated that your main issue with MTA was that that the system was mostly buses and not rail. You stated that rail is usually reliable and if the system had more rail, you would support it. Then you said the complete opposite, stating that the rail is very rarely reliable. Then you stated that none of the rail that was built was even worth it because it killed small businesses along Wilshire. Do you want more rail or not? If more rail is built, there is inevitably going to be construction zones. That's just the nature of the beast. You can't have things both ways.

[CESpeed]

I've said before and I'll say it again: It's never worth anyone losing their life's work so yuppies can travel underground. IF an improvement can be made that won't negatively impact people's lives, yes I'm for it. MTA is a horrible company. They have no concern for the passengers, just howe much they can make on a project. Maybe this will help you understand my position: the bus sysytem wasn't always this bad. When it was RTD, improvements were made that benefitted customers. If a driver was rude, he got called on the carpet. The information people knew the bus system and took the time to find you the best route, not just the one that popped up on the system first. If a driver didn't know where you were going, he or she would ask a passenger. The drivers would call in if another bus was needed on a route.

Regardless, I'm entitled to not like a company and to let people know that it's a bad company. I'm entitled to think that a car is the best way to go when the alternative is a bad company that doesn't care if you get from point A to point B. And whether you like it or not I can share 20 years of bus riding experience. L.A. is not Chicago or New York. The more it is built up, the more people will move here. The more people who move here, the more crowded it will be. Since most people prefer to have the freedom to move around at will, no matter how many rails they build, people are still going to drive.

[Bert Green]

"It's never worth anyone losing their life's work so yuppies can travel underground."

Yuppies? WTF? This is an old BRU trope. The oppose the trains, they oppose the Rapid Bus, because "only the whites ride it." Ever been on a Los Angeles Metro train? It's a rainbow of colors, types, and income levels. We need more of them, not less. The BRU isn't interested in helping the transit dependent, they are obstructionists. The head of it drives a BMW and makes $300,000 a year.

People will move here anyway. Stop growth and prices go up so high that nobody but the new residents can afford it. Who loses in that case? The slow-growth advocates. They get kicked out. It's a perfect formula for unintended gentrification.

The reason Los Angeles has been so successful in the past and the reason it is becoming the city of the future is exactly because it is historically willing to grow to accommodate new residents. Right now the expansion of the rail system has positioned Hollywood and Downtown as the centers of the new urban future. Nobody is saying you have to live there, or agree with it, but it's true. For the first time in 50 years it's possible to live easily in Los Angeles without a car.

[CESpeed]

Really? It's easier? I'm so glad that you like being sardined into a bus that may or may not show up. I'm sure when it rains, it's an absolute pleasure. Of course, my favorite was needing to go the grocery store and having to choose between making several trips up and down the stairs and begging the bus driver for patience or not buying everything I need because it's too cumbersome to carry bags on the bus and we mustn't forget the wonderful walk several blocks carrying bags. Enjoy your urban future while a once great and beautiful city is destroyed.

[nickdahammer]

Originally Posted by Bert Green

"It's never worth anyone losing their life's work so yuppies can travel underground."

Yuppies? WTF? This is an old BRU trope. The oppose the trains, they oppose the Rapid Bus, because "only the whites ride it." Ever been on a Los Angeles Metro train? It's a rainbow of colors, types, and income levels. We need more of them, not less. The BRU isn't interested in helping the transit dependent, they are obstructionists. The head of it drives a BMW and makes $300,000 a year.

People will move here anyway. Stop growth and prices go up so high that nobody but the new residents can afford it. Who loses in that case? The slow-growth advocates. They get kicked out. It's a perfect formula for unintended gentrification.

The reason Los Angeles has been so successful in the past and the reason it is becoming the city of the future is exactly because it is historically willing to grow to accommodate new residents. Right now the expansion of the rail system has positioned Hollywood and Downtown as the centers of the new urban future. Nobody is saying you have to live there, or agree with it, but it's true. For the first time in 50 years it's possible to live easily in Los Angeles without a car.

I agree with your post: rail expansion and Rapid Buses HAVE made it possible to live easily without a car.