Streetsblog Los Angeles

Thanks for the interview with Steve Hymon/Road Sage! So sad to see the glorious Bottleneck blog folded into LA Now, but I'll bookmark that new link and await further tales of traffic...

Now, as for Measure R -
I'm still feeling like we have been snoozled by the MTA. I wonder if Steve would agree. I have this sinking feeling that bikeway projects and amenities for cyclists will not get a single drop of money from Measure R, despite our efforts...

Without a change from our Mayor Villaraigosa, one in which he at last realizes the Green PR photo-op goldmine that is bike infrastructure, I'm afraid we may not get our fair share of that Measure R pie. At this point it will be difficult to even get those "shovel ready" projects moving, let alone our progressive bikeway fantasies. And yet, Measure R passed and the money will be coming in...

Although I agree that more fuel efficient cars are the most likely step Angelenos are willing to make, I'd like for once to see the Mayor, the MTA board which he chairs and the LADOT work together to push for a real culture change in LA. Mind you, I'm NOT saying anyone should give up their cars, just simply that they have as many other options as possible to move about the city in addition to those individual freedom-mobiles.

Trains, buses, bikes, and feet! And 100 mpg cars! LA-LA-LA!

It could happen! ;)

Eric Garcetti for Mayor. There, I've said it!!!

@ Ingrid Peterson -

I said this during the Measure R campaign, but it's worth saying again.

The reason that there were no bike projects in Measure R's list is not a lack of understanding the importance of bicycles. It is simply that most bicycle-oriented projects are of such a relatively small amount that the individual cities -- not Metro -- plan and build them. And those projects come out of the "local return" portion of the Measure R sales tax.

Sure, there are exceptions, such as the bikeway adjacent to the Metro Orange Line, but it is unrealistic to expect Metro to be planning and directly funding small, city-level projects.

I give the same advice I have always given my friends in the bicycle advocacy community: Lobby your city councils to use their local return money for bike-related projects. You will have a much greater impact (and better odds of success) doing that than you will by continuing to claim that "we have been snoozled by the MTA".

"I think that’s the big thing. I know people say that you’re gaining quality time by riding the train even though it takes longer. But, I don’t buy that."
Steve Hymon, as quoted above.

"Would not a newspaperman qualify such a statement?"
Randall BusTard, as quoted now.

What Mr. Hymon fails to acknowledge are the many costs that even a junior engineer would know need to be recognised. Logistics such as work done while on the train, parking despite having a space, that bottleneck at the end of the 110 not far from the Fillmore Station. . .

I am confident that I can make it to my printer on Euclid in Pasadena, from Pershing Square via the Red and Gold Lines, without a bicycle to boot, to pick up a reprint of poetry broadsides as well as stopping by the Trader Joe's, in no less time than it takes for Mr. Hymon to leave his Spring Street desk and be home.

I will be happy to discuss the terms and make this challenge one that folk can await the winner.

Well, Mr. Hymon?

@Joe:

You're wrong. Car improvements will help the environmental health of this city. I don't even have to believe this, it's already happened in the past. L.A. in the 1950's used to have much denser and more dangerous smog than it does today, but the California Air Resources Board issued a requirement that cars sold within California produce much lower concentrations of photochemical oxidants, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and carbon monoxide. After subsequent federal legislation, the result was the development of the catalytic converter, which drastically reduced per-car emissions. The result for L.A. (and for many other cities throughout the world) was less smog contributed by each car, and the sulfur dioxide levels of today is much lower than it was back then, though the population is much higher.

Improvements to cars helped our city's environmental health due to that change, and they will help it in the future as well. If all the cars in the city were plug-in electric, it would be much more energy efficient and produce far less greenhouse gas than if each car carries around its own fossil-fuel-burning energy plant.

There is not one super-solution to the challenges we face. Public transit alone won't save us, nor will bikes alone. It's a balanced prescription of more funding for transit and bike projects, coupled with improvements to auto-efficiency that we need.

You won't hear me opposing any efforts to steer more money to public transit and bike projects in Los Angeles. And yes, encouraging people to drive less is ALWAYS a good thing. But it's going to be a LONG time before the transit infrastructure is available to support people giving up their cars in most areas of this city, let alone the far-flung areas of the county.

The strategies for reducing our consumption of fossil fuels and emission of pollutants need to be aimed at diverse regions. Better public transit will do wonders for urban areas, but what about suburban and rural? Improvements to car efficiency will do wonders for those areas, and will be able to affect a worthwhile change much faster than trying to get frequent bus or light rail service to areas where the ridership wouldn't justify the cost.

Perhaps the funding for transportation projects ought to be dependent on the population density of the region. Higher population density areas should have a much higher percentage of their transportation budget going to public transit and bike projects than in those areas where the density is low enough that ridership would not support frequent bus service.

My main point in posting these opinions is the following: There is a difference between analysis and advocacy. I find that some transit advocates get so zealous and one-sided that they lose sight of the big picture. No one is trying to do the wrong thing here, but these are complex problems, and the same solutions won't work in every situation.

"Better public transit will do wonders for urban areas, but what about suburban and rural?" David

Yes what about this. You know in LA most people unless they already had an apartment or a house can't afford to live where transit is good. People (the average person) with families especially can't afford to live where transit runs well in LA. Downtown, Santa Monica, Hollywood in general are too expensive for the average Los Angeles family because a large portion of LA households of 4 make only about 30k per year. 30k per year if you want to live somewhere relatively safe gets you in West Covina or Lancaster or some other far flung suburb. And many of those people have to work in LA, because that's where the jobs are.

I've had to take the public transit from LA to West Covina and Covina and Lancaster and it takes forever and if I was a mom and my kid got sick and I had to pick them up for school or the babysitter how would I get there?

LA needs to be more affordable. There needs to be a move to make the streets safer and the housing more affordable.

This tunnel vision view on transportation only helps middle class guys who choose to not drive.

Of the guys talking right now do your girlfriends or wives drive or take pt?

It's not about just the bus or just the bike or just making cars more efficient, its about making the entire city work more efficiently. No one should have to drive if they are barely making 20k per year and that's a reality for lots of people. There are people out there spending half their money on transportation so that they can continue to eat.

Browne

Yeah, I meant to refer to the "Local Return" money in my earlier post... Damien, didn't we make a signature campaign for this? I know I personally asked the Mayor about it at an MTA meeting and if I recall, his response was laughter.

Me:
"How much of the local returns from Measure R will be committed to bikeway projects"

Mayor:

"Ha ha hahahahahhahaha"

I think it is very important for cyclists to realize that improving transportation flow in Los Angeles certainly does NOT need to be at the expense of cars.

As a native Angeleno, and one who grew up seriously committed to her car, I can definitely understand that the car isn't going anywhere. Cyclists in LA will have to do better to learn this, and work with it. Certainly cleaner and more fuel efficient vehicles is an excellent step.

I just wish there could be a better sense of the multiple modes and uses of a street. Feet, cycles, automobiles, Solar Electric buses!!

I mean, how come no one on Streetsblog ever talks about Solar Electric Buses?!

:)

Some interesting points made by our LA Times "transit" blogger:

" I can afford a car": What do you think that means as said by our chief transit blogger who you would think is suppose to encourage all of us to hop on a train or bus?

So his commute by car is supposedly 25 to 30 minutes(LIE!) of course this without any accidents or mishaps. His commute by the Gold Line would be according to him roughly 15 minutes more and yet as our chief transit blogger he can't pull himself onto a train more than (and its obvious that he's lying)2 times a week!!!

But of course he can afford to drive a car and we know what type of people ride the Gold Line now don't we? He's simply repugnant!
Then he goes on about how NYC and Chicago magically take trains and busses to work while we all drive. This is of course not mentioning the fact that many of those same commutes in NYC and Chicago take 45 minutes and a lot of times more. Perhaps and just perhaps these folks aren't driving to work because parking is either too expensive or it doesn't exist. So why not make a point transit guru about decreasing parking availability in the Central City and elsewhere so that others who also HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO DRIVE like you have no other option but to ride not drive!!!!

I always thought his blog was weak and leaned towards the car addicted belying its title. Funny how he gets enough time in to indirectly praise Chicago.......Is that because the Chicago Tribune is paying your salary? This guy is yet another wimp of many in this city about getting off of his ass and taking transit....even when there is a viable option for him to take.

Our very own LA Times transit guru who can't take a billion dollar train that only takes 30 minutes or less from end to end.....and his excuse without any shame is to say "I make enough money so I drive". This interview was a roll of unedited bullshit and no he's not being honest. What he is suggesting is that it's much less about accessibility but more about class. So build all of the HRT, LRT, Busways and dedicated bus lanes as you wish, unfortunately you will still have a good # of people in this town who feels that public mass transit is just another form of a social service for the poor.
So therefore the carrot and stick approach must be used as LA continues to expand its rail system. Where transit is a viable alternative to driving those persons who still feel a need to drive must pay for that priveledge. Toll the 110 between Downtown and Pasadena, toll the 101 between downtown and Noho, toll the 105 between Norwalk and the airport as well as parts of the 710. Or do a Mexico City and have alternate day driving schedule for people and if found driving on the days that you are not supposed to be driving you face a stiff fine.
There just really isn't any use in building a multibillion dollar rail and bus system if you don't have any means of strongly disencouraging folks from using their private autos.

Steve Hymon should be removed from commenting on public mass transit immediately since he admittedly believes that only poor people in LA ride and should ride transit. I'm also blown away by how soft Streetblogs went on this guy when immediately after stating that "he has enough money to drive" his nose should have been put to the pavement about what he really meant by that statement. Streetblogs has failed transit advocates in this city as well.

I too was a bit taken by surprise with the "I can afford a car," statement. Yeah it was truthful, but that seemed a bit like a "f*ck you freaks on transit, i can write about you, because you're interesting, but i'm above you."

But that's the truth. That's how people talk about transit in LA. It is viewed as a thing that poor people do, which is why like Ubray stated that our system is in the state that it is in right now.

I think this truth is what makes the vast majority of public transit advocates lie about the bus service. They lie about the timeliness of it, they lie about it not being disgusting, they lie and try to make it seem like Metro is great and the bus is great and everything that Metro is doing is great, because the truth would mean they are one of "those people."

And you know in LA "those" seems to be synonymous for nonpeople i.e. poor people, homeless people, working class people, African-American people, Latino people and I think the vast majority of pro-metro transit advocates can't face the truth.

They can't face the truth that public transit makes them de facto "those" people.

Until we start dealing with the truth in regards to race and class in LA and how it relates to transit nothing is ever going to get better.

The sad truth is in LA if you have a car you are more of a person and you count just a little bit more than a person who does not.

Browne

Who pretends that transit in LA is great? I don't think it's any secret that transit in Los Angeles and in the majority of other cities in the United States, with two or three exceptions, is nothing more than welfare mobility for those who can't afford cars. No one expects government cheese to really taste that great.

Ubrayj's assessment is spot on. Which is why there's nothing wrong with Steve Hymon preferring his car. I certainly don't think it represents any conflict with his job or with his work on the Bottleneck blog. He's the LA Times transportation reporter, not mass transit advocate.

You all just have to face the facts that our transportation systems are not a product of a rational marketplace, they are a product of a political process. And as long as that is the case (which I think will be forever) you have to realize that we will never have a transportation system that makes any logical sense or that meets the needs of human beings. So you have to choose which government provided system you want. Hymon chooses the one that gets you there a few minutes faster, I choose the one that has someone else drive me around. I'm not to picky when it comes to government cheese, and I'm just trying to convince others to feel the same way.

The buses are disgusting. On one hand maybe Metro doesn't steam clean the buses often enough. But who vandalizes them? Who litters on them? Who treats them like garbage?

Is it out of fashion to expect the people who use mass transit to act like civilized individuals? Most people do, and there are bad apples who don't.

I wonder how Metro is supposed to combat this problem in a society that doesn't care.

Wellfare mobility for the poor. I agree with that to an extent. But on the other hand we have efforts to improve and expand bus and rail service. Rapid buses, limited stop services, commuter express buses. If buses were just wellfare, would have anything other than local service? Would we have a subway? Would we have a growing light rail network?

Would we see efforts at signal synchronization? Would there be TAP cards? Would the trains run 24 hours for New Years? Would there be light night service hadn't businesses rallied together and funded this so-called wellfare mobility?

Cars are for the poor too. A lot of people are driving busted up '89 Honda Accords all over town on poorly maintained subsidized roads. They can barely afford gas, repairs, oil changes.

Rich cars vs. poor mass transit. I don't buy it. I can admit transit in Southern California isn't perfect, but you should be man, or woman enough, to admit that it's getting better year.

To me it's not the people who ride transit. It is how transit is completely neglected. If people use it, its going to need to be cleaned. Any thing that people use and is not clean it's going to get gross.

It's the bus stops (which yeah I get Metro doesn't take care of, but they should monitor who they do pay to take care of it,) the late busses, the unclean busses, the unclean rails and its not the people who take it fault completely. It's not even 50% our fault.

The Montebello line which goes through the same neighborhoods manage to not be disgusting and be on time.

The Gardena line same thing, not disgusting and on time.

The Foothill transit is awesome, even online access.

The security that protects the equipment, but doesn't view the people who take the train as anything more than an annoyance.

The busses in LA need to run on time. They need to get rid of the timetable and get a schedule. I am in downtown. I am often two stops from the beginning of the line, but yet and still the bus manages to be late. How exactly do you manage to be late in the morning before rushhour in downtown LA at the beginning of the line?

Browne

BusTard also hates the BRU. My opinion on hating the BRU, real dumb, sorry I just don't get it.

I get the feeling you think I'm talking about you. I'm not. I would just say I was talking about you.

I am not about making personal statements about people who seem to have no power at all (unless they directly come after me.) I will just say anytime I complain about bus stops, the bus being late, lack of service these people have an excuse everytime and tries to make it seem like I'm being unfair.

And I'm going to have to say with Foothill, it's always very nice and clean and ontime. Now for Gardena and Montebello I haven't been on them enough to make an informed comment.

The two, the four, the twenty, the western bus, while these busses run on time they are dirty and I don't get that. The ridership more than pays their fair share for it to not look like it does and bus stops to not be in the state that they are in and then the 14 and the 10 they run horribly. Why does the 14 run so bad?

And that needs to be talked about more not less, since this is why on some levels people don't ride the bus. Had Metro made an effort during the high gas prices they could have kept their increased ridership, but they did nothing and they are never going to sell PT to anyone with the dirtiness of coaches.

People in LA are in general real squeamish about dirt owing to our car and lots of space culture.

Browne

" who is soon to have a urine soaked and grafitti riddled pedestrian bridge erected in his name that will forever remind us why opportunism and advocacy rarely make a nice pair" C Phyllis

Wow that was long post just to slam Goodman and to slam South LA.

I want to know what exactly is the problem with these "authentic" transit advocates have with Goodman and his desire for South LA to be given the same consideration as Pasadena? Did you all of you whine and gripe about South Pas and Pasadena and their demands of a sound wall and to not have the hatchet job done in Highland Park done to be done in Pasadena...now for some reason though that was some time ago, I for some reason can find no complaints by you in regards to that...if you complained just as loudly in regards to Pasadena send me some links or pdfs of your complaints. I'm going to bet you forgot to get mad about that.

Browne

From the way Steve phrases his response ("I’ve tried every combination of riding my bike to the station, taking the city bus, taking an MTA bus to the station"), it seems like he doesn't live particularly close to a station, which could contribute to why it takes him longer to commute by train.

I must say that what irritates me about some of the comments here is the rosy picture painted of other transit agencies. I've ridden trains and buses in Chicago, New York, Washington DC, London, and Paris, and none of the agencies there are noticeably dirtier than LA or even significantly better in terms of bus wait times. The only area they are better in is rail coverage. I have never waited longer than 5 minutes for a 4 or 20 bus, and the longest I've ever waited was 20 minutes for the 710 at Crenshaw/Green Line station - this was on a weekend and I had just missed the previous bus. People talk about how shitty transit is in LA and I can't help but wonder what they are expecting. There is no transit system on earth that puts doilys under your seat or takes you door to door without stopping. IMO, LA transit is perceived as being significantly worse than "world class" transit systems because the majority of trips here would require much more walking, or riding lines with infrequent service, if they were made by transit. The best thing that could happen for LA transit would be if a significant number of people moved closer to metro stops or arterial streets with frequent bus service, neither of which are anything the MTA can do.

I'm not "trying to make it seem like Metro is great". I know that plenty of people would think me one of "those people" because I ride transit, even if I could convince them that buses came every second and smelled like peppermint. What I'm saying is that the timeliness and cleanliness of LA's buses and trains (where they exist) is on par with "world class" metro systems, and that some expectations people have for the MTA would be unrealistic for ANY transit system.

Completely with you johnny! For browne to believe that a poor person living in Westlake that has a gaggle of busses routes + a subway would somehow find themselves priced out of their scummy tenement in MacArthur Park and displaced in Downey?? to find themselves having to rent out a sfh with a large front yard and a swimming pool in the back along with tree lined streets shows you how off-centered the "brownes" in this city actually are. I call it RTD era thinking.
I mean you see what you're dealing with when browne swallows flesh and hair the notion that the NYCMTA actually "cares" about its customers compared to LACMTA or any agency on earth for that matter. Hey browne if they cared about me so much why did they leave me having to walk across the Brooklyn Bridge a few years back in the dead of winter in the midst of a politically motivated strike? And is Damien now playing the victim? Never thought I'd see the day!
People ride transit in other cities not because they particularly like it but because there exists very few other alternatives. If only "poor" people ride transit in LA then we must move the threshold of what being "poor" means in this city to also encompass the working class as well as a good portion of the middle class, let's see how they like being poor when their parking priveledges are taken away. Minimizing parking, tolling roads are all methods that other successful transit agencies around the world use to push its populations to ride and not drive. In NYC Steve "the hymen" Hymon would be considered a "poor" person since more than likely he would not be able to afford the accomodation of his car or it would become financially impratical to park and drive his car to work since he'd be most likely living in the outer reaches of Queens(if he lives in the suburban parts of Pasadena he'd probably find his clueless ass in the suburban reaches of Queens) where he would have to take a bus to the train. Yes under these very conditions even Steve the hymen would be considered "poor" by his own definition.

"For browne to believe that a poor person living in Westlake that has a gaggle of busses routes + a subway would somehow find themselves priced out of their scummy tenement in MacArthur Park and displaced in Downey?? " Phyllis

The only place you have is MacArthur Park, so if that's what you are going to use you win. Lets totally discount all of the people who live in South LA where the bus runs horribly in general. Lets totally discount the all of the people who live in South Gate not poor, but a mixture of working class and middle class and the bus service tends to run suspect. Lets throw out the family friendly neighborhood of Downey because they have a green line that runs through the edge of the city doesn't matter if many people have to walk over a mile or wait over an hour for a local bus service out there that runs crappy. Lets also throw out the Valley a place that is a mixture of working class and middle class that has long been neglected by Metro.

You know what I bet you can look at the ridership levels even in this crappy economy and you will see how fabulous the service is, well it looks like ridership is dropping, so you can say whatever you want, but if we can't even get working class and barely middle class people with families to take the bus on the outskirts of town owing to insanely bad service (time, safety) then the people will answer for you. Not because they don't care about global warming, but because they don't want to leave the house four hours early in order to guarantee to be on time to work.

We have young families in LA that are second generation, third generation from the southern US or countries south of the US border and maybe they don't want to live in MacArthur Park maybe the violence of the 90s made them look for something safer in Montebello or El Monte or Lancaster and maybe we should be looking at the migration patterns of those people too and not just the migration patterns of historically upper-middle class white people into the urban core of Los Angeles. I'm not saying completely discount those patterns, but look at the city as a whole not just certain parts of the people that you drink coffee with.

This new movement of young single college educated people to the urban core is a new thing and it’s a great thing, but as those people get married and have kids. The people who have little kids and have to take those kids to school are going to see that public transit the way it's set up now is not set up for the person to drop their kid off to a better pre-school and then pop back on to public transit to go to work in a reasonable amount of time.

Even on this board how many moms are on here talking. How many women with children or men who are sole caregivers are on here talking about the bus service and how great it is? Even the men who are transit advocates and bike advocates I'm going to bet 90% of their girlfriends and wives drive their car especially if they have a kid.

I don't know how many of these new transit riders are going to feel about pt after certain factors in their life make pt for those that don't have to less appealing and Metro should take that into account, but in general I'm going to bet that most of the people doing the planning at transit aren't the primary caregivers of five year olds. The same people who built the very family unfriendly downtown LA with one room studios pretending to be lofts are friends with the people making all of the transit decisions and that's the problem with planning in this city.

No account for people with families.
No account for people who live in the suburbs owing to they don't find urban life with young children appealing.
No account for poor people.
No account for people who transfer.

No account for anyone, but the single person who just goes to work and comes home and that's a problem and as you notice that in general is the person who talks about how great public transit is the person in that demographic.

Guy, no childrearing responsibility, professional job. Now that person continuously thinking that Metro is great points to an even larger problem within Metro. That seems to be the person that Metro is for. Women, nonprofessional job, not living in the urban core, who cares what you think? I think everyone's tax dollar is just as valuable don't you?

And that thinking is not RTD thinking that's common sense thinking.

I live in downtown LA if I had a kid I would want them to go to the best pre-school I could find if that preschool is in Pasadena or Hollywood that's where my kid is going and the unless I could get a job up the street from that school what are my choices? I could homeschool if I had a partner who was making enough money, which is a privilege and option most people don't have? What are my choices in downtown LA if I had a kid entering the first grade? My choice would be outside the area and since I don't want to have to drop my kid off at 5:00 in the morning in order to get to my job on time which is what I would have to do if I took pt.

If I wanted to have a kid and continue to have a job at some point I might need to get a car. I would definitely have to get a car if I were by myself. Maybe I could move to Pasadena if I could afford it. I probably would have to move to San Francisco, if I could afford it.

See there are all kinds of factors in livable streets (acceptable school choices, babysitting options, resources to care for older parents, recreational and social activities for people who don't want to go to a bar....) that people who don't kids can't see and since the majority of adult women at some point has a kid these kinds of things have to be taken into account.

Because there is no way that I would sit at a transfer point for maybe an hour in the middle of nowhere that may or may not be safe with my two year old if I didn't have to. My values would totally switch to benefit my kid safety wise and quality of life wise, long term consequences of the planet be damned.

My flexibility as a single person becomes 1/4 of that if I choose to become a mother in LA and why is that?
Browne

"South LA, from an objective standpoint, has a lot of service. There are many Rapid lines (some, like the 711 and 715, which don't get nearly enough riders to sustain them and should be canceled or service reduced), the Harbor Transitway, and frequent bus service on all the major streets. There are also lots of DASHes for local service in these neighborhoods. Do these buses show up on time, or sometimes at all? No, but they do have good level of service being provided to them."

Are you saying that my stance isn't objective?

I don’t live in South LA, never have. I grew up in Hollywood, Los Feliz to be exact and I currently live in downtown LA. I have no political aspirations. I work completely outside the field of transit. I have my blog as a public service with no ads and no pulling punches.

I tried to love transit. If I had just stayed in Hollywood and continued to live by the Red Line and just never ventured out to see what the difference is, I would probably still love transit BUT as I would say these great things about the bus other people would tell me stories. They would ask me where I lived and then they would go, "ohhhh...." and then tell me these horrific stories. I had to see if people were just complaining or if this stuff was actually true. Oh wow these people that I talked to on the bus and train were actually being very objective about the whole matter.

You talk about all of these other cities outside of LA Calwatch, but I can tell from your response that your experience taking transit in LA city proper in a broad way is limited.

I would go out on a limb and say that I am probably the only person on this board who has regularly actually taken transit in different parts of the city. I’m probably the only person on this board that can tell you the differences in taking transit in South LA, Hollywood, Downtown LA and the valley, beyond just rush hour, at the times that people who are security guards go to work, but I also have been on the train and busses when the 9-5vers get on. I have a complete on the ground perspective, more so than even people who work at Metro.

I've been on busses at 2am, 4am, 9am, 10am, 11pm...

The difference in transit service in South LA and downtown LA and places around the Red Line is day and night in difference.

South LA is not in Westchester County it is right down the street from downtown LA. The difference between South LA and Hollywood, where the locals run ok (dashes, well...) the comparison would be better to look at Lower East Side and Harlem or the East Village, it's the same part of town. South LA isn't across a freeway or by a hill it's down the freakin street and as I said in New York the train and public transit works for the people who take it.

You know what shocked me. That San Pedro has better more consistent transit options than South LA. San Pedro has three expresses that run even on the weekend all night that come with consistency and picks people up in the neighborhood. The Harbor (bronze line) express you have to wait on a freeway on ramp, it doesn’t even go into the neighborhood. And I’ve been on the Harbor Express when it whizzes by people, because it’s going too fast so it can’t stop and then it tries to and the little old lady is trying to run up to the bus that’s practically in the middle of the freeway onramp, but she takes too long so the driver just takes off. I’ve witnessed that twice.

To me this is how you would compare the LA transit. If transit service and availability was reverse and in New York public transit worked really well in Westchester County where people mostly drive and really crappy in the city i.e. Manhattan where people DO take it.

Now that is how LA transit is set up in regards to being ontime, availability and why is that? No transit doesn't need to be perfect, but it should be as close to perfect as it can get for the people who DO take it and have been taking it for the past 20 years.

That is the odd thing about LA, yeah we don't have to have perfect LA transit, but shouldn't its focus be on where the people who actually have to take it.

Browne

Honestly this is the only city that I've ever lived in where people complain about transit butdo nothing to move closer to it.

"Usually that just means more money and better planning on the part of the agency (MTA et al.) so that we can get door-to-door trip times down."

And the church said, "Amen."

Browne:

Thank you for conveying - eloquently at that - what I just don't have the patience to explain.

I live in South LA - the area with supposedly "great transit service." That's a joke from a customer service prospective (pleasant drivers, clean product, etc.) and even on-time performance outside peak hours. I encourage anyone who thinks different go to the Western/Slauson bus-stop (right next to the Slauson Swap Meet) or hop on any bus departing the Crenshaw/King bus stop (next to the Crenshaw Mall) on a Sunday afternoon and start an open conversation.

The irony is if Metro were a corporation, without a doubt their business plan would be focused on maintaining the loyalty of existing customers, and their growth plan would be focused on grabbing the low-hanging fruit: the people who make just enough to NOT be on the bus, and instead are driving hopdies, with no insurance, no drivers license, and/or old tags, paying way too much for personal transportation (gas and the expensive repair they need 2-3 times a year or more).

For example, you don't see MetroPCS opening stores in Beverly Hills. Their business plan is focused on providing coverage and access in the low and lower-middle class areas of the region where loads of people, who don't have a lot of money are shelling out beaucoup dollars on overpriced Verizon, Sprint & AT&T cell phone plans. And as a result, MetroPCS coverage in South LA is actually BETTER than it is in Manhattan Beach.

This is why i dont go to SBLA that often.

Browne, if you want to pretend I'm an aristocrat lighting cigars with $100 bills, that's fine with me. But I really would like to know what it is you want from metro. It's great that you study transit here, I respect your views and I wish I had the time to ride further out. For all I know, you've studied transit in NYC too and every single trip you've made there has been acceptable. Me, I've been to NYC twice in my life. But my experience there has been that the transit was not leaps and bounds beyond LA in any way besides rail coverage. You would have trouble catching a bus late at night outside of downtown or midtown, and traveling from distant areas takes much longer than travel from Manhattan. Hell, I took the subway in from JFK when I arrived and it took me 2 hours to get to where I was staying at 101st st, 17 miles away. I never once said that Metro was wonderful. Since I live in Long Beach, my daily riding is on LBT; I don't ride Metro enough to accumulate horror stories. But it's not a good approach to keep bashing Metro without at least identifying more clearly what they should be doing. I agree that many (not all) of the Red Line stations serve neighborhoods that are too expensive for the poorest families. But what about the entire Blue Line? Most of the Metro trips I make involve the Blue Line, and if the Slauson or Vernon station areas had gentrified, I think I would have seen it by now. Do the poorer areas with good service just not count? And yes, many poor areas aren't close to the Blue Line or the Green Line, but does that negate the areas that are? Again, I'm not saying Metro is super duper. I'm saying that a good approach to improving transit for everyone (even aristocrats like me) is recognizing both successes and failures, being aware of how much money is available to transit, and identifying the most effective use of that money.

I'm with you browne. If you're suggesting that we retard gentrification into our poorer areas that have some of the best transit by implementing mandatory low and workforce housing accomodations in those areas I'm all for it. I'd say let's construct public housing around our transit lines, I'd love to see the Blue Line running through a canyon of 40 story projects on either side just like the East Coast. Let's stop tap dancing around the issues and meet them head on! Force neighborhoods around LA to absorb added density in their areas where decent transit already exists. Rid ourselves of parking minimums that drive up the cost of a unit and give vouchers to people who forego car ownership. Toll freeways heavily that have viable transit alternatives(Hymon train), market rate parking in the central city.
I hear lots of complaining but no strategy. Where's the strategy folks?
Force working class and middle class folks onto transit through anti-single car driving policies and you'll see how much better transit will become when the poor actually realize that they are also indeed poor themselves.

I say fuck "made for yuppies" TOD's, let's construct public housing adjacent to the Blue, Green, Gold and Orange Lines that would significantly retard the cycle of gentrification. These 20-30 story structures will always be programmed to house low to moderate income families. Everyone would be happy. Poor people would have direct access to a rapid transit line and for those atuned to the cycle of gentrification and the displacement of the poor would need worry no more. Browne can you gimme a woot woot!!

And again, I'm sympathetic to the frustration that exists throughout almost all of LA regarding growth. With so much development that is unmitigated, how can one not be?

If the projects we're allowing to be built provided sufficient traffic mitigation, I might be less sympathetic to their frustrations. But that's just not the case.

And that's the beauty of cities as organisms and not business ventures. Unlike SF and NYC, LA in all of her. glory still remains one of the only big cities in the US where poor and damn near distraught people still live within and close to its center without living in projects. LA is a very unique place and of course that goes without saying so I do see what the Joint Projects that the MTA carries out on its land usually above Metro stations is trying to accomplish. Let's face it without some of these joint construction programs that the MTA fosters absolutely nothing would be built, developers are much too shy. So eventhough I agree that more affordable units should be programmed into these TOD's, I also am aware of how ardently certain individuals that I personally know who are involved in this process push for more affordable housing but come up against a wall of NIMBY's (everytime) and folks who just don't give a damn.

My heart sank 3 years ago when Prop H failed which was part of this push for density around the city and that had a very low income/workforce housing slant to it. But the SF Valley in a big way voted against it along with much of the Westside. Garcetti, the mayor and Goldberg(the imperfect Trinity) were all pushing for it but the Times(Hymon's paper) poo pooed all over it and so did "street" rags like the LA Weekly.

From what I've seen I think that the LACMTA is probably doing way more in terms of reigniting interest in disparaged communities than many other big city MTA's def more than the NYCMTA. The problem is that this is not really Metro's forte or even something that Metro should be attempting to undertake this should really be placed upon the soldiers of the Planning Department. Now, the Planning Dept is beholden to the Neighborhood Councils that generally oppose everything where poor folks and density are concerned which leads me back to the cultural shift that must(and will) happen in this city in the way that we percieve who is poor and who is not.
The reason why I am so pissed at Hymon is because he is blatantly furthering the belief that if you own a car then you are not poor, at least not poor like the folks who ride the bus. If we made it harder for assholes like Hymon to drive, made it impractical for him to operate and own a car then the perception of what makes someone poor in this county would change and I mean overnight! When the Hymons of the world find themselves in the rat race of trying to find accomodations closer and more accessible to transit maybe then you'd see them more proactive in passing a Prop H, maybe then you'll see them attending those neighborhood council meetings and fighting for more programming of bicycle and pedestrian amenities because now they are no longer one of "the"s but one of "the others".

Land use policies, transit, affordable housing all work together as you all know who take the time to read and comment here, that's why I was sooooo surprised to see so many "advocates" on this board just tuck their tails between their legs regarding Hymon's statement and just say 'well everybody thinks that way'.
Give the Hymons of this world a wake up call by discouraging their car usage and he and they will never again write about how he has enough money therefore he drives. This is at the root of transit=poor disparity in this county not the belief of door to door travel times, that's a smokescreen so that people have some excuse to stay in their cars and keep their class rank intact. If door to door travel times were the end all and be all then everyone in NYC would take cabs and no one would be on a train that you first have to walk to the station to get and then wait for....a cab that shows up at your front door beats that everytime.
The city is in a time of great change and flux, we can get so much more accomplished by thinking out of the box on ways to discourage car usage which would effect our perceptions of class which would effect the state of transit instead of just running around like yellow shirts proclaiming that the 20 didn't come on time therefore the MTA is evil.

Unfortunately, the current image of many to "affordable housing" is the projects, and masculine minority males straight out of San Quentin standing on the corner all day drinking malt liquor they purchased with their general relief checks.

The irony of course is that in many parts of this county "affordable housing" is a 2 bedroom condo priced at $325K!

Mixed-income and mixed-generational housing is the way to go. And being specific about how expensive the dwellings are, and the thorough application process would help dispel many concerns.

And I don't understand the fixation with Hymon. Perhaps the problem is people are expecting him to be "one of them" instead of a reporter. All I can expect from a reporter is to report the news fairly and be a check on government power.

The opining, the commentary, the blogging, etc. is all outside the job description, and as I said above, I personally have never liked the blending of it all.

Columnist/bloggers should have opinions and state them clearly. Of course, reporters have opinions as well, but it's not their job to sell papers because of them.

Steve's already getting blowback on the L.A. Now blog. Someone left a comment on a recent post asking why Steve doesn't take public transit to get to work.

While I don't think Steve deserves the animosity that's been displayed by some of the posters in this thread, I do understand why people might feel betrayed that the transportation reporter for the Times doesn't take public transit. Same type of feeling about MTA employees who drive to work at the MTA high-rise. Even though said employees might live somewhere where the public transit trip times are twice as long as drive times, people think that those who are working towards efficient transit should not be driving. Not saying it's totally reasonable, but I at least see where the argument comes from.

Serves him right fucking classist hypocrite. And I'd pay big $$$ to see Damien Yaroslavsky tell Arianna Huffington to her face that blogging/reporting is not a reality that's here to stay.

So if Steve Hymen Hymon is just a reporter then why is he suggesting to Ridley-Thomas' today in his column that he should play politics with the extension of the Purple Line by witholding his vote because of the pronouncement of a possible delay in the projected startup date of the Crenshaw Line? Doesn't sound like JUST A REPORTER to me. Wasn't he just bemoaning the political infighting (pre-Measure R passage) of Vicadin Molina, Zev Yarowindblows, Antonibitch and others and how we would never have a comprehensive system so long as politics trump progress in LA County? And now he's on record telling Ridley-Thomas to perhaps withold his vote for the Subway to further the Crenshaw Line as a strategy in fact going so far as saying "that's what I would do". What a fucking hypocrite! This is just str8 up dishonest journalism. Cover his ass if want but you reveal more about what the true intentions of your "advocacy" is than what you might want the rest of us to know.
Remove Steve the hymen from reporting on anything concerning a bus, a train or even a bus that thinks that it is a train!
And the cooked noodles who sit around sympathizing with this kind of bullshit instead of just calling it out are no better than the soft shoe fickle ass politicians that you so readily disparage.

This is so wierd. The man is not an elected official. At the worst, his job is to sell fish bird cage liner. Worse still, I suppose, the liner isn't for sale - his audience is.

Beyond that, give it a rest. You try filing as much hard news as he does in a professional way, day in and day out. See what happens to your bleeding heart.

Bloggers can't hack it because, fankly, the job doesn't pay enough. It is a hard job being a journalist, and eventually the job throws yo into domains that you are not an expert in. So, you write according to what you've been taught to do with new information.

Hymon is a good reporter. Leave the personal attacks for the politicians.

Taking the bus fucking sucks. Period. Taking the train can not fucking suck, but sometimes it fucking sucks too, especially in Los Angeles.

That's all it comes down to. I wouldn't ever take the bus if I didn't have to transfer to it from the purple line, but I like riding the subway. If the subway wasn't there, I'd be driving, simple as that. I have the means to, and I'm poor as shit.

Getting an old Honda or Toyota isn't that hard.

Buses are great for short trips. But trying to brave the 720 from Wilshire/Western to Westwood is going to age you very quickly.

David you do understand that 95% of the COUNTRY doesn't commute by transit as well....so what's(really) your point?

"C" I completely understand your outrage. And the bullet point breakdown that you made about Hymon up above and why he should be removed from covering mass transit is a strong case indeed! I love your passion!

And I'm going to have to say with Foothill, it's always very nice and clean and ontime. Now for Gardena and Montebello I haven't been on them enough to make an informed comment

"A reporter's job is to present the facts to the readers in a clear, truthful, and unbiased way. Hymon does that." David Galvan

"I think that’s the big thing. I know people say that you’re gaining quality time by riding the train even though it takes longer. But, I don’t buy that."Steve Hymon the hymen

Transit cannot and does not beat the private car outside of rush at anytime, anywhere. Why does such an honest man create such a web of lies just to cover his lazy ass? Why would a "reporter" who just presents the facts go on record suggesting to Ridley-Thomas that he should withold his vote on the Purple Line extension to politically move ahead his districts Crenshaw Line? Steve is obviously not an advocate for transit since he thinks that people who ride transit are all poor anyway and that's not even the beginning of the problem. The root of the problem is why is he such a liar?

We have local coverage at the LA Times? I really don't care about the LA Times losing it's California section. All the Calfornia section did was give free publicty to the friends of westsiders and there various projects. There was never anything in the local section that I didn't know first or couldn't learn being on a PR list from the various public agencies.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but the facts were pretty much Steve got alot of stories, because he just got emails and memos from Metro's publicity department first and stories that's roots are in PR departments do they exactly qualify as stories?

Did he ever even take the bus one time?

And going back to the California section, the City of LA is almost 70% people of color, kind of odd that coverage didn't ever seem to paint that picture.

Browne

Great to see so much thoughtful insight here from so many about transit in LA and so disappointing to see the slow death of the Times or any other newspaper...they are so important for keeping government accountable no matter what bias they suffer from on the editorial board. Steve did a great job with his column, pointing the flashlight of truth on the powers that be in this town. I would have been more aggressive and less diplomatic about the issues in his transportation column, but that is why I am blogging and why he has a column. I grew up here in LA, the son of Mary Lou Crilley, secretary to the last real general manager of the RTD John Dwyer prior to the MTA. I have watched as things have improved slowly, the great melting glacier of change that is the MTA, the miraculous change in air pollution, decreasing but not where it should be (plug in hybrids), the birth and expansion of rail, the triumph and tragedy of the freeway system, the advent of commuter rail in MetroLink, the growing bicycle movement for transit and recreation, the growth and expansion of the bus system and conversion to CNG and Rapid Buses. We have come a long way and we are on the verge of reaching critical mass with our transportation options in LA. But don't be naive about the technical issues we face, the roadblocks for transit in this town are and always have been political not technical. Just ask where the money is flowing now: lots of traffic and cars always benefits the same gigantic industries, auto sales, auto parts, auto body, auto repair, auto insurance, auto gas, tires etc, so creating transit options threatens the gravy train for these powerful groups who lobby City Hall, Sacramento, and DC to thwart our best interests. But I have a dream, and I see a newer younger generation coming up that does not accept the status quo, that will insist on better options for transit, and clean air, and greener technology that is more interactive and less wasteful. The good news is the huge leaps in technology that already exist from clean diesel, to hybrids, to carbon fiber bike frames, coupled with the huge improvements in our rail system, and an electorate that is eager to vote and pay for transportation. What we need is a targeted approach to slowly continue pushing for bike options, rail options, bus options, clean taxis, car pool lanes etc. We don't need to turn our backs on the automobile, just give commuters a choice and let cyclist ride the path, trian users need more and faster trains, buses should reflect ridership and be interactive (imagine using your i-phone to summon a bus) instead of the current grid use of many empty buses running all hours of the night, and satelite office facilities for telecommuting (once a week or once a month). We need more and better choices for transit, and those are funding choices, political choices, not technical dilemmas. Lastly, we don't need to fight amongst ourselves and denigrate those who drive as polluters or those on the bus as second class citizens. Bike riders don't need a bike lane on every street, just on certain key corridors like the Expo line and the LA River and other key corridors. MetroLink needs to spend more on safety and less on PR, since its inception it has been under funded and forced to choose between safety and performance. Running a commuter railroad is not rocket science, only in LA do we scratch our heads this way, wondering if it can be done when the rest of the world is already doing it. Transit Advocates: stick together, never give up, and melt that glacier that is the MTA in LA.