EDITORIAL: focused on FIXING THE PROBLEM
Someone has commented that I'm "channeling fear into brilliant creativity" with this blog. (I appreciate the compliment but I don't work for the Bush Administration. I ain't no Karl Rove! Not that the "brilliant creativity" part would apply to them, anyway - just the "channeling fear" part, I guess. They are Masters at that, that's for sure!).
I forgot to add a disclaimer to the blog entries I quoted yesterday, which I quoted to bring in other perspectives on the problem into the discussion (you can all feel free to comment as you wish).
That disclaimer should have read: "I neither endorse the comments below nor speak for their authors. I quote them to add different perspectives on this issue. As two of the quotes claim, traffic is WORSE elsewhere in the country than in L.A. This goes to show that we're trying to have a balanced view on the subject and that traffic has become a NATIONAL, NOT a LOCAL, problem. It is affecting ALL the metropolitan areas of the country. Solutions that work in L.A. might work elsewhere. Solutions that have worked elsewhere might work in L.A." (Or if you prefer legalese: "ALL OPINIONS STATED ARE THOSE OF THE INDIVIDUAL AUTHORS AND ARE NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF ITALIANESCO. ITALIANESCO SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY INDIRECT, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, LOST PROFITS OR REVENUES, COSTS OF REPLACEMENT GOODS, LOSS OR DAMAGE TO DATA ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THIS SITE." :-)
I'd like to stay focused on FIXING THE PROBLEM, not on sensationalist bashing of a city. L.A. in a unique city, in a unique location, with unique weather. It's too bad that this is happening to this city. In order to fix the problem, we need to make people aware of the problem and the issues involved. I wouldn't go so far as to call it "channeling fear."
The person who made the comment obviously had not read the entire blog. This blog cannot be judged by one entry (well, just like no book should be judged by its cover, no blog should be judged by its latest entry). There's a cumulative progression of points we are trying to make here. Just like L.A traffic is a sum total of MANY different problems, this blog is a sum total of many different posts. Because of this, we need to do a RECAP of EVERYTHING we have said so far with a complete index - in addition to the search functions provided by blogger and technorati, this blog is also highly cross-referenced - so that you can have, at a glance, on one page, a good perspective on where this blog is coming from and where it is going. L.A. traffic sucks [stop!] - THAT can be easily proven. Let's fix it [go!] - THAT is the point of this whole thing - and the REALLY HARD part.
FULL INDEX AND RECAP: complete index of posts so far with summary.
Blogs are "counter-chronological" (your first post is at the very bottom) and should be read "bottom-up" ("counter-post-wise" :-). If you are trying to make a point and the order of posts is a key to that point, new readers may miss that point and judge the entire blog by the latest post, or some post found through blogger search or technorati, and stop reading.
Just like we need to do with L.A. traffic, this index and recap attempt to bring some "order out of chaos."
Post #1
Sunday, April 23, 2006
"L.A. traffic sucks! Let's fix it once and for all!
Fist post - introduction
"While the first part of the title says it all ("L.A. traffic sucks!"), it is the second part ("Let's fix it once and for all!") what we would like to concentrate on. Ranting and raving might bring attention to issues, but I doubt it ever solved anything. I would actually like to propose some simple SOLUTIONS that came to mind while driving around in that maze..."
Read the whole post: GO!
----------------------
Post #2
Monday, April 24, 2006
Do angelenos dream of electric "air surfing" and flying saucers?
"L.A. probably needs to take a very bitter pill to cure its chronic traffic artereosclerosis. But that's not what I'd like to concern myself with here. I'd like to focus on smaller, much smaller scale things that are "do-able" (like "good diet and exercise": get those "arteries" flowing!) without spending millions and without involving the politicians and the public in any major political struggle ("triple bypass surgery": a complete subway system). I'd like to make suggestions that, if followed, would speed up traffic ALMOST INSTANTLY and take ALMOST NOTHING to implement except a little determination to MAKE THINGS BETTER."
Read the whole post: GO!
----------------------
Post #3
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
WHY L.A. traffic sucks #1: Serving too many masters on your daily commute
Before proposing solutions, we might want to figure out WHY L.A. traffic sucks so bad. "WHY" there is a problem might yield some answers on "HOW" to solve it.[...]
Calling for uniform, standard and comprehensive traffic rules for the whole L.A. area (L.A. County) might be a good way to speed up traffic. Part of the traffic "artereosclerosis" of the place comes from its "patchwork design," from all these different cities having developed and doing things in ways that keep traffic from flowing smoothly as cars pass from one to the other."
Read the whole post: GO!
---------------------
Post #4
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
WHY L.A. traffic sucks #2: Bad (or not exactly forward-looking) design
"...the whole 405 from Sunset to Venice needs to ELEVATED (or INTERRED) to allow more traffic to flow UNDER IT (or OVER IT) east to west and west to east.
This is about as realistic a project as expecting a complete subway system or a monorail to be built any time soon.
The SOLUTION has to be keeping those lights GREEN long enough to allow as many cars as possible to flow past as many intersections as possible. In other words, these major streets (Sunset, Wilshire, Santa Monica, Olympic, Pico and Venice) should become for three to five minutes, if not longer, "virtual freeways."
Read the whole post: GO!
--------------------
Post #5
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Putting "Ingenuity, Creativity and Resourcefulness" back into "American."
I came across Andrew's post "Begging for L.A. monorail" on his blog www.hereinvannuys.com. So sent him an e-mail about this blog.
On 4/26/06, andrew hurvitz replied:
Thank you. Your site is full of interesting ideas.
Andrew
www.hereinvannuys.com
I replied back:
If you like the ideas and think they'd be worth trying (they're a lot cheaper and more realistic than a subway system or monorail at this point), then please tell others about my blog. The only way to bring about change is to have enough people pressure enough politicians into making that change.
My ideas are all about putting "Ingenuity, Creativity and Resourcefulness" back into "American."
Read the whole post: GO!
-------------------------
Post #6
Thursday, April 27, 2006
WHY L.A. traffic sucks #3: Bus'em and clog'em
"While buses, as part of a public transportation systeam are good to move more people with fewer vehicles, in a city where millions refuse to take them and prefer to drive, they slow down traffic with their constant start and stops.[...]
The ONLY way that buses can stop and unload or pick up passangers without disturbing and slowing down traffic is by creating "INDENTS."[aka, "bus pullouts" or "bus turnouts"]
Read the whole post: GO!
---------------------
Post #7
Friday, April 28, 2006
WHY L.A. traffic sucks #4: Pesky annoying quirks: Unprotected Lefts
"There is NO QUESTION ABOUT IT: unprotected lefts are slowing down and clogging traffic in the L.A. area. [...]
At whatever cost, PROTECTED LEFTS need to be added to ALL major intersections WITHOUT EXCEPTION as soon as possible in the whole L.A. area. Period. Case closed. End of story."
Read the whole post: GO!
--------------------
Post #8
Friday, April 28, 2006
WHY L.A. traffic sucks: OPEN DISCUSSION #1: Up in Arms!
With this post, we started our OPEN DISCUSSION series: replying to comments "out in the open" on the blog itself rather "hidden" under comments. Also, as a way to let readers know that their views and opinions are valued and appreciated and to encourage them to participate. calwatch <> took issue with my suggestion of "bus pullouts" on the "WHY L.A. traffic sucks #3: Bus'em and clog'em" post.
"The problem with this idea is that by creating these "indents" (the actual term for them are bus pullouts), you are slowing down bus riders while they have to wait for traffic to clear. [...] Your idea is not transit friendly and would be vehemently opposed by transit riders, which despite the small number in LA are actually a somewhat powerful force."
I replied:
"This IS the problem. L.A . drivers, L.A. "transit riders", L.A. residents have a MESS on their hands. What are they going to do about it? SOMETHING HAS TO GIVE. If every simple solution to every single issue is going to have a politically significant "powerful force" opposing it, we might as well GIVE UP right now! Just live with the mess. I think this mess has grown to the unmanageable proportions it has reached precisely because NO ONE seems to have the POLITICAL WILL or the POLITICAL COURAGE to DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT, to really fix ANYTHING."
Read the whole post: GO!
--------------------
Post #9
Saturday, April 29, 2006
WHY L.A. traffic sucks #5: Pesky annoying quirks: NO "left only" lanes
Here we continued with our "Pesky annoying quirks" sub-series of posts on "WHY L.A. traffic sucks."
"Try any of the corners of Crescent Heights from Melrose to San Vicente and feel like flying into "road rage" as you're stuck forever behind someone turning left while all the smart ones whizz by on your right![...]
"This city is past the "urban explotion" point of NO return and is not going back to what it was 60 years ago anytime soon. Urban planners might as well deal with it and prepare Crescent Heights to be the ALTERNATE LA CIENEGA that it ALREADY is.
""LEFT ONLY" LANES NEED TO BE PUT IN ANYWHERE AND EVERYWHERE THEY ARE REQUIRED TO KEEP TRAFFIC FLOWING IN THE L.A. AREA."
Read the whole post: GO!
------------------------
Post #10
Monday, May 01, 2006
WHY L.A. traffic sucks #6: Pesky annoying quirks: Street parking
IF PARKING IS ALLOWED, SOMEONE ALWAYS VIOLATES THE PARKING RULES AND PARKS PAST 7:00AM OR PAST 4:00PM AND CLOGS TRAFFIC FOR EVERYBODY ELSE. Why should one or two people have the right to clog and slow down traffic for everybody else? Either "left only" lanes need to be put in on that stretch of Crescent Heights and other places where they are needed or street parking cannot be allowed 7:00am to 7:00pm Monday-Sunday. PERIOD. CASE CLOSED. END OF STORY."
Read the whole post: GO!
------------------------
Post #11
Monday, May 01, 2006
RE: "Just to clarify... " ["WHY" L.A. traffic sucks #1: Serving too many masters on your daily commute "]
LA City Nerd
"Major east/west streets that cross different jurisdictions are somewhat limited [...] Also, the east/west jurisdictions are limited to four: Los Angeles (City). west Hollywood, Beverly Hills, and then, on the western-most side of the area: Santa Monica. Hollywood is part of Los Angles City (as is Westwood, Brentwood, & Century City). The true coordination should really be focused between Beverly Hills & L.A. on Wilshire and Santa Monica Boulevards."
I reiterated my point:
"But whatever the technicalities and/or actual boundaries, I hope the suggestion is well-taken: there has to be some kind of coordination. If there already is, great. Perhaps they can crank it up a notch or two. If not, they need to get cracking on it! That's my whole point."
Read the whole post: GO!
------------------------
Post #12
Monday, May 01, 2006
WHY L.A. traffic sucks: OPEN DISCUSSION #2
calwatch, licensed civil engineer, had a correction to make on
"Actually, your idea is already being implemented. In the June 2006 service change, all Rapid buses will continue to Santa Monica. The facts aren't correct, as an examination of a Rapid Bus schedule or field observation (which I have done several times despite being on the complete opposite side of town for me) will show, that "most" buses end at Westwood. Only 50% of them do."
I countered:
"The mathematical reality ("Only 50% of them do") may be one thing, the field observation may be quite another, but the perception may be the most important one. Because it is this PERCEPTION of a flawed and incomplete system, what makes most people give up on public transportation in America (I did!) or keeps them from even trying it. [...] I may be "idealistic" but I'd like to suggest solutions that are simple, very simple and "do-able" without a lot of politics and money."
Read the whole post: GO!
------------------------
Post #13
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
WHY L.A. traffic sucks #7: Pesky annoying quirks: Accident clean-ups
"In ANY accident, they--the victims--should come first, they should be taken care of first. NO question about it, NO doubt about about it. NO ONE (I hope!) is arguing that. But (and here's the big "but"), at the same time, you can't paralize a whole city or whole sections of a city because something happened to one or two people. LIFE GOES ON. [,,]
My SOLUTION?
A SPECIAL TASK FORCE: A special task force should be created for the WHOLE of L.A. area to mobilize QUICKLY, clean up the accident--ANY ACCIDENT ANYTIME ANYWHERE--and get traffic moving as soon as possible."
Read the whole post: GO!
------------------------
Post #14
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
WHY L.A. traffic sucks #8: Pesky annoying quirks: Dips and Potholes
"A modern city needs well-paved roads to keep traffic flowing smoothly. [...]
"A city of SO MANY MILLIONS OF PEOPLE who pay their taxes DESERVE WELL-PAVED ROADS. Torn-up roads full of dips and potholes affect traffic: there is NO question about it."
Read the whole post: GO!
------------------------
Post #15
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
WHY L.A. traffic sucks: OPEN DISCUSSION #3:
calwatch takes issue with my idea to turn major roads into "virtual freeways" by keeping light GREEN from 3 to 5 minutes for long stretches over many intersections" in my post: "WHY L.A. traffic sucks #2: bad (or not exactly forward-looking) design".
"Once again, this idea [keeping light GREEN from 3 to 5 minutes for long stretches over many intersections] , while interesting, ignores the fact that at those side streets there are cars and pedestrians that want to cross the street. And they won't be able to do so in the hours you mention."
I countered:
"No, I did not ignore 'the fact that at those side streets there are cars and pedestrians that want to cross the street. And they won't be able to do so in the hours you mention.' I did say that some kind of north-south uninterrupted traffic would have to be allowed for traffic to flow east-west uninterrupted. Overpasses, or better, underpasses, might solve this problem. The pedestrians can EASILY be take care of with skywalks or pedestrian crossing tunnels. Many American cities already have them and use them."
He also mentioned the Laurel Canyon Freeway (SR-170) and the Beverly Hills Freeway (SR-2), which would have solved the north-south traffic problem in the middle of the Westside, but had been canceled by governor Jerry Brown.
I comment on the DAMAGE that politians without foresight can cause to a city, a state, a country.
Read the whole post: GO!
------------------------
Post #16
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
WHY L.A. traffic sucks: OPEN DISCUSSION #4: "I only ride my bike in LA"/The Italian Solution
Bill German offered a suggestion from our WHY L.A. traffic sucks: OPEN DISCUSSION #1: Up in Arms!
"I only ride my bike in LA. (i get great gas mileage and my heart thanks me)"
I agreed and said I had done that in another city but that in L.A. the distances and traffic made bike-riding impractical and a bit dangerous.
I offered the Italian solution: Vespas!
Read the whole post: GO!
------------------------
Post #17
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
WHY L.A. traffic sucks: OPEN DISCUSSION #5: "turnout lane for buses"/MTA vs. Big Blue Bus
Wad commented:
"MTA is responsbile for running the buses, but it cannot singlehandedly demand a turnout lane for buses. The roads and sidewalks are still the jurisdiction of the individual cities."
I countered:
"I brought up the issue of the 'turnout lane for buses' (or 'pullout' like calwatch calls it or 'indent' like I call it) mostly in regards to the great problem created by all those buses, especially the MTA 720 Red Rapid buses, around the intersection of Wilshire and Westwood. I have dealt with this issue at length already on several posts. I have also pointed out that there is a PARKING LOT on the very next block. And I would go so far as to scrap the whole 'turnout lane for buses' idea and suggest a new one: TURN THAT WHOLE PARKING LOT INTO A BUS STATION FOR ALL THE BUSES THAT GO THROUGH WESTWOOD.
That intersection is a mess, a mess compounded by the fact that ALL buses in that area lead to UCLA."
On my wishful thinking wish that the more professional and efficienct Big Blue Bus should take over from the MTA, he said:
"As for Big Blue Bus taking over bus service countywide, the city of Santa Monica does not want to oversee the county's transportation problem."
I countered:
"The 'pie' has been divided: you take this part of town and I take the rest. And we, the consumers, are stuck in the middle. [...]
This is why people give up on public transportation in America, and only those who can't afford a car (and the parking in L.A.!), ride the bus. Then you have millions of cars on the road and you have gridlock everywhere."
Read the whole post: GO!
------------------------
Post #18
Thursday, May 04, 2006
WHY L.A. traffic sucks #9: Pesky annoying quirks: Signs
"L.A. is not a city exclusively for angelenos/locals and newcomers moving to the area. L.A. is a world destination, a city that attracts millions of tourists, businessmen, professionals, conventioneers, entertainment people and just plain visitors. A great number of such people on the road, completely lost or disoriented, at any one time, is a guaranty that traffic will be affected. Hesitant drivers slow down traffic. Confident drivers keep traffic flowing.
"SOMETHNG can be done to make sure there are CLEAR and VISIBLE signs leading you to them and leading you CLEARLY AND CONFIDENTLY to your destination."
Read the whole post: GO!
------------------------
Post #19
Saturday, May 06, 2006
WHY L.A. traffic sucks: Open Discussion #6: Pedestrian Under/Overpasses
calwatch
"Actually, they thought of pedestrian underpasses years ago. [...] The reason they were all chained up and fenced was because people were living in them, and so were only opened during school hours, except bullies would use them to accost their prey. Finally they chained them all up and no one uses them even during school hours."
I comment:
"I'm sure that when it comes to traffic, there's little new under the sun. Perhaps what's going to work is applying the same old idea in a highly INNOVATIVE way."
And offer "skywalks" as an alternative...
Read the whole post: GO!
------------------------
Post #20
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
WHY L.A. traffic sucks #10: Pesky, annoying quirks: L.A. drivers on cell phones!
Bushy offers s suggestion to solve this problem.
Read the whole post: GO!
------------------------
Post #21
Thursday, May 11, 2006
The mirage of high gas prices: addiction-driven demand?
I came across two interesting posts while surfing the blogosphere on high gas prices and how they seem to improve traffic.
I comment on driving as a possible form of addiction and pose a challenge: "Academics and staticians interested in numbers might want to find out what are all those people doing on the road at ALL TIMES of day and night in L.A. One of the best solutions to the traffic problem may lie in the answers to that question."
Read the whole post: GO!
------------------------
Post #22
Friday, May 12, 2006
WHY L.A. traffic sucks: that "monster," the 405 freeway...
The 405 needs little introduction. Every angeleno is familiar with it. What perhaps they haven't thought about is WHY it is such a problem. I explain and offer some immediate solutions based on the concept of REDIRECTING TRAFFIC. I cite the 90 Marina del Rey freeway as a "great example of what could be done to redirect traffic."
Read the whole post: GO!
------------------------
Post #23
Saturday, May 13, 2006
WHY L.A. traffic sucks: L.A. drivers' "sense of entitlement..."
An anonymous commentator is glad I finally got around to the subject of L.A. drivers and offers, in a nutshell, the reason they "suck": their "sense of entitlement."
Read the whole post: GO!
------------------------
Post #24
Saturday, May 13, 2006
I tie it all together and conclude: "America is the car, the freedom of the open road, individuality on wheels. Try to take that away and you'll get the second American Revolution."
I offer a tip on where to find the cheapest gas in the Venice/Santa Monica area.
Read the whole post: GO!
------------------------
Post #25
Sunday, May 14, 2006
DRIVING TIPS: SMART FOXES vs. HERDS OF SHEEP.
"How do you get from A to Z? Driving tips to bypass heavy traffic and get there on time. SMART FOXES vs. HERDS OF SHEEP." That says it all.
Read the whole post: GO!
------------------------
Post #26
Monday, May 15, 2006
SOLUTION TO "WHY L.A. traffic sucks #8: Pesky annoying quirks: Dips and Potholes"
Browsing through http://www.lacity.org I came across the solution to one of the problems I posted.
Read the whole post: GO!
------------------------
Post #27
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
OPEN DISCUSSION #10: "...mum's the word! Don't give away the secrets."/Thinking BEYOND the GRID.
Studio City Nerd takes issue with my having revealed a by-pass secret on : "The reason that routes like the Palms bypass aren't clogged with traffic is that most people don't know about them. [...] So, mum's the word! Don't give away the secrets."
As I've done many times before, I counter that "SOMETHING'S GOT TO GIVE." Then I offer than the only solution to gridlock is to start thinking BEYOND THE GRID [GO!] and wonder whatever happened to "American ingenuity."
Read the whole post: GO!
------------------------
Post #28
Thursday, May 18, 2006
Rush Hour: the modern hell
I offer a modern defitinition for "hell": rush hour, and spice it all with references to two good movies: Fellini's 8/12 and Hollywood's Falling Down with Michael Douglas. I offer a solution that has probably been thought about before but no one seems to have the courage to suggest or implement.
Read the whole post: GO!
------------------------
Post #29
Friday, May 19, 2006
Testimonials from "out there" (the blogosphere) on L.A. and L.A. traffic.
"I have some road rage inside of me. Traffic, especially in Los Angeles, is a pet peeve of mine."
- Katie Holmes
I let other voices I came across from other blogs weigh in on the problem and give my readers a break from my voice.
Read the whole post: GO!
------------------------
Post #30
Saturday, May 20, 2006
California Roll: You Know You're From LA When...
We lighten up and take a break from L.A.'s traffic problem and laugh about it for one post with a "thingie" (one of those lists) that has been making the rounds in myspace.com
Read the whole post: GO!
------------------------
Thirty (30) posts and counting!
Vote on the best posts so far!! GO! (click on comments below!:-)
------------------------
Make it viral. Make it vital...
Sunday, May 21, 2006
EDITORIAL, FULL INDEX AND RECAP
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment