Telecommuting: count the benefits

According to this article in reuters - Telecommuting found to boost morale, cut stress - 46 studies on telecommuting find it not only good for employees and their employers but also for the urban communities they live in.

And that's the best part for our purposes here: they found that telecommuting cuts down on traffic and eases congestion in metropolitan areas. If your boss needs convincing, here's some ammunition for you!

So pass this article around to everyone in your office, especially the "big bosses"!

Biking: If Portland can do it, why can't L.A. can do it?

Here we go! Read all about "Bike City, U.S.A."

The key to making biking part of the community?

Simple.

Make biking part of the local economy!

If Portland can do it, why can't L.A. do it?

--------------------------------------------------
IHT:

"Driving the Portland economy with pedals and two wheels"

--------------------------------------------------

Vive la France! The "Vélibs" riders

The newly elected President of France, Nichola Sarkozy, nicknamed "Sarko, l'Americain," ("Sarko, the American") is in love with all things American, so it's now safe again to say, "Vive la France!"

And "Vive la France!" indeed! For this is a wonderful idea!

Check it out!

Journeys | Paris
"Finding Liberté on Two Wheels"
By ERIC RAYMAN
Published: October 14, 2007 in The New York Times
Paris’s self-service bicycle docking stations make it easy even for fresh-off-the-plane Americans to explore the city in a way that you can’t by foot, by Métro or by taxi.

Magnifique!

These "Vélibs", as the bikes are called, and "Vélibiens", as their riders are called, are a great idea! (...kind of like those push-carts one rents at airports to haul one's luggage to the car rental. Same concept, basically.)

This French idea might even play in Peoria: ooh-lah-lah!

But will it ever play in car-city L.A.?!?

How about tapping one or two of those Silicon Valley zillionaires who don't know what to do with all that money to finance it?

Here's an idea for you.

If they set up shuttle services between the major and most touristic cities (Hollywood, West Hollywood, Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, Venice), and they set up these "self-service bicycle docking stations" in each city, tourists and locals could ride the shuttles and once they got there and off the shuttle buses, they could simply grab one of these bikes and off they'd go!

The actual impact on traffic might be insignificant. But the improvement on quality of life, especially for tourists, might be enormous...

Yes, I know what you're going to say: "This ain't Europe. They will rip off the bikes or their parts out there." All I gotta say to that is an old cliche: "where there's a will, there's a way..."

It's worth trying...

The gas price factor: does it/will it ever really affect driving?

This posting is more of a question mark than anything else.

It's a fact that oil prices are at all-time record-breaking high.

Will gas prices soon follow? Again?

According to Business Week, gas prices are on the upswing--yes, again.

"$93 Oil: Coming to a Gas Pump Near You"

How will this affect your driving?

We talked about this before in a post last year:

"WHY driving sucks: the rising price of gasoline"

and we also talked on the same post about some myth-busting by Mr. John Stossel of the ABC newsmagazine 20/20:

"Price-Gouging" and the myth that "The World is Running out of Oil".

Has anything changed? Will really expensive gas really change people's driving habits?

What do you think?

Traffic and technology: collective navigational driving

Here's an interesting New York Times article on a technological device that can help drivers: Navigating With Feedback From Fellow Drivers (By Roy Furchgott - Published: October 18, 2007)

Dash Navigation's Dash Express "not only receives location data from the satellites of the Global Positioning System, like other navigation units, but it also broadcasts information about its travels back to the Dash network."

In other words, this device offers GPS-and-other-driver-assisted driving. By collecting data from other devices on the road, the system can alert you to what's up ahead. It won't work well, though, until there are enough units out there on the road.

Cool idea--if it works... Anything that can improve traffic is welcome on this blog...

You can read all about it in The New York Times site: Navigating With Feedback From Fellow Drivers

OPEN DISCUSSION #12: "what does an unprotected light mean?"

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Protected and unprotected lefts revisited: theory ...":

I was in an accident in SanFrancisco recently; the driver of the other car reported that he was going straight at an unprotected light; what does an unprotected light mean?

Posted by Anonymous to L.A. traffic sucks: Let's fix it! at 9:10 AM

-----------------------------------------------

When you come to an intersection, you have three options:
1. Go straight
2. Turn right
3. Turn left

But if it's a 4-way intersection, there are cars that also want to do the same thing (go straight, turn right, turn left) at the three other corners. What do you do? The only way to keep traffic from becoming a big mess is by regulating who goes first.

How do you do that?

With a...

1. Traffic light
2. Stop sign (4-way)

A traffic light regulates traffic by PROTECTING YOUR RIGHT OF WAY:

1. Green: Go! Your right of way to go in this direction is protected by the green light.
2. Yellow: Caution! Be ready to stop! (NOT in L.A., though! In L.A. a yellow light means, "GO AS FAST AS YOU CAN BEFORE IT TURNS TO RED!! TAKE NO PRISONERS!")
3. Red: Stop!

At some intersections, it's possible or not possible to turn right or left for some reason. When the light turns green, it usually means that traffic can flow STRAIGHT on the same street in both PARALLEL directions. Because traffic is flowing in one direction (say, north-south at a particular intersection), that means that traffic perpendicular to it (east-west traffic) is blocked by a red light. So if you have a green light, you can go straight, and--in MOST states--you can turn right (Unless there is a "NO RIGHT TURN ON A RED LIGHT" sign at that intersection).

How then do you turn left?

At most intersections in L.A. you have to wait for the traffic flowing in the opposite direction on the same street you're on to stop before you can make a left. THIS IS CALLED AN UNPROTECTED LEFT TURN.

WHY?

Because your right of way is NOT "protected" by a GREEN ARROW light. If there is NO GREEN ARROW LIGHT at an intersection that means that you can make a left turn ONLY on a UNPROTECTED turn. That is, you HAVE TO WAIT until the traffic flowing in the opposite diection to yours on the same street STOPS or slows down enough for you to have a chance to make a left turn.

If you have stopped at a RED LIGHT and you need to make a RIGHT turn, and in your state making a right turn at a red light is legal, then I think this is also an UNPROTECTED turn. Because your don't have the right of way here. Traffic coming perpendicular to you does! So if you want to turn right on a red light, you must wait until traffic coming perpendicular to you stops or slows down to give you a chance to make an UNPROTECTED right turn at a red light.

So, as far as I know, an "unprotected light" means turning left or right without having the right of way but allowed on the condition that you use caution and wait for traffic to stop or slow down before making a turn.

I have never heard of "going straight at an unprotected light". Unless he means that he was "running a yellow light". Or unless he means that he was "running a red light"!

As far as I know, the ONLY WAY you can go "straight at an unprotected light" is by "running a red light"!

As I explained above, the ONLY TWO "unprotected" directions you can go are LEFT or RIGHT. How can you possibly go "straight at an unprotected light"?

Perhaps he means a YELLOW light. Perhaps the ONLY light you can go straight on an "unprotected" light is the YELLOW light. In L.A. NO ONE respects this --that's why "unprotected lefts" are so difficult to make there-- but, technically, when the light turns YELLOW you're supposed to slow down and be ready to come to a stop before the intersection. So, technically, if you go straight on a yellow light, you're really going "straight on an unprotected light"? The YELLOW light means "caution, get ready to stop!", so if you go straight, you're actually going "unprotected" because you don't really have the right of way anymore (except in L.A.! In L.A. YELLOW means "GREEN" to most people!).

One of the Newsmagazines (20/20, Dateline NBC, 48 Hours...) had a report about all the terrible accidents that have happened because of people "running a yellow light." I'm really amazed that there are not more accidents in L.A. because of this. I think the reason there aren't is that motorists making a left have become resigned to waiting and making sure that ALL cars have come to a stop before making a left turn on an unprotected light. If they thought,"Okay, light's turned yellow, those guys must slow down and come to a stop right now! It's my turn to go! I have the right of way!" I'm sure there would be millions more accidents in L.A.

I don't know the details of your accident. If you were "making an unprotected left turn" and he was "running a yellow light," then I really don't know who's at fault. Perhaps you both were. If the light was turning yellow when he decided to go straight, he should have slowed down and come to a stop. If you were trying to make a left at an unprotected light (NO green left arrow), you should have WAITED until ALL cars came to a stop or traffic slowed down enought to give you a good chance to make a turn.

In such situations, the best thing is to drive defensively, not aggressively: WAIT. BE PATIENT. WHENEVER YOU ARE AT AN INTERSECTION MAKING A TURN, USE CAUTION. If you were both aggressive and impatient, then an accident is the result.

Does that answer your question?

Hope that helped clarify things a bit...

Traffic and technology: satellite radio

Mel Karmazin, President & CEO of Sirius Satellite Radio was on Charlie Rose last night.

Very interesting, to say the least. Actually, very enlightening.

What does an interview with a media executive have to do with traffic in L.A., you might ask?

Well, for one, Mr. Karmazin talked, among many other things, about his admiration for Ted Turner and for his idea to start a 24-hour all-news cable channel (CNN). I don't know if any of you has realized it yet, but satellite radio is to terrestrial radio what cable TV was to network TV in the 80's: the floodgates of information (e.i., content) are about to open wide on radio like they did on TV when cable came on the scene. The possibilities to disseminate information are enormous. And information (an enlightened public, a well-informed public, and intelligent public) is the key to improving ANYTHING in this country. Traffic can never improve as long as drivers are unaware of what's going on around them in real time.

So I thought: what about a satellite radio channel dedicated to traffic?

I looked on the Sirius website and sure enough, they've got one: SIRIUS Traffic. You need to be subscribed to Sirius satellite radio and you need a compatible navigation system. Other than that, "SIRIUS Traffic provides real-time information on accidents, traffic flow, construction, and road closures for only $3.99/month, when added to your existing SIRIUS Satellite Radio subscription."

If you subscribe to Satellite Radio through SIRIUS, adding traffic might be a good idea.

Traffic is not the only thing that needs to flow for congestion to improve in L.A. and elsewhere. INFORMATION is equally important. And what better way to make information flow than technology?

Technology is one of the key ingredients to any creative solution to the traffic problem. Satellite Radio may well be part of that creative solution. Consider it.

RETHINK L.A.

But of course! What was I thinking?

In America, the best ideas to get a message across come from the advertising world!

Saturn's "Rethink American"
ad campaign, as crafted by Deutsch/LA (
Saturn Says, 'Rethink American'), to promote their new hybrids, is the perfect key to a potentially successful ad campaign to transform L.A.

But of course! The power of advertising!

In America, a commercial is worth 100,000 blogs!

RETHINK CAPACITY [images of people car pooling, riding public transportation]

RETHINK MOBILITY [images of people telecommuting, working at home, walking, biking, riding scooters/Vespas, motorcycles]

RETHINK L.A. [images of a traffic-free city where traffic flows beautifully]

WHO WANTS TO DO A VIDEO?

---------------------------------------------------

Saturn "Rethink American" Commercial



--------------------------------------------
Make it viral. Make it vital. Spread the word...

A philosophy of activism: What are we going to do about it?

We can talk about traffic all day long in a thousand posts, but it won't make that much of a difference if no one ever does a thing about it. So we need not only creative solutions to a very difficult problem, we also need a philosophy of activism. What are we going to do about it?

Commeting on the 54th verse of the Tao in a chapter called "Living As If Your Life Makes a Difference," Dr. Wayne Dyer, in his book "Change Your Thoughts, Change Your Life: Living the Wisdom of the Tao," writes,

"Choose an area to concentrate on making a difference.

"Don't entertain doubt about your impact on the world; instead, develop a VISION for Earth and convince yourself that you are perfectly capable of contributing to this VISION. whether it's grandiose or small. See a world without hatred, disrespect, or violence; where the environment is respected and cared for; and where cancer, AIDS, starvation, child abuse, weapons of all kinds, or any other detrimental or demeaning scenarios disappear.

"The anthropologist Margaret Mead addressed this idea in the following observation: 'Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.'" [p. 264 - emphasis mine]

There are a lot of people out there who say that anybody who feels this way or acts this way is probably just a "dumb shit." Well, isn't that what the Pharisees (perhaps in other words) called Jesus Christ 2,000 years ago? "hey, look at that crazy 'dumb shit' going around saying he is the 'son of God.'" Whether you believe he was or not (I personally don't), whether you believe he ever existed or not (I personally am not sure), the impact this man --or his name and what he preached-- has had upon the world is undeniable. His impact has lasted for over 20 centuries--over 2,000 years. And like that rock musical says, "In 2,000 BC, Israel had no mass communication!" How did he ever make it SO BIG?!? To begin with, he had 12 darn good activists and some who could write like it's no one's business. So even in this age of unfrettered mass communication where you--or anybody--can upload your videos to YouTube and broadcast yourself to the whole wide world in minutes; even in this age of raging cynicism where "Who cares!" is the anthem of the day; it's still true that anybody who has ever changed the world, for better or for worse, was called a "dumb shit" at one time or another. We are in very good company here.

Whatever contribution--large or small, important or insignificant--I am making with this blog, I am happy to be making it.

For good or bad, for better or for worse, ideas--great ideas--have a way of taking a life of their own and becoming unstoppable. If there is any good, any good at all, in anything we are saying here, someone will find it and use it to make a difference.

My heart goes out to Los Angeles and its people. Their lives should, or could, be so much better... Whether it will never be what it once was, it doesn't matter. If 20 million people demand that it become something better TODAY before it becomes something worse TOMORROW, believe me, IT WILL. And all it takes is ONE person to start making a difference. The rest is up to YOU...

-----------------------------------------------------

Make it viral. Make it vital. Spread the word...

Dylan: "Don't follow leaders/Watch the parking meters"!

In LA Traffic Panel Discussion - Volume II, Tom Rubin, former "Administrator for Public Transport" in Southern California says the following,

So what we have is a situation where if we made a decision we aren't going to add capacity, we have to either use what we have smarter, or as has been said [by Mr. Moore], ration it through various means. And this being the United States, where capitalism--I don't think--has totally completely died, tolls are very realistic. And tolls, particularly time of day tolls, will encourage people to change their behavior.

"One of the things that has happened that is the single most significant thing that has happened in U.S. transportation is work-at-home. You take a look at all the model splits: how many people are driving, how many people are car pooling, how many people taking transit, time after time after time, year after year, area after area, there are only two things that are going on: single passenger vehicles and work-at-home. And as the technology increases and as that way of work increases, that is going to change as well more and more.

"We are responding to it, but it's not a question we can't do it, we can't add capacity. We can. The problem is that we have decided NOT to."

Don't you find it especially miffing that this former beauraucrat, who's probably partly responsible for the current mess, and who does not even admit it or take responsibility for it, much less apologize for it, is not even smart enough to leave the word "capitalism" out of it when proposing such a bad idea of "tolls" as the only realistic solution to making people "change their behavior"? At least, he should be smart enough and leave the word "capitalism" out of it! I guess he doesn't realize how he's giving himself away completely by having said that.

I'm telling you. This is the last person in the world you should listen to for solutions to this problem. He is exactly the kind of person Dylan was referring to when he sang, "Don't follow leaders/Watch the parking meters"! Follow him and your "parking meter" is going to go UP, WAY UP, in the form of "tolls" designed to make you "change your behavior."

Does he mean to say that you cannot educate people in America?

Does he mean to say that you cannot appeal to their sense of civic duty?

Does he mean to say that NO ONE in L.A. would give up driving for the good of the entire urban community?

If so, then it is hopeless, completely hopeless. Because it is a fact that there will always be enough people in the world with enough cash to pay ALL the tolls in the world, and NOTHING, NOTHING IN THE WORLD --not the high price of gas, not tolls of ANY kind-- will ever deter them from driving.

Have they ever tried? Have they ever mounted a citywide campaign in all media to educate drivers and appeal to their sense of civic suty to help solve the problem?

Have they ever offered L.A. drivers a REALLY GOOD and REALLY RELIABLE altervative to driving?

He is also overlooking the fact that the driver demographic in L.A. is not only made up of commuters and truck drivers and service van drivers and bus drivers and people running errands, but also of TOURISTS and BUSINESS PEOPLE in car rentals. Thousands of them pour into L.A. every day, and they would be willing to pay any toll they have to pay to get where they are going. The out of town trucks just passing through on their way north or south on the interstate freeways, will have to pay tolls unless you limit their access to the freeways going through town to nighttime.

Tolls would be self-defeating, tax regressive, and in the end, useless. They would have to raise them more and more to REALLY make some people change their behavior.

I only have one thing to tell you. Or better yet, I'll let Bob Dylan himself tell it to you: "YOU DON'T NEED A WEATHERMAN TO KNOW WHICH WAY THE WIND BLOWS!"

Bob Dylan - Subterranean Homesick Blues



--------------------------------------------------
Make it viral. Make it vital. Spread the word...

LA Traffic Panel Discussion - Volume II: "NO" to adding capacity, "YES" to tolls?!?

Here's the second part of that LA Traffic Panel Discussion: Ever-Lasting Gridlock? that took place at the L.A. Press Club on March 29 of this year.



And here's my response:

Mr. Johnston starts out with a very basic question:

"Why is it that when there's more traffic it moves more slowly?"

Mr. Moore, the USC professor of civil engineering and "expert on the technical side," replies:

"What transportation engineers really focus on is flow.

"At very low densities and high speeds, you got low flow, and you got very densities and very low speeds and you got low flow. And it's that region between jam density and no density at all where your flow would be theoretically maximized. And that's for most folks a low level of service. That's in the neighborhood of, say, 35 miles an hour--faily congested conditions in the minds of most folks. So when I'm driving around in the freeways, I'm thinking in terms of flow. [...]"

Mr. Johnston then asks why the 101 always gets jammed from Cahuenga to downtown.

Mr. Moore replies that "what you're seeing is a period of extended demand that exceeds capacity." That's why. And you have only three options:

"[1] You can add capacity--That's an option. That's expensive.
[2] You can better manage the capacity you have.
[3] We can try to suppress the demand.

Short of that I don't see any avenue for improvement. [...]"

Got it?

That's the technical assessment. In other words, the choices are stark. Expect to drive not faster than 35 mph on freeways in L.A. because at such high densities (a lot of cars on the freeway), drivers drive too defensively and cannot keep up higher speeds.

Then Mr. Johnston asks, "What about the issue of... if we build more roads, we simply generate more traffic."

Mr. Rubin "would be happy to take that." Here's his answer. Read (or listen) CAREFULLY.

"We can build our way our congestion. We have just decided NOT to!

"The problem we have is,... these are taken so seriously: the cost restrictions and the [sic] restrictions, that it becomes almost impossible in this day and age to think of adding capacity in an urbanized area. In many cases it can be done and it has been done successfully. But the limitations are there. And you add the statutory requirements.

"At the present time, in an area undergoing congestion, which therefore has some air quality problems [....], it is virtually impossible to get permission from the federal government to either build a new freeway or add general-purpose lane capacity to existing freeways. What you can do is add an HOV lane. That's the exception. So in many cases, we have seen HOV lanes being added, not necessarily because they're the best solution, but because it's the one thing you can build [...]

So what we have is a situation where if we made a decision we aren't going to add capacity, we have to either use what we have smarter, or as has been said [by Mr. Moore], ration it through various means. And this being the United States, where capitalism--I don't think--has totally completely died, tolls are very realistic. And tolls, particularly time of day tolls, will encourage people to change their behavior.

"One of the things that has happened that iis the single most significant thing that has happened in U.S. transportation is work-at-home. You take a look at all the model splits: how many people are driving, how many people are car pooling, how many people taking transit, time after time after time, year after year, area after area, there are only two things that are going on: single passenger vehicles and work-at-home. And as the technology increases and as that way of work increases, that is going to change as well more and more.

"We are responding to it, but it's not a question we can't do it, we can't add capacity. We can. The problem is that we have decided not to."

Let me get this straight:

We can add capacity, but we have just decided NOT TO in order to tax people with tolls to change their behavior?!?

If anybody out there gets any other conclusion from what he said, let me know! Because every which way you look at it, that's the ONLY conclusion one can get from what he said.

If I understand this correctly, in a country where capitalism "[hasn't] totally completely died," they CAN but they have decided NOT to add capacity. Why? In order to TAX you and make you change your behavior that way!

It may be a very "capitalistic" solution, but it's not a very fair and not a very "democratic" solution. We all know what would happen if tolls were implemented as a cure for traffic congestion. The rich and the upper-middle-class, and to a large extent the middle-class, would get to ride the freeways in absolute comfort at whatever speed they want. But the minimum-wage earners and the poor would have to take the streets to get to work, thus spilling the congestion from the freeways onto the strets. Tolls implemented to cure congestion, as Mr Rubin sugests, would be a form of regressive taxation that would affect the minimum-wage earners and the poor. Just like the high price of gas has not affected high and middle-income bracket wage earners but it has affected the the minimum-wage earners and the poor, tolls would affect the minimum-wage earners and the poor.

Moreover, can you imagine the jams, the congestion, before every toll booth? In L.A.? Are you kidding me? Not everybody would have a fast-lane electronic tag to get through the toll booth fast enough. Want proof? To take the Bay Bridge into San Francisco, you have to pay toll. Almost always, at certain times of day, there's an unbelievable JAM right there before the toll booth. And to require every car to purchase a tag would really mean that only those of high or middle-income level would be able to fork out the extra $50 or $60 a month to purchase a tag just to drive on a freeway. So THEY, the minimum-wage earners and the poor, would create a jam before the toll booth every day.

DO NOT LET THEM SELL YOU SUCH A DUBIOUS, SHODDY BAG OF GOODS, SUCH AN IDIOTIC IDEA.

You already pay enough tax to maintain freeways and roads. DO NOT let them now TAX YOUR RIGHT to drive on those freeways and roads. You should OPPOSE this idea with everything you've got. Pressure them to come up with REAL solutions, not IDIOTIC ideas.

See? This is what happens: politicans, under pressure from the electorate to find solutions to problems, put then pressure on these beauraucrats and academics, so-called "experts," to come up with solutions, and this is "the best" they can come up with: IDIOTIC IDEAS.

I deal at greater length on this issue in my posting Would taxing the Modern Hell (rush hour) turn it into the Modern Heaven (traffic-free cities)? as a response to Nobel Prize winner economist Gary Becker of the University of Chicago, who's one of the original proponents of this idea of tolls to cure congestion.

He may be a "Nobel Prize winner," but he should know that he is proposing an idiotic idea. And, as an economist, he should know that tolls would be a form of regressive taxation on lower-income earners and the poor.

Moreover, I think that to frame it in these dire, stark, black-and-white terms -- IT'S EITHER NO MORE CAPACITY OR TOLLS, MAKE YOUR CHOICE! -- is rather pathetic from people from whom we should expect REALLY CREATIVE SOLUTIONS. (For a really creative approach to solving the traffic congestion problem on the Westside, see my post: WESTSIDE SOLUTION AT A GLANCE)

DON'T YOU THINK?
--------------------------------
Make it viral. Make it vital. Spread the word...

reddit 

L.A. needs to transform itself

L.A. needs to transform itself. The L.A. traffic and congestion problem cannot be solved without L.A. transforming itself into a more walkable, bikeable, scooterable, motorcycleable, publictransportable city. There's no question about that.

Patchwork will not do it. "Tolling" and/or "increasing capacity" on the freeways will not do it. If your arteries are clogged, you reduce your cholesterol intake and exercise more. L.A.'s arteries are clogged. What will it take--a "heart attack" (an earthquake)--to wake everybody up?

L.A. and surrounding cities need politicians with GREAT VISION, who can sell that VISION to the public (angelenos), to the politicians at the federal, state and local levels, and to the urban planners and developers. A vision of a city of the future, a city that doesn't feel and look like the L.A. of nightmarish visions of the future like Blade Runner's, a city made up of vibrant walkable, bikeable communities full of highly mobile and highly community-conscious residents who think not only of themselves but of their neighbors and of their entire urban area as well.

That should be the vision, the blueprint, for an L.A. of the future, and that vision needs to be born now, today, not 20 years from now. At the rate it's going, in the year 2025, L.A. will be a highly unliveable place. That film Blade Runner will go from cult sci-fi classic status to prophetic. Of course, journalists like Ted Balaker will want to downplay such pessimistic assessments and call them "fashionable defeatism." It is people like him who have a voice in the media who should be calling for this vision instead of offering "band-aid-to-plug-a-leak-in-the-dam" ideas that are just patchwork solutions.

L.A. needs to transform itself.

That vision may not be popular with the gas companies, it may not be popular with the car companies, it may not be popular with the self-centered, self-serving, ego-driven set of drivers who think their needs or desires come first at the expense of everybody else. But this is not about popularity. It's about facing a tough reality and making some tough decisions for the good of the entire urban community.

L.A. needs to transform itself.

The politician who can sell that vision is the man or woman of the hour, the man or woman of the future...

And not only that... the politician who can sell this vision to the voters, to the politicians and to the beauraucrats in Washington, Sacramento and City Hall, to the urban planners and developers; the politician who can challenge the power interests that will oppose this vision with all their might-- the whole "oil/auto-industrial-complex" -- is a politician with real cojones...
----------------------------------------------
Make it viral. Make it vital. Spread the word...

LA Traffic Panel Discussion - Volume I

1 minute and 55 seconds of the video clip are dedicated to the reception: people snacking, drinking and mingling to the tune of the Beatles' "Baby, You Can Drive My Car." Then the three panelists are introduced by Mr. Johnston and given an opportunity to give a "brief summary of the crucial issue facing us this evening." This is where it gets interesting... Watch!



So Mr. Tom Rubin goes first, and what he has to say in this brief intro. is very interesting: "Transportation decisions in the United States really have virtually nothing to do with transportation. And that pretty much drives the results. When you're making transportation decisions ignoring transportation impacts, [you get] a transportation system that reflects that in its performance."

That's a very interesting observation, but what the heck does it mean?

If transportation decisions are not based on transportation issues, then WHAT, pray tell, are they based on? And WHO makes them? WHO's accountable?

Obviously, this is the approach that's behind the current mess (and a former insider like Mr. Rubin should know better than anybody else).

So right off the bat, we get confirmation of something we've been saying over and over here on this blog, that at the policy decision-making level, a paradigm shift has to take place. The whole approach to how these decisions are made and who makes them needs to change. Or the "high expectations" that Mr. Balaker trumps about later are an illusion. NOTHING will change for the better or for the long-term without this fundamental change.

Then it's Mr. Balaker's turn (we don't know whether Mr. Moore got a chance to have his say on "the issue facing us this evening" or whether he got skipped over or simply cut in favor of the reception). Mr. Balaker makes two points we have also been harping on here in this blog since April 2006, perhaps not in the same words, but in exactly the same meaning and spirit:

1. "The point I want to make is that mobility matters... These days the term 'geographically undesirable' is becoming more and more commonplace among people who date in urban areas... Mobility is good."
2. "We've fallen into this fashionable defeatism where we think that there's nothing that can be done about traffic. ... Congestion is something that can be triumphed over. And I think it's about time we did that."

Of course "mobility matters" and "mobility is good." No one is denying that. What you have is a population in denial over whether everybody who owns a car should be on the road at the same time every day. Freedom of mobility should entail some responsibility. If you don't have to drive, why drive? If you need to get some milk at the convenience store two blocks away and you can walk, why not walk it? Why not ride your bike? After all, it's good for you! Perhaps a study should be done on the relationship between heart disease and obesity and driving in America. The French and the Italians are thinner and live longer and healthier perhaps because they walk more.

What Mr. Balaker is, in fact, saying is that mobility equals driving. That's not true at all. The only way to attain mobility is not necessarily by driving. The problem of traffic and congestion in American cities such as L.A. will never be solved until people in L.A. are given as many options as possible OTHER THAN DRIVING to attain the mobility they need and desire (How about, for instance, creating more walkable "downtowns" like Santa Monica's that can be easily accessible by clean and reliable transportation like the Big Blue Bus? That's the kind of mobility L.A. needs).

As to point No. 2 --"Congestion... can be triumphed over"-- of course it can! But it won't be easy and it will take a concerted effort by policy-makers and drivers working together to make it happen. There's no magic formula. Neither "tolling" nor "increasing capacity" alone will do it. As we have documented on this blog, the L.A. area has a lot of fixing to do. They can do all the "tolling" they want, they can add all the road capacity they want, but it won't make that much of a difference in the long run if all the other problems we have outlined on this blog are not fixed as well. People will continue to pour into Southern California and the additional flow created by "tolling" and extra capacity will go up in smog!

Tomorrow we will view and respond to Volume II of the Panel Discussion.

Hope you enjoyed it and learned something new. I did. Don't leave it up to the politicians, the experts, the pundits, the academics, the beauraucrats, the self-serving journalists (hawking you wares, huh? What's this? Oprah? ;-). They created the mess in the first place. As this panel discussion will show, they know the least about how to solve it.

L.A. Traffic.. you hearddd [From: ashleeee]
[a girl telling visiting friend(s) that "this is normal."]



-----------------------------------------------
Make it viral. Make it vital. Spread the word...

The one and only true real solution to L.A traffic right now: lanesplitting on a motorcycle

This guy, who goes by the name of "adamthelizard" on YouTube, and who has graciously allowed us to use his video here, is a Master Lanesplitter and he shows us how it's done on this cool video of his.

It may look dangerous, it may look risky, it may seem reckless, but from what I hear (comments on YouTube), it is perfectly legal (as it is to ride the motorcycle on the car pool or HOV lane), and HE ROCKS!

And he's ahead of the pack. One of the things that the panelists at the L.A. Press Club talked about (video entries to be posted soon), and priced above all else, was/is MOBILITY. Mobility is the one thing that L.A. traffic has reduced almost to zero. Well, "adamthelizard" show us that NOTHING -- traffic or no traffic -- absolutely NOTHING (except traffic lights, of course!) stands in the way of his mobility.

He rocks! Check it out:

Lanesplitting in Los Angeles [From: adamthelizard]



If you'd rather ride a Vespa (scooter) or a bicycle, see our post:
WHY L.A. traffic sucks: OPEN DISCUSSION #4: "I only ride my bike in LA"/The Italian Solution

-------------------------------------------------
Make it viral. Make it vital. Spread the word...

Experts, pundits, academics, and journalists weigh in on the issue

Ok...! It's time to let the "experts and pundits," the former beauraucrats, present academics and ever-lasting journalists have their say!

Guess what I found on YouTube?

"Traffic in L.A. Panel Discussion: The Ever-Lasting Gridlock?"

It took place on March 29, 2007 at the L.A. Press Club moderated by treasurer and board member, Rory Johnston. The panelists included:

-Tom Rubin, "former Administrator of Public Transport in Southern California."
-James E. Moore II, "Professor of Engineering at USC, he's an expert on the technology side" (in Mr. Johnston's words)
-Ted Balaker, "a journalist who has his particular views on the issues."

This video is the "Video News Advisory", and Mr. Johnston promises, or rather hopes, the following:

"We're hoping to really clarify the issues and come up with some solutions that nobody else has ever thought of, and then we'll be able to be driving with ease from here to eternity."

Mr. Johnston must be a tad facetious or disingenius because I have to tell you: I viewed and listened to the whole thing (all five video parts of the panel discussion) and I didn't hear a single thing that was new. I did hear a lot of clarifications on the federally-mandated and political roadblocks to improvement and a lot of clarifications "on the technical side" (the correlation between capacity and congestion), but I didn't hear anything new or inspiring or ground-breaking or enlightening.

Not to rain on anyone's parade and you can judge for yourself, but somehow, after listening to the whole panel discussion, I was left with the feeling that, if we could somehow, by magic, give these three panelists the power to do whatever they wanted to fix traffic in Southern California, the whole thing would end up just as it is now: a mess. I mean, come on, one of the panelists was a former beauraucrat, somebody, who, when he was in office, had the power and influence to make a difference. I didn't hear him take any responsibility for the current state of affairs or offer any truly enlightening or ground-breaking suggestions. Just more of the same. Actually, the one "solution" they all seem to agree on, "tolling," is the one I disagree with (but more on that later or see my posting Would taxing the Modern Hell (rush hour) turn it into the Modern Heaven (traffic-free cities)?).

But anyway, judge for yourself. I'll post all five video parts of the panel discussion and respond to each one individually.

Speaking of technology, we've got the latest technology--well, YouTube, courtesy of parent company Google--to deliver their message to you...

LA Traffic Panel Discussion - Video News Advisory



If you really want my opinion (don't answer that! it's rhetorical! ;-), the best thing about the whole thing, other than getting some kind of public discussion about the issue going, was the use of Jimi Hendrix's "Crosstown Traffic" as background music for this video clip. He was great! He wouldn't make a great L.A. driver with this attitude, but he reflects beautifully the way we all feel in traffic...

Crosstown Traffic by Jimi Hendrix

You jump in front of my car when you,
You know all the time that
Ninty miles an hour, girl, is the speed I drive
You tell me it's alright, you don't mind a little pain
You say you just want me to take you for a ride

You're just like crosstown traffic
So hard to get through to you
Crosstown traffic
I don't need to run over you
Crosstown traffic
All you do is slow me down
And I'm tryin to get on the other side of town

I'm not the only soul whos accused of hit and run
Tire tracks all across your back
I can see you had your fun
But darlin' can't you see my signals turn from green to red
And with you I can see a traffic jam straight up ahead

You're just like crosstown traffic
So hard to get through to you
Crosstown traffic
I don't need to run over you
Crosstown traffic
All you do is slow me down
And I got better things on the other side of town

----------------------------------------------

Make it viral. Make it vital. Spread the word...

Technology used right to make a difference in traffic

Just yesterday, I read this article on Yahoo News about the technology being used on campuses to alert students in case of an eventuality, an emergency or impending danger on campus.

(See Texting, Facebook used to alert students).

How does it work? Simple. Here's a quote from the article:

"NEW YORK - When a masked freshman came to campus at St. John's University with what police said was a loaded rifle sticking out of a bag, the school alerted students via cell-phone text messages within 18 minutes.

And when a suicidal gunman was reported to be on the loose at the University of Wisconsin, the school sent out mass e-mails and took out an ad on Facebook to warn students."

This is American ingenuity at its best. This is what it's all about.

Actually, the campus, St. John's University, "purchased its inCampuAlert text-messaging system from a California company called MIR3 Inc. over the summer." So the system was developed in California.

Here's a good one for you--well, for the powers-that-be, the politicians, and the taxpayers.

Why not set up a system in the whole L.A. area to alert drivers or suggest routes?

Actually, I was driving around L.A. one day a month or two ago, when I heard a radio station, STAR 98.7 to be exact - www.star987.com- asking listeners to sign up for their traffic update to your cell phone via text messaging.

And this website - www.traffic.com- offers all kinds of traffic alerts and ways to get them from a hotline to text messaging.

And -- what'd'y'say, what'd'y'know! -- Rand McNally, the map company, is also getting into the act with traffic alerts direct to your cell phone: www.randmcnally.com/traffic

So it is already in place, it seems, and radio stations and websites like traffic.com seem to be the pioneers here, the frontrunners on using technology to keep the public informed.

Perhaps the L.A. transit authorities could set up the system in conjunction with the radio stations or supplement their existing one.

We've talked about electronic bulletin boards on freeways that display important information. I noticed that there are many of those cropping up everywhere, especially along the 105 and the 605. That's a good sign of improvement. But this system would be (or is?) a lot better. You would get an update right on your cell phone before you leave for your destination or as you get on your way and adjust your route accordingly.

Like we've said over and over on our postings here on this blog, this problem has no single solution but multiple solutions that working together in concert will make an impact on traffic. Technology, used creatively and effectively, must be a key ingredient of that multi-layered solution.

This is the first in a series of posts on how technology--existing technology, not pipe-dream futuristic stuff--can help improve traffic. A lot of the technology is already available. It's up to YOU and the powers-that-be to make it happen...
------------------------------------
Make it viral. Make it vital. Spread the word...

reddit 

Open Discussion: Subway: "...ready to be taxed for a comprehensive subway system?"

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post ""WHY" L.A. traffic sucks #3: Bus'em and clog'em":

So are you finally ready to be taxed for a comprehensive subway system?

Note:
Transit ridership is much higher than people seem to think. At 1.3 million (bus and rail) daily riders that ends up being roughly 10% of the county.

Posted by Anonymous to L.A. traffic sucks: Let's fix it! at 6/01/2006 03:38:54 AM

italianesco replies:

I think this question should be put to L.A. Country voters along with a few other questions. Some of the answers can be gleaned from this article in the L.A. Weekly:

The Subway Mayor - How a bus-only politician — and a car-obsessed city — are learning to love the underground By ERIC BERKOWITZ - Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 12:00 am

Here are some highlights from the article. All emphasis mine:

"Villaraigosa talked of a 'subway to the sea' during the campaign and staked a big chunk of his political capital on a promise to expand the rail system. [...] Villaraigosa took the first step by assuming the helm of the MTA. Now, the question is whether he will have the clout to move the political mountains required to get Los Angeles the transit system it deserves."

HOW LONG will it take?

“'This isn’t going to happen in four years,' the mayor said. 'We’ve got to start building a consensus around a plan for the next 20 years.'"
-----------------------

HOW MUCH will it cost?

"The Red Line’s extension to the Valley was completed in 2000. Jagged as a gerrymandered congressional district, and carrying a milelong spur from Vermont to Western, the $4.7 billion line is the most expensive 17 miles of subway ever built."
-------------------------------------------

WHO will pay for it?

"Riding the swell of frustration, Yaroslavsky sponsored an initiative in 1998 that barred the use of county sales-tax money for subway projects. He described it as the county’s 'last chance' to avoid 'a regional transportation nightmare.' With no opposition on the ballot, it passed. That same year, the MTA suspended all new rail projects." [...]

"Yaroslavsky stands by his 1998 prohibition against the use of county money for underground rail, and he still says subways are too costly. But he’s starting to sound like a cautious Red Line advocate." [...]

"Given that Sacramento has diverted more than $2 billion of local transit funding in the past two years to meet state budget shortfalls, and the Bush administration likely will continue to try to cut transportation funding, the subway will be a budget challenge even if Waxman and Yaroslavsky soften up." [...]

"Transit rider Harris, who has little money to spare, said he would “gladly accept a half-cent sales tax for the Red Line. I’d do it in a second.” That’s good, but it’s probably not representative of the electorate. People meekly give oil companies record profits by funding a 40 percent boost in gasoline prices, but they seize up when the word tax is involved. The voters will need to be convinced." [...]

"Villaraigosa can’t count on bundles of help from Washington or Sacramento. The region was reasonably successful in the recent federal transit bill [...], but money for a new subway project is a long shot even if Waxman comes around. Closer to home, our Hummer-driving governor won’t ever back such a project. The mayor will have to build local resolve to carry a substantial share of the load." [...]

--------------------------------------------
WILL it ever happen?

"Before one more foot of subway tunnel is in place, Villaraigosa and his new rail coalition must conquer the demons that have derailed L.A.’s most ambitious transit plans, even before the smattering of subway and light-rail lines were built." [...]

"Criollo is easily set off by talk of more subways. If Villaraigosa 'advocates for more rail, then we are willing to have open struggle with him in court, in the boardroom and in the streets. We’ll fight him every inch of the way.'”

"So far, the Red Line is nowhere to be found on the MTA’s schedule of priorities. After the Waxman and Yaroslavsky prohibitions, 'it’s not really on the radar screen,' said MTA spokesman Marc Littman. Villaraigosa said he intends to rectify this when the MTA prepares its new long-range plan in the coming months." [...]

"Villaraigosa’s challenge — and it’s a big one — is to communicate a vision that will inspire the city to endure the costs and disruptions of long-term transit projects."
---------------------------------------------

Not to sound pessimistic or to discourage anyone - I'm a believer in public transporation - but sounds to me like L.A. has waited a bit too long to tackle this immense problem. A comprehensive subway system for L.A. is a long, long, long-term project, and even if it were approved tomorrow, it'd be a long, long, long way from completion.

“'This isn’t going to happen in four years,' the mayor said. 'We’ve got to start building a consensus around a plan for the next 20 years.'"

On top of that, you can be sure that the traffic would be horrendous with the disruption caused by all the construction. Anybody pinning their hopes on a complete subway system for relief from the traffic problem is dreaming. I'd say that the city needs to do whatever it takes NOW - NOT tomorrow, NOT four years from now, NOT 20 years from now - to find simple, affordable and politically viable relief, immediate relief, to the traffic problem. Some of my ideas might be a good place to start... ;-) [See WESTSIDE SOLUTION AT A GLANCE]
------------------------------------------------
Read the complete article in the L.A. Weekly: The Subway Mayor - How a bus-only politician — and a car-obsessed city — are learning to love the underground By ERIC BERKOWITZ - Thursday, August 18, 2005. It's mostly a history of the roadblocks to the subway.
------------------------------------------------
Make it viral. Make it vital. Spread the word...

EDITORIAL, FULL INDEX AND RECAP

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 made a technical clarification

"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
WHY driving sucks: the rising price of gasoline

I turn again to high gas prices and cite two New York Times articles on the issue. The night before John Stossel, on ABC's 20/20, happened to weigh in on the "myths" of "Price Gouging" and "We're running out of oil."

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...

digg 
reddit 
del.icio.us