OPEN DISCUSSION #11: "why not just accept it and think about bettering the time you spend in traffic."

[Swiss846] wrote:

"You spend much time thinking about the traffic situation in LA. why not just accept it and think about bettering the time you spend in traffic. You talk about telecomuting, but you can do that in your car. With mobile internet you can blog while on the 405! Let's be honest, driving at 5 miles an hour in a row of cars hardly takes much skill, I've seen people reading books, watching movies, eating dinner, Smoking bongs. Pretty much anything you can do in your living room can be done on a los angeles freeway."

Thanks for the comment and for reading the blog! Your contributions to this whole discussion are much appreciated.

This is a very interesting comment, and this is the kind of insight into the problem I am looking for. This, of course, reflects the traditional Southern California laid-back culture of sunshine, beach, and surfing. That's cool. Nothing against that.

Everything is a matter of perspective: do we want to look at this glass as "half empty" and rant and rave about it or do we want to look at it as "half full" and make the best of it as Swiss846 suggests? Or do we want to "fill the glass up" to overflowing (fix the problem) or "drink it up" (move elsewhere) and not even have to think about it anymore?

I noticed this before, too, that L.A. drivers seem to be resigned to the traffic congestion problem. They seem resigned to "driving at 5 miles an hour." Since their time at home (or wherever) has been drastically cut by traffic congestion and their commuting time has increased dramatically, they have redefined their mobility, they have redefined their leisure time, and they have transfered their living room to the car! In Swiss846's words, "Pretty much anything you can do in your living room can be done on a los angeles freeway."

This is really a question of how you want to define mobility, how you want to define lifestyle, how you want to define QUALITY OF LIFE. This is a QUALITY OF LIFE question: has your mobility decreased and your commuting time increased to such a point that you spend such an unbelievable amount of time in your car in L.A. that you practically LIVE in it?!? "People [are] reading books, watching movies, eating dinner, smoking bongs" in their cars! They might as well live in them!

And if so, are you okay with that? Are you happy with that? Do you want to live like that? Or are you just resigned to living in a situation you feel you can do nothing about so you might as well adapt to it?

This is really a question for every single individual driver to answer and decide for themselves. There is a psychological and a social dimension to this whole problem, and different individuals cope in different ways.

It's interesting that the one thing L.A. drivers do the most in their cars, and which I talked about in my posting Rush Hour: the modern hell, is the one thing you forgot to mention! Talking on their cell phones! I am convinced that the cell phone is the one "drug" that keeps drivers in traffic, "driving at 5 miles an hour in a row of cars," like you said, from going berserk with frustration. It's not simply the "reading books, watching movies, eating dinner, smoking bongs" or doing pretty much "anything you can do in your living room" in the car what keeps them sane. It's the fact that they can talk to somebody! It's human contact what keeps us sane! Trapped and isolated in that little tin box of plastic, steel and rubber on wheels for hours, we would go crazy without human contact like the Michael Douglas character does in "Falling Down." I believe it is the cell phone what makes traffic congestion bearable.

For me, personally, a car is a tool, the tool of choice for most Americans to get from point A to point B as quickly as possible. It is a means to an end. I cannot conceive of the car as an end in itself. The purpose of driving is NOT driving. The purpose of driving is at my destination, NOT on the way there. Sure, "getting there is half the fun" and all that. Life is a journey. Enjoy the ride. And every other cliche you can think of. But if we shift the purpose of driving to the car itself, to being in the car, we might as well live in cars!

Every individual (and/or family) must decide for himself or herself what QUALITY OF LIFE they find acceptable or are willing to live with. If 20 million people have decided that this is how they want to live -- "reading books, watching movies, eating dinner, smoking bongs" in their cars because they are resigned to "driving at 5 miles an hour" on the freeways -- then the discussion is over. This blog has NO purpose. I'm "wasting my breath" (so to speak) here.

Listen, I'm not even in L.A. right now, and I don't drive. But when I lived in L.A., I found this traffic congestion problem very frustrating and thought that if I ever had a chance to do something about it or write (e.i., blog) about it, I would. That's all. The problem doesn't even concern me personally. Still, I find it very challenging.

I am also kind of mystified by, or rather puzzled about, two questions:

1. Americans are pragmatic people, they love solving problems. Why haven't they solved this one?
2. Americans tend to be reactive, not proactive. How big or serious will this problem have to get before they react "en masse" to it?

I don't know the answers to those two questions. Do you? Does anyone?

I am also convinced that blogging is perhaps not the best medium to approach this problem. I am interesting in film making. If I could, I would shoot a documentary about the issue and generate more buzz and bring a million times more attention to the problem than any blog ever could. A documentary on just about ANY issue is worth 100,000 blogs. No question about it. It's not even a contest. The power of the visual medium is unquestionable in this culture brought up on TV, movies and video games.

Personally, I happen to be interested in blogging and its potential, and this is as good a topic to blog on as any other. In the process I have learned and I am learning a lot about blogging. If I haven't accomplished anything else and I have just "wasted my breath" here, at least I have learned a lot.

This is not necessarily the best issue to blog on because a lot people tend to take some of the things I say personally. They take it as criticism of their country, as criticism of their culture, as criticism of their city or as a criticism of them personally. They are sensitive about the issue. Instead of taking this blog as a contribution to helping THEM to solve a problem or as a contribution to helping THEM to improve their quality of life, they take offense by it. Perhaps (what do I know? I'm just guessing here) they also take it as an insult to their intelligence. They are aware of the problem and they are pretty much like you: they are coping with it the way you do and they are happy to live with it that way and they don't want anybody telling them what to do or how to live their lives or how to change their lifestyle or how to change their city. So I will probably lose interest in it sooner or later. For now, I just happen to find it interesting.

Just to give you an idea of how much more interested I am in writing itself than in this particular issue, I can tell you for a fact that I have edited and re-written this posting about six or seven times since posting it! The writing itself and the images that come with it are something I can do something about. The writing and the images are something I can control. This issue of traffic is something completely beyond my control, something that affects and concerns millions of people, something my "tiny voice out here in the wilderness" may have little or no impact on at all. I am not so much looking for success in this particular issue as I am looking for success in a writing career.

Like they say in the South of France, "c'est tout!" (that's all!)

Again, thanks for your comment!
--------------------------------------------------

digg - make it viral
reddit - make it vital
del.icio.us - spread the word...

OPEN DISCUSSION #10: "...mum's the word! Don't give away the secrets."/Thinking BEYOND the GRID

Studio City Nerd has left a new comment on your post "DRIVING TIPS: SMART FOXES vs. HERDS OF SHEEP.":

The reason that routes like the Palms bypass aren't clogged with traffic is that most people don't know about them.

If you talk about such routes too much, they will become clogged with traffic.

Or the residents of the (usually residential) areas they run through will get tired of all the "smart fox" traffic, and install speed bumps, No-Turn-During-Rush-Hour signs, or otherwise block off and muck up your favorite bypass.

A while back, some fool actually published a whole book full of these rush-hour bypasses, and the resulting boom in traffic led to a number of them implementing exactly the sort of restrictions described above. Ruined some of the best bypasses in the city.

So, mum's the word! Don't give away the secrets.

Posted by Studio City Nerd to L.A. traffic sucks: Let's fix it! at 5/16/2006 01:55:52 PM

italianesco replies:

Thanks for reading the blog and for your new comments!

I thought about it, and at first I myself was reluctant to post the "Palms secret." But at this rate, how to bypass traffic and get there on time is bound to become the "Holy Grail" of L.A. traffic and we, holders of the secrets, are going to become a Priory of Sion exclusive secret society!! (As long as that sex ritual in the book is part of it and I am appointed "Grand Master," I'm cool with it! :-)

I agree with you that "the reason that routes like the Palms bypass aren't clogged with traffic is that most people don't know about them." But here's the thing. Under this blog's title I wonder whether we should add L.A. traffic to those other two things in life that have NO solution: DEATH and THE MIDDLE EAST. Those in the residential areas are like the Israelis: "We won't give up an inch!" And the rest of us are like the Palestinians: "We need some land!" At some point, it'll turn "Salomonic": should we threaten to cut the "baby" in half for the REAL mother to come forth and give it up rather than see it die? Because that's where L.A. is headed: add 100,00 or 500,000 or 1 million more cars to the roads, and where is all that traffic going to go? (See " WHY L.A. traffic sucks: OPEN DISCUSSION #1: SOMETHING'S GOT TO GIVE"). Will it spill over into these lovely, quiet neighborhoods right off the main roads? With speed dips and stop signs and everything else designed to discourage me from driving through, I would plow right through those roads parellel to Santa Monica Blvd. in Beverly Hills. Even with dips and stop signs and all, it was FASTER than Santa Monica Blvd.!

Yes, I know. I was a bit amazed to discover all these quiet, lovely neighborhoods RIGHT OFF the bustling, wild city roads and boulevards. It's like a whole different world one block away! And L.A. needs those quiet, lovely neighborhoods for their residents to keep their sanity. But drivers are going insane with frustration out there, too (I know I was!).

SOMETHING'S GOT TO GIVE.

THINKING BEYOND THE GRID

I think this whole thing is the fault of urban planners. I think that by now, SOMEBODY should have come up with an urban layout for a city OTHER THAN the GRID. The GRID leads to GRIDLOCK. And the cities of the future CANNOT afford this problem. There must be some other design, layout, blueprint for cities other than GRIDS. Perhaps circular or semi-circular designs that allow traffic to flow in different directions without getting jammed somehow. I am sure that a group of mathematicians (topologists: see image above), computer scientists, architects and urban planners can come up with such a design. And perhaps existing GRID layout cities can be slightly modified to make traffic flow without disturbing and upsetting ANYBODY.

Whatever happened to American ingenuity? Did they leave it up there somewhere on the surface of the moon 37 years ago? Or does it take a Sputnik to bring it out? Perhaps America is like France. DeGaulle said that "France is not herself unless she's engaged in a great enterprise." Perhaps for Americans traffic and urban planning are not a great enterprise, but a space race with the Soviet Union was.

We have to start thinking beyond the GRID, or traffic in all the cities of the world is indeed bound to become the third thing that has NO solution after DEATH and the MIDDLE EAST.
----------------------
Photo collage by italianesco: Moebius strip over aerial view of city grid

----------------------
Make it viral. Make it vital...

digg 
reddit 
del.icio.us

WHY L.A. traffic sucks: Open Discussion #6: Pedestrian Under/Overpasses

calwatch has left a new comment on your post "WHY L.A. traffic sucks: OPEN DISCUSSION #3":

Actually, they thought of pedestrian underpasses years ago. You see some pedestrian underpasses remaining in the older parts of Hollywood and on the east side, where they are common under Huntington Drive. 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.

Posted by calwatch to L.A. traffic sucks: Let's fix it! at 5/03/2006 11:44:57 PM

italianesco replies:

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.

I really don't know what to say to this. This is a social (potentially criminal) problem, not a traffic problem. It's interesting how you can try to solve a traffic problem and end up creating the environment for a social problem. If this rules out "pedestrian underpasses" (I need to compile a glossary of traffic terms!), then what about "skywalks" (or more technically, "pedestrian overpasses," I suppose)?

Do you know where there is a nice one? There is a nice "skywalk" connecting the Westside Pavillion on the eastern and western sides of Westwood. It was probably conceived with the convenience of the shoppers in mind not that of traffic. But I'm sure that, indirectly, it helps traffic around that intersection. You park for free at the mall and then have access to the mall extension across the street without crossing the street or getting back into your car back and driving. Whoever thought of that had an EXCELLENT IDEA. L.A. needs a lot more such excellent ideas...
-----------------------
Photo of skywalk courtesy of the Minneapolis/St. Paul: Skywalk System. Interesting page if you're interested in the topic of skywalks, their effectiveness in redirecting pedestrian traffic and the issues involved.
-----------------------
Make it viral. Make it vital...

digg 
reddit 
del.icio.us

WHY L.A. traffic sucks: OPEN DISCUSSION #3

On 4/28/06, calwatch wrote:

calwatch has left a new comment on your 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. The Laurel Canyon Freeway (SR-170) and the Beverly Hills Freeway (SR-2) were really the solution to this problem, but you can blame Jerry Brown for that cancellation. I'd like to see a test, though, on Wilshire for a five minute green time similar to roads in Orange County and the Inland Empire, and watch what happens.

Posted by calwatch to L.A. traffic sucks: Let's fix it! at 4/27/2006 11:54:32 PM

italianesco replies:

Thanks again for your new comments.

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.

Yes, I, too, would "like to see a test [...] on Wilshire for a five minute green time similar to roads in Orange County and the Inland Empire, and watch what happens." But I'd like to see it not only on Wilshire but on Olympic, on Pico and on Venice as well (Santa Monica seems too complicated to try it there). This is the thing: no one seems to be willing to try any really INNOVATIVE ideas. At the same time, they don't realize that old and tired ideas (widening freeways, building subways, etc.) will not work. Or they might work temporarily but not in the long run. An overweight person might take a pill to lower his cholesterol. But unless he changes his lifestyle and starts to diet and exercise to get those arteries flowing, he is doomed. American metropolitcan areas are doomed to gridlock unless they start trying something new.

I wasn't aware of the Laurel Canyon Freeway (SR-170) and the Beverly Hills Freeway (SR-2) projects you mentioned, nor was I aware that Jerry Brown had been responsible for their cancellation. This should give you an idea of the DAMAGE that politicians in office can cause to the future of a city, a state, a country. Jerry Brown was in office a long, long time ago, wasn't he? I am amazed at the lack of foresight. Politicians and constituents seem to be caught up in the present and lose sight of what things might be like 20 years down the road. Whatever solutions are adopted to solve the traffic problem in L.A. should envision a city of L.A. 20 or 30 years from now. How will the current system be able to handle 3, 5 or 10 million more cars? SOMETHING'S GOT TO GIVE.

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

Make it viral. Make it vital...

digg 
reddit 
del.icio.us

WHY L.A. traffic sucks: OPEN DISCUSSION #2

On 4/29/06, calwatch <> wrote: calwatch has left a new comment on your post " "WHY" L.A. traffic sucks: OPEN DISCUSSION #1 ":

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. You're angry, and you think you aren't being idealistic (but you are). But the problem is that traffic is much, much more complex than you think. I'm a licensed civil engineer and I can't understand half of it.

italianesco replies:

Thank you for you comment, Chris.

You are right: I am--well, actually, WAS--angry, but not quite as angry as I was sometimes there on that corner of Wilshire and Westwood waiting for a bus, ANY bus, to take me down Wislhire and having to decide WHICH bus to take: the 720 Red Rapid, the MTA #20 or the Big Blue Bus #2. They all have DIFFERENT stops at DIFFERENT locations around that corner. I had to keep running from one corner to the other to get on one of those buses!

And yes, of course, I am being a tad idealistic. Perhaps this whole discussion of L.A. traffic is completely "academic." I have always said that there are TWO things in life that have NO solution: death and the Middle East. Now after living in L.A. for three years, I really feel tempted to add a third: L.A. traffic!

Everything is a matter of perception, Chris. I am interested in film making, especially documentary film making, and I would have just loved to shoot a documentary on the bus strike of 2003 and on the whole state of traffic in L.A. I wish I could have stood on that corner filming those buses.

My perception was accurate: "most" 720 Red Rapid buses do seem to end their route there. My observation was only half-accurate: way too many buses seem to end their route there AND--here's what I forgot to mention--MOST (and I stand by this one) of the buses that do continue to Santa Monica are FULL. I hated getting on a FULL bus. And when they were not FULL, the other 720's that had just unloaded their passengers to end their route would make sure that they got FULL with those passengers. It was incredibly frustrating. It is THIS experience what compounded my perception: you stand there and bus after bus end their route there and those that don't are FULL to the brim (and somebody on a wheelchair is getting on! Try that one sometime!). There might as well be no bus at all going to Santa Monica that you can get on. Sometimes that's the perception you get. 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.

You don't need to take a poll to know that most L.A. drivers would never give up their cars in favor of public transportation if they can help it. Some people might suggest that the high price of gas might be the thing to do the trick. I doubt it. There'd be a revolution in American before gas reaches $5/gallon! It's not in the interests of the oil and car companies that people give up on their cars. They'd do ANYTHING to make sure they don't.

oh, and speaking of bus schedules, did I mention that those Red Rapid buses would usually come ALL together in bunches of three and four and then there would be NO bus for what felt (in MY perception) like hours?!?

See, this is the thing: it is precisely urban planners and civil engineers (no offense to you) and technocrats who probably created this mess. You can see their mistakes, the bad planning and design, everywhere in L.A.I think that some of the solution to all of these problems should come from actual users of the system. If I can't get from A to B because of C, we have to do something about C. Sometimes it is that simple. It is the technocrats who make it complex and sometimes make a mess of it in the process. 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.

As to the "June 2006 service change, all Rapid buses will continue to Santa Monica," I can only say, "Hooray! It's about time!!" Not that it matters anymore to me personally (I'd never take one of those buses again if I can help it), but I think it'd be very good for all bus riders.

Thanks again.
--------------------------

Make it viral. Make it vital...

digg 
reddit 
del.icio.us

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

"WHY" L.A. traffic sucks: OPEN DISCUSSION #1: Up in Arms!

OPEN DISCUSSION [WHY should it be there hidden under "comments"? Let's have it out here in the open!]: Up in Arms!

On 4/28/06, calwatch < chrissharp@bleeble.org> wrote: calwatch has left a new comment on your post " "WHY" L.A. traffic sucks #3: Bus'em and clog'em":

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. And then somebody runs to the bus and the driver opens the door and the bus has to wait for traffic again. Rinse and repeat. Actually, in some places, they are placing bus stop bulbouts such that the sidewalk is extended through the parking lane and that the bus blocks the right lane of through traffic. 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. [emphasis mine]

italianesco replies:

Thank you for your comments. It's great to know that people are reading the blog.

I WAS one such "transit rider" in the city of Los Angeles, CA for almost TWO AND A HALF YEARS of my life. I did rent cars now and then, especially towards the end of my three-year stay, but I simply REFUSED to own a car and contribute to the mess. I even put up with the three-month (don't remember how long exactly it was) MTA METRO mechanics STRIKE of 2003. I walked like a maniac, went all the way downtown on the S.M. Blue Bus to make it to Hollywood somehow many times, and spend a fortune on cabs. I even took some of those "pirate taxi" vans driven by the Mexicans down Wilshire a few times. That's how far my idealism took me.

When it comes to riding the bus in L.A. I HAVE PAID MY DUES. And I can tell you for a fact that as a "transit rider" your complaint on "bus pullouts" would be the least of my worries, the least of my pet peeves, the least of my concerns. When it comes to the MTA (the BEST bus service in L.A. is, without doubt, the S.M. Blue Bus!!), there is SO MUCH to complain about and fix that I was even thinking of starting a new blog just on that!! "MTA SUCKS! Let's fix it!"

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.

Here's the problem: that stretch of Wilshire from Westwood Blvd. to Sepulveda needs to be UNCLOGGED, DE-CLOGGED, FLUSHED OUT. It is--to use my recurring the analogy--like an overweight person who either puts himself on diet and exercise program or sooner or later he will have to undergo tripple by-pass surgery. His arteries are CLOGGED. They are JAMMED. They are BLOCKED--just like the "arteries" of the city of Los Angeles. What kind of "medicine" would you rather take?!? Would you rather put yourself on a "diet (fewer cars on the road) and exercise (get those cars moving)" program or would you rather undergo "surgery" (construction everywhere to widen freeways, build overpasses, dig subway systems)? THIS IS THE PROBLEM.

I know, I have lived, I have experienced BOTH SIDES of that great divide: I drove cars and I rode the bus in L.A. When you are on the bus, you are aggravated by all those "damn drivers." When you are in a car, you are aggravated by all those "damn buses." It's always what perspective you're coming from, isn't it? We might as well face it right now: NO SOLUTION TO ANY TRAFFIC PROBLEM IN L.A. IS GOING TO PLEASE EVERYBODY (car divers, transit riders, residents, pedestrians). BUT WE MIGHT AS WELL WORK ALL TOGETHER TO FIND SOLUTIONS TO THE PROBLEMS BEFORE THE MESS REALLY REACHES UNBELIEVABLY UNAMANAGEABLE PROPORTIONS. It's going to get WORSE, NOT BETTER. Las Vegas may be the "fastest growing city in America," but the L.A. is not exactly far behind. In spite of all the problems, people are still pouring into the L.A. area at an unbelievable rate (never mind the great number of tourists and non-residents that simply pass through).

Like I've said before on my blog, equality doesn't work sometimes. But sometimes "democracy" does. If the great majority of the people in L.A. want to drive cars instead of riding the bus, then they deserve a viable, comfortable and efficient traffic system. That's the bottom line. That's "democracy." That's America. That doesn't mean that I don't believe in public transportation. I have lived in Europe and that's one the things I LOVE about both Europe and New York.

I am convinced that a "bus pullout" (what I call an "indent") would be THE SOLUTION to the jam being created on that stretch of Wilshire from Westwood Blvd. to Sepulveda BY the 720 Red Rapid MTS buses. And do you know WHY your complaint is irrelevant to that particular situation? Because MOST of the Red Rapid buses stopping at that busstop on Wilshire between Westwood Blvd. and Geyley stop to UNLOAD ALL PASSENGERS. That's THE END of their line, the END of their route. Sure, some continue on to Santa Monica but a great number of them END there. So creating a "bus pullout" on the next block by that parking lot makes ALL THE SENSE IN THE WORLD.

As a matter of fact, THE JAM created by these buses is THREE-FOLD:

1. Because they are "rapid buses" with selected stops, they are usually coming on the center lane to go fast and once they get to the corner of Wilshire and Westwood, they suddenly try to get on the right lane to stop at that busstop. This maneuver slows down and sometimes jams traffic.

2. Then, because they stop at that bustop FOR QUITE A WHILE SOMETIMES while they unload ALL passengers when that's the end of their route or to load passengers when they continue on, they slow down and jam traffic. I DARE YOU to go that busstop and take one of those buses when the bus is JAM-PACKED FULL or when a DISABLED PERSON ON A WHEELCHAIR is getting on the bus and see how long it takes that bus to get going!! If a disabled person on a wheelchair is getting on the bus, traffic on the right lane can be stopped for at least five (5) minutes, if not longer.

3. Then, when that's the end of their route (and most of the times it is!!), bus drivers go to park the buses and take a break on Veteran Avenue by the Federal Building. That means that in order to get there they have to make a LEFT right after pulling out of the busstop. So as they pull out and veer IMMEDIATELY LEFT they slow down and jam traffic.

So that whole little mess is largely being created by the MTA. They are creating it, THEY should fix it.

My "bus pullout" on the next block SOLUTION idea would solve ALL of these problems. So "transit riders" would have to wait "a little longer" for the bus to get back on track and keep going? SO BE IT. Big deal. This should be THE LEAST of their problems. They ALREADY have to put up with a lot more inconvenience and aggravation from the MTA.

I rode those Red Rapid buses down Wilshire for two years. DON'T EVEN GET ME STARTED ON THOSE!! The MTA sucks!! There's NO question about it. After everything I went through FOR TWO WHOLE YEARS (including their little "mechanics bus strike of 2003"), I WOULD NEVER TAKE AN MTA BUS AGAIN IN L.A. I don't even know whether I'm even ever going back to L.A., but if I ever do and if I can help it, NEVER AGAIN. I'd get off a plane and go straight to a car rental to pick up a car and drive!!!

The S.M. Blue Bus? YES!!!! They provide EXCELLENT SERVICE (well, as "excellent" as you can expect) in the L.A. area. I believe that because of their great efficiency and professionalism, the Santa Monica Blue Bus company SHOULD take over transportation for the WHOLE L.A. area. They are the BEST. MTA is the WORST. If it weren't for the politics behind the MTA, the Blue Bus should RULE.

So that's "the way this cookie crumbles." Do you have any better ideas?
---------------------------------
Make it viral. Make it vital...

digg 
reddit 
del.icio.us