Friday, August 04, 2006
A Note on the Metro Green Line
They've said the Metro Green Line's extension to LAX isn't needed now that the Flyaway bus is operating between that and Union Station in Downtown L.A.
Without the obvious flaw in and of itself, for a rail line to end as abruptly as the Metro Green Line does prior to its most logical final destination: LAX, another thing that's apparently being neglected is that you can't travel the Flyaway bus on a Metro day pass. That's a shortcoming that's an issue to many people on short budgets, such as economically poor residents, budget travelers, as well as residents who live in many areas of South Central L.A, and where Downtown L.A is farther away from them than LAX.
They wouldn't find it as convenient as stated by a certain LAX official, to take the Flyaway bus everytime they want to get to LAX. That would be a detour for those who must first go eastward (or northeastward; a detour at any rate) to Downtown L.A, then from there catch the Flyaway bus west.
Plus the flyaway requires a separate fare of $3. That means an extra cost of $1.25 for anyone who doesn't live within walking distance to Union Station, plus the detour.
In other words, is the stated convenience of the Union Station Flyaway really such a good excuse for not extending the Metro Green Line to LAX proper? No. Any sensible city would fix that gap without trying to argue 'why'.
It's annoying to have a half done rail system. There's no consistency in it. That alone is a frustration, besides the actual shortcomings like aformentioned.
I think, as I'm sure many others do, that a rail-line connecting LAX to the rest of the city would enhance the quality of the general airport experience, by streamlining transportation there, as well as enhancing the city's general infrastructure network.
We could do without yet another bus. Heck, otherwise why don't we just go back to horseback shuttle? Speedwise, what would be the major difference between that and bus in L.A, today? I bet a horse-ride would be even faster.
Without the obvious flaw in and of itself, for a rail line to end as abruptly as the Metro Green Line does prior to its most logical final destination: LAX, another thing that's apparently being neglected is that you can't travel the Flyaway bus on a Metro day pass. That's a shortcoming that's an issue to many people on short budgets, such as economically poor residents, budget travelers, as well as residents who live in many areas of South Central L.A, and where Downtown L.A is farther away from them than LAX.
They wouldn't find it as convenient as stated by a certain LAX official, to take the Flyaway bus everytime they want to get to LAX. That would be a detour for those who must first go eastward (or northeastward; a detour at any rate) to Downtown L.A, then from there catch the Flyaway bus west.
Plus the flyaway requires a separate fare of $3. That means an extra cost of $1.25 for anyone who doesn't live within walking distance to Union Station, plus the detour.
In other words, is the stated convenience of the Union Station Flyaway really such a good excuse for not extending the Metro Green Line to LAX proper? No. Any sensible city would fix that gap without trying to argue 'why'.
It's annoying to have a half done rail system. There's no consistency in it. That alone is a frustration, besides the actual shortcomings like aformentioned.
I think, as I'm sure many others do, that a rail-line connecting LAX to the rest of the city would enhance the quality of the general airport experience, by streamlining transportation there, as well as enhancing the city's general infrastructure network.
We could do without yet another bus. Heck, otherwise why don't we just go back to horseback shuttle? Speedwise, what would be the major difference between that and bus in L.A, today? I bet a horse-ride would be even faster.
