Monday, November 27, 2006
"Spend money on trains, subway"
Nice to see I am not alone in envisioning where Los Angeles belongs in terms of having an extensive transportation network. Congestion on freeways, being the obvious no-brainer that indicates that a relief is needed; well, the other is Los Angeles as the 2nd city in the US, yet still scrambling for buses like they'd do in the Flintstones.
Here's what some other's have said relating to this topic.
The first letter in the Times addresses the thing with "busways", just right on the spot. They're indeed a short-sighted substitute for "subways". Just as well what I've thought of is that of L.A. growing, and that traffic will only increase. That along with the flat, spreadout nature of the city, makes a subway railway inevitable. There is no comparison in terms of wise investment, between more buses and more subway/trains. I'm not an "expert" in this area, but I'm a human equipped with alas, "common sense". I personally won't die if the subway-extension won't happen during my remaining life-time, but why the heck not argue for it while I'm here. I drive whenever I can get hands on a vehicle, usually through work. Apart from the subway, car is still the most convenient. I'm considering what my next car will be. While the MTA tries to "keep me", and "attract me", I can only wish them the best of luck. Metro's "excellence", relatively speaking, is still far too spot-wise. I could go on to rant about this now, but think it's already been addressed.
One obvious thing though is that you can't take the bus on a Saturday. It's just a plain pleasure breaker; same on Sundays, though Sundays are virtual busless days. You either have to spend an hour somehow organizing bus departures, transfers and arrival times, which alone makes a trip's worth questionable. But if you don't do that, you're in for frustrations in about 8 out of 10 times. The remaining option is to simply "bite" and to deal with it. But the question is why you should have to "deal" with something concerning basic mobility in a city that's infamously unwalkable? We're not in Iraq, we shouldn't have to "deal", just to cope with daily life. But indeed rather often, MTA public transportation becomes the issue rather than the facilitator.
And speaking of the subway, that would solve much of the problem. The subway runs inherently smoother and more streamlined, and doesn't depend on the driver's "mood" for consistent service, as well as has no hampering traffic.
Here's what some other's have said relating to this topic.
The first letter in the Times addresses the thing with "busways", just right on the spot. They're indeed a short-sighted substitute for "subways". Just as well what I've thought of is that of L.A. growing, and that traffic will only increase. That along with the flat, spreadout nature of the city, makes a subway railway inevitable. There is no comparison in terms of wise investment, between more buses and more subway/trains. I'm not an "expert" in this area, but I'm a human equipped with alas, "common sense". I personally won't die if the subway-extension won't happen during my remaining life-time, but why the heck not argue for it while I'm here. I drive whenever I can get hands on a vehicle, usually through work. Apart from the subway, car is still the most convenient. I'm considering what my next car will be. While the MTA tries to "keep me", and "attract me", I can only wish them the best of luck. Metro's "excellence", relatively speaking, is still far too spot-wise. I could go on to rant about this now, but think it's already been addressed.
One obvious thing though is that you can't take the bus on a Saturday. It's just a plain pleasure breaker; same on Sundays, though Sundays are virtual busless days. You either have to spend an hour somehow organizing bus departures, transfers and arrival times, which alone makes a trip's worth questionable. But if you don't do that, you're in for frustrations in about 8 out of 10 times. The remaining option is to simply "bite" and to deal with it. But the question is why you should have to "deal" with something concerning basic mobility in a city that's infamously unwalkable? We're not in Iraq, we shouldn't have to "deal", just to cope with daily life. But indeed rather often, MTA public transportation becomes the issue rather than the facilitator.
And speaking of the subway, that would solve much of the problem. The subway runs inherently smoother and more streamlined, and doesn't depend on the driver's "mood" for consistent service, as well as has no hampering traffic.
