|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Mar 8, 2011 7:49:27 GMT -8
They were discussing last night whether to tap the strategic petroleum reserve because of the higher gas prices. One of the guys being interviewed said that if they did sell off some of that oil, it should be used to immediately expand and subsidize transit options so that less people would be driving and less oil would be consumed. I think a gas tax would be a better way to raise funds for that purpose, but there are people in the mainstream media at least talking about transit. With any luck, someone might even make the leap to say that something like 30/10 is worth funding  RT |
|
elray
Junior Member
Posts: 84
|
Post by elray on Mar 8, 2011 14:05:13 GMT -8
They were discussing last night whether to tap the strategic petroleum reserve because of the higher gas prices. One of the guys being interviewed said that if they did sell off some of that oil, it should be used to immediately expand and subsidize transit options so that less people would be driving and less oil would be consumed. I think a gas tax would be a better way to raise funds for that purpose, but there are people in the mainstream media at least talking about transit. With any luck, someone might even make the leap to say that something like 30/10 is worth funding RT Me thinks someone is trying to not let a good crisis go to waste... $4/gallon gas is sufficient to retard consumption habits. We don't need to add more gas tax, nor do we need to tap our modest reserves. If we see speculation, not demand, driving oil to $200 overnight, maybe that would warrant some intervention, but otherwise, I just can't see any justification. Mass transit is already heavily subsidized. How much more money that we don't have, are we to invest, to convert how few new riders? Parts of 30/10 might be worth funding, but we're probably going have to work a bit harder to make a convincing case to the current Congress. Not sure they're going to be sold when you consider who is minding the store, and their fiscal/fiduciary track records. |
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Mar 8, 2011 23:05:51 GMT -8
Mass transit is already heavily subsidized. How much more money that we don't have, are we to invest, to convert how few new riders? Driving is heavily subsidized. Zoning laws require 2 or more parking spaces for every new apartment or house built in Los Angeles and most other cities. And all the streets have "free" parking. The gas tax only raises about 1/2 the cost of road maintenance and construction, even in California which has just about the highest gas tax in the nation. Most of road costs are paid for by sales and property taxes, especially for city streets. And I didn't even mention wars or the military. In all, the externalized costs of driving are probably well over $0.50 a mile, and up to $1.00 a mile in cities with congestion (e.g. Los Angeles), due to the cost of wasted time. In Europe, however, they have more reasonable gas taxes of over 70 cents a liter (about $4 to $5 a gallon), which were added to reduce imported oil. That pays for transit, roads, and reduces other taxes, while reducing driving to about 1/2 as much as in California. |
|
|
|
Post by erict on Mar 10, 2011 15:19:08 GMT -8
I find the time I now "waste" sitting in traffic to be far less than the time I used to waste waiting for mass transit, and it is much more pleasant. Nothing in 30/10 will change that one bit. Cough, cough, wheeze..sorry the smog was getting to me. We pay for everything we do one way or another, from sitting in time wasting traffic to polluting our air and city. I see 30/10 as being worth every dime and not half as much as what is really needed. Mass transit is not for everyone, but I think most people would like an alternative to the above. |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 10, 2011 15:43:13 GMT -8
Driving is heavily subsidized. Zoning laws require 2 or more parking spaces for every new apartment or house built in Los Angeles and most other cities. And all the streets have "free" parking. The gas tax only raises about 1/2 the cost of road maintenance and construction, even in California which has just about the highest gas tax in the nation. Most of road costs are paid for by sales and property taxes, especially for city streets. And I didn't even mention wars or the military. In all, the externalized costs of driving are probably well over $0.50 a mile, and up to $1.00 a mile in cities with congestion (e.g. Los Angeles), due to the cost of wasted time. In Europe, however, they have more reasonable gas taxes of over 70 cents a liter (about $4 to $5 a gallon), which were added to reduce imported oil. That pays for transit, roads, and reduces other taxes, while reducing driving to about 1/2 as much as in California. I didn't said cars pay their way. I'd be happy to see massive tollway implementation, and I don't have any issue with putting a price on public parking. I'm not so keen on much more gas tax, its not as tangible as other usage charges, and I'd rather see new gas tax go towards alternative fuel development. What I asked was HOW MUCH MORE we're supposed to further subsidize mass transit, for what theoretical marginal gain? I find the time I now "waste" sitting in traffic to be far less than the time I used to waste waiting for mass transit, and it is much more pleasant. Nothing in 30/10 will change that one bit. For many young people the time spent on a train or bus can be spent on their smartphone whereas driving you are stuck listening to the radio. While many people drive and text and read their phone at the same time, this is very dangerous and illegal even if it isn't heavily enforced now. For the younger generation, a car just isn't as important as it was for earlier generations. There are other ways to express oneself now. For me, traffic is so bad where I live that 30/10 will open up a part of the city that is nearly impossible to get to now after I get off work. There will be substantial time savings over driving a car, which can't be said for many rail projects around the county, but is why I believe certain lines that can save time off similar car commutes will have substantial ridership. |
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Mar 10, 2011 16:09:01 GMT -8
For many young people the time spent on a train or bus can be spent on their smartphone whereas driving you are stuck listening to the radio. While many people drive and text and read their phone at the same time, this is very dangerous and illegal even if it isn't heavily enforced now. For the younger generation, a car just isn't as important as it was for earlier generations. There are other ways to express oneself now. For me, traffic is so bad where I live that 30/10 will open up a part of the city that is nearly impossible to get to now after I get off work. There will be substantial time savings over driving a car, which can't be said for many rail projects around the county, but is why I believe certain lines that can save time off similar car commutes will have substantial ridership. Agreed with masonite. Either I can drive the 50 minutes from Downtown LA to Santa Monica for work each day, or I can take the Big Blue Bus 10 for about an 1 hr and 5 minutes, but I can read, sleep, Twitter, watch YouTube, read/answer e-mails or play Angry Birds. I enjoy the time spent on the bus, versus watching the road. Let somebody else do the driving. I get more accomplished. |
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Mar 10, 2011 19:40:57 GMT -8
Agreed with masonite. Either I can drive the 50 minutes from Downtown LA to Santa Monica for work each day, or I can take the Big Blue Bus 10 for about an 1 hr and 5 minutes, but I can read, sleep, Twitter, watch YouTube, read/answer e-mails or play Angry Birds. I enjoy the time spent on the bus, versus watching the road. Let somebody else do the driving. I get more accomplished. And if you drive on the 10 at rush hour, when it is over capacity, you slow down every other car by another 10 or 20 seconds. Multiplied over 10,000 people, you waste several hours of valuable time, verus saving a few minutes compared to taking transit. But this time is stolen from other drivers. Its a classic "tragedy of the commons" problem, where everyone drives, which means everyone gets to work much slower than they would if just 1/2 of people took transit or carpooled. That's why we need incentives to encourage people to carpool and use transit, if only to make DRIVING better. Of course, there are really many other good benefits of transit as well (independence for people who can't drive, more affordable and walkable communities, less money wasted on imported oil, less pollution, etc). Yet we subsidize driving even more than transit, so there is really no incentive to take it now, and so only 10% of people do. |
|
elray
Junior Member
Posts: 84
|
Post by elray on Mar 11, 2011 0:19:40 GMT -8
For many young people the time spent on a train or bus can be spent on their smartphone whereas driving you are stuck listening to the radio. While many people drive and text and read their phone at the same time, this is very dangerous and illegal even if it isn't heavily enforced now. For the younger generation, a car just isn't as important as it was for earlier generations. There are other ways to express oneself now. That's a pretty broad assumption, and it contradicts every single encounter I've had with bus-riding-youth in the past decade. I'll give 'them' credit for being more practical than I expect, but they're all wanting to buy cars, to get off the bus. Not for personal expression, but to save time. I have no desire to own a car. I just can't see wasting two hours any day waiting for buses that may, or may not come, and my lady ain't gonna walk a mile to a transit stop. So we'll be driving. |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 11, 2011 1:10:11 GMT -8
For many young people the time spent on a train or bus can be spent on their smartphone whereas driving you are stuck listening to the radio. While many people drive and text and read their phone at the same time, this is very dangerous and illegal even if it isn't heavily enforced now. For the younger generation, a car just isn't as important as it was for earlier generations. There are other ways to express oneself now. That's a pretty broad assumption, and it contradicts every single encounter I've had with bus-riding-youth in the past decade. I'll give 'them' credit for being more practical than I expect, but they're all wanting to buy cars, to get off the bus. Not for personal expression, but to save time. I have no desire to own a car. I just can't see wasting two hours any day waiting for buses that may, or may not come, and my lady ain't gonna walk a mile to a transit stop. So we'll be driving. You mention just the bus. Yes, of course, if one is spending 2-3 hours on a bus when they could be spending 1 hour in a car stuck in traffic they are going to want to go with a car. However, as Metrorail is expanded and becomes more competitive with the car, this won't be the case when compared with train/metro travel. You mention that 30/10 won't change your travel one bit and you will stick with your car no matter what. Sorry, that just isn't going to be the case with younger folk, especially as petrol prices continue to skyrocket. |
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Mar 11, 2011 9:18:59 GMT -8
That's a pretty broad assumption, and it contradicts every single encounter I've had with bus-riding-youth in the past decade. I'll give 'them' credit for being more practical than I expect, but they're all wanting to buy cars, to get off the bus. Not for personal expression, but to save time. I have no desire to own a car. I just can't see wasting two hours any day waiting for buses that may, or may not come, and my lady ain't gonna walk a mile to a transit stop. So we'll be driving. Young people would rather move into urban areas than suburban areas. There's plenty of articles discussing this trend over the last decade to support this theory, hence the reason why cities are growing with youth who demand more transit service. Now, a youth that lives in Riverside probably wants a car like you said...but today, more and more youth are moving into the inner core of cities and would rather spend the money on technology ($100/month for phone with data services) than spending it on the car. Plus, the youth would rather play Angry Birds, be on Twitter, or Facebook...i.e. social media stuff than be stuck behind the car. Why do I know this? Because I'm a professional in the 20's, who'd rather spend more productive time on social networking sites and e-mail. By the way, you are also using an extreme example of using a "lady to walk a mile for transit". That lady probably lives in the outer suburbs (exburbs) and sees no need for public transit. She's not the young person who seeks public transit service, the rest of us who moved into downtown LA, Hollywood, etc.. we do. You can't live in a suburb or exburb and expect frequent rail and bus service. It won't happen. Be reasonable. |
|
elray
Junior Member
Posts: 84
|
Post by elray on Mar 15, 2011 8:16:56 GMT -8
Young people would rather move into urban areas than suburban areas. There's plenty of articles discussing this trend over the last decade to support this theory, hence the reason why cities are growing with youth who demand more transit service. Now, a youth that lives in Riverside probably wants a car like you said...but today, more and more youth are moving into the inner core of cities and would rather spend the money on technology ($100/month for phone with data services) than spending it on the car. Plus, the youth would rather play Angry Birds, be on Twitter, or Facebook...i.e. social media stuff than be stuck behind the car. Why do I know this? Because I'm a professional in the 20's, who'd rather spend more productive time on social networking sites and e-mail. By the way, you are also using an extreme example of using a "lady to walk a mile for transit". That lady probably lives in the outer suburbs (exburbs) and sees no need for public transit. She's not the young person who seeks public transit service, the rest of us who moved into downtown LA, Hollywood, etc.. we do. You can't live in a suburb or exburb and expect frequent rail and bus service. It won't happen. Be reasonable. In my post, I referred to "my lady", not "a lady". I don't think that she's exceptional, demographic-wise. Most women I've known in my life aren't going to walk a mile to a transit stop. I wish that wasn't the case, but it is the world country we live in. We don't live in the suburbs. But service is dismal, rail service is non-existent. When rail comes to town, thanks to very recent, last-minute political manipulation, it will be of no relevance to us, and BBB plans will make bus service worse, not better. So we made the reluctant and costly commitment to drive. I think your assignment to "young people", is so far off the mark, as to be daft. Maybe commuting from/about downtown LA, you're in a poverty+transit bubble where the local youth seem resigned to ride the bus, but that's not an endorsement on their part. Given the choice between waiting (wasting) an hour or more per day waiting for and riding the bus and paying $100/month for technology to play Angry Birds versus driving, I'd be very surprised to find any significant population that would choose the former. I understand reading/entertainment as diversion from the tedium of the wait, and I get that for some, its preferable to driving (I loathe driving), but most people value their time. |
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Mar 15, 2011 8:54:04 GMT -8
In my post, I referred to "my lady", not "a lady". I don't think that she's exceptional, demographic-wise. Most women I've known in my life aren't going to walk a mile to a transit stop. I wish that wasn't the case, but it is the world country we live in. We don't live in the suburbs. But service is dismal, rail service is non-existent. When rail comes to town, thanks to very recent, last-minute political manipulation, it will be of no relevance to us, and BBB plans will make bus service worse, not better. So we made the reluctant and costly commitment to drive. I think your assignment to "young people", is so far off the mark, as to be daft. Maybe commuting from/about downtown LA, you're in a poverty+transit bubble where the local youth seem resigned to ride the bus, but that's not an endorsement on their part. Given the choice between waiting (wasting) an hour or more per day waiting for and riding the bus and paying $100/month for technology to play Angry Birds versus driving, I'd be very surprised to find any significant population that would choose the former. I understand reading/entertainment as diversion from the tedium of the wait, and I get that for some, its preferable to driving (I loathe driving), but most people value their time. I fail to see how any of the BBB changes make service worse. In fact, BBB is doing better integration with Metro rail by connecting with Wilshire/Western and eventually re-routing the 5 and 12 to connect with Expo Line. Where do you live? I guess living in downtown LA for myself makes transit simple as all rail lines (sans Green Line) go in and out of downtown and buses also go in/out of downtown LA. Now, if you live in Santa Monica and need to commute to Long Beach, then I can see that's a problem that needs to be addressed. By the way, some people value money over time. I can spend $300/month on gas, maintenance and parking...or I can spend $75 on a Metro pass, which my company covers 100%. |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 15, 2011 15:43:27 GMT -8
Young people would rather move into urban areas than suburban areas. There's plenty of articles discussing this trend over the last decade to support this theory, hence the reason why cities are growing with youth who demand more transit service. Now, a youth that lives in Riverside probably wants a car like you said...but today, more and more youth are moving into the inner core of cities and would rather spend the money on technology ($100/month for phone with data services) than spending it on the car. Plus, the youth would rather play Angry Birds, be on Twitter, or Facebook...i.e. social media stuff than be stuck behind the car. Why do I know this? Because I'm a professional in the 20's, who'd rather spend more productive time on social networking sites and e-mail. By the way, you are also using an extreme example of using a "lady to walk a mile for transit". That lady probably lives in the outer suburbs (exburbs) and sees no need for public transit. She's not the young person who seeks public transit service, the rest of us who moved into downtown LA, Hollywood, etc.. we do. You can't live in a suburb or exburb and expect frequent rail and bus service. It won't happen. Be reasonable. In my post, I referred to "my lady", not "a lady". I don't think that she's exceptional, demographic-wise. Most women I've known in my life aren't going to walk a mile to a transit stop. I wish that wasn't the case, but it is the world country we live in. We don't live in the suburbs. But service is dismal, rail service is non-existent. When rail comes to town, thanks to very recent, last-minute political manipulation, it will be of no relevance to us, and BBB plans will make bus service worse, not better. So we made the reluctant and costly commitment to drive. I think your assignment to "young people", is so far off the mark, as to be daft. Maybe commuting from/about downtown LA, you're in a poverty+transit bubble where the local youth seem resigned to ride the bus, but that's not an endorsement on their part. Given the choice between waiting (wasting) an hour or more per day waiting for and riding the bus and paying $100/month for technology to play Angry Birds versus driving, I'd be very surprised to find any significant population that would choose the former. I understand reading/entertainment as diversion from the tedium of the wait, and I get that for some, its preferable to driving (I loathe driving), but most people value their time. Not sure where you live, but most people do not have to walk a mile to a bus stop. In fact, when I was growing up in a rather distant LA suburb I did not have to walk anywhere near that far to the nearest bus stop. You talk about wasting an extra hour on the bus. Sure that is the case when you are talking about transfers and such, but for many people they end up living where it is easier to get to where they are going. Also, most of us on this board are supporting a more extensive rail system where rail will be the backbone of travel across the city and not bus (with busses still playing an important role for the last mile or two connections and so forth). When I was in my 20s, I took the Wilshire bus and then subway all the way from West of the 405 to my office Downtown when I wasn't in the field. It was about an extra 10-15 minutes, but saved me parking fees and a lot of traffic-related stress. You also talk about last minute political decisions making rail not useful for you when it is built. No idea as to what you are referring to other than maybe you were advocating for a Venice/Sepulveda Blvd. Expo Phase II line. That was hardly a last minute political decision though. |
|
elray
Junior Member
Posts: 84
|
Post by elray on Mar 15, 2011 22:02:57 GMT -8
I fail to see how any of the BBB changes make service worse. In fact, BBB is doing better integration with Metro rail by connecting with Wilshire/Western and eventually re-routing the 5 and 12 to connect with Expo Line. By the way, some people value money over time. I can spend $300/month on gas, maintenance and parking...or I can spend $75 on a Metro pass, which my company covers 100%. What you fail to see: 1) Decreased Local 7 service - in favor of more Rapid 7's, a move based on questionable statistics. 2) Removing Route 2 service along 4th street south. 3) Cutting various service to UCLA, moving more to Ackerman. 4) Re-routing of #11 to favor Expo 5) Cutting #10 stops - still unclear which. All of these degrade service for us. Yes, they're minor cuts, but they're making OK-to-Fair-to-Poor service worse, not better. I value money, time, and sanity. I pay about that same $300/month post-tax to own/operate/fuel/insure/park/replace the car, figuring a two-year lifespan for the vehicle (conservative figures). Roughly speaking, that's about double what car-free costs me. But for my extra $150, not having to wait an indeterminate amount of time for a coach that doesn't show is, as they say in the MC commercial, "priceless". |
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Mar 15, 2011 22:41:31 GMT -8
Here's your source about generation Y and cars: www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/forecast/archive/no-cars-for-generation-y.htmlI take the 10 bus everyday to work and I was at the Santa Monica library meeting and only 1 person had something to criticize about the 10, otherwise everyone was for the new Rapid stop service. Moving to more Rapid 7 and less Local 7 makes tons of sense. It's like saying you want more Local 20 and less Rapid 720, which makes no sense on a congested corridors. Rapids get you to your destination faster. Locals stop nearly 1/8th of a mile. Do the math and check the time savings. Re-routing the #11? Did I miss this? I think you went to the wrong meeting. The Ackerman terminal is not a Big Blue Bus decision, that's UCLA's, they own the land. Again, this was explained in the meeting. Big Blue Bus didn't want to do this, but UCLA is requiring them to reduce 30% service to Ackerman and no bus service after 8 pm. So who's to blame? Big Blue Bus or UCLA? Fight your aggression to the right person. And when you say all this "degrades service for us"...who is "us"? What about the Santa Monica college students who commute from DTLA via the BBB # 10 on a local and then have to take the local # 7 to SMC from Pico/Bundy? A Rapid, with increased frequency (again, an IMPROVEMENT) will get them their faster. What about the professionals who commute via the #10 from DTLA to Santa Monica and reverse. What about the elderly who love to shop on Pico boulevard and commute to downtown Santa Monica? Transit is not all about the poor, which is what I assume you are talking about. It's about moving people, rich, middle-class or poor. I agree on the #2 bus with you, that is what it is. But you either keep the #2 and then you reduce even more # 7 service, that's the economic reality. Again, is that Big Blue Bus problem or the politicans who want to reduce transit spending and give us tax cuts instead (which actually reduces benefits for "us"). By the way, you never answered where you lived? Because we're still wondering why you are walking a mile to a bus stop when you live in an urban area, as you say. |
|
elray
Junior Member
Posts: 84
|
Post by elray on Mar 15, 2011 23:36:57 GMT -8
Not sure where you live, but most people do not have to walk a mile to a bus stop. In fact, when I was growing up in a rather distant LA suburb I did not have to walk anywhere near that far to the nearest bus stop. Actually, what I said was "Most women ... aren't going to walk a mile to a transit stop". Expo will now be a 1-mile jaunt for us, where it was about half that before. She won't be walking, and she won't be taking a bus to get there. One does walk a mile to a bus stop - if you are "served" by rapid bus, and/or the local service has been cut back, or runs infrequent/full so as to pass you up. You also get to wait for the local to pass you up before you decide to walk that mile and wait again. I've more often walked that mile than wait for the local transfer. Coming home, in many cases, there is no service to transfer to, so a mile walk happens on a non-optional basis. On the return leg, it doesn't concern me much. You talk about wasting an extra hour on the bus. Sure that is the case when you are talking about transfers and such, but for many people they end up living where it is easier to get to where they are going. Also, most of us on this board are supporting a more extensive rail system where rail will be the backbone of travel across the city and not bus (with busses still playing an important role for the last mile or two connections and so forth). Actually, I spoke of wasting time WAITING for, as well as riding - the latter to be generous. Much could be done to improve crosstown speeds from 11mph to close to even 25, but they won't, and slow/meandering doesn't bother me - its the wait. Transfer requirements only compound the wait. When you stated "Most people don't have to walk a mile to a bus stop", you added a transfer requirement that wasn't there before. Sure, we'd all like to live where we work, or on a single-seat ride to and from - but that's a pipe dream for most couples, and the rental housing market is so ... pathetic ... that you won't find the aforementioned other halves wanting to relocate much. When I was in my 20s, I took the Wilshire bus and then subway all the way from West of the 405 to my office Downtown when I wasn't in the field. It was about an extra 10-15 minutes, but saved me parking fees and a lot of traffic-related stress. You also talk about last minute political decisions making rail not useful for you when it is built. No idea as to what you are referring to other than maybe you were advocating for a Venice/Sepulveda Blvd. Expo Phase II line. That was hardly a last minute political decision though. I always supported the ROW routing based on cost and speed. That portion of Expo has never changed. The western end of the line, however, did see some very significant changes in the last few months of its 55+year sleep, the result of a very clever last-minute campaign sponsored by the usual elites. History will be the judge as to how wise that decision was. |
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Mar 16, 2011 0:14:04 GMT -8
It takes less than 10 minutes to go one mile on a bike!
Bike to expo will be a great option for you.
|
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Mar 16, 2011 6:42:03 GMT -8
elray............you are still not telling us your location....
By the way, most men won't walk a mile to a bus stop either, a train is a different story.
"Expo will now be a 1-mile jaunt for us, where it was about half that before. She won't be walking, and she won't be taking a bus to get there."
- how is that possible that it was "half that before" when service hasn't even started..........ever???
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Mar 16, 2011 8:01:04 GMT -8
Actually, what I said was "Most women ... aren't going to walk a mile to a transit stop". Expo will now be a 1-mile jaunt for us, where it was about half that before. She won't be walking, and she won't be taking a bus to get there. I wouldn't want to speak for "most women", but in general I agree. Women that I know tend to prefer not to walk a mile through the city in the dark unless it is on a busy, well-lit street. There is an issue of safety, real or perceived. It would be good to get a woman's perspective here on the forum: but alas, it seems like our group is completely made up of men. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Mar 16, 2011 8:01:21 GMT -8
The choice of driving vs. transit is not simple. There are many factors, including total monetary cost of each option, commute distance, availability of transit options, and other personal factors (for example, the need to work during non-standard hours).
As for the cost of commuting by transit, it is the total of (a) the price of the fare, (b) the time to travel on each transit vehicle, (c) the time to wait for each transit vehicle, (d) the time to walk/bike to each end, (e) the risk of delay due to system/vehicle breakdown, and (f) lack of flexibility (must commute during rush hour or pay time penalty).
Driving, on the other hand, incurs (a) the cost of gas, (b) the cost of the car, (c) car insurance, (d) car maintenance, (e) cost of parking, (f) risk of accidents, (g) the work of driving with other stupid drivers, (h) time to travel in traffic, and (i) risk of delay due to congestion and/or accidents.
The average Joe-Blow normal person is not a transit advocate. He/she is going to choose transit if it costs less (including all the costs listed above). I don't think it's fair to characterize anybody as lazy or inflexible for not taking transit, without understanding their full situation.
|
|
elray
Junior Member
Posts: 84
|
Post by elray on Mar 16, 2011 17:43:01 GMT -8
Kiplinger is a fairly credible source. Maybe they've gone soft. But good cite. I'd be interested to see how much spin the author read into his "mind-set" statement - survey results always depend on how you phrase the questions... I take the 10 bus everyday to work and I was at the Santa Monica library meeting and only 1 person had something to criticize about the 10, otherwise everyone was for the new Rapid stop service. Moving to more Rapid 7 and less Local 7 makes tons of sense. It's like saying you want more Local 20 and less Rapid 720, which makes no sense on a congested corridors. Rapids get you to your destination faster. Locals stop nearly 1/8th of a mile. Do the math and check the time savings. I talked with BBB (Dawson?) about the logic behind the 7 change. I was satisfied that they understood how they might misinterpret their sampling, and will interrogate it over the year. I still think they're wrong, but I'm not a fan of "Rapid" anyway. If you don't live at the designated intersection, you get to walk an extra 3-5 blocks on four sides of your trip. There goes your time savings. In other locales, "Rapid" means walking a LOT farther. Re-routing the #11? Did I miss this? I think you went to the wrong meeting. Old habits die hard. Apparently #11 has been recycled. What used to be the #11 - now CrossTown Mini-Blue something. I only noted the new loop pattern from the powerpoint. I didn't go to the meetings, I don't have that luxury this year. I'm still getting over my time wasted at Expo meetings... And when you say all this "degrades service for us"...who is "us"? What about the Santa Monica college students who commute from DTLA via the BBB # 10 on a local and then have to take the local # 7 to SMC from Pico/Bundy? A Rapid, with increased frequency (again, an IMPROVEMENT) will get them their faster. What about the professionals who commute via the #10 from DTLA to Santa Monica and reverse. What about the elderly who love to shop on Pico boulevard and commute to downtown Santa Monica? Transit is not all about the poor, which is what I assume you are talking about. It's about moving people, rich, middle-class or poor. There are obvious class lines on different runs and routes. In some parts of town, bus ridership is de facto - kids grow up accepting it as fate, as a limited horizon. That they are so conditioned, that they make wise economic choices NOT to buy a car does not mean they prefer mass transit. Increased RAPID frequency is NOT an improvement, for me. My trip(s) will take longer. I agree on the #2 bus with you, that is what it is. But you either keep the #2 and then you reduce even more # 7 service, that's the economic reality. Again, is that Big Blue Bus problem or the politicans who want to reduce transit spending and give us tax cuts instead (which actually reduces benefits for "us"). I understand compromises will be made, based on some particular formula (and sometimes audience input), and we'll live through it. But it was you said you did not see how the changes would negatively impact us. That "us" is our household. I'm ready to sacrifice our one interest for the good of the many - but I'm not convinced its just "us" who are being degraded, I'm not convinced always that the many will benefit. I don't know how much you make; maybe you aren't yet considered "rich" by the state of California ($47K), but those pols who want to cut taxes and spending aren't all wrong. I'm sure we could both sit down and find agreement onhuge public sector expenditures that are just insane - and only disagree on what to do with the savings. By the way, you never answered where you lived? Because we're still wondering why you are walking a mile to a bus stop when you live in an urban area, as you say. I neglect that because the web never forgets, my specific address isn't that relevant. We've had just enough identity-theft issues to keep things a bit vague. But for round terms, you could say we live at 14th & Bay. As I iterated in another post, I typically walk that mile because it is faster than waiting for a connecting line / transfer that often fails to meet its stated schedule, or there is no service at all. |
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Mar 16, 2011 19:26:11 GMT -8
Kiplinger is a fairly credible source. Maybe they've gone soft. But good cite. I'd be interested to see how much spin the author read into his "mind-set" statement - survey results always depend on how you phrase the questions... There have been several studies with the same findings released over the past few months. I will post them if I can find them again. |
|
