|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Sept 30, 2007 11:29:57 GMT -8
I came across a public service announcement the other night for Friday Night Lights, and the gist was that having other people in your car are distractions, so next time you think of driving, it may be better to do it alone.
What the f***? I guess the auto industry has figured they cannot compete on convenience, price, quality of life....so they hide behind the reasons of "safety" and "distractions".
|
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Sept 30, 2007 18:04:11 GMT -8
I haven't seen that PSA and not sure how it has ties to that TV show on NBC (if it's still running). On the flipside, there is a sitcom that would promote carpooling on ABC called Carpoolers, not sure when it's starting, but it should show the good side of carpooling.
|
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Oct 1, 2007 15:06:38 GMT -8
Maybe they can make a sitcom about people who ride the subway....
Uh oh... I'd better stake my claim before some TV writer steals my idea off this thread !!!
|
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Oct 1, 2007 16:25:37 GMT -8
I met somebody who had a 10 minute walk to their office in Century City, but chose to drive instead b/c of free parking. F'n ridiculous. Imagine if parking was not free and abundant, then people would have to take transit (i.e. San Francisco, New York). Our parking garages are the biggest reason for people not taking metro.
Look at some of our new developments, there's a 1,200 space parking garage being built under an Archstone complex which is on top of a Gold Line station. What's the purpose of the train if parking is abudant? In my opinion, parking is obstacle # 1. Everybody's first response for going somewhere is "what about the parking", it's like they won't even consider Metro.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Oct 1, 2007 17:24:22 GMT -8
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that California has a law that requires that employers that pay for employee parking give employees the option to instead take the money and use it for public transportation. This doesn't mean anything for the vast number of people that work in suburban style office buildings that come with free parking but for people that work in downtowns or in the many other buildings that have pay lots it's an option. I got the impression from HR at my company that very few people choose the public transportation option.
|
|
|
|
Post by mattapoisett on Oct 1, 2007 18:26:05 GMT -8
To Quote a Newsletter from CARB: California law requires certain employers who pay for all or part of their employees’ parking to offer them cash in lieu of a parking space. The intent of the “parking cash-out” law is to reduce congestion and pollution by offering employees the option of “cashing out” their subsidized parking space. You may need to provide your employees the option of cash in lieu of parking if you: ! Employ at least 50 people; ! Subsidize parking that you do not own; ! Can calculate the out-of-pocket expense of the parking subsidies; and ! Can reduce the number of parking spaces without penalty in any lease agreements. |
|
|
|
Post by dasubergeek on Oct 2, 2007 10:49:08 GMT -8
I met somebody who had a 10 minute walk to their office in Century City, but chose to drive instead b/c of free parking. F'n ridiculous. Imagine if parking was not free and abundant, then people would have to take transit (i.e. San Francisco, New York). Our parking garages are the biggest reason for people not taking metro. Look at some of our new developments, there's a 1,200 space parking garage being built under an Archstone complex which is on top of a Gold Line station. What's the purpose of the train if parking is abudant? In my opinion, parking is obstacle # 1. Everybody's first response for going somewhere is "what about the parking", it's like they won't even consider Metro. Metro buses don't work for me. They simply don't. For example, I need to go from my office to a meeting on Alameda in Burbank today, and the drive is 10 minutes -- literally, including parking. The cost of the parking is paid by the company (though, to be fair, they would pay for the bus ticket too). To take public transit, I have two options: a 15-minute walk to the Burbank Transportation Centre and then take line 155 from there to Alameda and Pass, or a 20-minute walk to Alameda and Main and take line 155 from there. In either case, I have to wait for the bus, which comes approximately whenever it gets there -- the schedule being an utter fiction. The second a bus trip involves a transfer, it immediately becomes a trip that "costs" more (time vs. actual cash outlay) than driving would be. My trip from my old home in Valley Glen (we're not Van Nuys, we're not we're not we're not!) to my old office in Studio City required me to take the 167 down Coldwater and then get on the 150/240 on Ventura. The 167 only runs once or twice an hour, and it never interfaced well. I tried it for a week and after I discovered that the 6-mile trip was taking me an hour to an hour and a half, I stopped. Bus-to-rail is not such a problem, and bus-to-Orange Line isn't a problem. In cities like New York and San Francisco, local buses run so frequently that there's no need for a bus schedule, and you're rarely waiting longer than 10 minutes. The trains in LA are fine -- they run on schedule (usually), so even though Metrolink takes longer than driving, I'm usually OK with it since the stress level is less. I love taking transit -- but even as a transit-loving geek from New York, who lived in Paris AND San Francisco, when it takes so long and driving IS an option, I drive. |
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Oct 17, 2007 8:55:13 GMT -8
I have a friend who lives at 6th & Vermont; she has to go to our downtown office about twice a month. She never considers taking the Red/Purple lines. And, the biggest reason is b/c it only takes her "10 minutes" to get between Vermont to Grand Avenue. This is during rush hour. Can you see the big problem?
|
|
|
|
Post by antonio on Oct 28, 2007 15:58:08 GMT -8
Having personally riden the Red Line from Union Station to Vermont/Wilshire everyday for two years (just 10 minutes of my 40 min commute everyday) I can assure you that it only takes 5 minutes to get from vermont wilshire to metro center and then a minute to walk a block over to grand
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Oct 28, 2007 20:24:59 GMT -8
I know this isn't against Metro, but I was passed by 3 Big Blue Buses today. It's not fun, and I had to abandon my plans for this morning.
|
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Dec 26, 2007 20:25:21 GMT -8
Pretty interesting article in the LA Times about the prospect of $4/gallon gas in 2008: www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-gas27dec27,0,7315706.story?coll=la-home-center Check out this quote in there: "Jessica Bunge, a 25-year-old designer about to unveil her first line of clothes, said changes would be in order if gasoline reached $4 a gallon and stayed there. "We'd get rid of one of our cars and my boyfriend would take the subway to work," Bunge said. "I already work at home. We all need to find new routines to deal with these prices."" If high gas prices are a way to get people to use L.A. transit...then fantastic! |
|
|
|
Post by nickv on Dec 26, 2007 22:04:27 GMT -8
From the Los Angeles Times
State may see $4 gasoline in '08
By Ronald D. White
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
4:53 PM PST, December 26, 2007
Gasoline could cost an average of $3.75 a gallon nationwide in the next four months, pushing the price in California up and over the $4 mark, energy analysts predicted today.
They said several factors were pointing toward a nightmarish spring for motorists, including persistently strong crude oil prices and the fact that the traditional December drop in pump prices didn't materialize.
Americans will start 2008 paying about 65 cents more than they did last year, according to the forecasts, and may well see self-serve regular going for $3.50-$3.75 a gallon by April.
In California -- where the price this year has run as high as 50 cents a gallon more than the national average -- $4 gasoline "will no longer be considered a rogue number," said Tom Kloza, chief oil analyst for the Oil Price Information Service. "It will list for that much in a lot of places."
The average price of a gallon dipped 1.8 cents to $2.980 nationwide on Monday and fell 2.4 cents to $3.261 in California, the Energy Department's weekly survey of filling stations found.
Both numbers were lower than a week ago -- but much higher than a year ago. Back then, the national average was $2.341 and the California average was $2.607.
The price of crude oil futures today rose $1.54 to $95.97 a barrel for February delivery on the New York Mercantile Exchange. The Energy Department said oil could average $85 a barrel in 2008, up from $72 this year.
Marie Montgomery, a spokeswoman for the Automobile Club of Southern California, said it was "unprecedented having prices this high at the end of the year."
Motorists found the predictions infuriating.
"It's absurd, ridiculous," said Eric Mills, 40, a special event coordinator for the entertainment industry as he filled up for $3.399 a gasoline at a downtown Los Angeles Shell station. "Every year I hear about fuel cells and other promising alternative fuel possibilities and every year I'm still putting gasoline in my car."
Jessica Bunge, a 25-year-old designer about to unveil her first line of clothes, said changes would be in order if gasoline reached $4 a gallon and stayed there.
"We'd get rid of one of our cars and my boyfriend would take the subway to work," Bunge said. "I already work at home. We all need to find new routines to deal with these prices."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at latimes.com/archives.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Dec 26, 2007 22:07:32 GMT -8
Scene: A public library. A man asks the librarian "where are the bus timetables?" and is told, "They're in the Fiction section."
|
|
|
|
Post by wad on Dec 29, 2007 5:39:18 GMT -8
Scene: A public library. A man asks the librarian "where are the bus timetables?" and is told, "They're in the Fiction section." Rim shot. Try the veal.  |
|
|
|
Post by wad on Jan 1, 2008 4:23:06 GMT -8
Having personally riden the Red Line from Union Station to Vermont/Wilshire everyday for two years (just 10 minutes of my 40 min commute everyday) I can assure you that it only takes 5 minutes to get from vermont wilshire to metro center and then a minute to walk a block over to grand Most people who live here use L.A. time. It's how time feels to the individual observer. A bus trip takes three hours because it feels like three hours. This is a widely accepted measurement here.  |
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jan 1, 2008 14:33:07 GMT -8
Biggest problem we have is parking structures. Angelenos have been trained very well by the local government, that humongous garages are needed by our destinations. I.e. the Grove 10 story behemoth, L.A. Live w/ 5,300 spaces, Grand Avenue w/ 2,600 spaces, The Pike in downtown Long Beach w/ 3,000 +, etc... It's too convenient for me to drive into a parking garage and take an elevator up/down to my destination. Whereas, w/ Metro, it requires me to walk 2 blocks to my station, get to the destination, and walk 3 - 5 more blocks.
I took the Metro last night to Universal City. It's pathetic that the garage is w/in steps of Citywalk, whereas the tram to the Red Line station STOPPED running after 10:30 pm. Hundreds of people used the Metro to get to Citywalk for the New Year celebration, unfortunately, the Metro patrons had to walk down to the station (about 1/4 mile hike). On top of it, the cars were actually faster b/c of the efficiency/effectivness of our parking garage system. I wish it was more turbulent like San Francisco...it may get people to think about taking transit.
By the way..I bet the tram stopped running b/c it would get in the way of personal automobile traffic. Pathetic.
|
|
