"who actually lives in Lakewood"--I like that.

I should be clear -- Don Waldie is more Angeleno than most of us, loves the city and writes elegantly about it. The reference to Lakewood, where he happens to live and work, was my ham-handed attempt to allude to his exquisite book about suburban life, "Holy Land," which was set in his hometown. As Waldie says, we're all Angelenos here.

I went from the Los Feliz area to LAX by public transport once. It took two buses to get me to the blue line terminal downtown; after the blue line I took the green line and then had to take a shuttle bus. That time, plus the time waiting for the flight, the flight itself, plus the time at getting out of the destination airport, took somewhere over 4 hours.

The flight was to San Jose, which I've driven in 4.5 hours.

Boring anecdote or data point, you decide.

I'd love to take the train from Pasadena but it doesn't go anywhere I actually want to go. It's not stopping at the Music Center, nor at the Beverly Center or LACMA. It doesn't get anywhere near Norton Simon or the Huntington, despite what the maps tell you. And I can't take an hour to go to Hollywood/Highland.

Don had a point, but I don't think of public transport as an exercise in social engineering. Taking the train should be about ease and convenience, not "eat your spinach".

Like Kate, I would love to use the trains and other mode of public transport, but they invariably a) take too long, and b) in the case of trains, don't seem to go anywhere. Oh, and c) if you do go somewhere on the train, you'd better be prepared to stay all day where ever it is you end up. Because they don't run all that often.

Coupla corrections here, kids. Kate, the Music Center is two blocks from the Civic Center Red Line(subway) station. During rush hour, you can drive to Hollywood/Highland in less than an hour, from Pasadena? Impressive.
Laurie, the red/blue/green/gold run at 10 minute intervals during peak peariods, sometimes less, and never more than 20 minutes between trains non-peak hours. They start at about 5AM and go 'til 1AM. I guess that yes, for 4 hours a day they don't run that often. Lonewacko person, I think you made a simple mistake in your choice of transit to LAX. People love rail and gravitate to it, but for you a two-seat ride via bus would have been much faster. Skip the blue-to-green-to-shuttle next time and call the MTA or use their online trip planner. It's never gonna beat driving solo, though. That's a standard that rarely can be beat. Plus LA botched the Green Line by leaving it a mile and half short of the actual airport.


There is something very apathetic about Angelenos and transit. "I'd love to buuuut" is so quick to come out. What is it about the SoCal love of cars that is endemic?

Of course I can get to Hollywood in less than an hour, even at rush hour, which lasts all afternoon. And no, I'm not walking the two (get real) uphill blocks in high heels to go to the opera. The 10 minutes between trains isn't close to real life. On paper, mass transit looks good, but like nearly every other public serivce in LA, the reality is a disaster.
It's not a love of cars, it's a desire to get places in a timely fashion. This city is huge--I know people who live in Simi Valley and work in Culver City--are they supposed to fly?

Your friends who go from Simi to Culver, are they supposed to live 40 miles from work? You said it yourself: this city/metro area is huge. How do you expect public transit to service this massive area? A direct line from Pasadena to Hollywood, with no stops, so you can get to H'wood/Highland in less time than driving alone? If you are unwilling to concede 15-20 minutes on a 20 mile trip to a public mode of transportation, then, well, you're not really working on the solution, are you? "High heels" are another reason you drive instead of take transit. Also a refusal to believe that the trains in LA run on-time. Glad to see you are so flexible. You make some strong points.


Kate, think about it.... are you part of the problem or part of the solution?

But why is the solution dependant up on substandard service?. My sister lives in Manhattan, takes the subway everywhere and it works. Smelly and hot but it works. Here, we're supposed to bite the bullet in the name of National Brotherhood Week?
See, if I can take the train to Hollywood and it takes an hour in rush hour, why should it take the same amount of time on the (non- rush hour) way back? No one planning this takes mass transit, so why should I?

If you want middle class riders then you have to plan it for middle class demands. Otherwise, we're in Mexico City.

Kate, you are supporting my claim that car culture is endemic to Souther Cal. "I can't wear high heels". "Manhattan is better". "If others don't ride, why should I?".


These are all, no slight intended, very non-transit views. Briefly, b/c I think we're not going much further with this discussion: Manhattan has a nice subway system *now*. It was built on cheap immigrant labor nearly 100 years ago. Were you riding the A to the Bronx in the 70's? Not likely. Nobody else was either. NYC and it's citizens poured cash into the system and cleaned it up. Even by your standards, it doesn't measure up. NYC's is hot/smelly-LA's platforms & cars are temp controlled. NYC is crowded-LA is less so. NYC's not on-time. Manhattan is nice where lines overlap=frequent, but try being an actual commuter and riding from the outer borroughs. LA's is nearly always on-time. You walk the same distance to Lincoln Ctr as you do in LA to Chandler. When the NYC philharmonic moves to Carnegie, LA subway will be closer to Disney Music hall than NYC's subway to Carnegie. Sorry, the LA will always be uphill. That I can't argue.


I feel like I'm being duped here. Am I just taking the bait and defending LA rail for fun, or do you really believe it to be substandard and refuse to ride? Why are you saying that LA is massive and then comparing it to Manhattan, which is 3 miles x 12 miles? Mexico City? That's the fourth busiest subway system in the world! It's efficient and clean. I only wish LA's system could compare. This why I'm looking for the hidden cameras... somebody's gotta be pulling my leg here.

I don't know if this adds to your discussion, but I'll throw it out anyway. The Los Angeles Record, a long defunct newspaper, wrote of LA's love for its autos: "Twenty years ago influential people rode in street cars. Today they ride in automobiles." The paper said that in 1920, a time when Los Angeles still had the world's biggest street car system. People just loved their Model-Ts more, for the freedom they got to go places the streetcars didn't. By the end of the '20s, the supermarket, the drive-in coffee shop and the modern department store had all been invented in L.A. because people were switching to their cars -- and downtown LA was beginning to die. This doesn't speak to how well today's comparatively miniscule train system runs, but it illustrates to me how long the lure of driving has been bred into the DNA of Los Angeles.

Just don't tell my publisher I'm cribbing from my Wilshire Boulevard book before it is even finished.

No one with the slightest toe-hold in the middle class rides the subway in Mexico City. And here it will be the same, because the timeservers that planned it didn't want to cater to middle class requirements (efficiency, ease of use, going places people want to go). So, instead, its being sold to us that riding public transport is good to do, like recycling (another boondoggle that actually helps nothing and no one).

If you've got a job you need to get to, errands to run on the way home, etc. the Metro isn't the way to do it. If you want to ride it as a novelty, fine. It's cute, it's got funny public art, and you can waste your afternoon in AC.

I'd be in favor of public transport that actually works, but this isn't it. Many of the stops were planned for political and turf reasons, not for ridership.

Kate's last point is undeniable, and maddening. Trains can never go everywhere, but they should at least go the airport. Along Wilshire to Santa Monica. To a beach.

If the Gold Line gets to Old Pasadena, that's a good thing.

Alright Kate, I keep taking the bait. I'm interested in specifics.
1) efficiency: You argue that trains should be more frequent. Fine, I guess 3 minute headways would be more "efficient".
2) ease of use: how are LA's trains not easy to use?
3) places people want to go: Where, a few locations if you will, do people want to go?
You mentioned

*LACMA. Hancock Park tried to kill the red line extension years ago, and succeeded with representative Henry Waxman's ban on tunneling anywhere near Fairfax. Have you ever written him a letter asking to overturn that ban?


*Norton Simon. If you can't walk along busy and fun Colorado Bl the 10 blocks to the museum you're lazy.


*Beverly Center. See above about the extension.
There are plenty of other malls available via train.


From your posts I think I understand the system you prefer: Goes to your specific locations, nearly every 3 minutes. Air Conditioned. No walking. No smelly people or those of lower class. This system sounds great! It already exists in LA: A car.


Kevin, that Wilshire Blvd book should be great. I look forward to it. Have you read Fabulous Blvd that was published in the 50's? I found it while in the stacks at LAPL once, it's a nice time capsule, though a bit boring. Hope yours has more fun.

rider, thanks. Fabulous Boulevard was great for its day, but I sure hope this one will be more fun. You'll have to be the judge.

I appreciate yours and Kate's comments here. This is an interesting exchange. But, um, please read the new note at the top of the comments page. Thanks.

I haven't said anything about lower classes or smelly people. You're just adding that so I look like a bad guy and because your arguements are fading. Making this personal is just feeble and you know it. (I should write Waxman--I'm not in his district, so we know where that missive would be filed.)
Ease of use means you don't climb a bunch of stairs over a freeway. What mother with little kids wants to hike 10 blocks to anywhere? Or an older person whom we all want off the roads? The elevators aren't really big enough.

Today's LAT has a sad piece on local boosterism--how the Gold Line will revive Highland Park. As If! No one is going there to get a latte. I'm glad these neighborhoods have been spiffed up, but it's a cruel sham to think that the Gold Line is going to bring in more business. It will make it easier for locals to leave.
While the schedule is good for rush hour, they're hoping that people who travel in rush hour will take the train. I'm wiling to bet they'd get more riders if the off peak trains ran more than 20 minutes apart. There's a big percentage of the population in LA that doesn't work 9 to 5 jobs in offices.
It's not that the Beverly Center is so wonderful, but it's central, get it? If a train ran there and then to BH (that'll be the day) and to Sunset--you'd have urban mobility. But instead, we have a cute little toy train that proves LA is a real big city. Bring back the Red Cars.

Does anyone remember the prank "blue line" signs that went up a couple of years ago? It basically promised a line from Santa Monica to Hollywood, more or less corresponding with Wilshire/Santa Monica/Sunset. If such a line existed, I would take it every weekend night to go out, and every weekend day to go shopping.

My brother Michael Blakemore was in Donald Waldie's class at St. Bernard's School for all his grade school years. My sister Catherine remembers his mother well. The first and only time my mother let her ride her bike to school (with Daphne Castro) was the same morning that Terry Draeger was hit by a car in front of Joe's Hobby shop. it was Mrs.Waldie, crying, who stopped the girls and told them what happened and to please be careful. Holy Land is the story of all of our youths and I thank him for a permanent memorie of all that I loved and is gone; my parents, my brother Mike,etc.