I'm really surprised how dumb the recommendations are.

Express trains are an impossibility--they would require a different set of tracks, of course, lest the Express trains run right up the asses of the locals. And more frequent trains are certainly not coming when the ridership is already half of what was anticipated.

Beyond that--what a spoiled child. His complaint is really about his own time management issues. If he can't read on the train, or make phone calls that help set up his day, or write on his laptop, or simply talk to others in a neighborly way, or close his eyes and meditate, then maybe he could focus on the time he spends buying a new car every three years, new tires every two years, new brakes every three months, washing the car once a week, and, yes, the time it takes him on a Times salary to earn that $3.50 coffee he requires to commute in comfort.

If his ideas for remedies are representative, I suspect he's just too lazy a thinker with too much a sense of entitlement (the fantasy that all lights should always be green is really telling) to become much of a responsible commuter.

For much of the two years I worked in the Criminal Courts Building in downtown, I rode Metrolink in from the SFV.

It was clean, quiet, comfortable, and allowed passengers to read, sleep, or whatever they wished to do during the morning and evening runs, which from my home station usually lasted about an hour or so, probably about the same or less than what a rush hour commute on the Hollywood or Golden State would take...

The two biggest benefits, of course, were that having to make the train meant not being able to delay getting out of the office at night (or the house in themorning) and, secondly, not being stressed out by the drive home once I got home.

The train is not a substitute for a car, obviously, and if someone needs a car at work it doesn't work; but if it doe work, it can be a true pleasure.

Finally, I never waited for DASH or the subway or whatever; I just walked to the CCB from Union Station. It's a nice walk of about 10 or 15 minutes at most, and the Times building is all of another block farther west (south?) than the CCB.

Getting from Pasadena to the LA Times building @ rush hour, wouldn't that take more than 25 minutes? (1/2 of his 50 minute total).

The Gold Line does stink when it comes to speed. It crawls through at least a third of its route. It's not so much the slow speed, it's the jerky slow-stop-start-slow-speedup-slow-speedup-stop motion that's annoying.

I don't find it very heartening to know that someone doesn't want to take public transportation because he's too impatient. That makes me feel even better that this same person is driving.

The Metrolink is great. But you can't compare it to the gold line which is light rail. What would make it move faster is if people didn't try to run the gates and get killed in the process.

I have yet to read anything positive about mass transit in the 'Behind The Wheel' column of LAT. They always beat up on the MTA, with their head to head competitions of car verses bus, where speed over price and convenience is always emphasized. I'm still waiting for them to mention something about people who bike to work. The column seems dedicated to keeping the car king.

Like so many things, it all comes down to either being part of the problem or being part of the solution. So I hope Steve Hymon can find the farvenugen that paying for gas, insurance, maintenance, parking, tickets and eventual collisions that driving a car day in day out can bring.

I have yet to read anything positive about mass transit in the 'Behind The Wheel' column of LAT. They always beat up on the MTA, with their head to head competitions of car verses bus, where speed over price and convenience is always emphasized. I'm still waiting for them to mention something about people who bike to work. The column seems dedicated to keeping the car king.

Like so many things, it all comes down to either being part of the problem or being part of the solution. So I hope Steve Hymon can find the farvenugen that paying for gas, insurance, maintenance, parking, tickets and eventual collisions that driving a car day in day out can bring.

This explains why ultimately it's better to have transit that is totally separate from the surface environment. There IS a reason why trains in many cities often are either underground (in subways) or, far less commonly, overhead (on the "El" or a monorail track). Such a format costs a lot more, but then again you don't end up with residents complaining about the noise (as has been happening in south Pasadena), trying to drive around crossing guards, or seeing even more competition for existing space on their already jammed roads and highways (MTA's wish to have dedicated bus lanes on Wilshire? Good going, guys!).

Pam's right. And I, for one, thought Hymon's piece was smart and well-written. Moreover, if there were a train from Santa Monica or Venice to downtown, I'd be at that beautiful downtown library -- and MOCA, and Gehry Hall, and the rest of downtown -- at least a couple times a week.

Actually, bus lanes on Wilshire are a good idea, if there was the political will to do so, which there isn't. Bus lanes on major streets work well in places like Seattle, San Francisco, and Philadelphia.

No one mentions how fast the Blue Line is. The difference between the previous three Metro Rail lines and the Gold Line is definite. The Blue Line zooms through the ghetto at 55 mph, killing a handful of people each year who ignore the flashing lights and sirens. But it's the most popular light rail line in the country. Meanwhile, we have a bunch of whiny South Pasadenans who aren't satisfied with idiot proof gates and reduced lengths of sirens at the rail crossings, and they continue to scream that the trains need to be slowed down. Nobody listened to whatever complaints there were in the ghetto. Heck, the original plan was for the Blue Line to make fewer stops in South Central than it does today.

Well, at this point, the Gold Line isn't much faster than the old 401 bus. Indeed, when you compare door to door trip times for most riders on the old 401 "express" bus, stuck on the Pasadena Freeway, the Gold Line is at least 10 or 20 minutes slower (because of the transfer and/or walking to the train station).

The Gold Line is a urban planning experiment, not a mode of transportation. Metrolink, for those who asked, is basically a subsidy to downtown businesses to meet the AQMD's vehicle ridership rules (note that fares are set several times that of bus and urban rail, even for trips like Burbank to LA, and that according to a recent Metrolink study uncovered during the recent fare increase hearings, the majority of Metrolink riders get subsidies from their employers to take the train). The bus system, the subway, and the Blue and Green Lines are modes of transportation, but the Gold Line is there to make people feel more like Portland (which has some of the most agonizingly slow trains in the country).

Alatorre when he was on the MTA Board saw to it that the Gold Line would be well represented in Highland Park. The right-of-way goes right through the middle of a two-way residential street--it's cute and it's a little sad. There were not other good alternatives for the routing. The stretch through Highland Park accounts for half the slowness. It's far from optimal but its there for the taking in Highland Park, even if the MTA did have to cancel some prospective badly-needed bus purchase contracts to build it.

Nobody wants the train to run at a clip over the LA River either, not at 30 feet above the concrete and without the reassuring side rails typical to elevated trains. And the South Pas people have a big problem with noise.

So this will always be a slow train. But celerity is not the spirit of the Gold Line. Recognizing this, it has been marketed by the MTA as a train for leisure activities--shopping, museums, etc. It serves these bourgeois pursuits well enough. I generally like the train, and some stations are beautiful. Call in sick one day and enjoy it.

Well-written? That's subjective, so go for it if he's what you like. But smart? let's look at all the smart things he writes:

For seven long years, I commuted from the Westside to downtown Los Angeles, serving time in that gulag of concrete, the Santa Monica Freeway.
Then last summer I moved to Pasadena. The Gold Line had just debuted, and I believed riding light rail might be a nice alternative to driving to work. I would read the paper, sip coffee and gleefully thumb my nose at people stuck in traffic.
The result of this nine-month experiment in mass transit: My round-trip commute from Pasadena by car of about 50 minutes ballooned to 100 minutes by train. I didn't sip coffee — which isn't allowed on the train — and for reasons I'll soon explain, I rarely read the paper.

And, I'm back to driving solo to work.

He doesn't try car-pooling. Doesn't try telecommuting Doesn't try a once-a-week effort. That's smart. All or nothing when it comes to his car.

For those unfamiliar with the saga of the Gold Line, here's a recap: After more than a decade of planning and construction — about the same time it took to put a man on the moon — the $859-million train opened last summer.

Comparing a light rail line to the moon landing makes for snappy prose, but is just silly. How much did it cost to land on the moon again? It's like some old man saying "they can put a man on the moon, but they can't make my TV remote any better." At least pick something slightly parallel to compare it to. Ummm, let's try The Big Dig in Boston, which took 25 years and nearly 8 billion dollars.

The 13.7-mile line runs between eastern Pasadena and Union Station in 30 to 36 minutes, depending on the boldness or timidity of the train driver.

The Gold Line's chief attribute is that it's very clean (no coffee stains!).

That's its chief attribute? "very clean" is the chief attribute of a massive transit project?

Its chief problem is that it's always slowing down for something.

That's its chief problem? That it slows down? Not that it's at-grade, or has stations in the middle of a freeway, or has narrow side clearance in Highland park?

The Gold Line brakes for everything but its shadow. Curves, street crossings, straight sections of track are all reasons for the choo-choo to take a breather. Engineers often stop the train just before reaching station platforms, as if they fear passengers might hurl themselves en masse onto the tracks.

Straight sections? It slows for straight sections? Waaaaiiiit a minute, is he being sarcastic in this article?

"Speed is not the reason you use this line," The Times quoted Metropolitan Transportation Authority Deputy Chief Executive John Catoe as saying in March. "It's about comfort. You can read the paper, relax. It's a really great line that way."

I tried to relax. But the more sluggish the train got, the more my road rage merely shifted to rail rage. Instead of screaming "Go!" at little old ladies on the freeway, I wanted to bellow "Go!" at train drivers.

Angry men are smart men.

On occasion, I'd glance down at the newspaper, but then would frequently look up, wondering why the train was stopping. Again.

You'd think after 9 months he'd get used to it.

I tried everything to shrink the time of my commute. The train ride itself continued to gobble precious minutes, but the black hole in which even more time vanished was getting to and from the stations.

I walked, rode my bike and drove to different stations in Pasadena. I pored over maps and bus schedules. Nothing worked.

What does "worked" mean. Try "nothing made the trip faster" or "nothing got me to a station easier" or something to clarify. Worked. Smart.

Allow me to enter into evidence MTA bus line 267, which conveniently stops just around the corner from my home.

Hey, cool, now he's taken on a lawyerly tone. That's fun, where'd that come from?
Oh, right, smart writing.

The bus runs down Del Mar Boulevard, a major east-west thoroughfare in Pasadena. Logic would dictate that the Del Mar bus would stop at the Del Mar Gold Line station. But it doesn't.

Instead, about one-third of a mile before reaching the station, the bus inexplicably swings north and away from the Del Mar station and instead proceeds to another Gold Line stop farther north.

On the downtown end, things aren't much better.

The Gold Line terminates at Union Station, on the northern fringes of downtown. That's great if you work for the MTA, which is located next door. But passengers traveling to the heart of downtown L.A. must endure another time-munching transfer to bus, subway or sidewalk.

Union station is a "hub". He doesn't seem to understand this. He also seems to think it's irrelevant that the MTA is mostly banned by the County from building subways. But that would clutter his "smart" argument that the train ends in an inconvenient place. For him. Going to one building. To work. Hmmm, could he be leaning towards the car in this article?

On paper, the easiest way to get from The Times to Union Station is to ride the DASH "D" bus, which is run by the city of L.A. and stops across the street from the newspaper.

I'm not sure what the "D" is for, but let's presume it stands for "dumb." Instead of running directly to Union Station, the "D" line circles the terminal as if it's prey that it is afraid to attack.

After 10 to 15 minutes of trundling about the backstreets of downtown, the "D" finally deposits passengers at Union Station's rear end, at a new transportation plaza. As far as I can tell, the only reason the bus goes there is to justify the plaza's existence.

Or maybe that's the only place buses can go within the Union Station property. But for smart writers "as far as I can tell" will suffice. Don't quote Union Station management or LADOT about it.

Of course, driving to work is not always a picnic. But on most days it takes me 25 minutes each way. The drive would be much quicker if the city of Pasadena better synchronized its traffic lights.

Odd, he never mentions his commute times of day. That's smart, so I can't see if his estimates are accurate.

The other problem with driving — besides global warming — is that it's hard to avoid traffic caused by … the Gold Line. Although it's generally accepted in transit circles that rail is supposed to ease gridlock, three Gold Line street crossings near Arroyo Parkway cause traffic to back up.
The other problem? There's only one other?

Bahman Janka, the transportation administrator for Pasadena, said his agency is still working to coordinate traffic lights with the crossing gates, but there will inevitably be times the gates remain down for one to two minutes.

Are my expectations of the Gold Line unrealistic? I don't think so. Before the Gold Line opened, the MTA proclaimed that 30,000 riders each weekday would use the train. The agency now estimates about 14,400 people are climbing aboard each day.

What are his expectations? From what I've read they might be: go fast. start at his house. end at his work. Waaaait a minute, isn't there something that does that already?

In response to my criticisms, MTA officials provided several explanations. They said that government speed limits restrict the train along many sections, thus the slowdowns. They also argued that in rush hour, the commute time is competitive with that of drivers, although they agreed that getting to and from stations consumes minutes.

MTA spokesman Dave Sotero said that compromises inevitably had to be made just to get the line finished within budget. He also said that riding the train could save car owners a lot of money — hundreds or even thousands of dollars each year — and that walking to and from stations is a low-budget form of exercise.

Fair enough. But I'm not interested in seeing how much time I can spend commuting. My suggestions for fixing the Gold Line:

Wait, he's not interested in how much time he spends commuting? I thought that was the point of the article. Maybe he means "how much more time I can spend if I don't drive" ?

• Run more trains during rush hours to eliminate waiting time at the stations.

Does he even ride at rush hour? And more trains when they are half empty? Doesn't that start to get expensive?

• Have a few of them be express trains that mercifully skip some of the stations.

Hey smarty, that's technically impossible without building additional rails and buying additional right of way! Good idea!

• Begin thinking about ways to extend the Gold Line into downtown — maybe running it up the middle of Main or Los Angeles streets. A Gold Line extension planned to open in 2009 doesn't fix the problem, with the only downtown stop at that outpost, Alameda and 1st streets.

"that outpost"? what outpost? whoops, there's a part that isn't well-written. And why is he running trains up the middle of major downtown streets when he's spent much of his article complaining how slow it runs on the surface?

And finally, I'd tell the MTA that when building future projects, to remember that every minute counts to prospective customers.

No coffee stains is a virtue. Performance is everything."

Performance = time only, I guess. He's smart, so he'll disregard convenience, serving transit dependent populations, budget considerations, any aspect that adds time to his trip directly from his home to his work. Funny, but he seems to have professed his love of his car. Welcome to SoCal. He writes what others want to read. And yes, that's smart.

No, reasonable people can disagree on Steve Hymon's intelligence. Point by point:

He doesn't try car-pooling. Doesn't try telecommuting Doesn't try a once-a-week effort. That's smart. All or nothing when it comes to his car.

Uh, reporters tend to have wildly fluctuating schedules. It's not a job where you have to sign in at 8 and run down the stairs fleeing at 5. Carpooling tends to work terribly for reporters, who have silly meetings to go to, frequently in the evening, have deadlines to meet which are past dinner, etc.

The Gold Line's chief attribute is that it's very clean (no coffee stains!). That's its chief attribute? "very clean" is the chief attribute of a massive transit project?

It's the chief positive attribute. Or would you like to hear about how mollasses-slow it is again?

That's its chief problem? That it slows down? Not that it's at-grade, or has stations in the middle of a freeway, or has narrow side clearance in Highland park?

Uh, Hymon is the Times' city writer. He is not on the MTA beat. I wouldn't expect him to know about transportation engineering. Yes, I would expect better out of someone like Caitlin Liu (but not much more), and some deeper analysis from the former MTA beatmaster and now NY Times Washington writer Richard Simon, but this is someone [Hymon] out of his field. What does narrow side clearance have to do with the comfort of the train? And he mentioned he didn't board at the freeway stations, so he wouldn't be too concerned about them.

Straight sections? It slows for straight sections? Waaaaiiiit a minute, is he being sarcastic in this article?

Uh, as he mentions, the train stops for no apparent reason. Even buses don't do that.

What does "worked" mean. Try "nothing made the trip faster" or "nothing got me to a station easier" or something to clarify. Worked. Smart.

It's called the editor.

Union station is a "hub". He doesn't seem to understand this. He also seems to think it's irrelevant that the MTA is mostly banned by the County from building subways. But that would clutter his "smart" argument that the train ends in an inconvenient place. For him. Going to one building. To work. Hmmm, could he be leaning towards the car in this article?

So? Do we require transit riders to take a test on all possible transit terms? (What does "headway" mean?) To correct your factual misassertion, the MTA is not banned by "the County" from building subways. Zev's Law, Proposition A (1998), does ban county sales tax money from building subways, but county sales tax money can simply be used for aboveground segments and the federal money rolled in for the underground, such as in the case of the 2 1/2 mile underground segment of the Gold Line under Boyle Heights.

Or maybe that's the only place buses can go within the Union Station property. But for smart writers "as far as I can tell" will suffice. Don't quote Union Station management or LADOT about it.

Bzzt! Buses do stop in front of Union Station on Alameda as well. And the circulation at the Gateway Transit Plaza is horrible, seeing as it was built as an art project instead of a functional transit center. And have you tried to get someone to speak at LADOT on the record? Remember an article a while back about a traffic management center operated by LADOT where all the quotes had to come out of the general manager's mouth, and the person giving the tour couldn't be directly quoted? (No lie.)

Odd, he never mentions his commute times of day. That's smart, so I can't see if his estimates are accurate.

Perhaps he has a varying schedule. (See above.)

Hey smarty, that's technically impossible without building additional rails and buying additional right of way! Good idea!

Bzzzt. Trains can skip stations without passing each other. It's called scheduling. Run a skip-stop right before a local train. The Gold Line is short enough such that it won't catch up to the following train until the very end. Places like Chicago and Philadelphia have done this for a very long time.

Performance = time only, I guess. He's smart, so he'll disregard convenience, serving transit dependent populations, budget considerations, any aspect that adds time to his trip directly from his home to his work. Funny, but he seems to have professed his love of his car. Welcome to SoCal. He writes what others want to read. And yes, that's smart.

Yes it is. Steve should be commended on taking the train to work and writing his observations, not attacked by anonymous jerks. Note that the Blue Line, with its high speed running, frequent service, and logical route, exceeds the expectations made for the year 2010 on the route. Meanwhile, the Gold Line just languishes.

Actually, a factual correction of my own: Richard Simon still works for the times, it's Jon Markman that I'm thinking of that went to New York.

If there were trains to Downtown from the Westside, would people go to the Central Library, The Disney Hall, MOCA, or the Cathedral more often?

You know that none of these destinations are right by a a Red Line stop.

The Central Library is a 2 or 3 block walk depending upon which station you use (Pershing Square or 7th/Fig) and Disney Hall, MOCA, and the Cathedral are about the same distance from the Civic Center stop.

I hope that wouldn't put everyone out having to walk that far.

As a resident of South Pasadena, I would indeed agree that we are a whiny bunch, although we have successfully whined about the Long Beach Freeway since the time Earl Warren was governor.

People in Highland Park were also putting up a fight about the at-grade crossings, and the noise. They got the speed down, which is a basic safety question. But they really wanted to get below-grade crossings. The worst example I know of is at Monterey Ave where there was a very confusing Y road intersection, which is now also criss-crossed by a train track. It's now a huge mass of asphalt and really hard for peds.

They will now be arguing for the next decade on how to scrape together the money to do that one properly.

CarFan, hope you get a job real soon.

If there were trains to Downtown from the Westside, would people go to the Central Library, The Disney Hall, MOCA, or the Cathedral more often?

You know that none of these destinations are right by a Red Line stop.

That's dead wrong, or at least misleading. The Red Line's Civic Center stop is within 100 yards of the Cathedral Temple street entrance. It's also a (granted long and uphill) block from the Disney Hall, and a block and a half from MoCA.

You know that none of these destinations are right by a Red Line stop.

Also, regarding the Library, you can also exit the Red Line at Seventh on the Hope Street side, and walk up two short blocks straight into the south Library entrance.

Yes, I was being a bit disingenuous, but my point was that some people seem to expect that every stop is going to be exactly where they want it to be with minimal walking, which is unrealistic.

I live in Highland Park and work in North Hollywood. The gold line should be perfect for me but it takes me well over an hour to get to work by train when driving takes 20-25 minutes. Unfortunately, it's not worth my time.

Going to Old Town, however, is a different story. The leisurely pace fits quite nicely with leisurely shopping. Plus, I can get tipsy in Old Town and not worry about driving home.

Paul