U.S. Transit A Tough Sell

[WhoozOn1st]

L.A. Times Business section columnist David Lazarus usually trades in consumer issues such as credit card company trickery and opacity, telecom services, policies, and rates, and horror stories of maladroit corporate customer relations.

Lazarus is newly-returned from two weeks in Japan, where he "rode just about every form of public transit imaginable," and with the piece linked below delves into the question of whether similar systems are feasibile here in the U.S. as a whole, and for southern California in particular.

A tough sell for public transit

"It won't be enough to lay down lots of track and hope people leap aboard trains and subways. It also will take discouraging the use of cars and making cities less comfortable."

______________________________

I think the points raised by Lazarus, and by the people interviewed for the column, are generally valid with a couple exceptions:

As a southern California resident whooz been "Auto-Free Since '93" in the heartland of car culture, I take issue with the idea that actively discouraging auto use, in concert with reformed land-use policies, would result in cities "considerably less comfortable" than they are currently. I can instead entertain a vision - however wild-eyed it might seem - of an urban environment in which I don't fear for life and limb, as currently, upon venturing into certain areas as a pedestrian. I doubt many people - even incorrigible hardcore drivers - believe that a dramatic reduction in road traffic would result in a "less comfortable" quality of life.

The other exception is Lazarus' raising of the red herring of transit profitability, which in my view unfortunately taints an otherwise generally commendable column with the aura of ignorance. As most rail folks know, cost efficiency, not profit, is - or should be - a central pursuit of transit systems. While I won't belabor the point here, I do think the bogus concept of transit profitability needs to be disconnected in the public mind, and discarded once and for all, from use as a criterion in shaping future transit and other infrastructural policy.

One more thing: How the hell do you get rid of those banner ads that obscure portions of a newspaper's web pages??

 

[Bob Dylan]

Well Whooz,right off hand Id suggest you buy/suscribe to the paper and read it @ your leisure!

(perhaps while on the train!)Only way I know,itll keep reporters and support folks jobs and

maybe even encourage people to learn how to read???Good post!

 

[WhoozOn1st]

Id suggest you buy/suscribe to the paper and read it @ your leisure!

Times subscriber for decades, and daily reader for decades before that. Now also receive (at no extra cost) a daily edition via e-mail, in addition to each morning's copy in my Auto-Free driveway. The e-mailed version comes in a specialized format that, unlike the website, replicates the appearance of the actual paper (and contains no pesky banner ads obscuring text and photos). This "E-dition" currently goes unread, and gets deleted every day in favor the the real thing. I expect it'll be a crucial and greatly-appreciated asset, though, when traveling. Whenever I have internet access during the Patrick & Alice RailRiot 2009 I'll be able to browse the Times, presented in a format more comfortable for me than the website provides.

FWIW, the above rant was modified and sent to the columnist:

Mr. Lazarus:

Thank you for your column, "A tough sell for public transit."

The issues you raise, and the points made by both yourself and the people interviewed for the column, are I think generally valid. A couple exceptions, however:

As a southern California resident who has been "Auto-Free Since '93" in the heartland of car culture, I take issue with the idea that actively discouraging auto use, in concert with reformed land-use policies as well as comprehensive, efficient, and appealing mass transit, would result in cities "considerably less comfortable" than they are today. I can instead entertain a vision - however wild-eyed it might seem at present - of an urban environment in which I don't fear for life and limb, as currently, upon venturing into certain areas as a pedestrian. I doubt many people - even incorrigible hardcore drivers - believe that a dramatic reduction in road traffic would result in a "less comfortable" quality of life.

The other exception is your raising of the red herring of transit profitability, which in my view unfortunately taints an otherwise generally commendable column with the auras of misinformation and right wing ideology. Cost efficiency, not profit, is - or should be - a central pursuit of transit systems management. While I won't belabor the point, I do think the bogus, long-discredited concept of transit profitability needs to be disconnected in the public mind, and discarded once and for all, from use as a criterion in shaping future transit and other infrastructural policy.

Sincerely,

______________________

The main modification is use of "misinformation and right wing ideology" as euphemistic synonymns for the word "ignorance" in my post. An autoreply was received almost immediately:

Thanks very much for the feedback. I encourage you to send your thoughts as well to [email protected] for publication. Remember to include your full name, city and phone number.

Best,

David Lazarus

______________________

My letter had already been cc'd to "bizletters," including the requisite contact info.

 

[Bob Dylan]

I knew you read the "real" paper,only a little hyperbole in my post!You pointed out exactly the

shortcomings of automated news,computers generate generic replys,sort of like automatic messages

on phones saying: .."your call is important to us,so we're gonna put you on hold forever..."

Educating todays reporters(and sadly most people)is a never ending battle when it comes to

mass transportation and especially rail!Good job,our local rag,the Real Estatesman(Austin Statesman)

is the worst when it comes to stories on the "so called" light rail system that still isnt running after a year

of testing!Their angle is always about how much it will cost and how the trains will bother the neighborhoods,

none of which they or their rich owners/sponors live in!LOL

 

[PetalumaLoco]

L.A. Times Business section columnist David Lazarus usually trades in consumer issues such as credit card company trickery and opacity, telecom services, policies, and rates, and horror stories of maladroit corporate customer relations.
Lazarus is newly-returned from two weeks in Japan, where he "rode just about every form of public transit imaginable," and with the piece linked below delves into the question of whether similar systems are feasibile here in the U.S. as a whole, and for southern California in particular.

A tough sell for public transit

"It won't be enough to lay down lots of track and hope people leap aboard trains and subways. It also will take discouraging the use of cars and making cities less comfortable."

______________________________

I think the points raised by Lazarus, and by the people interviewed for the column, are generally valid with a couple exceptions:

As a southern California resident whooz been "Auto-Free Since '93" in the heartland of car culture, I take issue with the idea that actively discouraging auto use, in concert with reformed land-use policies, would result in cities "considerably less comfortable" than they are currently. I can instead entertain a vision - however wild-eyed it might seem - of an urban environment in which I don't fear for life and limb, as currently, upon venturing into certain areas as a pedestrian. I doubt many people - even incorrigible hardcore drivers - believe that a dramatic reduction in road traffic would result in a "less comfortable" quality of life.

The other exception is Lazarus' raising of the red herring of transit profitability, which in my view unfortunately taints an otherwise generally commendable column with the aura of ignorance. As most rail folks know, cost efficiency, not profit, is - or should be - a central pursuit of transit systems. While I won't belabor the point here, I do think the bogus concept of transit profitability needs to be disconnected in the public mind, and discarded once and for all, from use as a criterion in shaping future transit and other infrastructural policy.

One more thing: How the hell do you get rid of those banner ads that obscure portions of a newspaper's web pages??

Try Adblock Plus, I never leave home without it!