The Evidence

Here it is, the Hummer driven by Jaime de la Vega, L.A.'s deputy mayor for transportation. To readers who have defended him on the basis of this being a smallish Hummer model, the H3, are you kidding?

The Hummer is a symbol of consumptive excess, whether it's the mid-size SUV model or not. The H3 is rated at 16 mpg in the city, and the idea of a transit chief behind the wheel, or, say, a governor, is somewhere between irresponsible and obscene. Is it any worse than driving any other mid-size SUV? Not much, but yes. The Hummer, originally designed for military use, makes a statement. It is not the statement a transit chief ought to be making, especially when global warming is a growing concern and lives are being sacrificed at war, in part to protect our right to burn as much fossil fuel as we please -- Steve Lopez.

Comments

[spankzilla]

Impossible, how GOOD your work is. I am realy surprised. http://boyspanking.iespana.es/

[spankzilla]

I have not found any mystake - great http://boyspanking.iespana.es/

[Jeffrey Stewart]

Work on the timing of traffic lights.

Travelling east on Santa Monica Blvd. in the evening, it is impossible to get from Barrington to Sepulveda without stopping at every light. What is even more frustrating is sitting at a green light at Purdue because the lights at Sawtelle and beyond are red. Time them to clear out the traffic at the front of the line first. It seems like a pretty basic idea.

I live in Miracle Mile and work in Santa Monica--a distance of exactly eight miles, most of it on Olympic Blvd. In the evenings, depending on when I leave, it can take me up to one hour and 15 minutes to drive those eight miles. 45 minutes of it is sitting between Barrington and Sepulveda, travelling about half a block before stopping again at the next red light. It's impossible to travel from my house to work without changing buses, even if I stayed on Olympic the entire way, so taking public transportation is not an efficient option.

I distinctly remember Villaraigosa running for mayor on a platform of fixing the traffic problems. When he won, he was certainly quick to move his family into the mayoral mansion, but hasn't done anything that I can tell to alleviate the traffic problems.

[ann zum(winkle)]

Steve et al,
There's a very elegant (yet fun and productive) solution to our traffic woes: let us individually construct our own personal freeways. Dan Bern mused about the possibilities in our very own town, and I hope he doesn't mind a link to his MySpace space:
http://tinyurl.com/2ccblm

Enjoy!

[Mike Rubio]

My solution to traffic has been to get a motorcycle. I'm now driving a sportbike. I can make it accross town from Sunland/Tujunga to Santa Monica (near the 405) in under 30 minutes almost any time irregardless of traffic.

[Milt Burdick]

At freeway interchanges paint (Very largee White paint) the number of the freeway you want to enter---Example downtown LA you don't know which lane goes to which freeway. Other examples 57north 60 east or west. 71,10 and the 57. 22 and 405.

Many, many more like this. We get in the wrong lane and cause traffic slow down and or accidents because of it being unclear what lane I should be in.

Resrict trucks to the second lane form the right.

[ted kensington]

I have some comments on diamond lanes:

1. They should be abolished. We paid for all the lanes, and should be able to use them all. How many people do we know who actually plan and team up and leave a car at home to ues a diamond lane? The answer is very, very few.

2. If we must have them, the second passenger should be required to be a licensed driver, who might otherwise be using a car on the freeway. To count a baby as a passenger is absurd. I know that a police officer won't always be able to tell if the second passenger qualifies, but he or she can tell if it is a baby.

3. Again, if we must have them, they should be restricted to rush hours, as they do in No. Ca. What is the sense of having diamond lanes working at midnight, or Christmas or Thanksgiving?

[Roy Nakano]

Los Angeles should consider a pilot project patterned after the "casual carpooling" model that has proven to be so successful in northern Virginia/Washington DC as well as in the northern California bay area.

A successful "slugging" operation (as it's called in Virginia/DC) should ideally be tried on a carpool lane that is separated from the main freeway lanes, and with beginning and end locations that have suitable areas for carpool passengers to congregate and for drivers to load and unload the passengers.

Los Angeles already has such a route, and it's the carpool lane on Highway 10 (the San Bernardino Freeway) between the El Monte bus terminal and the carpool ending junction at Alameda Street. The bus terminal and an area near the Alameda Street carpool entry point can serve as the passenger pick-up and drop-off points.

The cost to allow slugging on that route would appear to be minimal - i.e., a few signs and marking off areas for passengers to congregate. To avoid clogging up the carpool entry point on Alameda, perhaps a segment of the Metropolitan Water District or Union Station parking lot can be section off for the pick-up and drop-off points.

Ultimately, this can be a "win-win-win" situation for the casual carpool drivers (who can then use the carpool lane without being tied to the same carpool partners), the carpool passengers (who get free rides to-and-from the San Gabriel Valley), and for non-carpooling freeway travelers (who benefit due to fewer vehicles on the non-carpool lanes of the freeway).

Given the ideal route that already exists, I think this is an idea worth trying.

[Pete Martinez]

Simple solution to this traffic mess.

The system is based on the last number or letter of the license plate. Based on that requirement, the vehicle can not be moving on any road between the hours of 6 to 9 each morning and 4 to 7 each evening

Monday 0, 1, Letters
Tuesday 2, 3
Wednesday 4,5
Thursday 6, 7
Friday 8, 9, No plates

An immediate $200 fine for a violation. This will reduce congestion by
20 % and the inconvinience is minimal.

[Victoria Lynch-Knight]

Perhaps the DWP could limit its construction to the hours between 9 AM and 1 PM, or even better, work at night whenever possible. And I really don't understand why they need to block three lanes in order to fix a stoplight or a sidewalk, or why the installation of a left-hand-turn lane at Mandeville and Sunset is going to take 6 months to complete.

[Patrick]

I completely agree with Steve Lopez that public figures, especially those in charge of transportation dept.'s should not drive or own Hummers or any other heavy SUV's. These gas guzzling pigs are nothing but sleazy, rolling billboard statements that say "Oink, I don't care", indeed.

[Rosella A Alm]

Do as the ancient Romans did and as we did during the 1984 Olypmpics; restrict truck delivery times to 12:00m to 6:00am. It greatly relieved freeway traffic while the games were on.

Go full speed ahead with public transportation. I love the Metrolink and the red line subways, and take them as often as I can. I wish it went downtown more often. I can't understand why the trains by-passed the airports. They should also run later so that people attending later events could use them to return home afterwards.

I have been to London and Paris and see how a well developed public transportation system can be an incredible asset to a great city.

[James Scott]

Hey, at least Jaime de la Vega probably paid for the hummer out of his own pocket. He could have instead spent the public's money on traffic solutions such as the signs such as those that line Crenshaw Blvd. just south of I-10. Every day as I creep down that road, I'm reassured that terrible traffic has been outlawed by the signs that declare that this is a "NO GRIDLOCK ZONE." Traffic beware!

[Eric Neitzel]

One of the problems regarding mass transit is the total lack of coordination between cities. I drive from Culver City to Signal Hill (Long Beach) every day on the 405. I live 2 blocks from the Fox Hills Mall Transit Center and can walk there in less than 5 minutes. Why isn't there an express bus that goes from this transit center to a transit center in Long Beach, then I could hop a local bus to work. When I asked the MTA to configure a route for me they said (after waiting 3 weeks for an answer) that I would have to take a bus by surface streets to the LAX area, transfer to another bus, take that to Norwalk, transfer to another bus, then go to Long Beach. It would take 2 1/2 hours one way as compared to a 30-minute drive. Why bother?

The buses should operate just like in Europe or the airport system - major centers feeding to major centers by freeway, then local buses to go from there. In the seven years I have driven the above route (every day) I have not seen more than 10 MTA buses travelling the same route, and most of those are "Not in Service".

[Jason]

"Unlike most public transportation systems that are governmentally funded, many monorails abroad are own by private companies and give the city a portion of their yearly profit."

Public transportation in LA wasn't profitable before restrictive environmental regulations, ADA requirements, and public opposition. It definitely isn't profitable now.

Public transportation will not be profitable, nor should it have to be. It's an essential service that should be service oriented, not contingent on profit.

[Albert Jakobsen]

Adding extra traffic lanes will not solve the problem. They will cost biilions and take years to build, and as soon as the Mayor cuts the ribbon these lanes will also fill up within 20 minutes, and the traffic problem remains the same.
Opening up the carpools to regular traffic won't work either. It will only result in one more lane full of stopped cars.
There should be some measure to halt the import of automobiles into California until the number of cars is reduced to a reasonable level. After that you can only purchase a new car, if you turn in an old car at the same time.
Pie in the Sky? What else?
Albert Jakobsen
Arcadia, California

[Maria Elena Hernandez]

UTILIZE STREET PARKING LANES that have BACK ALLEYS to create extra lanes on bottlenecked streets (peak hours-11pm). Use the lanes for EXPRESS MTA, LOCAL TOLLEYS, BICYCLE LANES, etc. 3rd St. btx. Fairfax and La Cienega, for example, is perpetually bottlenecked and has a severe valet parking problem. The small businesses also have rear alleys (w/2-6 pkg. spaces). A few have small parking lots.

ELEVATOR CAR LIFT SYSTEMS will double or triple their parking spaces. Proprietors/employees park on the top tiers and the customers below. The parking lots can be leased to the City for public parking spaces. Valet services would rent them at night. The City/State would create a REBATE-TAX INCENTIVE-LEASE TO BUY w/ TAX. INCENTIVE. PLAN.

Oh yes, don't forget, we must have affordable family housing (not lofts/condos) with parks and ammenities in DTLA (lots of primo property there, the best). WORK IN or NEAR YOUR ZIP. Those of us who do deserve a tax break. Gas prices? What gas?

[Dan Kashinsky]

I like the idea of a monorail using the land of the Los Angeles River. In the Sunday Times this was suggested. It seems a great opportunity wasted. Any comments? Dan

[Bruce Clark]

Re: "The Hummer is a symbol of consumptive excess." Such comments are are a sign of self-righteousness excess. Getting all bent out of shape over another person's taste in cars isn't productive. Few people are so perfect that they should worry more about others' taste than seeing to it that they themselves are considerate, law abiding and polite in traffic so that the freeways keep moving.

[bennettjones]

There are some terrific ideas in these comments and with the traffic solved, LA would be a true paradise.

However, I'm surprised that so few have mentioned the bicycle, especially since bike usage seems to be growing.

It's my main way of getting around. I fill up my car once every two months at most. I never pay for parking or look for parking, i experience road euphoria as opposed to rage. I've even ridden from Silverlake to LAX to catch a plane. One can easily beat traffic during rush hour all over town. And it's a great way to stay in shape. Not for everyone, but if it were made socially acceptable it might take off like the Prius. Imagine seeing Harvey Weinstein on his way to a meeting on a used Diamondback! Well, scratch that, how about Penelope Cruz on a beachcruiser?

Now pardon my negativity, but I'd like to comment on two of the worst ideas posted:

1 - more motorcycles and scooters- ever lived in Indonesia? Far from way cool, even "quiet" motorbikes, when multiplied into the hundreds, would turn our streets into a 24 hour supercross. You don't even see Harleys in Indonesia and the noise is deafening. Not to mention the fatality rate in the US: 32 times that of cars mile for mile.

2 eliminating rent control-- the idea that this would encourage people to move closer to their jobs is false. It would force people to move wherever rents are cheap and increase drive times.

[Jason Hoppe]

We have multi story buildings, why not multi story highways?

Unfortunatley people here are not very willing to give up the comfort of their own car and private drive where ever they go.

It's like plumbing. A bigger house needs more and bigger pipes. The freeways are too small, double deck, tripple deck, what ever it takes to control the flow.

Then again, I wouldn't want to be on a muliti level highway, or in a multistory building when a 7.0 happens. :o)

[John Fisher]

My Plan:

pros: cuts smog, traffic, and CO2; better quality of life
cons: cuts 50% of car-related jobs

Aim:
to use existing infrastructure, reduce single-car gas-powered trips to a minimum.

1) charge a $10 toll to get on the freeway to all vehicles
2) rebate the toll to commercial vehicles monthly
3) dedicate one lane of all freeways to electric buses, with stops at current exits and intersections
4) at major intersections and exits use the land under the freeway to rent neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs) on a per mile not per time charge. Walk up, insert card or RFID, drive away. Provide 2 seater, 4 seaters, tiny trucks and vans.

Commuters can now get rid of one family car, keeping one for longer trips, and depend on the NEVs for commuting and local trips. Spending $10 to get of town on an uncrowded freeway will seem cheap, workmen will be able to get to work, while still paying a penalty for getting on the freeway - carrying the monthly charge.

Tolls rates, commercial vehicle requirements, NEV costs can all be easily adjusted as experience requires. No new technology is required, no land need be purchased, the MTD runs the buses, competing vendors can run the NEV rentals. In an emergency the road is still open, and the wealthy can continue to do whatever they want.

Great plan, guaranteed to work, nobody will vote for it. Oh well - I moved out of town.

cheers

John

[Matthew McKelligon]

Re: Anti-Monorail NIMBY's in Kymberleigh's post:

Why can't we just sue the NIMBY-neighborhoods for impeding Los Angeles County's smart growth? Their opposition to necessary large-scale transit projects over the past several decades have handicapped this city as a whole. If a strong-fisted socialist government is the muscle that Europe flexes in order to implement comprehensive mass transit systems; then surely the American muscle would be our lack of tort reform and affinity for law suits.

[Kymberleigh Richards]

As a Metro public official who does not own a car and uses public transportation exclusively to get around (current Chair of the Metro San Fernando Valley Sector Governance Council), I sympathize with many of the comments here.

But I am also a realist and find myself having to strike a balance between ideals and what is feasible.

Here are a few facts that have been largely ignored by the media in their coverage of the Bus Riders Union's campaign on buses:

1. During the ten-year consent decree which expired in October, Metro added 1.4 million hours of service to the system, yet was prohibited from raising fares to cover the cost of that service. This has resulted in a structural operating deficit, because the reserve funds (which should have lasted thirty years or more) were repeatedly raided to provide that service.

2. Had Metro been able to annually adjust fares to keep pace with inflation over that ten year period, close to $700 million in additional fare revenues would have been collected in the past five years alone, which would have essentially paid for all that additional service.

3. The cost of fuel alone (notably, the compressed natural gas that runs the largest percentage of Metro's clean-air buses) has increased 117% just in the past five years and -- again -- fares did not increase to cover those costs.

Metro is no longer in a position to consider new solutions unless they come with funding attached. And monorails, while fondly embraced by many who grew up with Disneyland, simply are not the solution because NIMBY opposition to the elevated structures will kill any proposal for them.

The region had its chance, thirty years ago, to approve a 1% sales tax which would have both funded bus operations at a low fare and built more than 140 miles of subway and light rail. The ballot proposition went down to a sobering defeat; I have my sincere doubts that the voters would be any more inclined to vote differently now, because for too many, there is an attitude of "public transit is for someone else to use".

Discussions like these, and Steve Lopez continuing to hammer away at the issue, will change those attitudes over time, but it will be a slow process and we will have to take our improvements one at a time.

[Todd]

Here's my thought on BIG traffic in California, License plates start with a number (example) (2BDG714) take that starting number and depending what area the focus is on to reduce traffic (for instance) (Tustin) if your registration is sent to your address in Tustin (a focus area) and the first number on your license tag (2) you would only be able to drive if the calender date ends with a (2) (example 8/02/07 take the 02 and the first number on your license tag which is also a 2 and thats when you can drive.

[Matthew McKelligon]

For reasons of physical size, as well as environmental and personal cost alone, the car is simply NOT the answer. Look at the terrible state of our roads—we don’t even have the tax dollars to keep up what we have, let alone the construction of even more of them. American politicians and big business are looking for the quick fix: hybrid vehicles along with privately subsidized roads (trust me, it’ll happen).

We no longer live in an isolated world. Why not send a delegation of transit officials to mass-transit friendly cities such as Tokyo, Berlin or London to see how other megalopolises have fared well over the past century? True, a subway is not the sole answer, but a transit hierarchy is: regional trains (the somewhat far-fetched maglev trains proposed in between LA airports), city trains (Metrolink), subways, buses and finally cars (for the well-to-do or geographically isolated).

Moreover, while I’d rather not knock any transit project we have in the works due to our sheer need alone (f.e. the subway to the sea), the monorail is perhaps the quickest, most economical fix for our city. The tracks can be partially assembled off-site, requiring little disturbance to residences and businesses; they’re quieter than buses and trains; and LA has the warm climate for it. While people may not be wild about this potential “eyesore”, we have to remember that the proximity to mass transit stations has been shown to boost real estate values as well as foot-traffic at businesses. Why not just build them now? They’ll be built one day whether we like it or not: this city’s going up!

[L. Lott]

I fondly remember the days of the '84 Olympic. Cars were allowed to drive alternating days depending on the even or odd number on their License plate. Large employers also had to assign staggered work hours.
It is just so sad to see such a world class city be so broken in its transportation. Those of us who have tried to take public transportation are insulted by poor schedules, poor routes and disregard for the riding public. Its so obvious that those in charge of public transportation in this city have no intention of riding it or taking their family members on it.

[Angelino]

I worked in downtown for over ten years. There wasn't anything more frustraing than exiting the office parking garage to find traffic lanes shut down for a movie shoot. I am not talking about an occassional or infrequent occurrence but daily. Inevitably the closures are during the AM and/or PM rush.

LAPD traffic officers (retired and active) are paid $40 per hour by the production company to sit in uniform on a City issued police motorcycle not doing anything to enhance traffic flow or safety. They literally sit and eat, talk, and smoke throughout the time spent on location. The revenue to the City is too great a enticement to stop or regulate differently.

The number of production trailers, RV's, equipment trucks, catering trucks clog the ingress and egress to the City and the politicans sit back and sign permits.

[Judy Bass]

Can you let us know how to get in touch with Mr. De La Vega? Maybe some letters from citizens would get his attention.

Thanks.

[Susan]

Our elected officials might develop the political will to do something about transit in this city and county if using public transportation were part of their job requirements. How fast would buses,trains and subways improve if the mayor, the deputy mayor for transportation, the city council and the county supervisors were required to commute to work, during rush hour, once a week.

And twice a week when it's raining, and three times a week when it's really hot.

And every day during a transit strike (esp Supervisors Yaroslavsky and Burke).

[David Michael Smith]

As a recent arrival in LA from Portland, Oregon, I am shocked at the differences in vision between the relatively little cow town I lived in for 28 years, and the great, "sophisticated" megalopolis of Los Angeles. The apparently visionless public officials here ought to make a visit up north to gain a bit of vision about how to handle public transit, traffic and urban growth.

One immdiate action Californians shoud consider: pass legislation that makes it illegal to talk on cell phones while driving. This alone would probably solve about 25% of the traffic problems in the state and city. Back east, in New York and New Jersey, drivers can be cited and pay fines of almost $400 for violating the ban on cell phone use in vehicles. It's almost impossible to concentrate on driving and blabbing at the same time.

David Michael Smith

[paulablue]

Tramlines and bike lanes. Cut down the traffic and the congestion instead of trying to improve it's speed. Get people out of the car.
Besides, if you cycle, you won't need to spend so long at the gym.

[nrique]

The current traffic situation is not going to be solved by ONE answer but rather by a number of solutions that make up a comprehensive plan. One way to impact the current traffic situation is to look back to the past for a first step.
For the 1984 Olympics the City and County of Los Angeles passed ordinances that required ALL large industrial vehicles to travel at night. The only large vehicles allowed were emergency and some construction vehicles. Any vehicle larger than Step vans were confined to travel the Southern California freeways at night for the two weeks of the Olympics.
It worked, for those two weeks there wasn't a single traffic jam in the entire county.
My proposal, restrict ALL large vehicles over a certain weight from traveling the freeways during the daytime. Everything except for emergency, city and county service vehicles would be restricted to traveling the freeways and streets withing the hours of 7pm to 7am Monday thru Sunday. Any and ALL delivery's would be made at night the only exceptions would be on the weekends.

[J Looby]

What LA needs (in the short term) is a massive drivers education campaign, better freeway signs, and a crackdown on traffic enforcement. How many times have you been driving on the freeway and the traffic inexplicably slows? You crawl for what seems like an eon and, lo and behold, the traffic has been slowed almost to a standstill by the inability of the majority of drivers to merge. Or, a sudden and confusing freeway interchange sign causes a panic of brake lights. We need the CHP to enforce the quaint old custom of signaling, as well as citing too slow drivers, or (my favorite) the insecure load. A couch in lane 2 can back up traffic for miles. Also, CHP would be able to get break downs off of the freeway faster if they were actually ON the freeways.
The education campaign would teach people the gentle (and apparently lost) art of merging, the purpose and use of the passing lane, and that when operating a motor vehicle, the primary purpose of of a driver is not to chat on the phone, eat, put on makeup, or do anything other than to...well, DRIVE.
Many of the people on our roads are tourists and we need to make our signs simple and easy to read at 75 mph.
In the long term, no more arguing about which solution is the best. We needed to start yesterday and we could likely use ALL of the suggestions here and still need more. Do the cheap doable stuff now, and begin working on the long term mass transit projects already.

[Joanne Peterson]

MORE STREET SIGNS AND FREEWAY ACCESS SIGNS. MAKE ALL BUSINESSES POST THEIR ADDRESS SO IT IS VISIBLE.
IMMEDIATELY THE CITY COULD START ADDING SIGNS ON EVERY INTERSECTION.

IT WOULD SPEED TRAFFIC WHEN WE ARE SEACHING FOR AN ADDRESS IN AN UNFAMILIAR PART OF TOWN

[greg alparaz]

all the ideas posted so far are all meritorious.but, the truth is, w/out the political will, our notorious traffic conditions is not going anywhere.there need to be a change in the priorities of this current local administration besides nothing else but pretending to administer our beautiful city wisely and rewarding their cronies.take care of the city's problems, and the rest, including winning future election bids will follow.
the solution is, to vote for genuine people who are concerned, and will do something, about our traffic predicament.

[Umberto Brayj]

I know this will sound heretical in Los Angeles, but why not reduce the capacity for automobiles along amjor transit corridors? Cars get nearly all of our transportation infrastructure - and other ways of getting around get the shaft.

Here is my suggestion: we need more liveable streets, with fewer car lanes, a BRT on every major arterial, and facilities for bicycle commuting (i.e. get rid of car lanes and parking to create massive sidewalks and bicycle lanes).

[catherine north]

Here's a start: there are enough vehicle restrictions in California that one more won't hurt. Why not ban all SUV's from urban areas? Who needs them? nobody..

[Danny allen]

Stop the insane over devlopment of this city. You cant reduce the cars or add freeways and we wont ride a bus. The only hope is slowing down the developers who dont have to drive in this mess.

[John Bard]

Limit every household to one car on the road at any given time. After the expected squeals of protest, Angelenos would have to work out how to get to work - and play - without using two, three, or even four cars per household at the same time. And watch the congestion - not to mention the pollution - disappear, as people learn to ride-share and use public transport.

[Armando Ramirez]

One of the things that makes the New York system so great is that you can take a train from one end to the other. When I take the train from my home to work, I have to take the Gold, Red and Blue Lines for what is a 9 mile drive. It's not the the of switching trains but the added wait that makes it so inconvenient. On a typical day, this trip takes about 45 minutes, most of the time is spent waiting at 3 different platforms. If the trains went straight through downtown, you could eliminate people like me who take short trips through one of the most congested parts of the city.

[Sergio]

I'd like to make a suggestion to help change the transit problems in Los Angeles: Everyone that lives in the greater Los Angeles should have a special license plate for their automobiles. These licenses would help to know who is visiting or not the areas most congested by traffic. The city would then stipulate a day for some people to drive around based on a license plate and area criteria. Lets say that there are around 500 thousand licenses ending in 5, from different areas. On a Tuesday licenses ending on 5 would not be allowed to be on the roads. Can you imagine 500 thousand less cars from different areas on a single day, out of the traffic? Of course there will be a system to make these cars be from different areas, so neighbors are in need to share rides, etc.
Emergency? Ok, prove it and the citation will be waived, but it has to be a good one. there are other ways to get there, maybe your neighbor is allowed to drive today and his car is just seating there.
It will be easy to devise a plan, issue the licenses and have everyone doing it. It will also help to implant the system and reduce the bus fare price to a more reasonable one, so people can buy monthly passes and use them. I used the bus system for a few years until I moved and I have no complaints. Some bus drivers need to be educated on being polite, see someone runing after the bus and wait a few seconds, etc.,but overall it was a great experience. we need to do something and my idea might sound crazy now, but if implemented by the Hummer driver or his bosses, it might bring some breathing for a few years. Or maybe by then we will have flying cars and the problems will have another agency to care for it. Just my opinion...

[Tom]

Personally, I don't care what kind of vehicles people choose to drive, from motorcycles to 18 wheelers. The former are punished when they zip and weave between lanes and get clipped by vehicles that didn't see them and couldn't have seen them; and the latter are punished when they have to take a full day to participate in the investigation of how the motorcycle got under 10 or 12 of their wheels.

Now, as for traffic congestion, it is the single most-impacting detriment to living in Los Angeles, bar none. It affects millions of people every day. We have become complacent and accepting of this congestible horror, seemingly agreeable (but more likely transfixed) each morning like wide-eyed girls offering up their necks to Dracula.

Unlike my fellow commuters, I have no bold but practical programs. What shocks the intelligence is that, with so many brilliant minds available to develop and propose an integrated traffic system in our city (and, please understand, I am not referring to elected officials), no such stream team has been impaneled.

That's begs the immediate question. Why aren't the mayor, city council and board of supervisors jointly investing the time and funds, immediately, to engage respected experts who can propose a comprehensive and practical county-wide, integrated system?

Well, that's the million dollar question (incidentally, less money that spent on any number of local elections). A blog won't resolve the problems, but neither will a caravan of stalled or sputtering elected officials, stretching bumper-to-bumper from here to the next election.

[Susan Parks]

IDEA:

During repair of freeway from the 1994 NR EQ, the fwy were shut down due to damage anyway, but contractors worked round the clock and were given incentives to finish on-time if not ahead of time. Perhaps we'd all be better off with a planned shut down and by-passes and then just get the job done.

[Carl Peel]

We should all be in the streets demanding Mr. de la Vega's resignation. And perhaps we would be if we weren't spending our free moments stuck in traffic. It takes me an hour to drive to work, a distance of less than twelve miles, from Mt. Washington to Beverly Hills. When I take public transportation (the Gold Line to the Red Line to the Wilshire Metro Rapid) it's an hour and a half, but at least I can read and get to work more relaxed and ready to face the day.

I'm glad that traffic is even starting to affect people like Mr. Yaroslavsky. That and the constant pressure of people speaking out, ala your columns may finally send a signal to our city leaders (public servants? -- they don't act like it) can not just ignore this. They should be forced to take public transportation to all official business within the city. Let's see if they make it on time.

We also need a large education campaign for commuters in the city. KTLA did a report on the traffic problem some months ago, and as their main citizen interviewee they used a man who lived around 7th/Wilshire and Figueroa and worked in Santa Monica who said he'd definitely take public transportation if there was any. No one pointed out to him that the Wilshire Rapid bus passes right by his front door and goes straight to Santa Monica.

We complain, but don't do anything about it.

I want to formally demand the resignation of Mr. de la Vega and not by Easter, but now. No one could possibly convince me this is a man looking out for the public interest as his position warrents.

[Susan Parks]

During the 1984 Olympics, with worries or traffic congestion one-way Fig and Flower and others were, we thought, VERY successful and should be revisited.

The subways/trains are great, to a point, but focus should be on results such as getting to and from the Exposition Park area easily pre- post-events for starters. Of course, parking lot owners might oppose such. The train is good for getting into town but problematic getting back...sort of like CInderella and the clock striking 12.

Think of San Jose and it light rail trolly corridor for Fig. street. and perhaps the Grand corridor. There are good examples out there.

The most impressive thing is Europe is the transit network and it is a network. In Switzerland when you get off the train, a bus is waiting.

Wile LA is soooo big, fix something like downtown, or the Figueroa Corridor now being developed, do the one-way streets get a piece fixed and working really well' focus on getting people to the major concentration area and destinations. People are more willing than a decade ago to ue transit--look at the Gold Line and shuttles to the Rose Bowl rather than driving and parking on the golf course.

[Larry Urish]

Here's a simple solution: Put a residence quota on L.A. County, and make it retroactove for 25 years...

[Richard Simon]

(1) Anyone who lived in LA during the 1984 Olympics remembers the strange but wonderful effects of the traffic rules in place that summer: with the imposition of staggered work schedules and restrictions on truck deliveries, local traffic flowed relatively freely.
As the city accelerates its campaign to bring yet another Olympics here, it's time to revisit the traffic plan of a generation ago, and to reimpose its most effective measures now.
(2) Have Westside commuters--those who work here plus those who live here ("here" meaning west of Sepulveda, south of Sunset and north of Manchester) pariticipate in a survey. Simply distribute the survey to residents and businesses by mail--or, to save money, by hiring the same crews that inundate the area with Thai restaurant menus.
Ask these questions:
--What route do you drive on a daily basis?
--At what time(s)?
--When those routes are clogged, what alternate route(s) do you try?
--Are you alone in your car, or do you carpool?
--Would you pay for a faster commute if you agreed not to drive it?
--Would you "park-&-ride" if an express bus drove you to work and home?
--Would you pay a Westsider tax if it brought a significant reduction in traffic congestion?
Study the answers, and in the meantime, implement the obvious measures right now: one-way Olympic & Pico and Lincoln & Centinela; create park-&-ride bus routes; eliminate all left turns (and their lanes) from 6 to 9 am and from 4 to 7 pm.

(3) There's a local "laboratory" where traffic regulation could be implemented. This plan is a bit arbitrary, but it does address a specific contributor to a measurable source of increasing vehicular traffic.

Today, if you live anywhere near the gargantuan development called Playa Vista--from Lincoln to the west and Centenela to the east--you know that the influx of cars into the area is significant. And the worst is yet to come: every plowable inch of the old Hughes property is giving way to construction of new, terminally-hip housing.
Sorry, but even as new residents have the right to move here, they should also bear some of the cost of overburdening the infrastructure here. Vehicles that leave and enter Playa Vista on a daily basis (as of, say, July 1of this year) should be issued a windshield decal, coded with a time-of-day color. Employers and delivery companies would be made aware of quotas on vehicle restrictions in and out of PV, and adjust their schedules accordingly. Friendly monitors in kiosks would encourage compliance with a smile--and punish violators with a $100 ticket. Bus riding in and out of the enclave would be encouraged: twenty days of punched drive-time bus passes in a month would earn the rider a month's membership in a spa, etc.

[Robert Acey]

Dear Steve,
I my opinion, today column hit the nail on the head.
Lookit, freeways are obsolete by the time the planned construction is completed. So by the time additional lanes are added, the number of vehicles will have multiplied beyond the point of rescue and we are back where we started. Not enough room for everyone on the asphalt.
Givemeabreak, this isn't a physical problem of not enough concrete and asphalt. We have a great highway system. This is a cause and effect situation.
Checkitout. The problem isn't the physical capacity of the roadways. The problem is a human behavioral one.
Youheardme. Look in the mirror LA. There's the problem. You have alternative means of transportation but you stick to your same ol' same ol'.
Californianhealthyself. Employer's, adjust your hours so that non-critical jobs can start later in the day. If you live by a subway station, try it out. See if it works for you. Hello, does the term carpool register.
Letsgetreal. If we depend on government, with their half back solutions like converting streets to one way or adding truck lanes, we can all forgetaboutit. It's up to us to adjust the way we think and live. Don't buy vehicles that are the result of a faulty ego. Understand that courtesy on the road is as essential as courtesy at home.
Listenup L.A. It’s time to become part of the solution, not a contributor to the problem.
Have a nice day.
RA

[Richard Simon]

(1) Anyone who lived in LA during the 1984 Olympics remembers the strange but wonderful effects of the traffic rules in place that summer: with the imposition of staggered work schedules and restrictions on truck deliveries, local traffic flowed relatively freely.
As the city accelerates its campaign to bring yet another Olympics here, it's time to revisit the traffic plan of a generation ago, and to reimpose its most effective measures now.
(2) Have Westside commuters--those who work here plus those who live here ("here" meaning west of Sepulveda, south of Sunset and north of Manchester) pariticipate in a survey. Simply distribute the survey to residents and businesses by mail--or, to save money, by hiring the same crews that inundate the area with Thai restaurant menus.
Ask these questions:
--What route do you drive on a daily basis?
--At what time(s)?
--When those routes are clogged, what alternate route(s) do you try?
--Are you alone in your car, or do you carpool?
--Would you pay for a faster commute if you agreed not to drive it?
--Would you "park-&-ride" if an express bus drove you to work and home?
--Would you pay a Westsider tax if it brought a significant reduction in traffic congestion?
Study the answers, and in the meantime, implement the obvious measures right now: one-way Olympic & Pico and Lincoln & Centinela; create park-&-ride bus routes; eliminate all left turns (and their lanes) from 6 to 9 am and from 4 to 7 pm.

(3) There's a local "laboratory" where traffic regulation could be implemented. This plan is a bit arbitrary, but it does address a specific contributor to a measurable source of increasing vehicular traffic.

Today, if you live anywhere near the gargantuan development called Playa Vista--from Lincoln to the west and Centenela to the east--you know that the influx of cars into the area is significant. And the worst is yet to come: every plowable inch of the old Hughes property is giving way to construction of new, terminally-hip housing.
Sorry, but even as new residents have the right to move here, they should also bear some of the cost of overburdening the infrastructure here. Vehicles that leave and enter Playa Vista on a daily basis (as of, say, July 1of this year) should be issued a windshield decal, coded with a time-of-day color. Employers and delivery companies would be made aware of quotas on vehicle restrictions in and out of PV, and adjust their schedules accordingly. Friendly monitors in kiosks would encourage compliance with a smile--and punish violators with a $100 ticket. Bus riding in and out of the enclave would be encouraged: twenty days of punched drive-time bus passes in a month would earn the rider a month's membership in a spa, etc.

[Fuzz]

The Metro trains are alleviating car traffic that goes downtown but what about those who commute between two outlying communities in the city? I'd like the see the Metro adopt a grid system instead of the tightly knit spoke system hubbed around downtown. If there's 10 lines all going to downtown (like Chicago's) we won't get as many people to use it if it's not convenient for them. Create lines going from Santa Monica to Long Beach, From East LA to Anaheim, Burbank to Claremont.

[Blake]

I saw this system several years ago. IT was a University of Wisconsin project, I believe, that had been licensed to Raytheon. Apparently they got busier with building patriot missiles and did not renew their license. It is now a private company and I urge you to check this out:

www.taxi2000.com

This is the 21st century, people. The Bus system in greater los angeles is an absolute joke. If you have to commute anywhere more than 10 miles, be prepared to spend 2 hours each way on a Bus.

The subway goes nowhere anyone wants to go, parking is a nightmare (and expensive), thus defeating the purpose of the system.

I recently dropped my son off at berkeley. We spent 4 days up there with him, 2 of those days we spent in san francisco after COMMUTING there on the Bart. We then took trolleys and streetcars and the Muni everywhere else we wanted to go.

The New York Subway system is 100 years old. Can someone explain to me why, back in the 70s when we came up with the los angeles rail system, we couldnt come up with something better than a subway? Perhaps it was the ugly truth that an elevated railway or a monorail (or even taxi2000) just wasnt as much of an incentive to the contractors as digging holes, by far the most expensive.

Flexible work schedules are a joke. Have you tried going somewhere on SATURDAY? I drive to home depot in monrovia from my little hamlet of altadena and it takes 45 minutes. 45 MINUTES ON SATURDAY

Mr. de La Vega is just another example of the ME ME ME MINE MINE MINE generation. WHere does he drive his hummer every day? Does he commute to some far off land where the housing is affordable? These days that would be some place like Lancaster...Hesperia...or that garden spot of (no offense) Perris.

Maybe affordable housing is part of the issue as well. You see, we need shelter...and we all want to own a home. So we buy a home in easter Riverside county and commute to our job in Culver City or Los Angeles, or Pasadena or Van Nuys. We keep this job so we can pay for our house and put gas in our car to get us to our job so we can pay for our house and put gas in our car..... Yet what about the productivity? What about the loss of time in MY LIFE because I have to waste 3 hours a day to commute 20 miles round trip? I am not paid for that time by my company. If I work 8 hours a day and earn 20.00 per hour, my commute essentially sucks money out of my paycheck in time ALONE, not to mention the gas. HOW CAVALIER the city of Los Angeles is with MY time.

The 210 Freeway is an absolute disaster...A DISASTER. The extension has only removed traffic from the godawful 10 freeway. This freeway is packed solid from 7 am until 9 pm monday through friday.

Mr De La Vega should take his disgusting hummer and trade it in on a prius. However, this would also suggest that he actually cares about the mission of his job. Why is it we would expect anything more imaginative than "expanding bus lines" of a man who has been little more than a highly educated bureaucrat? This man doesnt even have a PLAN TO DEBATE. If there is no plan, can someone explain to me WHAT THIS MAN DOES? How is it we can pay a man (a decent salary obviously as hummers arent cheap) to do NOTHING?

I dont expect anything from him. I DEMAND results from him. I pay my taxes painfully every year and yet nothing happens.

Pay for driving in congested areas - Im curious. Who decides what is congested? This would mean a tollbooth on the 210 freeway, the 10 freeway, the 405 freeway, the 5 freeway, Olympic, pico, 3-9th streets, La cienega, Cahuenga, the 101 fwy, sunset blvd (MY GOD how awful sunset has become)

Expand the Rail Lines? Lets see...that will take about 5 years. In 5 years we can expect them to still go nowhere anyone wants to go. Ill give him this if we can have parking for 1.00 a day at train stations.

These kinds of pathetic responses are what we have come to expect from our do-nothing city council.

And every day the traffic gets worse, the air becomes more unbreathable and we go about our daily lives, settling for a type of hypnotic mediocrity

[David Rizzo]

It amazes me when we look outside ourselves to the cause of excess traffic, as well as the solutions.

We cause excess traffic because we reach for our car keys far too often, when we should either make the trip by foot, take presently-available buses or trains, make the trip in someone else's car (and return the favor), or not make the trip at all.

For example, for exercise, we drive to the gym and jockey for a parking spot near the door (God forbid we should have to walk very far to the health club door; we might work up a sweat) instead of running errands on foot. Also, most of our junior high and high school children, who claim to be environmentally conscious, wouldn't be caught dead riding a bike or walking to school. It's "uncool."

Additionally, our conspicuous consumption also causes excess traffic. When we buy a new laptop, cellphone, big screen TV or any other durable goods, it generates truck traffic. Small wonder the 710, 605, and 60 are jammed with 40,000 containers on the backs of trucks coming and going from the ports each weekday.

We all sing the praises of rail and transit as a solution, but few of us actually take the bus ourselves. When our car breaks down and must be left with the mechanic for a few days, we rent another car; still refusing to hop on the bus. Transit ridership (as a means to get around) has hovered around 5% for the past twenty years, despite all the new rail lines.

Former Vice President Al Gore brings up some of these points in this recent book, "An Inconvenient Truth." On page 311 he urges us to reduce the number of miles we drive, and on page 314 he recommends that we consume less.

Yes, it is inconvenient to have to carpool, for instance, but this alternative offers significant benefits for all of us. Note that during the 1984 Olympics, when the entire city of L.A. initiated transportation demand management initiatives, that ozone levels dropped 16%, there were 20% less accidents, and congestion decreased by 30%. By carpooling (for trips too far to make by walking or using transit), an individual can save up to $3,000 a year in reduced gasoline expenses and less wear and tear on his or her car.

In addition, is it absolutely necessary that we obtain the latest tech toy? Can't we get maximal use out of what we already have, be it a computer, TV, or even a car?

Choices in how we get around and how much we purchase are completely within our control, and these choices can increase traffic congestion as well as reduce it. When we relinquish these choices and ask local or central "government" for a solution, we end up digging deep into our own pockets, throwing money at a problem that can be solved by restraint, as opposed to more taxes and more construction. It doesn't matter if the construction is for more freeways, streetcars, or expensive high-tech alternatives such as monorails or mag-lev trains, it still generates excess traffic, air pollution, and congestion.

So the solution is rather boring, old, and almost too simple: conserve. If any part of the country claims to be conservation minded, it's Southern California. Isn't it time we start "walking the talk" -- literally and figuratively?

David Rizzo, D.P.M.

[Marcos]

It's a shame this individual is head of LA transit. Hummer is pure arrogance - it is less spacious and comfortable than most SUV's. The only reason you might drive one is showing off, mainly your disregard for others. Remove this man from his position and let him dirve freely into the sunset. I'm sure he'd make a great chief in Texas.

[Walter Moore]

1. Repeal rent control.
This will facilitate people moving closer to where they work.

2. Make Proposition 13 "portable."
This will likewise encourage and enable people to move cloer to their jobs.

3. Eliminate parking all day on major surface streets.
This will create an extra lane in each direction. Where will people park? Investors can build private parking garages along the way.

4. Dedicated bus lanes, and many more buses.
For a fraction of what new subways would cost, we could add, almost overnight, hudreds of buses, and have them criss-cross the city in dedicated lanes. We could use, for example, the lanes freed up by Item 3 above. For the price of a few miles of subway, we could have so many buses, moving so quickly, and arrive so regularly -- e.g., every five minutes -- that no one would want to travel any other way.

5. More Motorcycles, Scooters and Segways.
I just like motorcycles, scooters and segway. What can I say? They're more fuel efficient, and way cool.

[Pancho]

The solution to traffic is mass transit. L.A. has a fraction of the mass transit we need and a fraction of the mass transit other big cities have, hence the traffic gridlock.

Go to Madrid, Barcelona, Tokyo, Moscow, Mexico City, Paris, etc. all over the world. You see vast amounts of mass transit. Even Hugo Chavez who is sitting on 79.9 billion barrels of oil is building subways all over Venezuela.

The state with the lowest per capital consumption in the country is New York. Do you suppose its because the majority of the population lives in NYC which has most likely the most developed mass transit system in the country? California consumes more gasoline than every single industrialized country in the world. Do you suppose it's because of their mass transit?

Unfortunately, most Los Angelenos have never been anywhere so they can't even imagine what the solution is. Then of course, there is the rampant elitism that runs through our society. We cannot provide a solution that everyone can partake in to reduce congestion, petroleum dependence, and air pollution. We must come up with inane solutions such as giving free parking to rich people who own hybrids and allowing them to drive in the carpool lane.

Officials don't discuss these things because building mass transit requires taxes, which Republicans are philosophically opposed to and Democrats are too scared to suggest. Of course, bonds can be used as well, but you don't see Arnie pushing a massive bond package to transform the transportation system of California, do you? But when it comes to roads, he's all for it. Digging us deeper into the hole. Of course, he wants bonds to build prisons too.

Face it people, the car as the primary mode of transportation will continue to deliver diminishing returns. I've already written the best article in recent times explaining the gasoline crisis and how Californians can reduce petroleum dependence, traffic congestion, and pollution. Now that's a bold claim. I wouldn't make it if I hadn't already scoured the literature investigating this subject. Google "What Californians Should Do About the High Price of Gas" and compare my 1,000 words to 1,000 words written by anyone, anywhere.

As an example, I just read the first paragraph of an article here on the L.A. Times(today's edition) titled, "How to untangle gridlock" by Ted Balaker and Sam Staley. The first sentence reads, "Everyone in Los Angeles knows we can't do anything about traffic congestion." I don't have to read anything else beyond this to realize that these people are elitist, privileged idiots.

Shortly after the orange line was built there was a study reported in the Daily News which found that it had reduced the amount of time people drove on the 101 as well as allowed more cars to drive through it. Ridership has widely exceeded expectations.

What might reduce congestion on the 10? Completion of the Exposition Line as well as the construction of the Wilshire line to the sea. The tragedy of all this is the California has such a high gasoline consumption rate that we could easily build massive amounts of mass transit by a small increase in the gas tax.

[John Parodi]

I have read the many blogs and would like to offer this one: I worked at a Boyle Heights large medical center this past summer. One thing I noticed that piqued my interest were the large numbers of vehicles in that did not have current vehicle registration.l Many of these vehicles had expired plates in excess of six months and were in a state of disrepair.

Why not agressively pursue giving citations and requiring current insurance to any vehicle in excess of three months in violation. I can assure you that this simple mechanism would take many cars and trucks off our streets.

[Jeff Jacobberger]

Some of the solutions are simple:
1. Find pairings of streets that can be made one-way, such as Pico and Olympic, and Cahuenga and Vine from the 101 to Melrose. One-way streets eliminate the need for a center turn lane and permit better timing of traffic lights, which increase the carrying capacity of streets enormously.
2. Create "protected" bikeways. In LA, most potential bicyclists are afraid to share the road with cars. We should do what Montreal does and create a network of dedicated bikeways by taking a lane from cars (which we'd have the room for if we made some one-way streets. I suspect a lot of people would be willing to bike from West Hollywood to Century City, or Silver Lake/Echo Park to downtown, if they could do so safely.
3. Exercise eminent domain to acquire small bits of land for traffic circles in appropriate places. I'd look at the intersections where Beverly, Temple. Hoover, Virgil and Silver Lake Blvd. all come together.
4. Eliminate the right to make left turns on heavily traveled streets where there is no left-turn lane, such as Melrose between Fairfax and La Brea and 3rd Street between La Cienega and Fairfax. Do what every other big city does; make people circle around the block.
5. Don't waste MTA money on "extending" the Green Line to LAX. The Green Line already goes to LAX; we merely need an AirTrain that connects the Green Line station to the terminals, such as the AirTrain at JFK and Newark airports.
6. That would free up more money for the Purple Line, where I want to see more justification for building heavy rail. San Francisco's MUNI carries tons of people on light rail, which is a lot cheaper to build.
7. The Purple Line should not slavishly follow Wilshire Boulevard, either. Put the train where people already go. The "LACMA" station should be north of the museum, so that it is just outside the gates of Park La Brea and much closer to The Grove and Farmer's Market. Perhaps the line should go to the Beverly Center/Cedars Sinai and along the densely populated Burton Way corridor instead of straight along Wilshire, before cutting back to the heart of Beverly Hills.

[Kathy Reims]

I have one small suggestion. I have observed traffic backups at some major intersections which are the result of pedestrians strolling leisurely thru the crosswalk on the green light. Maybe we should try setting traffic signals to allow pedestrian crossing only every three signals or so. This could allow more cars to clear an intersection on most signals and relieve some bottlenecks. It's worth a try.

[Stephan]

Transportation officials need to treat this problem like the emergency it is. They are already 20 years behind and all of this lip service just sets us back further. Why can't they speed up construction like they did after the Northridge earthquake? Bridges were reconstructed in a matter of a few months instead of a year or two. The amount of time it takes to add a couple of lanes to a freeway is simply ridiculous.

It would be nice if the decision makers would stop all the talk and GET TO WORK!

[Richard Brett]

Do as I did. Take two cars out of the mix. I moved to New Jersey. These rural roads are so crowded with Deer and Geese.

[Mike Wiener]

One solution to LA's traffic nightmare: Make all public transportation free. Pay for it with a small tax on gasoline (I estimate three cents a gallon).

Mike Wiener
mikeandmuriel@aol.com

[Lyle Lanley]

Well, sir, there's nothing on earth like a Genuine, Bona fide, Electrified, Six-car Monorail! What'd I say? Monorail! What's it called? Monorail!

[mike]

Maybe the city shouldn't offer free spaces to government employees. If they had to pay huge parking fees...would they still drive? Think of where we could put all this new revenue.

[LAstraphanger]

I beg to differ about monorails being safer than subways.

In earthquakes, most of the shaking and damage occurs at ground level--not underground, as most mistakenly believe. Subways have come out completely fine in big shakers in Mexico City, San Francisco (where BART saved the day, but the Bay Bridge was knocked out of service), and right here in L.A. in 1994, when our Red Line subway was just fine, thank you. I would NOT want to be on a monorail during a big quake! Subways are actually one of the safest places to be in a quake.

We already have a subway under Wilshire and it MUST be extended. Forcing people to transfer from above-ground monorail to below-ground subway on the busiest corridor in the County is just plain ridiculous.

[Thea Sutton]

Many hours I have spent in traffic pondering the question of what is the answer to our traffic woes. One day, while driving, it clicked. I had a Eureka moment. The Monorail. Of course. Los Angeles is the home of Disneyland. Then I remembered how I traveled on monorails during my stays in Kuala Lumpur, Sydney, and Las Vegas. Finally, I researched why monorails are the best direction to go. They are safe, cost efficient, and most importantly environmentally friendly.

Monorails are safer to build than subways. The top soil consists of gas and sand. In fact, I’m sure you will recall there was a gas explosion when the subway was being built for the Red Line at Fairfax and Beverly. Due to the unique geology of Los Angeles, it is safer and more cost effective to build a monorail.

Unlike most public transportation systems that are governmentally funded, many monorails abroad are own by private companies and give the city a portion of their yearly profit. Wider highways cost more money, take more time to build, and more cars in traffic is an eye sour. Building monorails would provide Los Angeles with a great opportunity to transform our city with some conscientious-building, state of the art, technologically advanced urban planning.

The monorail is quiet and energy efficient. Many work on hybrid and solar energy. No more toxic monoxide car fumes and honking horns. Traffic noise and pollution would greatly decrease not to mention traffic itself.

To learn more about monorails I attended the Alternative Fuel Conference at the Santa Monica Airport last month in December, where I attended a lecture on the subject. I was led to the Monorail Society at www.monorails.org, and I suggest that you check it out as well. I also discovered that others in Los Angeles and around the world agree that monorails are the answer to our traffic dilemma.