Reader comment of the day

The winner for Friday is Neale, who posted this earlier. I don't edit them, by the way:

I read this blog regularly but i wish you would stay on topic. THis it Los Angeles only chance to make a play for public transport. We have enough news about Iraq. What - you have never seen pictures of a sandstrom before?

Back on topic - I notice a pattern in the people you write about . The majority seem like they have choices. It is unfortunate that the tone of the blog is one that treats mass transit as a curiousity than a necessity of urban life. Why so much emphasis on bikes from "bikers"?.

Why not write about people who do not have choices?
Intereview a few of the following:
1. Someone who lives east of downtown.
2. A persom waiting at a bus stop after the second shift.
3. A person who does not speak English.
4. Recent immigrants shopping for cars - ask them why when they have always used public transport in their own countries, they do not even give ours a try.

Neale is referring to a photo of an Iraqi sandstorm I posted last night. Why did I do that? I liked the photo, thought it had some relevance out here (because of our air quality issues) and, quite frankly, wanted to provide some fresh content to late-night readers.

That said, I think Neale offers some perfectly fine criticisms. While learning how to blog -- this is my first go at it -- I have been a bit more desk-bound than I would like the past few weeks.

I do tend to write a lot about people with choices, perhaps because of a personal bias: I'm one of them. I can drive to work or take the Gold Line, and, in fact, I do both. I also believe that a lot of what has caused traffic to be such a big issue here in the Southland are the choices people make, namely the choice to drive because it's faster and the choice to buy a house far from work. In the era when everyone knows about climate change and what is causing it, I find those choices fascinating.

But Neale is right, that's no excuse not to cover those who depend on mass transit the most and those, I'm guessing, who are the most let down when mass transit fails them.

--Steve Hymon

Comments

[Dana Gabbard]

Now I see the excellent Sue Doyle at the Daily News has just done a profile of some local folks who get around sans car via bus and bike, which does seem to address some of what Neale commented on.

http://www.dailynews.com/breakingnews/ci_9864893

[Dana Gabbard]

Years ago the L.A. Business Journal published a profile of a transit dependent woman (and single Mom) from the Pico/Union District just west of downtown L.A. who made a living cleaning condos on the westside. Her annual income was about $12,000 and it detailed her experiences using transit daily to commute to the various sites that she worked at. I ride the bus daily and still found it a revealing article. Transit has many aspects but its chief purpose is mobility - getting people to and from jobs, to go shopping, etc. In doing so it fulfills an economic purpose. Next time you enjoy a nice meal at a westside eatery remember that some of the folks who were involved with its preparation will in the wee hours be getting home via crowded buses on Wilshire and Santa Monica Bl. And I hope in the coming year as the Metro Board grapples with some daunting financial challenges that the deliberations take into account the impact on the folks who depend on buses for all the important things of life.

[stan derrin]

It is even more important to reach people who HAVE a choice in transport.It is these people who can choose whether they are going to drive or take a bus.The traffic jams in many cases are a choice made by people who could make a difference if they chose public transport.
That is why it is critical to reach tehm since they are the ones creating the traffic.

[SoapBoxLA]

Steve,

You came out of the gate like a race horse and your performance is commendable!

I've seen you posting live, pizza in one hand, and not skipping a beat.

Keep up the great work, let's change the world!