Q&A: Greening a cheap renter's long commute

Your eco-questions, answered:

Question: I want to ask about taking the bus vs. driving from Torrance to Westwood. Usually, it takes me 30 minutes without traffic, but you know L.A. -- it takes me at least an hour in traffic. Anyway, I had never really tried the bus until I started reading your blog. So, I went to Metro.com and used the planner and found out that it will take me 90 to 120 mins. Unfortunately, that about 30 more mins than taking the car. Yes, time is factor for me.

My question is: how can i rationalize taking the bus over the car if it takes me 30 minutes more?

I'm sure i will save money, but money is not a primary concern. It more a matter of getting to where i want stress-free and arriving there sooner or at very least same time as in the car. I always want to produce way less pollution but i see no practical way to do so.

My second question is rather odd: But i was wondering how can you afford to live in Santa Monica? I wanted to move to Santa Monica, but a room there is at least $1000. That is a lot for a student like me.  I mean I'm sure a lot of my friends and I would want to live closer, but the rents are so outrageous. Xing

Answer: Your two questions are not odd and actually very related. My short answer: The reason I can afford to live in Santa Monica is because I don't pay for the privilege of sitting behind the wheel in traffic burning gas for two hours a day.

I don't have car payments. I don't have parking or permit fees. I don't get parking tickets -- something that used to be a huge, huge problem for me. I don't pay for maintenance. I don't pay for car theft issues -- another thing that used to be a big problem. And perhaps most importantly, I don't pay for gas.

You pay for all of the above -- and thus have less money left over for rent.... As well as less time to play with, considering the time you spend on the road.

What I find interesting about your question is that while you say money isn't an issue in terms of your commute, it is an issue when it comes to rent. Why the dichotomy?

I suggest thinking about the cost of car ownership AND the cost of rent as one lump sum. If you lived in Santa Monica, you could take the Big Blue Bus to Westwood very easily, in like half the time you're spending commuting now -- conceivably allowing you to get rid of your car. You'd then likely have enough money to live in Santa Monica, a place where it appears you'd rather be living than Torrance.

Even if you're not ready to give up your car yet, I'd strongly consider moving closer to work so you can either take alternative transportation or walk. First, figure out how much you're spending on gas a month. By my calculations, even if you're driving a relatively fuel-efficient 2-door Honda Accord AND getting the lowest prices on gas ($3.37 a gallon, as of this writing), you're spending at least $160 a month on gas alone for your commute, according to MPGgenie. To that cost, add on parking costs, if any, at your workplace, and/or the kickback you might get if you give up your parking spot -- If your workplace has 50+ employees AND subsidizes leased parking said employees, then you're entitled to a cash allowance in lieu of a parking space, thanks to California Health and Safety Code Sections 43845.

That'll give you a general idea of how much your commute's costing you every month. Take that sum and add it to the rent you pay now. That sum's the amount you could afford to pay in rent if you lived closer to work -- even if you kept your car -- in what would probably be a more fun neighborhood.

Because really, is it actually possible to arrive at your destination "stress-free" after fighting traffic for an hour? I think I'd become mildly suicidal if I had to spend 2 hours a day fighting traffic.... So unless you're in a situation that prevents you from moving for some reason, I'd strongly consider moving closer to work and ditching the painful commute, if not the entire car.

Photo by andropolis via Flickr

Comments

[jrb]

Excellent post Siel.

I have to LOL about what you said about the parking tickets. I lost three vehicles to parking extortion before finally giving up owning one.

I now live 7 blocks from where I work, so I can even add saving bus fare to my rent.

I've never been happier.

[Cassandra]

In support of the car-free.

I just wanted to add my two cents. I've been car-free for a little over two years, and I live in the same neighborhood (W. LA - about $200 cheaper than living a few blocks west, in "official" santa monica) that you are looking at.

Although I agree with all of Seil's points in regards to moving, I wanted to give you another point of view. The long and short of it is: make yourself try it. For a week. Or a month. Put a big song list on your ipod, hook yourself up with some comfy shoes and/or a bike, and take the bus.

The Metro Trip Planner is great, don't get me wrong, but look at your options from a human standpoint as well. Is there a rapid bus or a train/subway line which goes close to where you are? Is there something that takes a few more walking minutes which will save you time? Treat it like driving maps. Is there a route which is longer in "distance" (whether that distance is walking, driving, or bus route) which will be shorter in time?

Unfortunately, you do live in a bit of a black hole when it comes to public transportation. Torrance and, well, anything which is covered by the independent bus lines which are scattered throughout "LA", is not so easy to get to. Rather than being able to hop a rapid bus down Sepulveda, for example, you have to take a local and then transfer. Then transfer. Then transfer.

This is something which, unfortunately, must be fixed through legislation and activisim (read: politics), and will not be solved any other way. A small history: Back before MTA was doing good™, many smaller divisions of LA -- such as Santa Monica, Culver City, and even Torrance -- took it upon themselves to provide adequate transportation for their cities. Unfortunately, now that MTA does appear to be bringing its act together, many of these cities continue to run their busses to the exclusion of the MTA busses. That is half the reason that there is no decent public transportation n/s which mirrors or alleviates the 405 (the other half involves an even more tangled web of politics, airport transportation, and car culture).

So, all of that aside, what options are there for you? Well, what about meeting public transportation halfway? If cost really is not an issue, you could park by LAX and take a bus from LAX(ish) to Westwood (Flyaway) in about 20-30 minutes. (It is a $2 fare, instead of the $1.25 of regular MTA, or $0.90 of Hawthorne + transfer). You could particpate in a carpool (trust me, they're there for the weirdest hours and the weirdest days) or shared ride van. Call 1-800-COMMUTE for help with arrangements, or post on losangele.craigslist.net.

But over all, speaking as someone who trades her 45 minute commute for a 1 hour bus ride every day, you can gain a lot, though you might not see it immeidately. I used to calcualte my commute based on how long I spent on the freeway (25-30 minutes), rather than how long I spent door-to-door (45 minutes to an hour). Try to break yourself of that habit. Also, look at the things you've been wanting to do and haven't had the alone time for. While riding the bus (rapid 720), I read about a book a week; I've started learning Japanese; I've lost weight (less time at a gym!); and I meet new people every day.

Sometimes it is difficult finding a balance that will work for you -- if you are really looking at going car-free, cold turkey can be the best place to start, or maybe there's a way to take smaller steps...

[clare]

I don't want to be negative but I don't think you really address the question - "how can i rationalize taking the bus over the car if it takes me 30 minutes more?" - mostly because you can't. The only solution for now is to move closer to your destination!?! That seems a bit daft to me.

I took the bus from silver lake to venice every day for 2 years - it took 2 hours each way instead of 45 mins in a car. So I did move nearer to my work, and I now actually car pool with my boyf to work, but we'd happily get the bus if there was a decent bus service that connected the beach cities. There really isn't. Sure you can get from Redondo to LAX fine - but then there is a big gap - from LAX to Santa Monica.

It seems to stupid to me that these cities along our coast are not connected by some kind of over ground rail system or buses.

Bottom line is Los Angeles needs a better public transport system that is just as fast as driving in the car. A tall task for a city the size of Switzerland but it can be done.

Hopefully it will eventually changed because I don't plan on moving to Venice (where we work) any time soon.

[Dan W]

I live in Santa Monica myself and I am car-free.

I deliberately chose to live walking distance to three, soon four, Rapid Bus Lines. The extension of the Expo Line and Purple Line to Santa Monica will be heaven. If rail alignments are built along Santa Monica Blvd. (from Century City to NoHo) and Sepulveda or even Lincoln. I will be in Nirvana. But the quality of Big Blue Bus and the Rapid Bus Lines make it possible for me to make this choice in Santa Monica.

As the car culture is unravelling -- and if you don't think it is, ask yourself why NBC/Universal is moving TO the Red Line, no longer trusting that in the future all their employees and clients will be able or willing to drive to their automobile-based location now -- it means that people and businesses will incorporate transit accessibility in their business decisions and planning their professional meetings and social engagements even if they don't or won't use the rail and bus transit themselves.

It means that instead of spending several hours a day in my car, criss crossing all over the city, commuting to work, the store, the gym, the restaurant, whatever, that I choose transit accessible businesses.

I deliberately chose to live somewhere in walking distance to two grocery stores, my pharmacy, a gym, my bank, movie theaters and night life, and near Rapid Bus Lines and likely future rail lines which enabled me to give up my car today -- not 20 years from now. I didn't care that "it is so hard to find parking in this neighborhood." My partner parks in my parking space when he comes over

By giving up personal ownership of an automobile, I could apply the money I would have given towards a car payment, insurance, registration, maintenance, and ever-increasing gasoline costs to affording the higher rents here and other places in my budget.

Everyone's afraid of "what happens on the day I really need a car or really want one?" THAT'S what taxis are for, or renting a car for the day. Flexcar is a great idea which is why automobile industry lobbying will do everything in its power to kill it. It's simple budgeting. Instead of several hundred dollars going into personal ownership of an automobile, the money I redirect into rent and other places allows for a couple of taxi rides a month.

Even though is it's still formative, most people in L.A. have no idea how good the transit service actually is here. It's not the quality of New York, London, Paris, Berlin, Tokyo or any other world class metropolis yet, but it is sure better than it was two decades ago and it is better than most people think. (The more people using transit or depending on other people being able to use transit, the more political pressure is applied to improve the rail and bus system, as opposed to futile road and freeway expansion in a desperately attempt to preserve the ever-declining quality of life the car culture still offers.

The MTA does a terrible job with signage and with its own promotional materials letting people know what it offers. My friend Paul lives near Burbank and Woodman in the Valley and had an appointment at Santa Monica and Highland. He said, "I had to use a car, I live in the Valley". Even if he didn't want to take a bus to the Red Line and then the 4/704 to his destination, he had NO idea that the 156 bus would have run right from his apartment to his destination. Instead of depending solely on all these little schedules for disconnected bus lines, how about a pamphlet entitled "How to get from the Valley to the Westside" or something else more useful?

There is a change of consciousness happening in Los Angeles. From assuming that everyone worth knowing, of course, has a car we are moving from a car-only transportation city to a more balanced mix of transportation, where public transportation comes out of hiding.

Like every other metropolis on the planet, businesses will include public transit instructions along with driving directions in the "how to get here" portion of their marketing materials in order to attract the increasing number of people who make their shopping/patronizing decisions based on no small part on transit accessibility -- just like every other major metropolis on the planett.

Therefore, instead of simply being located out in the middle of nowhere with lots of parking, just assuming all your customers and employees will drive, being near great public transit becomes better for business. NBC/Universal, a non-altruistic business has made a planning decision for their own best interest based on how they believe L.A. is changing. It's not about L.A. becoming New York or London or another city, but about L.A. becoming the world class metropolis it would have been had corruption not dismantled our mass transit system in the 1950's and had we not had fifty years of sprawl and social engineering in favor of the car culture. That social engineering gave many people a sense of automobile-entitlement and that entitlement is neither economically or environmentally sustainable or affordable for increasing number of people. Good luck finding an aspiring politician willing to tell the automobile-entitlement, motoring public that simple truth.

There are increasing number of people living transit oriented lifestyles in Southern California, out of need or out of choice. That lifestyle continues to improve and thanks to ever-increasing congestion and ever-increasing costs of gasoline, the car culture lifestyle continues to decline.

It's really important that we who have de-automobiled speak our truth and let people know we are here. Public transit is not just "transportation welfare" for the poor, and not every person would drive a car "if they could only afford one". I'm caucasian, middle-aged, well-educated, articulate and middle-class, have a driver's license, and no DUIs. I'm the exact opposite of the person mosts motorists believe rides transit. Other people can no longer pretend that since I am a transit rider and not just survive, but thrive in L.A. that maybe they can too.

Siel moderates a great blog here. I also recommend others that are popping up that discuss and even celebrate this new car free and/or transit-oriented lifestyle. Metroriderla.org is one of my favorites. Only in Los Angeles would this even be noteworthy. This is just normal living in a metropolis in every major city.

[Dan W]

"Unfortunately, now that MTA does appear to be bringing its act together, many of these cities continue to run their busses to the exclusion of the MTA busses. That is half the reason that there is no decent public transportation n/s which mirrors or alleviates the 405 (the other half involves an even more tangled web of politics, airport transportation, and car culture)."

---------------

Keep in mind that the MTA hyper-worried about "duplicate" service. Forcing people to transfer at turf boundaries is a major problem. It's why the 761 poops out at Wilshire, when so many more people could use it if went to Pico, let alone LAX, reducing the number of transfers necessary. It's why the Pico Bus poops out at Pico/Rimpau out in the middle of nowhere.

BBB would like to run the new Pico Rapid to Wilshire/Western or even Wilshire/Vermont. Because of these turf disputes, it does not yet have permission.

Here's the deal I propose. How about letting the Rapid 7 run to Wilshire/Vermont and letting the Rapid 761 run south to Pico (or establishing a Rapid 961 from Van Nuys Metrolink to LAX with very limited stops)?

If both of these ideas sound good to you, then please send an e-mail to customerrelations@mta.net and to the Big Blue Bus and the Culver City Bus.

But don't stop there. Too many of our federal, state and locally elected officials still see transit as "transportation welfare" and are woefully misinformed or utterly ignorant of the needs of transit riders. When someone does speak to them, it is often a NIMBY who only wants to stop a public transit improvement for their own selfish reasons. (Watch how quickly and loudly the automobile-entitlement folks start pressuring to repeal the Wilshire bus-only lanes should they ever be installed.)

Turf issues shouldn't be a transit riders problem. We need legislative and policy changes that minimize these disputes or the power of these disputes to thwart public transit improvement. We need not just money for transit, but legal and policy changes as well at all levels of governance. So after writing the MTA, BBB and CCB, and your elected officials, then join a transit advocacy organization like "Southern California Transit Advocates" or the "Transit Coalition" (but not the misnamed Bus Riders "Union").

[Kate]

Another point: life is about trade-offs. What's more important--speed or peace of mind? You say "It more a matter of getting to where i want stress-free and arriving there sooner or at very least same time as in the car."

From where you live now, you may not be able to achieve both of those goals. And it sounds like you've identified speed as your priority, or you'd already be taking the bus even though it's a longer trip. Siel's suggestion about analyzing your budget is a good one. Although my husband and I have a car, our commutes (him-bike, me-bus) mean that we use our cars a lot less than other people in the area, and we save a lot of money on gas and wear-and-tear.

[jrb]

"(but not the misnamed Bus Riders "Union")"

Dan you are just as closed minded about the BRU, as the BRU is about rail. Discussion shuts down when both sides refuse to respect each other or see each other as having any valid arguments. I agree with you that they need to work on thier closed mindedness.

Maybe you should too.

[Dan W.]

"Dan you are just as closed minded about the BRU, as the BRU is about rail. Discussion shuts down when both sides refuse to respect each other or see each other as having any valid arguments. I agree with you that they need to work on thier closed mindedness. Maybe you should too."

NO...

I am not closed-minded about the BRU. I am INFORMED about the BRU and that is why I recommend people new to transit advocacy bypass their organization and go to others which I believe play a more constructive role in Southern California transit advocacy and advocate policies which I believe will be more helpful to keeping Southern California economically and environmentally sustainable..

Everyone should go to the Transit Coalition's website and read "BRU Truth". Go to the BRU's own website too and make an informed choice.

http://thetransitcoalition.us/BRUtruth.htm

The issue is not one of bus VERSUS rail.

No advocate I know of who supports improved rail service doesn't also support improved bus service.

I recommended those new to advocacy check out two organizations that support BOTH a strong bus and a strong rail system.

The BRU's anti-rail positions and their cries of "transit racism" have not helped move Southern California public transit forward. In fact, they arguably held it back. The BRU has chosen a position which I believe is destructive to transit planning in Southern California, and will not help keep So Cal economically and environmentally sustainable.

I have no hesitation encouraging people to find out the truth about these organizations before they spend their time and energy supporting them.

We absolutely need organizations which advocate for better and improved bus service. Both the Southern California Transit Advocates and the Transit Coalition do that. They also advocate for better rail service. There is no reason to join an organization inherently hostile to rail unless you are hostile to rail yourself, when you can join an organization that supports better bus service that isn't hostile to rail.

One only has so much time and energy and money to contribute, and I see nothing wrong in encouraging people to use that time, energy and money in organizations that I believe play a constructive role in Southern California, and discouraging people from joining an organization which I believe plays a destructive role in Southern California.

That I am informed about the issues and the organizations involved and make a recommendation does not make me "closed minded".

If the BRU releases a press release stating that we were wrong to oppose expansion of the rail system. We believe both rail and bus can grow together, then I would know they were worth consideration again.

I also trust the individual members of the BRU to speak up for themselves. I respect their right to their opinion. I respect my right to oppose it, and vice versa.

That's hardly closed-minded.

Let me also state I discourage people from joining the NRA, the "Family" Research Council and the John Birch Society -- also organizations with goals I disagree with.

That doesn't make me closed-minded either.

[tsarina]

I have been car-free for four years. I commute via Rapid from my home in very pedestrian-friendly Glendale to my job on the edge of Culver City. One bus. and only 15 minutes longer than it would take me to drive, except on those days when there is a detour. Some of my friends think I am crazy and keep asking me each time they see me if I have a car yet.

But though I may purchase a car in the future, I don't really miss not having one. I carpool with friends to places that aren't too bus-friendly. I don't have payments, insurance, gas to buy, etc. When friends come over, they have a guaranteed parking spot which is a bonus in my strict street parking neighborhood.

I did make some choices about where I live and work, as Siel mentioned. I specifically looked for transportation access. When the Expo line opens, the stop will be right next to my office. Until then, the 780 works just great for me.

I too "read" about a book a week on my iPod, sometimes two. On the weekends, I enjoy walking to the grocery, restaurants, movie theatre, shopping, etc.

A friend just asked me if I would help her learn how to ride Metro Rail from East Pasadena area to her downtown job. Seems she had trouble using the Trip Planner on mta.net. If I worked at Metro, I would try to improve that. It's a great service, but you do have to know how to work it. It wants to send you with the fewest connections and sometimes it is a lot faster to make a couple of transfers.

My inspiration in living in LA without a car is my friend Ruth who has lived here for 30 plus years and NEVER owned a car. She did it back when the MTA was horrible. She too lives in a pedestrian and transportation friendly neighborhood.

But Siel has me thinking, maybe I should move to Santa Monica....

[jrb]

"The BRU's anti-rail positions and their cries of "transit racism" have not helped move Southern California public transit forward. In fact, they arguably held it back."

I call BS on that statement.

They got us the consent decree which improved the bus system a great deal. Maybe you don't remember, or don't care to remember, how bad it was before the consent decree. I do.

I'm not a member and I don't advocate joining them. But everytime you bring them up, I hear an otherwise very intelligent, well informed person's mind slam shut, with a big clang.

I keep wondering how they pissed in your Cheerios.

Someone cut you off at a meeting?
Diss you in public?
Act like you don't know what you're talking about?

If so, let it go.

The MTA is afraid of the BRU so you can bet they will not be left out of any future discussions about mass transit.

Make peace and move on.

The reason progressive groups get so little accomplished is our propensity for bad mouthing, and monkey wrenching each other instead of finding common ground.

Our opposition on the other hand always seems to be able to mount a united front against us, while we all end up wasting time and energy fighting amongst each other.

[Dan W.]

I will leave it with this, for its clear we won't agree with this. I'll even let you have the last word.

Just because I make an informed decision that you don't agree with doesn't mean I have a closed mind or that the iron bars in my brain have clanged.

Let's let people make up their own minds:

Everyone should go to the BRU's website:
http://www.busridersunion.org/engli/index.html

Then go to these websites from the Transit Coalition and Transit Insider:

http://thetransitcoalition.us/BRUtruth.htm
http://www.transit-insider.org/master.html?http://www.transit-insider.org/bru/ignorance.htm

Then check out these two alternative pro-bus and pro-rail organizations:

http://www.socata.net/ for Southern California Transit Advocates
http://www.transitcoalition.org for The Transit Coalition

Then decide for yourself which organizations feel like a better and more constructive use of your time, energy and money.

Anyone who wants to join an organization that supports improved bus and improved rail service, you have at least these two to choose from. Anyone who wants bus service improvements only and doesn't mind using accusations of "racism" to get it should join the BRU.

I hardly call the BRU a "progressive" group.

"The MTA is afraid of the BRU so you can bet they will not be left out of any future discussions about mass transit."

Uh, sorry to break the news to you, but the BRU has squandered the political capital it built in the 1990s. The consent agreement was beneficial to bus riders, but it was so limiting, it is unlikely the MTA will ever agree to anything like that again or that the silent majority of transit riders would allow the BRU to sidetrack needed rail improvements for its narrow agenda.

I will concede your point that the consent agreement made bus service better in Los Angeles in the 1990s and that benefited from better bus service. For that I WAS grateful to the BRU. However, I ALSO benefited from improved rail service as well.

It is appropriate to discuss what the ratio of making bus service improvements and rail service improvements should be. However, charges of "transit racism" have not been helpful and in this racially divided city are unconscionable.

I still remember sitting on the 720 bus before the consent agreement expired two years ago and looking at a stack of BRU fliers accusing the MTA of "racism". Everyone should ride the rail service we already have and they would notice it is majority minority ridership. I also see Caucasians on every bus I ride every day. But using sensational calls of "racism" is how the BRU gets attention and it is unconscionable and untrue, assuming that matters.

As a transit advocate nothing will make me happier than if the BRU would say, we are wrong to use cries of "racism" to get attention. Furthermore, we realize an expanded rail service is important to Los Angeles and we will continue to advocate for better bus service, for we believe a comprehensive and improving bus service is in the best interests of Southern California and we don't want bus riders forgotten by an MTA putting all its focus on rail expansion only." Or whatever. I will be the first to send the contribution if they do.

If they want to advocate for better bus service, which I support, then great. If they want to tear down rail in order to do, then they should expect and deserve opposition.

It's a matter of logic. Join an organization that encourages rail and bus improvements or join one that supports bus improvements only at the expense of rail.

I'll leave to people to make their own informed choice about how to spend their own time, energy and money, but until the BRU changes it's agenda or policies on rail expansion, I will continue to suggest that those people who are new to transit advocacy join organizations that I believe play a more constructive role in Southern California today.

You are free to make your own recommendation, of course.

But that I disagree with you, DOESN'T make me closed-minded, and the BRU's position TODAY are what matters, not the bus improvements from the consent agreement last decade.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I encourage everyone to get informed and then get active in the organization of their choice.

[Dan W.]

"The reason progressive groups get so little accomplished is our propensity for bad mouthing, and monkey wrenching each other instead of finding common ground."

Fair enough. I agree with you on that.

However, the BRU isn't a "progressive" organization. I find them to be a "regressive" organization and they've squandered any sense of good will generated by the improved bus service from the consent agreement.

If the BRU modifies it's policies and actions, I will happily change my opinion about them. If the BRU issued a press release stating that they would no longer oppose rail improvements, but simply advocate improved bus service improvements so that bus service doesn't get ignored or left behind as the rail system expands, I would happily send them a donation.

But I'm not "closed minded" because I discourage people from supporting their organization because they pursue an agenda which I believe is destructive to Southern California, especially when there are other organizations which I believe DO play a constructive role.

------------

"The MTA is afraid of the BRU so you can bet they will not be left out of any future discussions about mass transit."

Uh, sorry to break the news to you, but this isn't true at all.

In fact, the consent agreement was so limiting, it is hard to imagine the MTA ever being willing to agree to something like that again.

If anything, their continued anti-rail dogma and cries of "transit racism" have rendered them politically irrelevant. The media gives them attention they no longer warrant because they are willing to say sensational things.

------------------

"I keep wondering how they pissed in your Cheerios."

Well, the BRU-supporting flyers I saw on the 720 bus a couple of years ago accusing the MTA of "racism" were particularly ugly and unhelpful. It is not true that rail improvements benefit mainly whites and bus improvements benefits people of color. There are whites on every bus trip I ride and majority non-whites on every Metrorail trip I take.

-------------------

I will let you have the last word, but I encourage everyone to investigate these organizations and others for themselves. Go to the websites for the BRU, the Transit Coalition and Southern California Transit Advociates. Read the "BRU Truth" page on the Transit Coalition's website. Find out the facts and make up your own mind.

Then, decide for yourself which organization you support. Two support expanded rail AND bus service, one supports bus at the expense of rail.

Whichever informed choice someone makes, I will not accuse them of having a "closed mind" simply because they came to a different conclusion.

[jrb]

OK last word here.

"However, the BRU isn't a "progressive" organization."

They've been at the last five or six L.A. Auto Show demonstrations demanding that the auto manufacturers produce cleaner vehicles.

They've been at every anti-war march I've attended.

OK so they've slowed MTA's headlong rush for rail at any cost.

Somebody had to.

Maybe you don't remember the Red Line construction. Over budget, deadlines not being met, graft, corruption, overcharges, shoddy construction, little to no oversight, and little to no accountability. The construction companies were laughing all the way to the bank.

The bus service was suffering because of it, usually in the poorest areas.

Maybe you don't agree that, that is racisim, but a judge did.

I think they deserve a certain amount of respect, even if I don't agree with them 100%.

JMO

[tritesprite]

Back to the original questions...

I have to wonder what kind of car you drove, Siel.

Monthly costs for my car are around $150. I get 35 mpg. I'd have to be driving a heck of a lot more than 30 minutes each way for the cost of gas to make up for Santa Monica rent differences...

[jrb]

tritesprite, Siel is talking about getting rid of the car entirely, so add in car payments, insurance, up keep, parking tickets, ect, etc,

Probably closer to a $600 a month or more savings that could be added to rent.

[RLN]

I read a few of the comments and have to agree about hte lack of connected bus lines on the west side going north and south. From the south bay to santa monica and back on Sepulveda/Lincoln. Why doesn't a single rapid bus line exist? All these beach cities should support a rapid commuter line. I live in Venice and work in El Segundo. There should be no reason I need a car, but it takes 20 minutes in a car versus 1.5 hours via bus with one transfer on WEstchester, waiting for the connection for 25 minutes! Unacceptable. I'm sure if they had a rapid commuter line, it would free up a lot of road. I would walk 10 minutes to and from a rapid stop if i knew th bus ride would only take 30 minutes, essentially doubling my commute but freeing up the road.