I like taking transit--it allows me to read and/or listen to my ipod while getting from one place to another. Driving is a waste of time and in Washington is quite frustration.
So last April, when I made a visit to USC to prepare for my move this coming August, I used transit to get around LA to see what it was like. In terms of convenience, it is actually not too bad--buses go nearly everywhere, and the routes are sensible. It is also very cheap. Yet there was one huge difference between DC and LA transit--and I am not referring to the fact that Washington's Metro rail system excellent and LA's Metro rail system doesn't go enough places to be all that useful. Rather, it is the fact that one sees all economic classes on transit (including buses) in Washington, but not in Los Angeles (perhaps I am making too much of an assumption based on people's attire, but I don't think so.) A conclusion one might reach is that people who don't have to take transit in Washington do so anyway, while only people who have no choice but to take transit do so in Los Angeles.
Perhaps a reason for the difference is that Washington Metro rigorously enforces its rules prohibiting eating, drinking and loud noises. While I long thought the eating and drinking rules were extreme (especially when I really want a coffee during my ride in), I have to admit that one of the reason Metro is so pleasant is that it remains very clean. On the other hand, when I rode transit in LA, I encountered three winos drinking out of brown paper bags. And the vehicles themselves were no where near as clean and pleasant as their DC counterparts. I must confess that such conditions make me less likely to use transit.
It is important for transit to be considered an acceptable option for travel for all economic classes--it is one of the ways to develop a political consensus behind it. While once upon a time I couldn't imagine myself saying this, perhaps all transit systems should consider adopting Washington's rules--and enforcing them.
No comments:
Post a Comment