German
Spanish
French
Italian
Portuguese
Japanese
Korean
Russian
ChineseDaily Transit Links Roundup
Contributed by Fred Camino on April 7th, 2008 at 11:04 am
Image courtesy of Thomas Hawk.
- The Bus Bench says no to extending the Gold Line to Whittier.
- Kuruma Banare? Car sales are down in the US, but automakers hope the federal economic stimulus package will get people buying cars again.
- The Daily Breeze prints the exact same stupid opinion piece on Mike Feuer’s Assembly Bill 2558 (the “climate-transit tax”) that the Long Beach Press Telegram printed last week.
- Classic Los Angeles: Intense regulation meant to keep the private car culture flourishing prevents a form of alternative transportation from functioning. Taxi cabs spend most of their time at the curb, not driving people around
Discussion
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Please keep discussions civil: exercise Troll Controll.
Man, I do miss having Yellow cabs flying down the street as in New York. Distances are too long here to really make it affordable on a regular basis. But, regular cab usage is part of the Sex and the City lifestyle. Notice how you never saw those four ladies ever riding the bus, let alone the subway.
At least it was better than Seinfeld where the “drove” to the gym. Another Los Angeles made version of New York where they cannot conceive of life without a car ever.
As a car-free Angeleno I think a more effective taxi system would an amazing asset. I’ve used taxis many times, even in their current hard-to-get state, to supplement my transit lifestyle. Think about the times you have an important meeting to go to, you planned to take the bus but the bus is late, how great it would be to be able to flag down a cab. Sure it will cost more, but that cost can be worth it. I’ve been in the exact situation, I had a meeting in Culver City, was waiting for the 439 bus, it never came… Ran down to 7th/Figueroa (would have been much nicer if I could have just flagged a passing taxi) grabbed a taxi from the long line, and had him shuttle me off to Culver City. Sure, the 9 mile trip cost me $34 (with tip), but since it was for business it’s a deductible expense, and it probably would have cost me a lot more to not show up.
Another time I was late to catch a train at Union Station, I knew if I tried to take the subway I wouldn’t make it, so I ran over the 7th/Fig (would have been faster if I could have just flagged down a passing taxi) and hopped on a taxi to Union Station. $10 later I was there just in time to make my train.
Taxis have a use, and people will pay the price for their convenience. This is a city where people will pay $25 to park their car at the Staples Center. I say we lift the regulations and let the taxis operate their business, if they can’t make money then fine, but c’mon, to regulate another potential transportation alternative to keep private auto drivers happy is insane.
Very good points, Fred.
I was just thinking that because a taxi ride across Manhattan is $10 and one across Los Angeles is $40, it makes it something I can less afford here than there.
But if people will pay $25 for parking, then bring on the taxis. Nothing would end automobile-entitlement and the car culture faster in Los Angeles than the end of free parking.
From the title of “The Bus Bench”, I thought he’d be advocating the BRU’s caca. Actually, what he is stating is that he wants a Purple Line extension to Whitter on that corridor rather than light rail. He stated that once you start digging, heavy rail and light rail costs are similar. Is that true? If it’s underground, does the cost of whether its heavy or light rail matter?
Taxis! Taxis! Taxis!
Okay, let me expand. I am massively in favor of pretty much any transportation adjunct that doesn’t demand protection.
What do you mean “demand protection”?
Fred,
I’m not being nasty/snarky here. The problem is just one that is not well understood in SoCal. Say the word “medallion” on Manhattan and everyone knows you mean the stupid $700,000 piece of tin that lets you operate a cab. We pay buses and trolleys and trains to operate but penalize cabs. Why?
Please. Please, this is not a judgement. We subsidize only a subset the public transit components of our transportation network. Why not all?
Am I the only one who isn’t a huge fan of taxi’s? They can be useful, but if you have too many operating in a single area they lead to congestion. Check out this op/ed by Sam Schwartz, a former NYC traffic commish and taxi driver, who talks about how taxi’s can actually make congestion worse.
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2007/09/12/2007-09-12_to_start_hacking_traffic_take_1000_taxis.html
I’m not saying don’t lift the chains off taxi’s in LA, I’m just saying we should be aware of uninteded consequences.
PS - I should make clear that I pick what I’m going to write about at streetsblog before I come here…Fred and I are clearly reading the same clipping service though.
I’m in the same boat with you on this one (I think). This is why I think the regulations should be lifted… let the taxis do their business, stop protecting the private automobile drivers sense of entitlement to an uncongested roadway.
Damien Newton:
I’m a huge fan of taxis, for reasons I stated above. They are a form of alternative transporation, and a much smarter use of the automobile! Ride sharing!
Being able to hail a cab from anywhere could fill a lot of holes in our transportation system for this living without a personal automobile, and it could fill those holes instantly. As it is right now, since cabs wait at the curb all day, they won’t consider taking you a few miles because they are waiting for that big fare to the airport or whatever other big trip.
They cause more congestion? Luckily I don’t drive a car, so congestion doesn’t really bother me. There’s a lot worse things that cause congestion that don’t also function as alternative forms of transportation. Cheap street parking, street cleaning, film shoots, fender benders, etc etc.
We should take the silly regulations away from taxis in this city and make hailing a cab a reality.
Taking a couple of taxi rides for those moments when one “has” to have a car is cheaper that a car payment, maintenance, registration, insurance, gasoline, parking, etc…
For the people who say, “but what about that one time I really need a car.”
Easy. That’s what cabs are for!
If you read the LA Times article you see that a lot of the taxi customers mentioned are not exactly the wealthy. One lawyer couple was mentioned, but, unsurprisingly, most customers are those who do not have cars… the article mentioned the Latino shoppers along Broadway to be major customers, taking the bus to into Downtown and then a taxi out.
Here; a manifesto if you will:
For profit transit is still transit. Inasmuch as “for profit transit” agrees to most of the usual transit rules (and assistance) where is the harm?
POVs are not a good thing. They proportionately require lots of land and dendritic permeability and more. While they [POVs] have, over the last 40 years, managed to become more energy efficient and less polluting than transit alternatives that does not mean the past is prologue.
Rob Dawg:
I absolutely agree. Clearly taxi’s are a successful mode of transit, proven in urban areas worldwide. I always find the suggestion for Private Rapid Transit (PRT) funny, because the whole concept is basically a glorified taxi cab system on a monorail.
I work in Santa Monica and I see SO many taxi divers just driving around with nobody in there or just waiting for people on Santa Monica/3rd.
Taxis come in handy hardcore. In Tokyo, when the subway was closed we got to go to our clubs by Taxis! Amazing!
Taxis also works well in places where public transportation is lacking. Although Bangkok, Thailand has a decent bus system, their unreliable schedules make taking a city bus daunting and with only 14 miles of elevated rail and 13 miles of subway, rail doesn’t reach everywhere. However, you can hail a taxi anywhere in that city, even deep into the neighborhoods. Amazingly, like the food there, taking a taxi is cheap; it’s like around $1 in average to go 10 miles.
So why be so restrictive to taxis here in LA? We need to get rid of on street parking and have prioritized taxi curb location in addition to bus-only lanes. I’m for transportation that keeps the average citizen off the steering wheel (since a lot of them also hold on to the cell phone).
Simply put, taxis combine the best of both the worlds of public transportion and private autos: the ability to go anywhere anytime without the use of a personal car; and no need to find parking space too! Think of taxis as like a limo.
I thought I ‘d throw in an obligatory “Lift the ban on pedicabs!” into this discussion.
If you’d like to read more about how pedicabs got squelched in L.A.:
Scroll down to the “Further Reading” section:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_transportation_planning_in_Los_Angeles
The big problem with taxis in this country, though, is that they are too big, perhaps because we are too big. Taipei is a legitimate city in the developed world and they have tons of Sentras and Corollas running around acting like taxi cabs. It is a hustle/bustle environment but the cabs, like most vehicles there, are appropriately sized and so people just hail that at will, and you can catch one in most dense areas like the business districts within a few minutes.
The other thing that you are going to see are more motor scooters and motorcycles as gas prices go up. They are de rigeur in most Asian countries and as speeds on our streets and freeways continue to drop the likelihood of being injured seriously drops (unless you are one of the jackasses that cuts off a bus or likes to ride at 70 mph on the yellow line between the carpool lane and the left lane).