The LaMetroMole with LACMTA Comments

 The photograph below documents the situation at the Maxella AV and Lincoln BL stop on the BBB number 3 Line. It is the sort of “work” one would expect from the LACMTA. They taped or caused to be taped shut the aperture in the plastic pipes associated with power poles. These pipes were used as improvised trash cans. BBB N.B. The stop still needs a trash can!

Su Topo will include this comment in every post with the above until BBB corrects the problem. For quite awhile BBB has been charging for intra-line transfers, reversing the long standing policy of free transfers to other BBB lines. Too, BBB has spent lots of money to build a big headquarters, bracketed by Colorado AV, 5th Street, 7th Street and Pico Bl. Mr. King, just a few dollars for a trash can, you might need a few more to cover other bus stops too, will erase this section. After all, it is Marina Del Rey! :-)





Su Topo uses video to highlight the problem of scofflaw drivers endangering Metro bus passengers yet, no authority seems to want to take ownership of the problem. The issue is not unique to the particular site which this Mole documents, but is illustrative of a general problem. Your Mole encourages you to report similar problems to the appropriate agencies in your area and hope that you will have better luck than he. In the youtube.com videos linked below, one can see exactly what happens when the policing agencies fail to enforce traffic laws.

The videos linked below document the important fact that a never ending stream of vehicles fail to use the lane as required by law.

Neither are the policing agencies active when it comes to protecting us by bringing these obvious and frequent traffic law violations to an immediate halt. The LACMTA is derelict as well, in that they fail to use the near hourly proof of the violations captured by the on board cameras, mentioned here and discussed at length in the posting of 2012-05-31.

1In spite of the potential for these violations to occur several times per HOUR, I have never seen a police presence at this location. One would think that with a bus schedule taped to the dashboard, one of the several policing agencies would have made some arrests by now. Unless they have "more important" work to do than protecting bus passengers.

La Taupe feels that it is appropriate to dedicate these video(s) to ALL the agencies that should be protecting us. So, they are dedicated to (1): Airport (LAWA) Police, the L.A.P.D., the L. A. County Sheriff’s Department and Mr. Art Leahy who is CEO of the LACMTA.

La Taupe has recommended a simple solution to the problem. That is, have the 111 Line buses pull up to southern most line of the pedestrian crosswalk , then stop and discharge passengers. Doing this eliminates the space in front of the bus which the always-in-a-hurry scofflaws use to cut in front of the Metro. *But with the LACMTA nothing is simple. Although the solution could be implemented with nothing more than a memo to the 111 Line drivers, it is a just another task for which the LACMTA is inadequate.

 
The Los Angeles Times reported (Nelson) on the sad death of a man who stood in the Gold Line tracks near the South Pasadena Station on January 4^th.  The piece indicates that the man was standing in the crosswalks between the closed crossing gates and that “[t]he train driver sounded his horn, but the pedestrian did not move away in time."   That’s it! No driver applied the brakes full on, made every attempt to avoid an accident, yet the pedestrian was struck and killed!  No ”an investigation is underway …”.  It is sort of an “oh well” tone on the part of the police and the LACMTA. 

A Times article (Nelson²⁾ tells us about the LACMTA’s plans to improve our travel experience J.  The piece describes the intent of the LACMTA to raise fares and allow for free transfers.  The fare increase is intended to reduce shortfalls, such as the $36 million deficit forecast for 2016 operating Budget. 

In spite of this imbalance the LACMTA continues to spend monies on the Toonerville-Trolley like light rail which will only create additional maintenance costs and further shortfalls.  One must keep firmly in mind that much maintenance is simply just ignored by the LACMTA unless it appears to them to be life threatening. You can search this Mole’s posting for “maintenance” and compare the situation which was observed months ago with the current condition; my wager is that many times the situation will be identical today.

So, let’s subject the LACMTA's plan data to as much analysis as we are allowed.  A 17% fare increase, right now as opposed to their eight-year plan, would bring fares up to $1.75.  Now, let's compute how many full-fare passengers it will take to reduce the $36 million at twenty-five cents each.  The answer to 36,000,000/.25 is 144,000,000.  Of course the LACMTA would reduce income by an amount equal to the number of passengers now buying a day pass because they ride four buses daily and pay $5 where, under the LACMTA plan the rider would get a free bus ride via his transfer for every paid ride.  The net effect of that pattern would be to reduce income from $5 to $3.50.  Ah, but you say the day pass should also be increased by 17%; OK, let’s do it!   We can value a day pass at $5.85, the effect of which would mean that a passenger could ride six buses each day and still not need a day pass and end up paying sixty cents less than the cost of a day pass, i.e., $5.25 instead of $5.85. 

Also, considering a two bus commute each way, each working day at the $1.75 fare: Cost of day pass $5.85 - cost of the two daily fares $3.50 = $2.35 less income for the LACMTA. 

Of course, su Topo doesn't have access to all the data, but it would seem that someone needs to sharpen their pencil and go pack to work on this plan, because even this cursory look seems to indicate that the for the LACMTA the more they think the deeper in debt they get.

Further, depending on exactly what the policy will be vis-à-vis interline transfers, income could be eroded, because passengers who now have the option of paying full-fare on Metro or 35 cents for a “Muni” transfer will ride the Metro bus on their free transfer.

The above is far less than a thorough analysis but it does serve to illustrate the LACMTA’s usual approach to issues.

It would have been helpful for the LACMTA, who depends so much on our tax monies, to make available the results of their work, it's called "transparency", folks.  It would have been preferable to have an embedded link to a pdf document that gave us numbers and amounts for ridership, categorized by pass usage, transfer sales, day pass sales and etc.  Making such data available allows the Times readership to arrive at a more reasoned evaluation of an organization who is self-described as a funds transfer agent or words to that effect.  Of course, that would be an extreme departure from, in my opinion, an organization which seems to treat most data as “Top Secret”.

It makes one wonder what the answer to the Metro spokesman’s question,  "[w]e looked at our whole fare structure and said, is this really fair to our riders?", actually was.

This is a discussion which must be continued.

The Times evidenced (Nelson³) that Rep. Janice Hahn (D-San Pedro) gets it! In the article Ms Hahn says ‘Building a train to  Los Angeles International Airport without considering options that will bring light-rail into the terminal area is "short-sighted and wrong."’  "For Los Angeles to be a first-class city, we need a first-class airport," Hahn said in a prepared statement. "Part of having a first-class airport ... includes giving commuters the opportunity to travel to LAX directly inside its terminals."

While the LACMTA is quoted as saying that, tunneling under the nation's third-busiest airport would be too expensive and dangerous. 

As usual with the LACMTA it is always a matter of costs, NEVER of benefits.  It is good that that the ineffectual agency’s ideas are not commonly shared, otherwise su Topo could not present the many world-wide examples of rapid transportation systems with a terminus at major airports.

The Los Angeles Times Transportation Beat reporter, Ms Nelson, is staying on top of the LACMTA.  In the January 19^th edition she reports (Nelson⁴)
a fuller version of Nelson², above. 

Please read all these articles in their entirety as Ms Nelson is a great reporter whose incisive presentations provide the best look into the internals of the LACMTA that your writer has seen!  I include only a single point from this piece, although it is covered in both of the aforementioned articles.  Viz., the change in policies and pricing of the “EZ transit pass”, which is presently priced at $84.  It appears that the “EZ transit pass” will be merged into the standard monthly pass (presently $75) and priced at either $135 per month —an increase of $60 per month; or at $180 per month —an increase of $105 per month.  This “merging plan” gives me a strong feeling that it is an "innovation" which the ridership neither needs not wants.

I have a monthly pass.  I know how to navigate the system by using other municipal buses when I am in a hurry or taking what is often the longer way round by using only Metro buses.  So do most people who must keep a careful eye on their spending.  With this Mole, it is more a matter of not putting a single penny in the LACMTA’s hands unless it is absolutely necessary.  Every six months, they usually provide me with less transportation, because of bus line cancellations and service reductions, while providing me with fewer creature comforts (think restrooms, bus shelters without residents and etc.) than one could find in Tuvalu, which is ranked 190th in GDP by the World Bank; in my mind the LACMTA doesn’t deserve a single penny more.  

An organisation which thinks of itself as a service provider should think in terms of service, e.g., adding a specific additional line —say CCMBL, BBB and etc., to your monthly pass for a cost that is closer to what the passenger would pay for workday transfers under the present system.  The proposed monthly pass pricing is just another LACMTA scheme to separate people from their money. 

Adding specific additional lines to a monthly pass would mean that, since it is impossible to obtain change anywhere in the system with the possible exception of rail stations, a passenger needn’t be concerned about having the correct change or being forced to overpay —the present situation, losing her transfer and etc.   La Taupe believes that less than the majority of the ridership would need more than one additional line, because it would likely require much of  the work day for a commute by bus.  Your Mole doesn't know the parameters of the aforementioned issue and one can be fairly certain that the LACMTA doesn't know  them either.

My mother remembers when RTD transfers were free, had no time limits and had two (2) tear-off “tickets”, which “tickets” along with the main body of the transfer allowed for three additional bus rides.  Not the, is there a nice way to say “chintzy”?, tacaño LACMTA with a 90 minute life span for a single use transfer.   Especially when one must wait long periods for bus service or waits at a stop without “Rapid” service or any other service for that matter.

 




The subhead of the piece says: “The high costs and risks of tunneling below the airport put the plan on the back burner.”  Well the LACMTA suffers from both a poverty of vision and intellect in dismissing, out-of-hand, a project which has been accomplished elsewhere.  Su Topo’s past postings have shown that other cities, which share our planet, have successfully had the vision and overcame any real or imagined risks to link their airports to city centers AND usually by a single seat on a single train. 

Hong Kong and San Francisco have tunneled beneath their bays, London is tunneling for subways in a 26 mile, $23 billion project, as is New York City with the $4.5 billion 2^nd Avenue subway project !  These cities have vision and a risk tolerance to be envied.

Statements like those in the subhead should cause the LACMTA to look for new and more aggressive management.  Included in that recommendation is LAWA, whose director, according to the piece referenced above, says “Any time you go under the airport, it is fraught with problems."   Now, the new Bradley terminal cost $2 BILLION dollars which is fine with the airport director.  Which director doesn’t seem to mind hiring consultants and paying for their almost $3,000 per month housing costs (see this story ).   The question I would like to address to Ms Gina Marie Lindsey is: “What in the world is LAWA doing in the transportation business?”  LAWA runs the ONLY direct link, i.e., single seat service to LAX via the FlayAway bus system.  Of course that wouldn’t color her response to semi-direct —NOT RAPID TRANSIT— rail service to LAX? Or would it?  A follow-on question for Ms Lindsey, if I may; How much income does flyaway put in LAX's pocket or take away from the gormless LACMTA.

The same question directed to Ms Lindsey should also be asked of Mr. Art Leahy, the CEO of the LACMTA.  Which CEO seems to have abrogated his responsibility to provide transportation to LAX.  By doing so he deprives Metro of an income stream that is now flowing to LAWA.   Judging by the statements of the LACMTA and LAWA presented above they both seem to have the same “talking points”, e.g., “costly” and “risky” or “fraught with problems”.

If ever a case could be made for professionalising Los Angeles’ public transportation sector, this post and the series of articles which it references would be a good starting place for that case. 

Public transportation to LAX is beginning to look more and more like another of the LACMTA’s blunders, the Downtown Connector.  The initial basic light rail Toonerville Trolley like system wasn’t properly designed and has few transfer stations in the mix.  Like it, LAX service is turning out to be primitively designed, which they will attempt to Band-Aid together post-construction; in the case of LAX the “fix” will be the “people mover” which is an idea which hasn’t gained much traction, other than at Disneyland, in the thinking world.

The case for turning the LACMTA into a professional group should start with factoring out the politicians and wanna be engineers and building on the basis of understanding the transportation needs --not the politicians desires.  For example the Crenshaw Line cannot claim to be a service to LAX because it isn’t.  The Crenshaw line's planned LAX Station is not significantly closer to the terminal area than the Green Line's Aviation Station.

In fact, it might be wise for passengers to ride the Crenshaw Line to Aviation Station (if it ever gets there) and take a shuttle bus to LAX.  Your Mole could find these machinations funny, if the LACMTA’s ineptitude wasn’t costing so much tax-payer money to be wasted.   I am sure the many cities, which have passed Los Angeles by with their transportation projects, can enjoy a good laugh at our expense.

The article states: “Officials hope that a sprawling rail network with connections to key destinations — downtown, Santa Monica, Westwood, Pasadena, Long Beach — will boost transit use and reduce traffic congestion.“

This Mole will inject some reality that may dash the ill founded hope of the Officials cited above.   Instead of providing a transportation magnet with their sprawling rail network of mass transit, they have produced a model that has exactly the opposite effect in that it has become the transportation option of last resort to most of the city’s residents. 

Why is that?

It is not user friendly in that no attempt is made to learn commuting patterns and then build a system that serves those patterns.  Neither does the LACMTA coordinate bus services so that easy transfers can be made and users can somewhat accurately predict travel times, i.e., it is a non-determinative system with respect to time.  The main Metro Transit Centers often have poor or no links to each other.

 It is frequently unpleasant.  Fellow riders may be unhygienic.   No attempt is made to deny boarding to those who have too many possessions or haul large trash bags of recyclables, which may be leaking and/or malodorous. 

The drivers can be unfriendly and/or rude.

The language heard onboard buses and trains should not be heard by the very young or anybody for that matter.

Your trip can be lengthened by the slow boarding process of wheelchairs or by passengers who board with only the most tenuous idea of where they are going.  On innumerable occasions, I have heard drivers being given a street number address, without a cross-street and being expected to know if his bus is the correct one for such a trip.  It is possible that you may have to listen, while your bus is stopped, to a lengthy discussion as to why someone should be given a free ride.

It may be uncomfortable.  You may be in for a long ride without easy access to a restroom.

It is possible for you to end up at night, at bus stop in a neighbourhood which may not be safe for you.

The buses and/or trains may be dirty.

Your fellow passengers may refuse to make room for you on a common seat or may place their feet on a seat and refuse to move them even if asked.  You will have to listen to loud music which is not of your choosing.  The same applies to even louder cell phone calls which go on and on and on.

Have I talked you out of your car yet?  If $5 per gallon couldn’t do it, I probably cannot do it either.

But, please add this.  It is not uncommon to see fights on board, while the driver, unconcernedly, continues to drive his route.  The last fight I saw I shouted out, “Stop you’re gonna kill him!”  The perpetrator did not stop and neither did any one of the more than 30 people on board become involved.  People in Los Angeles may be armed, folks!  The beating continued for another few minutes, the  perpetrator got off at the next stop while the victim pulled himself together.

Are we having fun yet?

Riding public buses in Los Angeles is not fun.

The trains are no fun either!  They are not rapid transit.  They, with the exception of the Green Line and subways, to some degree share the roadways with vehicular traffic.  Which vehicular traffic presents a danger to you and to pedestrians.

You may be denied a seat on a bus bench by a homeless person or his effects (Vide infra).

Finally, the "designers" of the "system" do not use it nor do they use any of the world-class systems in other cities, so they lack the understanding of how rapid transit is provided.

The Los Angeles Times covers (Nelson⁶) the Orange Line’s [it’s a bus folks] fare collection problems.  In what appears to be a surprise to the LACMTA, slightly more than 25% of the ridership fails to pay the correct fare.   Responding to what is basically a failure of the honour system, since there is no access control at Orange Line boarding points, Art Leahy said, “I think we’re all disappointed in the results.”   The piece ends with “More sheriffs’ deputies are now patrolling the Orange Line.”  Which quote make you Mole smile as he estimates how many of the 7,500 people who daily don’t pay full fare must be caught in order to cover the costs of policing.  As I said above, with the LACMTA it is always about cost never about benefits.

The January “Metro INSIDER” (Metro) causes su Topo to smile as well.  It tells us about the “February Public Hearings On Proposed Bus Service Changes”.  The weekday evening sessions begin a 5 P.M. (1), 6 P.M. (2), 6:30 P.M. and the single Saturday morning session begins at 9 A.M. 

Obviously these sessions are meant for people work don’t have to work for a living.  La Taupe always wonders why they don’t make the plan available online and solicit online feedback?   It is 2014 isn’t it?  I have attended only one of these sessions, several years ago, and felt it was a total waste of time.  It would be well for the Los Angeles Times to assign someone to cover these “hearings”.  Perhaps if the LACMTA read about how these things “work” they could be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21^st Century.


«Celui qui désespère des événements est un lâche, mais celui qui espère en la condition humaine est un fou.»



This month let’s listen to a composer, Étienne Moulinié,  from the Baroque period (the 1600s). 

Como siempre, Thank you! to our good friends at www.grooveshark.com for always providing the appropriate music for us.


2014-01-01 13:00.  I’m waiting for a bus at LAXCBC.  The shakeup occured two weeks ago, I have downloaded some, but not all, of the new schedules to my cell phone.  Here, below, is what I saw on my cell phone screen.


What I found is that the LACMTA doesn’t include the date in the schedule title, I can’t easily tell the old schedule from the new one.  For example there are two (2) 344 Line schedules shown; which is current?  One cannot tell from the title.  I believe that the problem is that the LACMTA does something and then doesn’t test it –nor does it solicit feedback.   The LACMTA politicians and staff don’t ride the system so they don’t know what is wrong with it.  As we all know, if you don’t know what is wrong, you can’t fix it.  So I hope that in the next iteration they will include the effective date of schedules in the title of the pdf.

I believe that with the LACMTA one cannot be too specific, so just below I've shown an example.




The LACMTA lacks operational standards as to exactly how loud, and this is especially noticeable on contracted lines such as the 232 Line and others, the onboard, TransiTV, dispatch radios and Automatic Stop Announcements can be played.  My experience has been that they are mostly played at ear splitting volume forcing one to tune out the cacophonic ambience by listening to one’s own portable audio device.  Reading is pretty much out of the question. 

Above is a picture of a Db reading I took on board a typical 232 Line trip.  The 87 Db reading shown above is not the loudest I have experienced, it is simply what was registering when I took the picture.   You can find more detail on noise exposure here.  I will follow up on this “How Loud is it?” topic in future posts.

2014-01-15, Morning, aboard a BBB Rapid 3 to Santa Monica:  Soon after taking a seat your Mole hears a gnawing emanating from the seat behind him.  It sounds as if a rodent is gnawing at a bag of dry dog food.  After a few minutes of this I am overcome by my curiosity and turn around; it turns out to be a fellow passenger trying to chew open a bag of potato chips!  The man finally does open the bag and noisily washes the chips down with a soft drink — the breakfast of champions.






What is the LACMTA's answer to the issue?  It is an on-board announcement that tells passengers to use care when exiting the bus, or words to that effect.  Pictured below  is another  driver’s attempt at parallel parking.
 






 



Back at the LAXCBC and using the Metro App.  Just above you can see, partly, what I saw on my cell phone screen.  Although other bus companies outnumber the Metro 4 to 1, schedules for those companies are not included in the Metro App.  Oh yes, I did scroll down!  This makes the app much less user friendly.  Are you listening LACMTA? 

If I wanted to connect to a Torrance Transit bus and if I knew its schedule I could better plan my trip.  The Metro app doesn't give me that ability.

Ear (and Eye) to the Rail

The purpose of this section is to make people aware that the LACMTA is not home to many problem solvers.  I hope to accomplish this end by presenting the solutions adopted by other cities, some in foreign countries, in solving the city to airport rapid mass transportation challenge.

Cautionary Note: Those employed by the LACMTA should NOT view the following video(s). The speed of the train(s), the fact that they neither share the right of way nor stop at stop lights, because they are truly rapid transit, will likely make you dizzy, nauseous, confuse and frighten you.

The video linked here will show us various aspects of the Glasgow (Scotland) Airport Rail Link (GARL) which services Glasgow and its airport. Thank you youtube.com and this Mole also thanks Scott Gauld who provided the upload!

Oh, and since GARL uses an elevated approach Ms Lindsey, building it apparently was not "fraught with problems".  In the even you are not comfortable with such a foreign idea, Regan National in Washington D.C. uses the same approach.  But of course Ms Lindsey, you are familiar with the D.C. area from your consulting days.  You’re welcome!  Please pass this information on to the LACMTA. 

 
Don’t have enough to worry about?  If you think long term, then take a look
at this timeline of the far future. 

Take an ice cream break and then try this version of the future.
Fare Box Score Box and related Lists of Shame

I.D. Numbers of buses with Out of Order Fare Boxes: xxxx;

Note: No or few entries above do not necessarily mean all fare boxes are in operation.

I.D.Numbers of Distracted Drivers: xxxxx (i);

None included here, but observations of a minor nature may be included in the main posting;

Codes: (i) Extended conversation(s) with passenger(s) or (ii) cell phone call(s). Frequently, details can be found in the text above, (ii*) cell phone call(s) which are aggravated by some other action, (iii) Self-distracted. Codes (ii*) and (iii) will ALWAYS be explained in the posting.

I.D. Numbers of Buses Defaced by WhoIs stickers: xxxx;

~UR or +UR = (+UR) whois sticker and the ugly residue left after passengers partly remove the sticker. (~UR) = Only the ugly residue left after passengers almost completely remove the sticker. +L = an old (legacy) sticker black letters on a plain white background –these are the original form of the defacement.


ID numbers of Buses whose Head and Tailsigns disagree: Not noted xxx/xxx;
Format is Bus number followed by Headsign number/Tailsign number.

ID numbers of Buses without Braille signs: xxxx;

METRO drivers Lack of Basic Technical Skills Report
The format is Driver number F[{Y/-n/+n}] C[{Y/N+/-}]. Meaning of F if Y the driver stopped with the Bus stop “flag pole” somewhere between the bus front door frames. A negative number, e.g., -3 is the approximate distance in metres (think yards dear readers) between the nearest bus door vertical frame member and the flag pole signifying that the bus stopped short of the flag. A positive number, e.g., +3 (metres) is the approximate distance between the nearest bus door vertical frame member and the flag pole signifying that the bus stopped past the flag. The value for C[{Y/N}], “Y” tells us that the driver stopped within an easy step from the curb to the bus, “N” means it was NOT an easy step from the curb to the bus. It is this Mole's belief that an average experienced good driver should be able to control his bus so as to position in near the curb and with the flag pole slightly to the front of the bus.
xxxxx F[+4] C[Y];

I.D. numbers of drivers who are unable or unwilling to position their buses parallel to the curb, a short step from the curb an equidistance from the vehicles exits.

xxxxx F[+10] C[Y]; F[+7], C[Y]; xxxxx F[Y], C[Y]; xxxxxF[Y], C[Y]; N.B. distances are in metres, think yards.
13 metres is this is MORE than a 40 foot bus length.  nnnnn* = Contract Driver

I.D. numbers of drivers who are almost guaranteed to give you a Rough and Jerky (R& J) ride: xxxxx;

I.D. numbers of drivers who will give you a potentially life-threatening ride: XXXXX(J)/20xx-xx-xx; XXXXX(-);



ADADO = Automatic Destination Announcement (on) Door Opening. This feature is installed on many buses and operates on extremely few. Another“money down the toilet” LACMTA investment. La Taupe that this is intended for the visually impaired because people who can see can read the “head signs”.

ASAS = Automatic Stop Announcement System the GPS (Global Positioning System) driven mechanism for generating audio for the upcoming stops. N.B. Because of the low power (read weak) processors used in the on-board stops may be too close to identify stops separately. This is known as a granularity problem. Then too, if the driver operates the bus at speed above the speed limit you will find the system “back announcing” stops which you have already passed. I find that this will NOT keep some drivers from complaining “that you didn’t signal (ring) in time. They don’t understand their relationship to the system and how, by driving faster than the GPS computer, they can bias it.

BBB = Santa Monica’s Big Blue Bus

CHSRA = California High-Speed Rail Authority, which is the equivalent, in more ways than one, of the LACMTA.

CC or CCMBL = Culver City (Municipal) Bus (Lines)

CCTC = Culver City Transportation Center this is the place formerly known as FHMTC = the Fox Hills Mall Transportation Center (Sepulveda& Slauson)

FFE = Full Fare Equivalent (presently $1.50)

GMBL = Gardena Municipal Bus lines

ITC = Inglewood Transit Center

LAWA = Los Angeles World Airports.

LAXCBC = the LAX City Bus Center.

OCTA = Orange County Transportation Authority.

OOS = Out Of Service.

Rapid Transit = does not compete for right of way, that is, it will not run at grade unless it has EXCLUSIVE DEDICATED USE of the right of way).

R& J = Rough and Jerky [ride].

TT= Torrance Transit.

T1= the normal type of driver/staff.

T2= is the non-stop talker type of driver/staff, on the phone or to passengers,

T3= the uncommunicative type of driver/staff, sometimes surly.

WLATC = the West Los Angeles Transportation Center (Fairfax & Apple)

Su Topo’s Disclaimer and apologia

Your Mole always attempts to write an easy-on-the-eyes page using text input. Blogger.com however, has other ideas and will often not stay with a single font type or point size, produces extraneous spacing and etc. I wish I had time to debug the HTML which they produce, it is NOT the straight text which I pasted into the form, but I don’t. Therefore, I apologize on behalf of Blogger.com for the changes which they make, of which I do not approve. Sometimes, what I see, thankfully you don’t, is 24 point type –it is giant and other times they swallow my text, although it still seems to be there. In fairness to them, things seem better, although this is partly because I do understand which of their “features” do the most damage to me and consequently do not use them. Communicating these problems to them, for me, is something like having teeth extracted without the benefit of anesthetic, actually it is less fun than that. By their design, there is no simple e-mailing them with "Please look at my say, posting of 2009-06-28, it is weird!” I have been submitting feedback and experiences slow but positive progress.  Until all issues are resolved, lo siento.

Your Mole’s Copyright Statement

All photographs and original written materials are copyrighted © 2007~2013 by LAmetroMole. ♪Clicking a photo will often* present you with an enlargement (sometimes successive clicks will further enlarge the photo). *This feature is dependent upon the Internet browser which you use and possibly other factors.

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains or provides links to copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, sustainable development, environmental, community and worker health, public disclosure, corporate accountability, and etc. We have often included relatively brief quotes from articles and etc., sometimes in addition to a simple link, because we have found that links frequently go "bad" or change over time. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without fee or payment of any kind to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes and to those who access the site via any and all other channels. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Music or other recorded material on this site, or referred to by this site are copyrighted by their respective artists and are made available here for evaluation purposes only. Please support the artists you like by buying their commercial CDs, MP3s and downloads.

Your Mole’s Conflict of Interest Statement

This is to certify that I, the blogger who is known as the LAmetroMole, with respect to this blog, except as described below, am not now nor at any time during the past year have been, nor is it my current intention to ever be:

1) A participant, directly or indirectly, in any arrangement, agreement, investment, or other activity with any vendor, supplier, or other party doing business with any of the entities about which I have written, which has resulted or could result in personal benefit to me.

2) A recipient, directly or indirectly, of any salary payments or loans or gifts of any kind or any free service or discounts or other fees from or on behalf of any person or organization engaged in any transaction with any of the entities about which I have written.

Any exceptions to 1 or 2 above are stated below with a full description of the transactions and of the interest, whether direct or indirect, which I have (or have had during the past year) in the persons or organizations having transactions with any of the entities about which I have written.

There are no exceptions.



Nelson, Laura J. “Pedestrian killed by Metro Gold Line train in South Pasadena”  Los Angeles Times. Jan. 4, 2014. Web. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-death-gold-line-20140104,0,6389227.story#axzz2rFNkrvXz

Nelson², Laura J. “Metro seeks to raise fares and allow free transfers on bus, rail”.  Los Angeles Times. Jan. 17, 2014. Web.  http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-fare-increase-metro-20140117,0,4965842.story#ixzz2rLJMJbCr”

Nelson³, Laura J. “Hahn says not bringing light-rail to LAX terminals is short-sighted" Los Angeles Times. Jan. 16, 2014. Web. 
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-hahn-light-rail-20140116,0,6646784.story#ixzz2rLeGYVSQ
 
Nelson⁴, Laura J. “Big fare hikes needed, MTA officials say" Los Angeles Times. Jan. 19, 2014:A29. Print.

Nelson⁵, Laura J. “METRO SHELVES DIRECT RAIL TO LAX" Los Angeles Times. Jan. 24, 2014:A1. Print.

Nelson⁶, Laura J. “Fare dodgers trouble Metro" Los Angeles Times. Jan. 30, 2014:A1. Print.

                                                          ..