[_cs2017_]

> LA's limited transportation infrastructure prevents DTLA's homeless from getting to Beverly Hills, Long Beach's gang-related activity from getting to Brentwood, etc.

Gangsters have cars and don't rely on public transportation. DTLA homeless can and do use the MTA bus that goes literally from downtown to Beverly Hills.

Care to clarify your comment?

[integrate-this]

No, your perception of LA's public transportation is completely out of touch with reality.

Subway and train systems are fundamentally different modes of transit than bus systems. They are more accessible, run on regular schedules, and they are anonymous.

The urban poor in other cities utilize them disproportionately which is why Beverly Hills shuts down every hint of a conversation of adding public transit connection beyond commuter buses.

It's too bad if you're offended by what I said, but LA has more nimby's per capita than anywhere I have lived which is exactly why we do not have a public transportation system.

[_cs2017_]

For the specific example you gave: does an irregular schedule really create an obstacle for a homeless person who wants to make a trip from DTLA to Beverly Hills? What does it mean "more accessible"? What do you mean by "anonymous"?

What makes you think I'm offended? I just didn't understand your argument (and still don't), and I wanted to see what you meant.

And what does it mean "my perception of LA's public transportation is out of touch"? I only said two sentences, one about gangsters typically having cars, and the other about homeless people often taking MTA bus from DTLA to Beverly Hills. Which of those was incorrect?

Edit: I can think of a reason why rich people may not like subways going to their neighborhoods. Slow and unreliable buses are a problem not for gangsters and homeless, but for the hard-working middle-class and poor people who need to commute to work - even if they have cars, traffic makes it very tough, and subway would have made it really nice. It's quite possible that rich people don't want too many middle-class and poor people getting jobs in their neighborhood. I have no idea if it's true, but at least it sounds plausible.

[integrate-this]

My argument is that the west side has had many opportunities to alleviate our transportation problem and has consistently decided that we would rather deal with hour long traffic jams than even incremental amounts of change.

People have been trying for years to do things like add safe bike lanes, rebuild the streetcar system, and build a subway system. Angelinos have been far more concerned with the temporary traffic disruptions, slight inconveniences, and potential demographic shifts of each.

My entire neighborhood threw a fit when someone tried to install a roundabout instead of a 4 way stop to reduce congestion.

Nobody would have been negatively impacted for more than a few months, but the people here just don't care about collective benefit, at all.

And that's before we start discussing the people who have deliberately induced greater congestion by adding speed bumps to side streets in an effort to protect property value.

LA chose to have this problem. It's not something that just happened on its own.