Passenger Trains > article:crime up/riders down/can l.a. transit ambassadors help?

https://www.kcrw.com/news/shows/greater-la/broad-museum-music-south-la-metro/transit-ambassadors

66

 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/22/22 08:50 by goneon66.

Good luck with that...

in this day and age of labor shortages, it will be interesting to see if all of the positions get filled........

66

Bandaid won't fix the bigger problem.   Crime and drug use has been acceptable in L.A. for some time, as there is no consequence.    It is likely too far gone to fix at this stage.

 

The crime and vandalism problems could be fixed, but our "powers that be" rarely if ever ride transit, so they have no idea what it's like for the daily riders.  Draconian measures to round up the vagrants, junkies, hooligans and nut cases, and schlep them off to stockades in the boonies would get the job done, but our wimpy politicians and officials wouldn't dream of taking decisive action. On many issues I'm on the liberal side, but it's time to take our cities back from the low-lifes.
 

The late Tom LaBonge, famed LA Councilman, told me over lunch one day that LA Metro management is "completely corrupt". FBI investigations and indictments for corruption of LA Metro directors are now common place. "Ambassadors" on buses is just another shadow play. One well regarded transit fan says the cause of the problem is that all LA Metro directors are political appointees..."for services rendered"...not professionals, no one is elected to their Metro positions. They are all double-dippers, maybe triple-dippers...it's the American way.  



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/26/22 01:22 by RRBMail.

So many of you ridicule the Los Angeles transit system and its management.  However, I recently read that transit ridership in Los Angeles is returning to pre-Covid levels faster than transit ridership in San Francisco, Chicago and New York City.  Most of that recovery has been ocurring on the bus system rather than on the rail lines.

RuleG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So many of you ridicule the Los Angeles transit
> system and its management.  However, I recently
> read that transit ridership in Los Angeles is
> returning to pre-Covid levels faster than transit
> ridership in San Francisco, Chicago and New York
> City.  Most of that recovery has been ocurring on
> the bus system rather than on the rail lines.

This only proves the point that good transit is needed and valued, not political intrigues at public expense. "Ambassadors" only prove that LA Metro found some money laying about, either it's own but usually from another gov't agency, that it can tap into. A government agency never gives back money that's not really needed. How much of that money will go to already sky-high Metro management salaries for "supervision" of the so-called "Ambassadors"? It's "Chinatown" all over again!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/26/22 01:15 by RRBMail.

RRBMail Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RuleG Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > So many of you ridicule the Los Angeles transit
> > system and its management.  However, I
> recently
> > read that transit ridership in Los Angeles is
> > returning to pre-Covid levels faster than
> transit
> > ridership in San Francisco, Chicago and New
> York
> > City.  Most of that recovery has been occurring
> on
> > the bus system rather than on the rail lines.
>
> This only proves the point that good transit is
> needed and valued, not political intrigues at
> public expense.

So if I understand you correctly, no credit for Los Angeles transit's comparative success can be attributed to the staff managing the system.

"Ambassadors" only prove that LA
> Metro found some money laying about, either it's
> own but usually from another gov't agency, that it
> can tap into.

Other systems have either have also experimented with similar programs or plan to do so.  The purpose is to have staff on-board to provide assistance to riders and resolve issues which do not require police. A few months ago, I had an experience (not on transit) where we had an issue with an individual, but I really wished that was a professional I could have contacted besides the police.  Assistance was needed, but not armed police.  Likewise, there are situations which have and will continue to arise on buses and trains for which assistance other than police would be optimal.  

>A government agency never gives back
> money that's not really needed.

If you think that's a frill, I am not going to waste time trying to convince you otherwise.

How much of that
> money will go to already shy-high Metro management
> salaries for "supervision" of the so-called
> "Ambassadors"?

As I don't live in Los Angeles, I cannot respond to that question.  However, as your previous post in this thread implies you do live in the area (or at least lived there in recent times) and you have alleged corruption in a previous post in this thread, perhaps you could tell us.

It's "Chinatown" all over again!

The movie "Chinatown" was about water resources, not public transportation.  

RuleG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RRBMail Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > RuleG Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > So many of you ridicule the Los Angeles
> transit
> > > system and its management.  However, I
> > recently
> > > read that transit ridership in Los Angeles is
> > > returning to pre-Covid levels faster than
> > transit
> > > ridership in San Francisco, Chicago and New
> > York
> > > City.  Most of that recovery has been
> occurring
> > on
> > > the bus system rather than on the rail lines.
> >
> > This only proves the point that good transit is
> > needed and valued, not political intrigues at
> > public expense.
>
> So if I understand you correctly, no credit for
> Los Angeles transit's comparative success can be
> attributed to the staff managing the system.
>
> "Ambassadors" only prove that LA
> > Metro found some money laying about, either
> it's
> > own but usually from another gov't agency, that
> it
> > can tap into.
>
> Other systems have either have also experimented
> with similar programs or plan to do so.  The
> purpose is to have staff on-board to provide
> assistance to riders and resolve issues which do
> not require police. A few months ago, I had an
> experience (not on transit) where we had an issue
> with an individual, but I really wished that was a
> professional I could have contacted besides the
> police.  Assistance was needed, but not armed
> police.  Likewise, there are situations which
> have and will continue to arise on buses and
> trains for which assistance other than police
> would be optimal.  
>
> >A government agency never gives back
> > money that's not really needed.
>
> If you think that's a frill, I am not going to
> waste time trying to convince you otherwise.
>
> How much of that
> > money will go to already shy-high Metro
> management
> > salaries for "supervision" of the so-called
> > "Ambassadors"?
>
> As I don't live in Los Angeles, I cannot respond
> to that question.  However, as your previous post
> in this thread implies you do live in the area (or
> at least lived there in recent times) and you have
> alleged corruption in a previous post in this
> thread, perhaps you could tell us.
>
> It's "Chinatown" all over again!
>
> The movie "Chinatown" was about water resources,
> not public transportation.  

"Chinatown" was about LA corruption, be it water or any other agency. .