| Main |

There's something about a bus that's tragic

And here I thought I was the only old-bus fetishist in Los Angele County! Reader Ben Harrison responds to my adventure at the MTA bus auction with a call to investigate the proliferation of Transit TV. As it happens, I did weigh in on Transit TV more than a year ago, with a first-person piece (gone from the L.A. Times web site but still viewable here) that got at some of Ben's questions. My aim was more to consider Transit TV as a technical feat than to condemn it as a violation of my right to a TV-free public-vehicle commute (a right I'm not actually sure I have), but I did mention the volume problem, which in my experience doesn't seem as bad these days. For what it's worth, Transit TV's surveys at the time indicated pretty broad customer support for the devices — take that with as much salt as you like, though I recall the survey was done by some respectable third party. And without further ado, ladies and gentlemen, Ben Harrison:

I ride Metro buses several times a week and the latest aggravation is jabbering TV monitors.  Most Metro buses now have two TV monitors, billed as entertainment and public service, but with a lot of advertising as well.  Some of the time the monitors are merely on visual mode, which is not too bad, but then come the protracted periods of loud, intrusive jabbering (advertising, news, cooking shows, etc.) in English and Spanish.  Most people I have talked to, including most bus drivers, find the noise irritating.  For the most part the volume controls don't work or the drivers don't know how to adjust them.

I would be interested in knowing -

1.  who paid to install these monitors and who will pay to maintain/replace them?

2.  how much revenue the advertising brings in and whom it benefits?

3.  who pays for and decides on the programming and material presented?

4.  if it is planned to put the monitors also on the tram lines and Metro-link trains?  and why or why not? 

5.  if the answer to 4. is "no", is it because it is easier to take advantage of bus riders, who are often lower-income than tram/train riders, who are not as likely to allow their ride-time to be desecrated?

6.  what percentage of bus drivers find the noise of the TV monitors distracting, irritating and/or unsafe.

An absurdity: buses have signs indicating that it is not permitted to smoke, eat or play radios on the bus (except with ear-phones).  This is a welcome recognition of how irritating it is to be at the mercy of somebody else's taste in music and noise.  Why should Metro be exempt from its own rules?

A greater absurdity:  One of the "public service" announcements recently aired on the monitors was about ways in which one can reduce the risk of memory loss.  One of the ways proposed was to reduce background noise! 

At least some of the people who ride buses regularly (commuters to work, school, etc.) like to use the time for reading, preparing their work, listening to ipods, or even for quiet reflection or meditation.  The audio noise is a direct attack on people's right to travel in peace.

Public transportation already entails enough aggravations - traffic delays, frequent stop-starts, crowdedness, cell-phone shouters, loud-talking passengers, next-stop-announcements, etc., without adding another, which does not only assault the ears but victimizes passengers with aggressive advertising.  This gives me one more reason to prefer driving to public transport.  In fact I have taken to using LADOT or the Red Line (or walking) as much as possible, to spare myself the anger and stress this noise arouses in me.

I'd love it if you could follow up on these ideas with an article.  There is too much here for a letter to the editor, which, in any case, I doubt would be printed because this particular issue has not been in the news.  Let me know if you're willing to run with it, or if you have any other suggestions regarding how to get it into discussion. 

Thanks. 

Ben Harrison

Comments

Steve Lopez took the side of the noisy church amplied sound system at Divine Savior church. Well, now some understand what noise really is. Noise is noise. It doesn't matter if its MTA's TV monitors or the church's amplied sound system.

Tell Steve Lopez that some people do understand what noise is.

I llike transit TV - I take the bus most days. About half the riders have their faces buried in cell phones, blackberries, and iPods, and a certain percentage of riders without such devices are transfixed by the screens, just as they would be in any other environment. I think transit TV has made the bus less edgy, less confrontational, more familiar. Why should a bus be the only screen free zone, screens are EVERYWHERE. It makes the ride seem faster when the stuck traffic and same storefronts are no longer interesting to stare at. Yeah, the programming isn't always perfect and neither is the gps mapping function on it, but in my opinion, it didn't take anything away from the ride. In fact, if it reduces the surreal loud babbling conversation by the tiny minority of mentally ill who chose to house themselves on our transit system and ruin the ride for the rest of us, all the better. I'd rather listen to anything, including Transit TV, than that. Metro needs all the revenue it can get, and this seems utterly harmless, as well as helpful.

I agree with Ben and think his questions are valid but no matter what the answers are, they won't necessarily facilitate an appreciation for the blaring stupidity that is TransiTV.

I like the visual (soundless) map of streets we're crossing. And, I also don't mind the MTA PSAs about bus improvements or upcoming events. Everything else is just unrelated noise.

My husband and I sold our car two years ago. So, we bike or ride MTA, Blue and Culver Green everyday ... the last two systems do not have the screens and the ride seems so much less chaotic and hectic. The Culver Green system is clean, the drivers are polite and informed, and the buses are always, always, always on time (if not a few minutes early). Maybe the other lines could learn a thing or two from them!

Post a comment
If you are under 13 years of age you may read this message board, but you may not participate.
Here are the full legal terms you agree to by using this comment form.

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until they've been approved.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In





ADVERTISEMENT


What is Opinion L.A.?

  • This blog is the work of the Los Angeles Times editorial board, the cadre of opinionated reporters and editors responsible for the paper's daily stack of unsigned editorials. Also contributing is Times columnist Patt Morrison, well-known lover of millinery. Please note -- the posts you see here reflect the views of the author, not of the editorial board as a whole.
Los Angeles Times - Opinion