• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

John August

  • Arlo Finch
  • Scriptnotes
  • Library
  • Store
  • About

Follow Up

Los Angeles myths, answered

March 24, 2009 Follow Up, Los Angeles

In February, I [linked to an article](http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/05/los-angeles-transportation-facts-and-fiction/) by Eric Morris about pervasive Los Angeles transportation myths. He presented six statements, promising that two were (at best) half-truths, while the rest were flat-out myths.

[I made my guesses](http://johnaugust.com/archives/2009/los-angeles-myths), as did many readers. Over the past few weeks, he’s addressed the myths in follow-up articles, so I thought I’d provide some closure as well.

Here are the myths:

Los Angeles’s air is choked with smog.
—

I said false. He said [half-true](http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/los-angeles-transportation-facts-and-fiction-driving-and-delay/).

According to the American Lung Association, Los Angeles has the second-worst air quality in the nation, after Pittsburgh. But “choked with smog” is an exaggeration. It’s vastly better than it used to be — and much better than its reputation:

> In 1979, the South Coast Air Basin (of which Los Angeles is a part) experienced 228 days above the state one-hour ozone standard; in 2007, the number of days in violation was down to 96. The change is even more dramatic when looking at individual communities. From 1979 to 2007, Pasadena dropped from 191 days over the limit to 13, Reseda from 138 to 22, Anaheim from 61 to 2, Pomona from 167 to 19, and West Los Angeles from 76 to 2. This story is replicated across the region. It is also broadly true for the other pollutants that comprise smog.

Los Angeles has developed in a low-density, sprawling pattern.
—-

I said half-true. He said [false](http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/09/los-angeles-transportation-facts-and-fiction-sprawl/).

> As of the 2000 census, the Los Angeles region’s urbanized area had the highest population density in the nation. Yes, that was the word “highest,” not a smudge on your monitor. At 7,068 people per square mile, Los Angeles is considerably denser than New York-Newark, which ranks fourth at 5,309 people per square mile (behind San Francisco-Oakland and San Jose as well as Los Angeles).

I was fooled by the comparatively large percentage of single-family homes. But there’s an important distinction I overlooked:

> Los Angeles’s homes sit on very small lots, in part due to the difficulty of providing water infrastructure to new developments. (Other southwestern cities share this trait.)

Angelenos spend more time stuck in traffic than any other drivers in the nation.
—

I said true. He said [true](http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/los-angeles-transportation-facts-and-fiction-driving-and-delay/).

> According to the Texas Transportation Institute’s 2005 Mobility Report, Angelenos who traveled in the peak periods suffered 72 annual hours of delay. This was number one in the nation, by a large margin.

Traffic really does suck in Los Angeles, which is why you spend a lot of mental energy figuring out how to avoid it. Live near work. Or work at home.

Thanks to the great distances between far-flung destinations, and perhaps to Angelenos’ famed “love affair” with the car, Angelenos drive considerably more miles than most Americans.
—-

I said false. He said [false](http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/los-angeles-transportation-facts-and-fiction-driving-and-delay/).

> According to the Federal Highway Administration, Angelenos drive 23 miles per resident per day. This ranks the Los Angeles metro area 21st highest among the largest 37 cities. The champions (or losers) are probably Houston, followed by Jacksonville and Orlando, all of which are over 30 miles per day.

That doesn’t mean you’re not potentially spending a lot of time in your car, though. You just might not be traveling many miles.

Los Angeles is dominated by an overbuilt freeway system that promotes auto dependence.
—–

I said false. He said [half-true](http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/24/los-angeles-transportation-facts-and-fiction-freeways/).

> Los Angeles boasts an extensive freeway system. Counting Interstates and other expressways, the area ranks second in the nation in lane mileage, after New York.

> But taking into account the area’s vast size, the network is one of the most underdeveloped in the U.S. According to the Federal Highway Administration, of the 36 largest metro areas, Los Angeles ranks dead last in terms of freeway lane miles per resident. (Chicago is second to last, and New York is near the bottom as well. The most freeway-heavy big city by this measure is Kansas City.)

The general solution to LA’s traffic woes isn’t going to be more freeways — although in places, more capacity would make sense. Reducing demand is crucial, and increasing density is, almost paradoxically, a good way to do that.

Los Angeles’s mass transit system is underdeveloped and inadequate.
—–

I said half-true. He said [false](http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/03/los-angeles-transportation-facts-and-fiction-transit/).

> But compared with the majority of U.S. cities, Los Angeles is not a transit wasteland. The region is second in the nation in transit patronage, behind only New York. Even on a market share basis (passenger transit miles traveled as a share of all miles traveled), Los Angeles’s ridership rate is relatively high: 11th among the 50 largest urban areas.

Here’s where I think he’s really stretching. Sure, Los Angeles may have a lot more public transit than other big cities, but that isn’t evidence of adequacy. By the standards he’s held himself on the other questions, I think this should be half-true. And he seems to sense this:

> Despite all of this, I can’t look you in the eye and tell you the car is not king in Los Angeles. It is. Our transit share is quite small: a bit under 2 percent.

Yes, two percent of 13 million is a lot of people. But when 98% of your population isn’t using your mass transit system, there’s a lot of opportunity.

Preschool, NYC edition

March 23, 2009 Follow Up, Los Angeles

Following up on my post about [getting your kid into preschool](http://johnaugust.com/archives/2009/getting-your-kid-into-preschool), reader bensitzer tipped me off to an upcoming documentary about the equivalent madness in NYC. You can see the trailer [here](http://www.apple.com/trailers/independent/nurseryuniversity/).

Cams, rips and release dates

March 18, 2009 Film Industry, Follow Up, Video

Following up on [last week’s post](http://johnaugust.com/archives/2009/fansubbing) about international release dates and subtitles, I’ve been asking around to find more information about studios’ anti-piracy efforts. I didn’t get into any specific numbers — and I wouldn’t know how seriously to take the numbers anyway.

But based on these conversations, I came across a few broad bullet points worth sharing:

* Studios have gotten more sophisticated about putting tracking marks in individual prints, often localized by country, to help them determine the source of a leak. It’s not just the ugly brown dots anymore.

* For almost every movie, they can trace back bootlegs to one or two “cams” (in-theater camcorder recordings) and just a handful of subsequent DVD rips. They assign letter grades to these bootlegs based on quality. And quality matters: a cam which rates a “C” won’t be nearly as much a factor as a “B.”

* For certain countries, studios will delay theatrical release because of a history of cams originating there. They’ll then release the DVD as soon as possible thereafter.

* The subtitles issue becomes important because a cam or rip in the wrong language isn’t especially appealing.

* In Italy, where custom greatly favors dubbing over subtitles, you don’t see much piracy until the local language DVD rip leaks.

Obviously, this is only talking about feature films. American television is at least as important to many international viewers, and much harder to lock down.

And for independent film, it’s a whole other clustermuck. You’re dealing with local distributors, so trying to coordinate any worldwide effort is going to be extremely difficult.

Last night, I was talking with another friend about 3D. It hadn’t occurred to me that a 3D film is probably more difficult to cam. Possible, certainly — it’s a fun mental exercise — but not as easy to get something usable.

Show your work, pt. 2

March 16, 2009 Follow Up, Geek Alert, Rant

geek alertFollowing up on [last night’s post](http://johnaugust.com/archives/2009/show-your-work), it occurs to me that designing and programming for the web also has an aspect of showing your work. Nearly every browser lets you “View Source,” showing how the page was constructed…up to a point.

For example, if you View Source on the new [Answer Finder](http://johnaugust.com/answers) I built, you can see the JavaScript (and jQuery) that drives the menu and shows/hides the various sections.

What you can’t see is the PHP on the server that generated those sections. In my case, this is a good thing, because the PHP is so awful and kludgy that I can’t explain or defend why it works.

So to make that one page, I’m relying on a bunch of technologies with vastly different levels of transparency.

transparencyThe “transparent” technologies are available for anyone interested in looking. And that’s mostly good: Peeking beneath the hood is a great way to learn how a technology works. I often find myself opening the CSS for sites I like to see how they’re constructed. ((Keep in mind that you can learn bad habits this way.))

I’m classifying HTML as semi-transparent because so much of the HTML you see when you “View Source” for a site is generated by scripts running on the server, and it’s not automatically clear how or why. WordPress, for example, mixes in at least four parts (Header, Content, Footer and Sidebar) to make any given page. Someone familiar with WordPress might be able to deduce a basic structure, and figure out which parts were generated by The Loop. But in some cases it’s arbitrary. For example, the category links at the bottom of most pages on this site could be hard-coded or generated on the fly, and you wouldn’t be able to tell.

While you can find a lot of information about the images used on a site, including where they’re stored, you don’t necessarily know how they were generated. The chart above, for example, is a .png made from a snapshot of a Numbers document.

In the fully-opaque category are PHP and MySQL, who do most of the heavy lifting for the site but are completely insulated from the user.

Traditionally, programmers have been able to disappear behind the opacity of a compiler. Designers could hide behind the printing or manufacturing process. With the web, the process behind the product is much more visible.

(End of Geek Alert)
=====
The same thing is happening to movies. Not too long ago, a movie came into existence in popular culture just shortly before its release, when the first ads and trailers started running. I didn’t know anything about Die Hard before I saw a trailer. I saw The Blair Witch Project without any idea who made it or how.

Now, long before the marketing begins — before production even begins — details of projects spill across the internet for consumption and criticism. Scripts leak. Photographers sneak pictures of the set, or the costumes. The omission of a giant squid becomes the focal point of conversation for a movie that doesn’t yet exist.

For movies and television, I’m not sure we’re better off “showing the work” in advance.

I appreciate reading American Cinematographer to see how Robert Elswit lights There Will Be Blood, but I don’t read those articles before seeing the movie, lest I get too distracted by those details when I watch it. Likewise, I wish I didn’t know what I know about Terminator: Salvation or Dollhouse. It’s not insider knowledge, but rather the media reporting on the media.

This isn’t transparency, an invitation to come look inside. It’s forced exposure. It’s uncomfortable, and by nature we try to avoid uncomfortable things.

« Previous Page
Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Newsletter

Inneresting Logo A Quote-Unquote Newsletter about Writing
Read Now

Explore

Projects

  • Aladdin (1)
  • Arlo Finch (27)
  • Big Fish (88)
  • Birdigo (2)
  • Charlie (39)
  • Charlie's Angels (16)
  • Chosen (2)
  • Corpse Bride (9)
  • Dead Projects (18)
  • Frankenweenie (10)
  • Go (29)
  • Karateka (4)
  • Monsterpocalypse (3)
  • One Hit Kill (6)
  • Ops (6)
  • Preacher (2)
  • Prince of Persia (13)
  • Shazam (6)
  • Snake People (6)
  • Tarzan (5)
  • The Nines (118)
  • The Remnants (12)
  • The Variant (22)

Apps

  • Bronson (14)
  • FDX Reader (11)
  • Fountain (32)
  • Highland (75)
  • Less IMDb (4)
  • Weekend Read (64)

Recommended Reading

  • First Person (87)
  • Geek Alert (151)
  • WGA (162)
  • Workspace (19)

Screenwriting Q&A

  • Adaptation (65)
  • Directors (90)
  • Education (49)
  • Film Industry (489)
  • Formatting (128)
  • Genres (89)
  • Glossary (6)
  • Pitches (29)
  • Producers (59)
  • Psych 101 (118)
  • Rights and Copyright (96)
  • So-Called Experts (47)
  • Story and Plot (170)
  • Television (165)
  • Treatments (21)
  • Words on the page (237)
  • Writing Process (177)

More screenwriting Q&A at screenwriting.io

© 2026 John August — All Rights Reserved.