by Paul Jacob

I like science fiction as much as the next moviegoer. And I'd be the last to say anything nasty about Ray Bradbury, especially. He's a master storyteller, and a good guy.

Still, his recent column in the L.A. Times, titled "L.A.'s future is up in the air," seems just a tad TOO "science fictiony" for me.

He asserts that soon "traffic all across L.A. will freeze." His solution? Not more roads or priced lanes, or anything that people really want. It's a monorail system.

Monorails are neat. And, on the face of it, SEEM to be economical. You can put them up above road traffic. They're quiet. They're safe. They cost less than light rail and most other competing systems, especially subway systems -- except, of course, buses. And they don't take up much space, so they don't cause congestion by mere implementation, like light rail systems do.

Seattle's private system, built for a World Fair, turns a profit. Attempts to add to it stalled, though, and Seattle citizens will be paying off their ditched expansion project for some time.

The problem with government-built mass transit is that the masses don't really want to use the systems. If the masses did, private enterprise would provide. As it is, we can drive a car, or take a taxi, where we want to go. Mass transit, on the other hand, is inflexible, stuck in the rut of its own expensive infrastructure.

Monorails? I bet they'll stay stuck . . . "up in the air."

Common Sense is published by Americans for Limited Government. Their website can be visited at www.limitedgov.org.