The Los Angeles metro is great – so why aren’t people using it?

Just another day on the subway. Image: Getty.

LA Metro, the Los Angeles rail and bus transit system, is the third most comprehensive system in the entire USA, according to a study by the University of Minnesota.  Local online magazine LAist describes it as technically the “best accessible” transit system in the country, while the city's integrated bus system is “robust” and “incredibly extensive”.

Yet, in a metropolitan area of 13m people, only about 360,000 people use rail on an average weekday, and just 855,000 ride the bus. To put this into context, in New York, with a population of 20m, approximately 5m ride the subway on an average weekday.

What’s more, overall LA Metro ridership figures have been waning steadily. Bus ridership has declined – with 2m fewer bus boardings taking place in November 2016 than in the same month the previous year.

And although 700,000 more rail boardings took place in November 2016 compared to November 2015, LA Metro's total ridership fell by about 1.3m boardings.

So why is ridership down?

Thomas Rubin is a consultant with over four decades of experience in transport finance and government, who has written a report on the declining ridership. He argues that “the LA County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) is overfocused on building way too much passenger rail, way too quickly.” 

Los Angeles rail network is certainly on an expansion spree. Last year saw the Expo Line extended, connecting downtown LA to the Pacific Ocean; the Gold Line was also extended eastwards towards Azusa. And in early January, officials announced that the federal government would be giving Metro $1.6bn to accelerate construction of the Purple Line extension.

In November, what’s more, a large majority of Angelenos voted for Measure M, a countywide half-cent increase to the sales tax, which will be used to fund an ambitious $120bn plan to expand mass transit in the area.  

But rail expansion could affect bus services. Rubin argues that the MTA needs more money to finish the current rail projects – money it can “only raise by reducing bus service and increasing bus fares,” a move which would eventually drive away riders. “Bus service has simply never been a priority at MTA,” he said.

This may be a mistake, because the layout of the city limits rail ridership. “There are a little over 100 rail stations in Los Angeles County, but there are over 20,000 bus stops,” explains Rubin. As a result, there are very few areas in LA where you can access rail stations without motorised transportation of some kind.

When bus service is eliminated, or made less frequent, it makes it harder and more expensive for people to get to a rail station – so, rail ridership is also hurt,” Rubin adds. “What MTA has not done is expand ridership and keep fares low.”

The LA Metro rail map. 

Matthew Tinoco, a journalist with LAist who has commented extensively on urban planning and transport issues, agrees that inconvenience plays a role. “Why wait 30 minutes for a 20-minute bus ride when you could drive the distance in ten?

“If bus service was more consistent, or rail service more ubiquitous, I think Angelenos would flock to transit.”

The new Expo Line extension to Santa Monica is a case in point. “Very quickly the trains became overcrowded, as more people packed aboard the trains” than they had capacity to carry, Tinoco adds.

Economics and perceptions

The fact that the price of motor fuel has been relatively low in recent years has also contributed to Angelenos opting for their cars instead, believes Steve Boland, an associate with transportation planning consultancy Nelson/Nygaard and an expert in fixed-route transit service and multimodal access.

“The ridership number tends to decrease when the economy is up, as more people can afford cars,” he says. “California recently legalised driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants and we’ve seen a spike in both numbers of license-holders and registered vehicles.”

Moreover, LA Metro is fighting against an image problem. Unreliability is partially responsible: Metro Buses are having a hard time staying on time, with 21.4 percent showing up late in 2015 and 22.7 percent in the early months of 2016.

Safety concerns is another reason. According to a recent Metro survey, almost 30 per cent of past riders left the system because they did not feel safe. The Blue Line has a  particularly bad reputation with regards to safety.

Some of these concerns are not well-founded. The number of serious crimes within the transit system is low and often much lower than in the surrounding community

In addition, it seems that Angelenos have limited knowledge with regards to Metro's reach, usability and offered services. As Matthew Tinoco says: “It turns out there's a gap between what some Angelenos think LA's transit system does, and what it actually does.”

“Metro has had a PR problem, but that's changing as people realise nothing can be done to make traffic better except build alternative transportation options,” he adds.

One last factor may be the popularity of Uber and Lyft. “Such services are huge here,” says Boland. “This is also a factor in recent ridership decline.”


Changing trains

It's hard to say what the future holds. LA Metro is still in the very early stages of building the sort of rapid transit network typical for a city of this size.

In 2015, LA City Council approved Mobility Plan 2035, an ambitious blueprint for its transportation future, that wants to shed LA’s “traditional automobile-centric approach and evolve into a modern, multimodal city”.

Steve Boland describes it as a “visionary” document. However, he stresses that the devil will be in the follow-through. “It calls for compromises in the allocation of space in the public right-of-way, and that’s something drivers and leaders in this region haven’t really been asked to do yet,” he said.

Measure M was a major landmark. It will fund over two dozen mass transit lines, rail extensions and 14 highway projects, as well as cycling infrastructure, bike share expansion, and a network of greenways.

“At some point we’re going to need a whole lot more bus lanes,” says Boland. “Even at Measure M build-out, trains won’t be doing most of the work.”

Ridership numbers will depend largely on the success of these measures - but LA Metro is often challenged by political roadblocks For example, building infrastructure in California is an immensely complicated and often litigious environment.

Homeowners often “litigate against projects they don't like,” explains Matthew Tinoco. “The city of Beverly Hills, an incorporated city within the county of Los Angeles, distinct from it and also a city incorporated in L.A County, spent the greater part of the past two decades suing LA Metro for their plans to build a subway beneath the city.”

“Right now, what Metro really needs is policy leadership, on street design, but also transit-supportive land use,” adds Boland. “It needs time to build that rapid transit network.

For his part, Tinoco thinks LA Metro is on the right track – though it should focus directly on greatly improving bus service. “If the service is good,” he concludes, “people will use it.”

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook.

 
 
 
 

“Stop worrying about hairdressers”: The UK government has misdiagnosed its productivity problem

We’re going as fast as we can, here. Image: Getty.

Gonna level with you here, I have mixed feelings about this one. On the one hand, I’m a huge fan of schadenfreude, so learning that it the government has messed up in a previously unsuspected way gives me this sort of warm glow inside. On the other hand, the way it’s been screwing up is probably making the country poorer, and exacerbating the north south divide. So, mixed reviews really.

Here’s the story. This week the Centre for Cities (CfC) published a major report on Britain’s productivity problem. For the last 200 years, ever since the industrial revolution, this country has got steadily richer. Since the financial crash, though, that seems to have stopped.

The standard narrative on this has it that the problem lies in the ‘long tail’ of unproductive businesses – that is, those that produce less value per hour. Get those guys humming, the thinking goes, and the productivity problem is sorted.

But the CfC’s new report says that this is exactly wrong. The wrong tail: Why Britain’s ‘long tail’ is not the cause of its productivity problems (excellent pun, there) delves into the data on productivity in different types of businesses and different cities, to demonstrate two big points.

The first is that the long tail is the wrong place to look for productivity gains. Many low productivity businesses are low productivity for a reason:

The ability of manufacturing to automate certain processes, or the development of ever more sophisticated computer software in information and communications have greatly increased the output that a worker produces in these industries. But while a fitness instructor may use a smartphone today in place of a ghetto blaster in 1990, he or she can still only instruct one class at a time. And a waiter or waitress can only serve so many tables. Of course, improvements such as the introduction of handheld electronic devices allow orders to be sent to the kitchen more efficiently, will bring benefits, but this improvements won’t radically increase the output of the waiter.

I’d add to that: there is only so fast that people want to eat. There’s a physical limit on the number of diners any restaurant can actually feed.

At any rate, the result of this is that it’s stupid to expect local service businesses to make step changes in productivity. If we actually want to improve productivity we should focus on those which are exporting services to a bigger market.  There are fewer of these, but the potential gains are much bigger. Here’s a chart:

The y-axis reflects number of businesses at different productivities, shown on the x-axis. So bigger numbers on the left are bad; bigger numbers on the right are good. 

The question of which exporting businesses are struggling to expand productivity is what leads to the report’s second insight:

Specifically it is the underperformance of exporting businesses in cities outside of the Greater South East that causes not only divergences across the country in wages and standards of living, but also hampers national productivity. These cities in particular should be of greatest concern to policy makers attempting to improve UK productivity overall.

In other words, it turned out, again, to the north-south divide that did it. I’m shocked. Are you shocked? This is my shocked face.

The best way to demonstrate this shocking insight is with some more graphs. This first one shows the distribution of productivity in local services business in four different types of place: cities in the south east (GSE) in light green, cities in the rest of the country (RoGB) in dark green, non-urban areas in the south east in purple, non-urban areas everywhere else in turquoise.

The four lines are fairly consistent. The light green, representing south eastern cities has a lower peak on the left, meaning slightly fewer low productivity businesses, but is slightly higher on the right, meaning slightly more high productivity businesses. In other words, local services businesses in the south eastern cities are more productive than those elsewhere – but the gap is pretty narrow. 

Now check out the same graph for exporting businesses:

The differences are much more pronounced. Areas outside those south eastern cities have many more lower productivity businesses (the peaks on the left) and significantly fewer high productivity ones (the lower numbers on the right).

In fact, outside the south east, cities are actually less productive than non-urban areas. This is really not what you’d expect to see, and no a good sign for the health of the economy:

The report also uses a few specific examples to illustrate this point. Compare Reading, one of Britain’s richest medium sized cities, with Hull, one of its poorest:

Or, looking to bigger cities, here’s Bristol and Sheffield:

In both cases, the poorer northern cities are clearly lacking in high-value exporting businesses. This is a problem because these don’t just provide well-paying jobs now: they’re also the ones that have the potential to make productivity gains that can lead to even better jobs. The report concludes:

This is a major cause for concern for the national economy – the underperformance of these cities goes a long way to explain both why the rest of Britain lags behind the Greater South East and why it performs poorly on a

European level. To illustrate the impact, if all cities were as productive as those in the Greater South East, the British economy would be 15 per cent more productive and £225bn larger. This is equivalent to Britain being home to four extra city economies the size of Birmingham.

In other words, the lesson here is: stop worrying about the productivity of hairdressers. Start worrying about the productivity of Hull.


You can read the Centre for Cities’ full report here.

Jonn Elledge is the editor of CityMetric. He is on Twitter as @jonnelledge and on Facebook as JonnElledgeWrites

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook