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.

 
 
 
 

What does the fate of Detroit tell us about the future of Silicon Valley?

Detroit, 2008. Image: Getty.

There was a time when California’s Santa Clara Valley, bucolic home to orchards and vineyards, was known as “the valley of heart’s delight”. The same area was later dubbed “Silicon Valley,” shorthand for the high-tech combination of creativity, capital and California cool. However, a backlash is now well underway – even from the loyal gadget-reviewing press. Silicon Valley increasingly conjures something very different: exploitation, excess, and elitist detachment.

Today there are 23 active Superfund toxic waste cleanup sites in Santa Clara County, California. Its culture is equally unhealthy: Think of the Gamergate misogynist harassment campaigns, the entitled “tech bros” and rampant sexism and racism in Silicon Valley firms. These same companies demean the online public with privacy breaches and unauthorised sharing of users’ data. Thanks to the companies’ influences, it’s extremely expensive to live in the area. And transportation is so clogged that there are special buses bringing tech-sector workers to and from their jobs. Some critics even perceive threats to democracy itself.

In a word, Silicon Valley has become toxic.

Silicon Valley’s rise is well documented, but the backlash against its distinctive culture and unscrupulous corporations hints at an imminent twist in its fate. As historians of technology and industry, we find it helpful to step back from the breathless champions and critics of Silicon Valley and think about the long term. The rise and fall of another American economic powerhouse – Detroit – can help explain how regional reputations change over time.

The rise and fall of Detroit

The city of Detroit became a famous node of industrial capitalism thanks to the pioneers of the automotive age. Men such as Henry Ford, Horace and John Dodge, and William Durant cultivated Detroit’s image as a centre of technical novelty in the early 20th century.

The very name “Detroit” soon became a metonym for the industrial might of the American automotive industry and the source of American military power. General Motors president Charles E. Wilson’s remark that, “For years I thought what was good for our country was good for General Motors, and vice versa,” was an arrogant but accurate account of Detroit’s place at the heart of American prosperity and global leadership.

The public’s view changed after the 1950s. The auto industry’s leading firms slid into bloated bureaucratic rigidity and lost ground to foreign competitors. By the 1980s, Detroit was the image of blown-out, depopulated post-industrialism.

In retrospect – and perhaps as a cautionary tale for Silicon Valley – the moral decline of Detroit’s elite was evident long before its economic decline. Henry Ford became famous in the pre-war era for the cars and trucks that carried his name, but he was also an anti-Semite, proto-fascist and notorious enemy of organised labor. Detroit also was the source of defective and deadly products that Ralph Nader criticized in 1965 as “unsafe at any speed”. Residents of the region now bear the costs of its amoral industrial past, beset with high unemployment and poisonous drinking water.


A new chapter for Silicon Valley

If the story of Detroit can be simplified as industrial prowess and national prestige, followed by moral and economic decay, what does that say about Silicon Valley? The term “Silicon Valley” first appeared in print in the early 1970s and gained widespread use throughout the decade. It combined both place and activity. The Santa Clara Valley, a relatively small area south of the San Francisco Bay, home to San Jose and a few other small cities, was the base for a computing revolution based on silicon chips. Companies and workers flocked to the Bay Area, seeking a pleasant climate, beautiful surroundings and affordable land.

By the 1980s, venture capitalists and companies in the Valley had mastered the silicon arts and were getting filthy, stinking rich. This was when “Silicon Valley” became shorthand for an industrial cluster where universities, entrepreneurs and capital markets fuelled technology-based economic development. Journalists fawned over successful companies like Intel, Cisco and Google, and analysts filled shelves with books and reports about how other regions could become the “next Silicon Valley”.

Many concluded that its culture set it apart. Boosters and publications like Wired magazine celebrated the combination of the Bay Area hippie legacy with the libertarian individualism embodied by the late Grateful Dead lyricist John Perry Barlow. The libertarian myth masked some crucial elements of Silicon Valley’s success – especially public funds dispersed through the U.S. Defense Department and Stanford University.

The ConversationIn retrospect, perhaps that ever-expanding gap between Californian dreams and American realities led to the undoing of Silicon Valley. Its detachment from the lives and concerns of ordinary Americans can be seen today in the unhinged Twitter rants of automaker Elon Musk, the extreme politics of PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel, and the fatuous dreams of immortality of Google’s vitamin-popping director of engineering, Ray Kurzweil. Silicon Valley’s moral decline has never been clearer, and it now struggles to survive the toxic mess it has created.

Andrew L. Russell, Dean, College of Arts & Sciences; Professor of History, SUNY Polytechnic Institute and Lee Vinsel, Assistant Professor of Science and Technology Studies, Virginia Tech.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.