What metropolitan transport for Los Angeles?

Introduction

Los Angeles - the U.S.’s second largest city after New York, with 3,792,621 inhabitants in 2010 - has become the symbol of the sprawling American city where luxury and misery rub elbows and the car is king. Congested six-lane urban freeways, housing developments as far as the eye can see and segregated neighborhoods are just some of the clichés about L.A. cinema and literature have helped perpetuate globally.

In reality, however, Los Angeles is an urban model that is both dense and sprawling — what Eric Eidlin calls “dense sprawl.”1 Once considered a poly-nuclear city, municipal authorities have been trying to create a central downtown area for the past 30 years. Through the creation of a subway network and express bus lines, transportation policy supports this policy of densifying and reinforcing the center.

The policy, implemented by the Los Angeles Country Metropolitan Transportation Authority (METRO), has been at the center of a controversy due to fare hikes and divestment from the classic bus network, which is widely used by poor and minority populations. In the mid-1990s a users’ association, the BRU (Bus Riders Union), backed by researchers from UCLA (University of California, Los Angeles), attacked METRO in court, arguing that the policy was discriminatory and environmentally unfriendly. This battle, analyzed by Tim Cresswell in On the Move (2006)2, did not lead to significant changes in the institution’s transportation policy, even if it did have some impact, such as maintaining certain lines and improving the bus fleet (powered by natural gas, which pollutes less than diesel). .

20 years later the situation has changed and the balance of power has shifted in favor of METRO, with the BRU being marginalized. However, the question remains: what transportation policy to develop in a sprawling city like Los Angeles? What place should the car have? Is it better to favor the subway or the bus network? And why - economic reasons (competitiveness, employment, etc.), environmental reasons (reducing pollution and fossil fuel consumption) and/or social reasons (the fight against social and racial inequality)?

1 Eric Eidlin (2010), “What Density Doesn't Tell Us About Sprawl”, ACCESS #37, pp. 2-9. Disponible en ligne : http://www.uctc.net/access/37/access37_sprawl.shtml

The extension of the subway as a tool for modernizing Los Angeles: towards a compact, sustainable city

• Lucile Waquet

Lucile Waquet

Geographer – Town planner

Lucile Waquet is a geography student at the École Normale Supérieure of Paris and the Masters in Urban Planning and Development at the University of Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne. Her work focuses on social housing and public housing policies in Ile-de-France.

Since the adoption of Measure R ³ in 2008, the city of Los Angeles and METRO, its transport operator, are finally equipped with means to pursue an ambitious transportation policy. The extension of the subway network is a tool for modernizing the city and also one of social justice, but above all, it is for acting on the urban morphology.

It seems important to recall the extent to which Los Angeles is not a “classic/typical” city; it developed outside of the traditional center-periphery layout, making it a post-modern city par excellence. The lack of a city center challenges our conception of a city. To understand the pertinence of a subway network in Los Angeles, one must consider the spatial context, and understand how public transportation becomes part of the urban space, and how transportation organizes or (re)shapes this space, helping it to evolve. Our reflection on the city in general is based on an array of ideas, a toolbox with concepts like density, networking, coherency, functionality, sustainability, development, etc. However, in Los Angeles, this reflexive device runs up against the city’s original layout. In L.A., not only do we have a unique space; the very notion of space itself - and our relationship to it - are unusual. Los Angeles stands as an urban model.

A cutting-edge subway system would be a way for L.A. to assert itself as a global city. Today, however, it is a city with a transportation network comparable to that of…Lyon: lots of cars and buses, few subways. Worse, even though the L.A. airport is the 6th largest in the world, it is not even served by the subway. And yet, the subway is a mode of transportation associated with major cities. The lack of an efficient subway system is seen as proof of L.A.’s backwardness compared to its arch rival—New York. Like a skyline, a transportation network can be a showcase for a city, and an affirmation of its public planning policy. As Martin Wachs, professor at UCLA’s department of Urban Planning, likes to say, “[j]ust as the Eiffel tower comes to mind as the symbol of Paris, and the Statue of Liberty symbolizes New York, the internationally recognized symbol of Los Angeles is the freeway.” ⁴

Los Angeles, therefore, is not famous for its public transportation, and even less so for its subway system. Moreover, the subway expansion project, supported by the municipality and METRO, is promising and would give the city a positive image, offering it the chance to overcome its image as a city made for cars. As Stephanie Pincetl, also a professor at UCLA ⁵ , writes, “Los Angeles is seen as the antithesis of a sustainable city.”

In the spirit of competition between cities, the subway has a decisive advantage when it comes to attracting new investors and inhabitants concerned about sustainable development.

Moreover, the extension of the subway aims to reduce social inequalities caused by mobility. The title of Peter Marcuse’s book, Spatial Justice: Derivative but Causal of Social Injustice ⁶ . is in itself revealing. Social justice both engenders and is a result of spatial justice. The extension of the subway serves this vision of a more just city because, contrary to what the BRU would have us believe, the introduction of a subway system in Los Angeles is a tool for urban cohesion. According to Stephanie Princetl, [t]ransit fares [in Los Angeles] are among the least expensive in the world at $1.50 for an unlimited distance.” ⁷ :

The extension of subway lines would connect neighborhoods via better service, promoting mobility for all and offering citizens an environmentally-friendly transport network at a fare much lower than other global cities. This new mode of transport could help reduce the socio-spatial fractures that, today, mark the map of Los Angeles, the degree of mobility of inhabitants being closely linked to the car. Furthermore, access to sustainable transportation like the subway is a right for all Angelenos and a way to combat car usage as the sole means of transport. A subway system would allow residents to escape the traffic jams that have given L.A. its reputation. Unlike the bus, the subway does not operate on the same infrastructure: rather, it has its own infrastructure and offers a mode of transportation that is not in direct competition with the car. Subway riders are therefore individuals who will no longer use the city’s congested roads (by bus or car), and will be more likely to arrive on time at their destinations.

Beyond transport capacity, the extension of the subway network is also an advantage for young people, as David Lowenstein writes, “[o]ne of the major obstacles for students seeking internships and jobs in Los Angeles is the availability and accessibility of public transportation to and from the job location.” ⁸ :

    « One of the major obstacles for students seeking internships and jobs in Los Angeles is the availability and accessibility of public transportation to and from the job location. »

The construction of a new subway line, the Expo Line, which will connect the University of Southern California (USC) and Union Station, is a major advantage for students looking to get to campus quickly. Students often do not have a car on campus, nor is there a mass transit station nearby. Thus, the extension of the subway is an asset to territorial cohesion and social equality.

One of the arguments against the construction of a new subway in Los Angeles is the cost. Yet, it seems that, compared to the bus, the subway is less expensive in terms of operational costs:

    « A primary reason why light rail costs tend to be lower is that LRT ⁹ vehicles provide more passenger space and, in addition, can be coupled in trains, usually between 2 and 4 cars in length. This typically means that only a single train operator is required instead of many bus drivers – a significant cost advantage over the need for a driver for every bus. » ¹⁰

The subway may be more expensive to build than the bus, but it is less costly to maintain. Moreover, a subway can transport more people per day than a bus. Take, for example, the #60 bus line and the Blue Line, which essentially follow the same route. According to Light Rail Now!, the #60 carries 26,694 passengers a day, while the Blue Line carries 56,224 ¹¹ . Moreover, in a 3 or 4-car subway, each car has 76 seats, with a total capacity of 354 passengers, while a bus has only 41 seats and can carry a maximum of 50 passengers ¹² . Hence, the subway’s transport capacity far surpasses that of the bus.

However, the extension of the subway network is not merely a systematic fight against car use. On the contrary, an alliance would be welcome. Although these two modes of transportation have very different relationships to space, their linkage could provide a new image of the L.A. area. Another argument of subway opponents is that Los Angeles has no center, which complicates service and route choice. We must, however, accept that L.A.’s layout forces us to rethink our conception of urban planning and development. The subway’s extension should not be thought of based on a center-periphery logic, but rather as a complement to the car. We must find another way of thinking about transportation networks and thus, ultimately, the city.

The main impact of the extension of the subway in Los Angeles would be on the city’s morphology—a point that is both critical and interesting to consider. A subway network would help densify the urban space around its “attachment points,” by increasing building height. Creating a relaxed, expanded urban area without coherence and largely decentralized, the subway will provide a kind of “skeleton” for the city. By offering sustainable infrastructure, the subway would likewise help “solidify” the transportation network and would exert pressure to densify the surrounding areas. The city would then have to adapt to its path because, far from being just a tool for mobility, the subway should drive and support the city’s morphological changes. This is one of the reasons for its creation and a condition of its acceptance.

By clinging to what already exists, the BRU is apparently erring on the side of pragmatism. In this regard, the subway would represent excessive idealism and ambition. However, in taking this position, the BRU is doing nothing to address the growing problems linked to transportation—namely congestion and pollution. Its project in no way changes the structure of the city, which is the basis of these issues. While the BRU simply stops upon concluding that Los Angeles is, indeed, a sprawling, sparsely-populated city where the cost of building a subway would be high for relative efficiency, METRO, meanwhile, highlights a project that could fundamentally change both the urban space and the inhabitants’ relationship to it. Effectively, development in the form of public transportation should not merely stick to what exists, as it is also intended to forge change by improving the city and its organization.

However, the BRU tells us that the urban morphology of Los Angeles does not lend itself to the subway extension: it is too big, too vast, not densely-populated enough, etc. But the purpose of a transportation policy is not simply to move individuals from point A to point B; it is also to influence their mobility practices and their environment (land, economic, ecological, social, etc.). Around subway stations, public authorities should promote the development and diversification of buildings and housing. UCLA’s Institute of Environment and Sustainability proposed a vision for Los Angeles in 2021: “Vision 2021 L.A.: A Model Environmental Sustainability Agenda for Los Angeles’ Next Mayor and City Council. ¹³ .

One of the suggestions is to increase by mandate the number of housing units within less than a half mile of a subway station or bus line and, at the same time, reduce the number of parking spaces for cars.

To conclude, the subway should be thought of as a paradigm for reshaping our approach to the city; it is like a common thread that reframes the development of the urban space. The way in which a network is structured is a way of thinking about the city. For Los Angeles, it could be a solution for counterbalancing uni-modal mobility habits wherein the car is king, and the bus is but a close cousin.

3 La Mesure R est une taxe votée en 2008 pour trente ans afin de financer les projets de transports à Los Angeles.

4 WACHS, M. “Learning from Los Angeles: transport, urban form, and air quality”, University of California Transportation Center, 1993 - 31 pages

5 PRINCETL, S. “Los Angeles, The Improbably Sustainable City”, site internet de l’Association of American Geographers, 8 mars 2013, 43 pages, disponible à l’adresse suivante: http://www.aag.org/cs/news_detail?pressrelease.id=2046

6 MARCUSE, P., Spatial Justice: Derivative but Causal of Social Injustice, Columbia University, 2009

7Opus cité.

8 LOWENSTEIN, D., “Interns could benefit from growing Metro”, in Daily Trojan, 9 novembre 2011, disponible à l’adressesuivante: http://dailytrojan.com/2011/11/09/interns-could-benefit-from-growing-metro/

9Light Rail Transit

10Light Rail Now!, “Los Angeles's Blue Line: Comparison of LRT vs. Bus”, Avril 2007, disponible à l’adressesuivante: http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_lrt04.htm

11 Opus cité, chiffres 2001.

12 Opus cité, chiffres 2001.

13 Institute of Environment and Sustainability, UCLA, « Vision 2021 LA, A Model Environmental Sustainability Agenda for Los Angeles – Next Mayor and City Council », décembre 2012, document disponible à l’adresse suivante : http://www.environment.ucla.edu/media_IOE/files/UCLA_Vision_2021_LA-hc-k...

Developing the bus network in response to social issues in Los Angeles

• Jean Leveugle

Jean Leveugle

Urban planner - illustrator

Jean Leveugle is a geography student at the École Normale Supérieure of Paris and of the Magisterium of Urban Planning and Development at the University Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne. With a background in sociology and political science, he works on issues of mobility, poverty and exclusion.

In 2008 the Bus Riders Union (BRU) launched a political campaign called Transit Riders for Public Transportation. Its main objective was the redistribution of federal subsidies for road systems and public transportation networks which, at present, is 80% vs. 20%. It also seeks to change the allocation of funding with regard to the “public transportation” component, which, by and large, is geared toward the development of heavy infrastructure such as the subway. For the Bus Riders Union, a connected bus system is preferable to a subway network for Los Angeles, for both financial and practical reasons. Arguing that buses are more suited to the urban morphology of L.A. than are subways, the BRU claims that the bus system should receive better funding; for it, the bus system has real social utility that is not costly and fosters fluid, multiple mobility.

One of the main arguments against METRO policy is the cost, particularly against a backdrop of financial crises: subways are more expensive to build than buses. The BRU estimates that a mile of above-ground subway construction costs roughly 150 million dollars, and 350 million dollars underground. Conversely, it shows that the Orange Line, a high-quality service bus line, cost approximately 24 million dollars to build per mile, versus 70 to 80 million for light rail. For an equivalent budget it is possible to build and maintain more bus lines than subway lines ¹⁴ .

While subways can carry more people, in L.A.’s case, a bus system is preferable because of its flexibility. The type of vehicle and its size are based on the number of users making the same trip at the same time. Only when these figures are high enough is investment in heavy infrastructure like subways justifiable. Small collective vans are effective for small groups of people. Subways, on the other hand, are logical in compact cities. Los Angeles, however, is a city somewhere between two extremes—relatively dense but extremely spread out.

Furthermore, flows of people for the entire county show significant dispersal. Unlike Paris, for instance, there is not a mass East-to-West flow in the morning and another the opposite way in the evening. In L.A., drivers and public transportation users travel in all directions, morning and evening alike. North-South trips are as numerous as South-North trips, and the same is true for East-West trips.

Furthermore, flows of people for the entire county show significant dispersal. Unlike Paris, for instance, there is not a mass East-to-West flow in the morning and another the opposite way in the evening. In L.A., drivers and public transportation users travel in all directions, morning and evening alike. North-South trips are as numerous as South-North trips, and the same is true for East-West trips.

Given this multiplicity of flows, the bus system has a clear advantage: it is flexible, even if all lines do not have bus lanes. Hence, and unlike the subway, it can constantly adapt to mobility needs by simply rerouting its lines. On more popular lines service frequency can be increased, and bus lanes (like on the Orange Line) can be created. One preexisting infrastructure in particular seems to be an obvious choice for hosting such lanes: highways. In fact (and quite logically), employment areas tend to develop around highways and, to a lesser extent, residential areas. In this logic, the BRU wishes to reserve first one, and then two lanes for express buses:

“There is no way to build enough rails, in such a dispersed area, to serve people adequately without going bankruptcy. You would never be able to do it. […] Use the right tool for the job […] They continue to build these rail lines, they put millions and millions of dollars into the rail lines, and then, because of all the sprawl…they had to go everywhere so… unless the rail line takes you exactly from where you need to go to where you need to go, it doesn’t really work for you in a space like this, right? ” ¹⁵

The question of the L.A. transportation system also comes with social issues. Tim Cresswell talks about “spatial mismatch” in a broader consideration of spatial justice ¹⁶ . A 2002 MTA survey shows that the average annual revenue of bus users is $12,000. Latinos account for 58% of users, African-Americans 20%, Whites 12% and Asians 8% ¹⁷ . A 2000 Metrolink survey shows that rail users have an average annual income of $61,100. A second survey shows that 48% of these users are white.

There is a social and spatial separation within the realm of transportation. The bus is used by poor racial minorities – a reality linked to transportation costs. In terms of infrastructure and operational costs, the real cost of a bus trip is $1.93, versus $12.90 for a subway trip ¹⁸ .  Yet, the fare for the bus and subway are almost the same. In other words, bus users are paying the price for subway infrastructure – undoubtedly a form of solidarity, however considering the socio-economic profiles of their users, would it not seem that the poor are, in fact, paying for a mode of transportation they do not use?

The cornerstone of the BRU’s thinking is the assumed, unspoken goal of the disappearance of cars from Los Angeles via massive development of a bus system perfectly suited to L.A.’s moderately dense, sprawling urban morphology and dispersed, multiple flows. Finally, the figures also attest to low use of the subway versus the bus. A metropolitan network? Why not. But empty subways?

The environmental question is somewhat secondary in the debate between METRO and the BRU. We nonetheless wish to highlight the fact that a portion of the subways currently in operation are diesel-powered. What is more, estimates as regards greenhouse gas emissions typically do not include the carbon emissions generated by the construction of transportation infrastructure. Buses almost all run on natural gas. Finally, it seems important to look beyond energy consumption; by seeking to eliminate automobiles from Los Angeles, the BRU hopes to create a massive modal shift toward the bus, which is much less pollutant-producing for the same number of people transported.

With regard to this issue, METRO supports densification around major transportation routes as a solution for limiting car use. However, were the inhabitants of Los Angeles to opt for dense housing, would not a polycentric, compact city be likely to relegate the poor to areas where transportation service is limited or nonexistent, creating gentrification phenomena similar to certain European cities?

A 2002 MTA survey shows that the average annual revenue of bus users is $12,000. Latinos account for 58% of users, African-Americans 20%, Whites 12% and Asians 8%.

Mobility

For the Mobile Lives Forum, mobility is understood as the process of how individuals travel across distances in order to deploy through time and space the activities that make up their lifestyles. These travel practices are embedded in socio-technical systems, produced by transport and communication industries and techniques, and by normative discourses on these practices, with considerable social, environmental and spatial impacts.

More