Los Angeles Transportation Facts and Fiction: Transit

INSERT DESCRIPTIONPhoto: ceeb Inside a Los Angeles bus.

In the last posts, we learned that Los Angeles is not a poster child for sprawl, that the air has gotten a lot cleaner, and that the freeway network is surprisingly small given the region’s enormous population. What about the charge that Los Angeles’s mass-transit system is underdeveloped and inadequate?

By U.S. standards, that’s false.

Los Angeles has a reputation as a city where people get around in limos, not buses.

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.

Ironically, Los Angeles once had one of the most extensive rail transit systems in the world. The oft-repeated story is that it was destroyed by a conspiracy led by the car companies. (For a dramatized version, see Who Framed Roger Rabbit. I’ll take this up some other time.) In any event, the last rail service in Los Angeles was gone by the 1960’s.

But the situation has changed dramatically. In the last two decades, Los Angeles has been on the nation’s most ambitious rail-building program, spending $11 billion dollars (around $1,000 for every resident of Los Angeles County) on five new rail lines. At present, Los Angeles has the sixth-most-extensive heavy and light rail network in the nation, and several new extensions are in the works. I personally have some misgivings about how this system has developed, but you certainly can’t fault our transportation agencies for not keeping the dirt flying.

Los Angeles has done reasonably well at providing good bus service. Its pioneering Metro Rapid lines use techniques like limited stops, low floors, traffic signal priority, and high bus frequencies to significantly cut travel times. Ridership on the Rapid lines has been strong, and the program is being copied by other cities. The new bus rapid transit line (the Orange Line) is also a trend-setter, providing virtually all the amenities of a rail line at a fraction of the cost.

Local bus service has also improved over the last decade, though admittedly this was in large part due to a lawsuit filed by the city’s Bus Riders Union. Also, Los Angeles has converted a large portion of its bus fleet to cleaner-burning compressed natural gas.

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.

But then again, the car is king in Houston, Atlanta, Cleveland, and even San Francisco, which is often held up as a model of sustainable transportation. The San Francisco Bay area is second in the country with a transit market share of 5 percent — quite high by U.S. standards. But this is very small in terms of the region’s overall transportation profile (19 miles traveled by auto for each one traveled by transit).

The median urban area among the largest 50 — Milwaukee — has a transit share of 0.7 percent, 40 percent of Los Angeles’s. The Kansas City region is lowest at a startling 0.2 percent, perhaps one eighth the share of Los Angeles (you may remember Kansas City also had the most freeway miles per capita among the largest 36 metro areas).

New York, the mecca of American transit, has a market share of around 10 percent. This certainly towers by U.S. standards, but even so, it pales in comparison to auto travel. It is also quite low compared to comparable foreign cities like London or Paris (which has twice New York’s market share), let alone Tokyo (five times New York’s share).

So judged against other American cities, public transportation in Los Angeles has not, with apologies, “missed the bus.”

Two stereotypes to go.

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

Tune in next time when the correct answer will be revealed.

Leave A Comment

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.



View All Comments »
  1. Mike B says:

    Quoting the number of route miles or amount of money spent on transit projects is useless as a measure of transit effectiveness. The key measure is transit density, ie are large parts of the urban area within walking distance of non-bus transit.

    In LA the answer is an astounding NO. Unlike many older urban centers LA grew as a de-centralized blob and the absolute absence of any transit after the Pacific Electric system went bust left no skeleton for development to grow smartly on.

    For LA the horse is already out of the barn. Among transit planners the LA metro is known as the subway that takes someone from nowhere to nowhere. Without the sort of hub and spoke travel patterns seen on the East Coast it will be impossible to retrofit a transit system that can efficiently get people where they want to go, especially since transit systems cost between 100 million and 1 billion per mile. There is nothing they can do but hope for a massive Earthquake and then start over building homes along transit corridors and businesses in centralized urban cores.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
  2. Buce says:

    I spent a year living in Sun Valley, working at the Federal Courthouse downtown, taking an hour-long bus ride each way every day. It was /so/ much better than driving. I got a ton of paperwork done every morning before I ever hit my desk, and knocked off, inter alia, the Rouse translation of Homer’s Iliad in the afternoon on the way home.

    There was this lady who got on before me–every day she would carry a bud vase with a single flower.

    I shared the bus with a bunch of civil servants from Glendale who made it a social club; they’d share the birthday cake even with an unsociable bookworm.

    Also: the driver knew how to merge from the (five?) lanes of I-5 down to the (three?) of the Pasadena.

    I remember the LA bus system as a model of civility and public order.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
  3. Greg says:

    Um, that is a very poor measure of the adequacy of the LA public transport system.

    By U.S. standards, by common sense standards, by nearly any related measure, the LA public transportation system is inadequate and underdeveloped. Try taking pubic transportation from two random points in LA, during rush hour, versus two random points in NYC under the same circumstances. You better be lucky if you expect to get there faster in LA.

    Take it from someone who has lived in both cities.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
  4. Troy says:

    The transportation profile facts seem misleading. It’s no surprise that in San Francisco 19 times more miles are traveled by car than by transit because many people who use transit are in the city and don’t need to go far by transit and can even walk and the people driving are coming into the city from far-flung suburbs.

    I’m just not sure how this specific stat (miles traveled by transit versus miles traveled by car) is more useful than, say, percentage of people who commute by transit versus percentage commuting by car.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  5. KSK says:

    Other measures of transit “market share”

    Percent of trips taken by transit (modal split). Perhaps, transit trips are shorter than auto trips. Also, not all trips are for work – something like 20% of all trips are non-work.

    Percent of population within 1/2 mile of a rail station. I imagine this is a lot higher in NYC metro area.

    To be forward looking in the metro area, policymakers and citizens should advocate for new real estate development near existing or new stations. That way, the overall transit accessibility will increase – it’s not just about increasing transit coverage geographically, it’s about getting development near new and proposed stations.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  6. Nora says:

    I use to take the bus to school in high school and later to work. It was so not worth it for so many reasons. In one unrelated and memorable day, the bus driver got angry at a homeless woman riding around the bus with her shoes off and told her to get off because she stunk. All the other riders agreed and wanted her off.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  7. Eric M. Jones says:

    I too, have lived in both LA and NYC. There is essentially no low-cost public transportation system in LA. The removal of the final leg of the Pacific Electric light-rail system in 1961 was not so much a conspiracy as a recognition that it did not serve the needs of the public as well as the automobile (and the bus).

    Although I lived for years in NYC with no car (and didn’t want one), the structure of the city made this possible. Most of the jobs were in Manhattan and most of the people lived in the surrounding burroughs–and you could use public transit nearly any hour of the day. Taxis (and jitneys), ferries, busses, subways, trains, shoe-leather and airplanes provided convenient links. Townhouses, co-ops and apartments dominated.

    But the ideal transportation system really is a car of your own–assuming you have a place to park it at both ends of the journey–and costs are reasonablle. It is simply incorrect to think that rail is more efficient for moving people. A single lane of blacktop has a higher capacity of persons per hour that any railroad. True–traffic jams are to be avoided–and it takes a high degree of idiocy to put up with them over any period of time. In LA you just can’t walk from public transportation to your destination.

    Now when I go to Manhattan, I park at 59th Street and use public tranportation and taxis. When I go to LA I rent a car.

    Comparisons between LA and NYC are impossible. LA is a giant, almost endless sprawl. NYC is a tight hub around which the world spins. To hypothesis about ,and to compare these two cities with any others is really nonsensical.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
    • Frederick says:

      “assuming you have a place to park it at both ends of the journey” – Parking regulations necessary to ensure this are a huge burden on the economy, and in my opinion, none of the government’s business. Donald Shoup’s work, especially his book ‘The High Cost of Free Parking’ examines this.
      “costs are reasonablle” – Cars are a highly inefficient form of transport, and need large amounts of infrastructure. Our current road system was only built with huge government support. To this day there is huge subsidization of cars.
      “A single lane of blacktop has a higher capacity of persons per hour that any railroad” – A lane of cars carries 2000 people per hour. A light rail line can carry up to 20 000 people per hour, and a well run heavy rail line upwards of 75000 people per hour. A bus line could carry 4000 people an hour. Even if everyone carpooled, you would get a capacity of 10 000 people per hour, which rail leaves in hte dust.

      Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
  8. Mike says:

    This is a very poor reading of the data, as transit market share is obviously related to the population of the city. If you plot population vs. transit share (which took me about two minutes in Excel). You’ll see that while most of the cities fall roughly on a linear interpolation, and Los Angeles is the clear outlier. Try it yourself.

    Not to say my analysis is conclusive, there are probably a number of complex factors that contribute to transit share that aren’t being accounted for, but the lack of basic rigor in Eric Morris’ presentation of the data reveal his desire to exonerate Los Angeles regardless of what the data actually say.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0