On December 30, 1940, after months of lobbying by the Automobile Club of Southern California’s, the Arroyo Seco Parkway opened. It’s success eventually spurred the network of freeways that exists today in Los Angeles and California. But only after a few months, locals began to realize the adverse effects of the parkway. The increasing use of the car and the disinvestment in mass transit induced congestion which has plagued the city for decades. But with an increasing population, road congestion poses a huge problem. Urban planners today, look to reduce the use of the car and reinvest in mass transit throughout the region to ease gridlock and reduced its carbon footprint. This has resulted in big investments in bus and rail lines to meet transportation needs. But as regional rail has become an infrastructure demand, there are social, economic, and contextual ramifications to consider. Los Angeles county investing in these transportation systems, provides an opportunity to examine the ongoing debate between two modes of transportation; light rail transit and bus rapid transit.
Traffic in LA has been coupled with the rise of the automobile but the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority wants to change that. Pre-automobile LA, the main mode of transportation was a form of light rail; the Pacific Electric Trolley. But unlike todays modern rail systems, the trolley cars did not have their own right of way and shared the road with cars (Harrison). As the automobile became more ubiquitous, the trolley cars could not compete with the congestion. Planners efforts to build rail tracks with their own dedicated right of way were unsuccessful (Harrison) Measure M aims to re-establish a transit system similar to what existed pre-automobile and alleviate traffic congestion. The 2016 ballot initiative, “authorize[d] a Los Angeles County Traffic Improvement Plan through a ½ ¢ sales tax” and extended a previous sale tax dedicated for transportation infrastructure (theplan.metro.net/). The dedicated revenue would be used to expand and maintain LA’s transportation infrastructure. This included mass transit, local streets, and highway improvements. An integral part of the plan to address ongoing traffic congestions was to invest substantially into both into light rail and bus rapid transit.
Many groups supported Measure M believing that a substantial mass transit system would be good for the economy and environment. Several city commerce chambers along with several labor unions supported the measure. According to the Metro website, “based on the economic forecast by the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation, [Measure M] would add 465,690 new jobs across the region” ( theplan.metro.net/). Economist Thomas Garret of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, clarified that [non-rail transit jobs]would provide a net benefit to the local economy”(Garret). These are jobs that result from private development around light-rail transit stations that, “giv[e] people easier access to businesses, residential housing units and other facilities” (Garret). The major investments in bus and rail provide incentive for private businesses to capitalize on an larger consumer base. As more transit connections are made, there would be more foot traffic and more economic movement.
Environmental groups of LA also approve of light rail funding as they emit less carbon dioxide than automobiles or buses. Groups such as Los Angeles League of Conservation Voters, Friends of the LA River, TreePeople, and the Sierra Club endorsed measure M. A 2014 study at the University of Utah provided data that showed Salt Lake City’s light rail system, TRAX “save[d] nearly 500,000 gallons of gasoline… and prevent[ed] nearly 10 million pounds of CO2 emissions yearly (Ewing). The study focused mainly on the effects of the rail system around the local university with about 53,000 passengers daily. It continued that it “dropped daily vehicle traffic on the studied corridor by approximately fifty percent” (Ewing) A 2012 study in Denver Colorado also qualitatively supports the data as traffic was “noticeably lower within the influence zone of light rail”(Bhattacharjee). Although, LA Metro projected a smaller effect on traffic with a reduction by about fifteen percent. But it takes into account the expected population gain. LA may not be able to reduce emissions to the same proportion as other cities, advocates argue that rails and buses are still far more energy and space efficient compared to cars. But the reduction in carbon emissions and congestion relies on two things; a stable transit ridership and decreased automobile usage.
Low ridership on public mass transit is, in part, attributable to the degrading infrastructure. LA times reported in 2018 that, ridership has had a “decline of 15% over five years” (Nelson). Noticeably buses had the highest decrease while rail ridership went up. It continued that, “nearly two-thirds of former Metro riders…stopped riding because transit service was inefficient, inconvenient or difficult to reach. An additional 29%[stopped riding] because they felt unsafe or uncomfortable on buses and trains” (Nelson). While officials believe multiple factors affect ridership, addressing older inefficient infrastructure is a viable solution to falling ridership. Light rail is both more efficient and safer in public perception. It is also better at attracting new “choice” riders who would otherwise drive a car, than a bus(Manville). As most drivers are of a higher economic status (Hugh, 35-36), prioritizing corridors in more affluent regions may be effective to attract such riders and reduce congestion.
Which cities receives a light rail corridor becomes a major challenge when establishing new transit lines. Metro released expected rail and bus project routes that would be funded, in an effort to boost support for Measure M. This brought on both supporters and detractors. One of the biggest examples of inefficient alignment was the Metro Gold line. UC Berkeley professor, Ethan N. Elkind asserts that when the line was first built, the Pasadena terminus was chosen over areas with more commuters since it had “powerful political supporters” (Elkind) In 2008, San Gabriel Valley leaders threatened to withhold votes for funding future transit projects if their region was not prioritized (Elkind). In 2016, cities in the South Bay and South-East LA region filed a lawsuit claiming that there unfairly omitted from transit projects (Mazza). Many local officials argued that the central cities would be the main beneficiaries as they would be “forced to subsidize the county’s transportation plan”(Elkind). The geographical location of the rail causes political opposition to funding new rail projects. The selection of specific routes may cause calls for unjust and unfair treatment. The high capital costs of light rail exacerbate the politicization of rail placement. But as many cities lobby heavily for a transit line, others lobby against it.
Certain cities in LA argue that establishing a light rail would have negative impacts on the community. Economists generally agree that transit infrastructure is a boost for local economies, but this does not apply to businesses while it is being built. During the construction of rail projects, staging sites and physical barriers may block or obstruct business from customer flow . This is a major concern for the community in Crenshaw, Los Angeles. The Crenshaw line which is being built above ground will run straight through a prominent black business corridor[Newton]. The Crenshaw Subway Coalition specifically opposes Measure M in fear of disrupting local black businesses and gentrification (Newton). New transit lines also pose the risk of displacing low income renters. Metro has imposed affordable housing requirements on government owned land around transit stations (The Times Editorial Board). Metro explains this practice as an effort to prevent influx of higher income earners who may not use the transit. A recent UCLA supports this claim as new residents could be a cause for decrease in ridership (Manville). But with any new bas transit system there is a risk of disrupting local business and displacing long term residents. This leads to opposition from local residents who bear the negative impacts of rail without the intended benefits.
As the financing and and placement of light rail become contentious, many planners weigh its advantages and disadvantages against Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). UC Berkeley professor, Ethan N. Elkind, believes that the Gold line serves a “generally low-density area that could be more economically served by bus rapid transit or commuter buses.” The Orange Line in the San Fernando Valley, one of the most successful BRT’s in the nation (Sisson), provides a model of mass transit that is a cost effective solution. It has the same benefits as a light rail but without the high investment. UCLA transportation researcher Juan Matute asserts, “You could build five Orange Lines for the cost of a light rail corridor” (qtd. in Sisson) The system is very similar to light rail, in that there are bus stations that have fare collection pre-boarding and buses have their own right of way. The only major difference being that rail cars run on tracks where as buses run on dedicated roads. BRT is more economically feasible and can use existing infrastructure. The vast price difference allows Metro to produce more lines in a timely fashion. This also allows planners and Metro to bypass politicization of rail lines easier as funding and corridors could be more equally distributed.
Investment in Bus Rapid Transit is more economically feasible in the short term, but it may not sustain ridership. The high ridership of buses by low income demographics suggests that it would be an equitable strategy for decreasing congestion. But recent data suggests that as lower class workers are beginning transitioning to cars, in the growing economy (Hugh). As buses lose their primary riders, bus rapid transit may not be a reliable long term investment. But attracting choice riders requires creativity. Technological advancements in transportation, electric autonomous vehicles, may also allow BRT’s to become attractive.
Road congestion is a major environmental, health, and economical problem that needs to be solved. Increasing mass transit ridership and decreasing automobile ridership is the main strategy planners and government officials are using. As trends suggest more people are driving cars than ever, investment in mass transit must specifically target alignments that will increase ridership. Light rails are attractive, environmentally friendly, and economy boosting but have a high capital cost. Many local groups in LA oppose light rail projects due to its politically influenced geographical location, displacement, and funding inequities. It is important to note that the alignment of light rail may favor richer choice riders and thus deprives sensitive communities of the infrastructure benefits. Alternatively, minority communities may feel that the interim disruption caused by light rail is not worth it. Bus Rapid Transit is often compared to light rail and may be a better alternative as it more economical, uses existing infrastructure, and does not disrupt current business corridors. Although Bus Rapid transit may not be as robust or glittering, it is cheaper. It may be more prolific and provide for both rich and poor communities. But the success of Bus Rapid requires a major public perception overhaul on the safety and attractiveness of buses. Solving road congestion and falling transit ridership is not easy and requires accurate information and input from local communities. While light rail is the current gold standard for mass transit, Bus Rapid may be just as effective and more fair. This just requires a major cultural shift away from the car, away from light rail, and towards the humble bus.