Why We Hate L.A. Public Transport: The PYT Factor

The biggest complaint I repeatedly hear about L.A. is that it has a poor public transportation system. News flash: that's true, we're not New York or Tokyo by any means. Yet I often feel compelled to protect L.A. from empty criticism. The people who complain about L.A.'s public transportation system are complaining due to what I see as three major factors: 1) the effect of hearing other people complain (to which I have nothing truly helpful to contribute), 2) the absence of a transportation culture, like the subway-state-of-mind of New York City or even the let's-take-BART-to-the-Giant's-game compulsion in San Francisco, and finally, 3) the feeling of disorder and general lack of safety surrounding the systems we already have. Here's my take on those things.

So let's face it: in Los Angeles, we drive our cars. Everywhere, all day, every day. We jam up our freeways and complain about commutes and argue about congestion but still, we drive our cars. Historically speaking, there is a reason for this. East Coast cities were designed with pedestrians in mind; they are planned to some extent, but largely that American grid pattern wasn't implemented until we started growing westward. People still had few options but to walk when those cities began to develop and subsequently explode in population; hence those cities have easily identifiable centers. Like many European cities, the center is actually in the middle, creating a smaller but more concentrated radius of things-that-are-important-to-get-to: financial buildings and offices, cultural offerings, commercial centers, etc. Los Angeles, however, is a totally different breed of city. Most significantly, by the time L.A. took off in terms of population, Americans were falling in love with the automobile. (Isn't it just like a bad romance novel? The honeymoon period is magical and then we find out that the objects of our affections are shredding the ozone layer. Typical.) This city is not designed for pedestrians but for vehicles, which explains our lack of green space and, obviously, our general difficulties with creating a truly cohesive transportation network. Additionally, L.A. is a highly stratified city, partially because it contains so many levels of specialization and industry. L.A. has many centers - Westwood, the financial district, etc. - and subsequently has a harder time connecting them except by vehicle lanes. Given that information, it's hardly surprising that our public transportation appears subpar. Do you realize how much harder that task is for L.A. than for New York? The concept of reducing VMT (vehicle miles traveled) is a very new concept that is miles away from what L.A. was really planned for. Oh and while we're facing facts, don't lie: those of you who are complaining, you wouldn't ride public transportation anyway.

And why wouldn't you ride public transportation in L.A.? Because there's no guarantee that you'll be as safe as you would be if you were driving. Many of the complainers are students I go to school with, and further, many of those are members of my sorority. This is where the AYF (Attractive Young Female, or as Michael Jackson might say, PYT) factor comes in. Pretty girls are the best way to judge the success of a public transportation system, because they are a) the most noticeable and b) the most vulnerable, for either real or imagined reasons. Pretty girls will not ride public transportation if they don't feel safe. So here we reach another issue with L.A. public transportation: the pretty girls don't trust it. Now part of that, I think, is that these PYTs are expecting the hip subway culture that is not typical of Los Angeles, and as I said earlier, there's nothing we can do about that. They're also expecting fancy light rails with Starbucks and Yogurtland in them. Here's the problem with that, though: who rides public transportation in L.A.? Largely it's the low-income minority population, and they're not riding the fancy light rails. They're riding the derelict, overcrowded buses - the non-glamorous option, and thus, the one with less funding. There are no PYTs on these, nor are there likely to be while they remain in that state. And L.A., in all its innovative glory, continues to invest in highway expansions that don't work or rail lines with low ridership because that's what the PYTs - and higher income residents - want. In the meantime, we force our bus riders to suffer inadequate resources while we develop for the people who complain and yet do not provide ridership.

I've talked for a while now, so in conclusion: to the city of L.A., please put more money into the bus systems. Make the bus stops safer, clean them up - throw in a Yogurtland if you want - invest in better, more fuel-efficient buses, and make sure the buses are always reliable. Maybe you'll attract more people to them; but even if you don't, at least we won't shove the majority of our population into grimy outdated machines.

My transportation wishlist

I've been very curious lately about what exactly is on California's "wishlist" for federal stimulus money. I haven't located the exact requests of this list, but I have read some mixed reviews about the requests. Much of the money requested seems to be for road repair, which seems like a fair concern. After all, one of the specific items on the wishlist is the repair of the notoriously unsafe Vasco Road, which is located near me. I lost a friend to that road about two years ago, an event that has always seemed so hideously unjust to me. It certainly can't be denied that there are very poor roads in this state. On the other hand, roads seem like a very short-term use for these funds. For a state that's trying so hard to aim for more advanced transportation infrastructure projects, I find it odd that we didn't focus more on rail-related projects in our request.

Speaking of rail, I also read that the high-speed rail line has hit another speed bump. Apparently the wording was done rather carelessly and may now require more environmental studies before the line can begin implementation and construction. The problem, as I read, is that those studies have already been completed and most opposition has subsided. Re-opening these opportunities for studies and surveying may mean millions of wasted dollars - not to mention possible roadblocks as people are able to revisit old issues or groups that have since been placated.

This rail line continues to irk me. First of all, I do not believe that California is invested enough in the line to pay the attention to it that it so obviously deserves. California's focus on road repair seems to me merely another method of remaining an autocentric state. Secondly, I worry that without the state's full attention and with the continuation of careless mistakes, funding will only go to waste. If the line's construction is put off for too long, the cost of building will certainly go up, most likely forcing up the costs of tickets. And if ridership is subsequently low, all kinds of disasters might ensue.

This post is partly me worrying - I had my first ulcer at age 18, which should tell you I worry a lot - and partly my own wonderings about what I would put on my "wishlist" to Congress. Imagine I am the state of California. I am rich in natural resources, economic growth, and frustratingly uncompromising legislators.

Speaking for the state of California, I present the following wishlist:

- Funding for the high-speed rail, with strings attached. Strict deadlines, oversight, and an agreed upon maximum ticket price. Yeah that would upset the state, but I think California needs a babysitter right now.

- Some money for road repair, but none for freeway expansion. I have two words for that: triple convergence. Expanding the freeway won't relieve congestion, so don't bother.

- L.A. just got voted worst congested in the state for what, the 20th year in a row? Something like that? The Bay Area was number 5 or 6 on the list too, I believe. I WISH we could get more money for regional transportation methods in both of those areas. Perhaps some money for better bus lines, improvement of existing rail lines (um hello Blue Line, most dangerous rail line in the country) and something to hurry along the ones that are currently delayed (yes Expo line, I'm looking at you). Something that could help BART with ridership would be helpful as well. Anything we could do to help out Metrolink with ticket costs?

- Less money for things like fancy bike and pedestrian bridges, and more money devoted to the connectivity of bike and pedestrian paths and trails. (Speaking of bikes, could we just throw out the concept of bike lockers? They're just a really inefficient use of space and I am not a fan.)

- I'd really like some requirements for affordable housing in transit oriented developments. Those things are expensive, and they generally stick out in areas that clearly haven't received any government funding for years. Investment in transit means that there will be subsequent investment by developers in regions that become transit hubs or stops, which means we should be prepared for major displacement if we don't try to prevent it before it happens.

- Can we get some money for those environmental projects that seem outrageous at first? Like I mentioned before, I think this state is lacking a great deal of creativity and imagination. I say we get some development in rail cars or buses that use solar power for temperature control, like the new Prius uses. Surely we could invest in solar technology in transportation. And aside from transportation, I'd like to see some investment in Energy From Waste (EFW) plants, and perhaps some geothermal projects. Give the scientists some money to play with; hopefully at least one of them will come down with a stroke of genius.


Anything other thoughts? What else should California have asked for from the big daddy U.S.A?