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.

I'm giving the rose to . . .

So I started out writing a blog that asked how the world would look if we were running on electric cars. It involved some kind of analysis about how, since electric cars can’t travel more than 100 miles at a time, people would probably move closer to the central city in order to minimize their commute. But then again, that means we’d have to have a lot of those battery-changing stations. And where would we put those? In place of gas stations? That doesn’t quite seem plausible. And what would we do with the batteries once they’d been used? Suddenly while writing this blog entry, I’ve realized that I do not think the electric car can be resurrected. I think it’s one of those trends that will never catch on – of course, I thought the same thing about neon harem pants, and clearly I’ve been wrong before.

For one thing, electric cars couldn’t work anywhere. Besides not working out in nearly every rural and far-reaching suburban environment, it wouldn’t work in areas like New York City, where people are already less likely to drive cars. As far as choosing a large investment project, I don’t think the electric car is the appropriate risk.

I’ve officially chosen rail once again. I’ve decided that although it may be a bigger risk for some regions, California being one of them, it also has more benefits. Besides the potential environmental and technological advancements, it can serve more people with less cost to the individual. It would also most likely have the same land use effects as an investment in electric cars – that is, the increase in movement towards the central city, which is something I support.

Now that I’ve officially resisted temptation and made rail my choice, I can refocus on our relationship in coming entries.

Before I leave off on this topic, would anyone care to agree or disagree? It’s been pretty quiet around here lately and I’d like to hear if anyone has other thoughts. Have I chosen correctly?

Days of Our Cars: Are We Trapped in a Transportation Love Triangle?

I was faced recently with a new possible alternative to our emission-related woes, thanks to my work with the big Go Green boss lady, Jill Buck. She introduced me to a company known as Better Place, which, despite an outrageously vague title, has a very specific view of how things can be improved in our transportation realm. What Better Place essentially promotes is the concept of the electric car, which the company believes is a concept that can – and should – be brought back in light of our transport-related woes. They don’t make the cars; instead, what Better Place has done is work towards the creation of a network of systems designed to supplement the use of the electric car. Most of what people are concerned with regarding the electric car, according to spokesperson Jason Wolf, is related to convenience, cost, and range. Not much can be said regarding cost – that much is certainly very subjective, depending on how you weigh costs and benefits – but convenience and range are two aspects of the electric car that Better Place can potentially solve.

Electric cars can only last about 100 miles before the battery dies out. It is this battery that makes the car such an expensive item. Allowing the battery to charge takes hours, as high as seven, in order to renew its energy source. The problems related to such a necessity can basically speak for themselves, but I’ll speak for them anyway – what if you live in a suburb, where you must commute more than 100 miles daily? What if you decide to take a long trip? What if there’s an emergency in the middle of the night and your car is CHARGING? The convenience level on an electric car is severely limited. However, Better Place has a concept that could potentially revolutionize those limitations. They propose battery-changing stations, where a person could pull up, have the battery replaced with a fully charged new battery, and continue on their merry way. Oh, and get this – these stations would even be able to recognize you, and your preferences. Your COFFEE preferences. Now we’re talking 21st century, am I right??

Having these stations, which would presumably be distributed throughout whatever region the company chose to focus on, certainly increases the electric car’s quota for convenience and range. Better Place has also thought of issues surrounding the waste and energy use of the electric car – I don’t want to go into too much detail here (you can find the link to their website and to the Go Green podcast below), but it involves some very intelligent alternative energy sources. Better Place makes a great point – in relationship to our level of technological advancement (which is certainly related to our great need for such advancements) – this is the perfect time to start. Conceptually, the electric car may finally have enough strengths to be as competitive in the auto market as one that relies on a combustible engine.

However – who are we kidding? We don’t have the money for this. We barely have the money to start the many other transportation projects we’ve already started – or worse, that we’ve already promised. (I’m looking at you, California.) While Mr. Wolf states, quite rightly, that California is an excellent place to start, his reasoning seems to me a little shaky in the current circumstances. He cites our disposable income (ha!), innovation (questionable), and leading in environmental change (true of some cities or regions, but rather unevenly followed through as a whole). And that’s even failing to mention the fact that we still have a rather massive transit project on our hands – I assume nobody’s forgotten that little rail line we’ve got planned.

We cannot – period, can’t – invest in mass transit projects and mass networks for new vehicles. We have to choose. On the one hand, we can’t really get out of the rail line now that we’ve voted it in. However, rail is not really in our blood as Californians; we love our cars. And while the electric car is a genius solution to that particular need by our state’s residents, we don’t exactly have the money as individuals to invest in a car that, as of now, can only take us 100 miles at a time.

We’re in a love triangle; torn between our aspirations for an era of light rail that could bring us up to speed (get it?) with the rest of the world, and the appeal of a car that we wouldn’t feel environmentally guilty about owning. And unfortunately, this isn’t the original Beverly Hills 90210, so we can’t pull a Kelly Taylor and merely choose ourselves. Or can we? Are there more alternatives? Or are we already faced with our two best options?


Up next: how will our choice in the above love triangle affect our urban landscapes? What’s next for land use? Stay tuned . . .

. . . and in the meantime, check out the following links:
www.betterplace.com - Better Place corporate website
http://www.modavox.com/voiceamerica/vepisode.aspx?aid=39951 - Go Green Radio interview with Jason Wolf