Yesterday morning, Twitter user @LACityNerd posted a link to a map that, I think, tells a pretty interesting story about perceptions of Los Angeles, particularly regarding public transit. Here’s the map:
Image via edfunders.org
The notion that Los Angeles has a love affair with the car and that Angelenos don’t ride transit is a well-worn cliché. Certainly, there’s a cultural component to this perception that is rooted in L.A.’s ascendance in the 1950s and 60s, which was broadcast to the world by Hollywood.
But I’ve always suspected there was an underlying — and under-appreciated — geographical component to the perception that few Angelenos ride public transit. After all, the city of Los Angeles is big. Apparently you could fit seven-plus good-sized cities in just one L.A.
On top of that, Los Angeles’ borders include urban and high density communities, as well as very suburban and rural ones where transit service is harder to provide and less often used. That’s in contrast to other, typically older cities, where suburban communities are often in entirely different cities.
For instance, San Francisco has rightfully earned the reputation as a pretty great city for public transit. Around 30 percent of its residents take transit to work, compared to about 11 percent for the city of L.A.
But San Fran is also rather small — roughly 1/10 the land area of the city of Los Angeles. I would bet that if you punched a San Francisco–sized hole out of Los Angeles that included, say, downtown and its surrounding communities, you’d find similarly high rates of transit ridership.
For reference, a 2011 survey of downtown L.A. residents revealed that 40 percent take public transportation to work. Not too shabby.
On the other hand, because San Francisco’s borders only include the more dense, transit-rich parts of the Peninsula, its rates of transit usage aren’t averaged against the more suburban cities that surround it — like those in Marin and San Mateo Counties — where transit usage is unsurprisingly lower.
So my question to Source readers is this: Do you think L.A.’s geography affects perceptions of transit ridership? And, what other factors play into how people perceive transit ridership in Los Angeles?
Great Article and map. Keep them coming, the country will soon realize that public transit in Los Angeles is on pace to be ANOTHER fantastic aspect of this wonderful city. Go LA!
Very good point! When people like to compare superior transit cities to Los Angeles, it never quite makes sense. Of course we can learn from cities like Paris and London, but your graphic shows a very succinct point. Los Angeles is a big place.
So the real question is how does metro efficiently use the limited resources to cover a vast area? BRU types want buses everywhere which is not cost effective whilst a majority of voters want rail. I hope there is some logical mix that can make sense an try to provide quality service county wide.
Of course geography affects perceptions of transit ridership. Bus routes are designed to service the general public, and to be accessible to as many people as possible. If I could possibly walk, ride a bike, or drive to my destination faster than the bus could take me there running its route, then I would. People use mass transit only if it works in their favor. Whether it be because its your only way to get around, its cheaper, or more convenient. There is always a necessary incentive for people to use a service. Instead of changing how mass transit is perceived, show the incentive for using the service. That is how you increase ridership…
The post makes a good point.
Three factors (of many, probably) that I think affect perceptions of transit ridership in LA:
- little 24-hour service means it’s not a ‘real’ city
- because LA is so spread out, the PERCENTAGE of vehicles on the streets that are mass transit vehicles (buses) is lower than in denser cities (with the obvious exception of Downtown).
- because LA is so spread out, and buses have to serve it, buses appear to be emptier for longer periods of time than in denser cities. This gives the perception that few people ride them.
MTA, don’t trick people again. How many people take public transportation in WLA? How big is WLA? WLA has one of the best public transportation (next to downtown LA), and not many people take public transportation. Why? There are few good bus systems in WLA. After people get out those good buses, people still have to struggle to get around in WLA. MTA’s solution, building two railroad without even considering improving local connection. How are people going to get around once they leave station? Same problem happen again. People have difficulty taking public transportation in WLA today. After railroads are built, people will have same difficulty traveling within WLA after railroads are built. Now people are blaming on the size of LA county. Many people in WLA would love to take public transportation within WLA, but how. You either struggle with lousy bus service or drive to bus stations. After rails are built, people will drive to rail stations. Nothing changes. Other parts are in worst situation. Why? People kept using stupid excuse to skew the excuse for providing terrible public transportation
Thanks for this piece; it is something that I have always argued, that Los Angeles is really not that different from other cities in that its dense sections are well served by transit and ridership in this areas is on par with other cities.
What I think we will see in the coming years is the densification of employment in the transit-rich areas. Looking back 40 years from now Los Angeles will look a lot like other cities, with dense cores where most people work.
The use of Manhattan and leaving out the other boroughs is misleading. NYC, with all five boroughs fills up most of that map and the public transit in NYC is better, and cheaper ($2.25 unlimited transfers). Sorry, but NYC wins on public transit over anywhere I have heard of or visited including LA.
I want to drive,
I’m sorry you find getting around the Westside on transit so difficult. I live close to Pico and Bundy and find the combo of Big Blue Bus and Metro to be a good way to get around. Big Blue Bus is also thinking ahead about how to improve connections to Expo Phase I and II, so I think you’re concerns about bus-rail connections are somewhat premature — although I agree it’s very important to get it right.
Thanks for reading and commenting,
Carter Rubin
Writer, The Source
Loki,
Good point. There’s a map for that too.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/vanshnookenraggen/2338919914/sizes/o/in/set-72157604135780473/
The point wasn’t to argue that L.A.’s transit is better than any particular city’s. I simply wanted to say that it’s better than people might perceive, mainly because people’s conception of “L.A.” includes so much more land area than other cities. Whereas in the heart of L.A., transit is quite good — getting better still — and well-used.
Carter Rubin
Writer, The Source
Very true, we have a lot more in common with sprawling cities like London or Paris then we do with New York or San Francisco. I’d love to see the next phase of Metro rail projects (after 30/10) focus on infill corridors in the central city like Santa Monica/Sunset/Cesar Chavez, Beverly, Venice, La Brea, Vermont, Western, Alvarado, etc.