I grew up in the San Fernando Valley, and went o UCLA for undergraduate. I have lived in Los Angeles for almost 22 years. There is a consensus in Los Angeles that Public Transportation is a sad state of affairs. Depending on the Rapid 761 to get you from the San Fernando Valley to Westwood while on any type of time schedule is totally unrealistic. You need a car. And, even with a car, you have to compensate for horrendous traffic on the 405 going north. You can always get to the Valley faster by taking Sepulveda, but the trade-off is that you will have to avoid all the potholes and damaged road that might put you hundreds of dollars behind if you lose a tire.
California has some of the highest gas taxes in the country. For decades up until the last couple of years, Los Angeles taxpayers have heavily subsidized rail and bus services. In 1996, those subsidies were increased dramatically under a federal consent decree, which ended in October, 2007. One would think that this would add up to a heavily funded and efficient public transportation system. But, this is not the case. In his article, “Metro Fare Hikes are the Only Way” (published in the LA Times April 27th, 2007 nearly 2 months before Metro raised rates) Roger Snoble, the Chief Executive Officer of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, said that the cost cutting and job layoffs Metro was forced to do would not be enough to cover the deficit that they faced, and raising rates was the only solution. On July 1st, 2007, the day pass was increased from 3$ to 5$, the weekly pass jumped from $14 to $17 and the monthly pass increased from $52 to $62.
What many residents don’t understand is that there is a stigma put on Public Transportation in Los Angeles. Many regard the bus as a mode only used by low income individuals, and that the car that they own (or lease) defines them as being above that class of people. If they can afford to pay for the car, or pay the monthly fees to lease the car, then they have elevated themselves to a new standing. This is disregarding the fact that some will even incur great risk to own a car, including not registering it and not getting insurance, as long as they can drive it and claim it. My first car accident involved a hit-and-run where the other car that hit me, I presume, did not have insurance.
Let us disregard stereotypes and look at the actual ridership. Many of those who people who ride the bus depend on the cost cutting alternative because they cannot afford to own a car, are saving up, live frugally (university students?) or want to avoid the risks of driving a car. Regardless of class, race or income level, a bus and rail system can allow for personal savings. But, for those are in low income jobs and depend on the low cost, subsidized bus ticket, rate hikes are devastating. Then why did the Metro opt to increase the cost of rates instead of lobbying for a higher gas tax or introducing a proposition to the ballot for increased funding?
The answer lies in a simple question: would you like to pay a higher tax for a system that you do not use? The obvious answer is no. If you are a driver in Los Angeles, and already complain about the high gas tax, you would not approve of a higher tax to pay for others to ride the bus at a lower cost. A devastating cycle arises from this dilemma. People who drive cars do not want to take public transportation, metro does not lobby for its own ridership and therefore one segment of the population suffers. Along with that, ownership of a car is elevated as a status symbol.
When oil prices hit their highest per barrel, at around $147, and gas in Los Angeles was close to $5/gallon, there was an actual change in driving habits. More importantly, there was a small increase in ridership on public transportation, because it was a less costly alternative. It is simple economics: if there is a financial disincentive to do something, people won’t. The only problem is that once gas price shot back down to close to $1.50/gallon people got back behind the wheel.
But how is global warming playing into this? As we all know, car emissions are a huge source of carbon dioxide. Governor Schwarzenegger vowed to cut greenhouse gas emissions when he signed Assembly Bill 32. Assembly Bill 32 specifically targeted cars by setting a benchmark, or low carbon fuel standard. This goal is to make the new standard for cars to be 44 miles to the gallon by 2020. While this is a lofty goal, with the right intentions, it will have the same effect as increasing the price of Metro passes. Those who live on low wages, and own older cars will need to get their fuel standard to 44 miles/gallon in a little over 10 years. Those who own cars and can afford 44 miles/gallon will be able to meet the standard.
My solution is simple. Los Angeles should encourage people to use public transportation. The only way to do this is by having influential people, like the mayor, to start using public transportation. If there is something that I picked up from friends in New York is that, if the mayor uses the subway then it’s obviously a preferred method of transportation. Detractors might say that Los Angeles is too sprawling and is built in such a way that a retooling of public transportation is unrealistic. Yes, Los Angeles is very sprawling and its structure and highways support a suburban living and a long car commute. But, Sao Paulo is as sprawling as Los Angeles is, and their public transportation is extremely efficient. Brazilian metropolises like Sao Paulo and Curitiba should be looked at as a model for Los Angeles Transportation.
In the end, all it takes is patience and effort. Recent bond measures supporting high speed rail and Recovery and Reinvestment Money for public transportation are signs of progress. And, maybe one day I will see the subway extend to Wilshire.
No comments:
Post a Comment