Commuting in Los Angeles
Atrios mentioned this yesterday but you often hear broad generalizations made about places that are actually only applicable to middle class, middle aged people. For example over the course of my life I’ve been informed thousands of times that “everyone” in Los Angeles drives everywhere when in fact 28 percent of LA County workers rely on something other than driving alone as a way of getting to work. That’s 1.23 million people—more than the entire population of many American states.
LA is, in fact, neither the most nor the least transit-oriented city in America:
And since LA is so much larger than, say, Portland the LA mass transit situation is a much bigger deal in national policy terms. The question facing cities like these that aren’t very transit-friendly but nonetheless have lots of transit users is how do they want to go in the future. Should they continue with policies that favor the rich over the poor while being simultaneously deleterious to public health and the environment? That doesn’t sound like a great idea to me. Instead, it makes more sense to build density near existing rail stations, to invest in improved bus service and bicycle infrastructure, and to encourage future development to take on a more compact form.
50 Responses to “Commuting in Los Angeles”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 24th, 2009 at 8:51 am
84% of those workers used only automobiles to commute. to their jobs.
7% used public transit.
7% not 28% Matt!
No figures on bike riders.
No figures on private/public (i.e. bus/bike).
And of course this does not account for work at home or non-work related travel.
So what’s your point again?
October 24th, 2009 at 8:53 am
And since LA is so much larger than, say, Portland the LA mass transit situation is a much bigger deal in national policy terms.
No it isn’t. They are both exactly the same deal in national policy terms. A state issue. Furthermore, LA should not get to demand priority due to it’s size. Thank God Oregon has equal representation in the Senate.
October 24th, 2009 at 9:18 am
MY “and to encourage future development to take on a more compact form.”
Did the Spartans spread out, create Spartan sprawl, when the Persian’s let loose their arrows?
Hell no. They took on a more compact form. Shields top, shields to the side, and when the arrows descended upon them and deflected like raindrops the Spartans laughed and joked and make Spartan small talk, and reveled in the fact that their formation was indestructible against anything -except treachery from within, of course.
Compact form. They key to victory. For the Spartans, for urban renewal, for really smooth, lazily wandering bikeways, and for America.
October 24th, 2009 at 9:19 am
Where is Atlanta?
October 24th, 2009 at 9:35 am
@1: It’s a good thing that Matt didn’t say 28% of Angelenos take public transit then, isn’t it. All he said was “28 percent of LA County workers rely on something other than driving alone as a way of getting to work.”
October 24th, 2009 at 9:38 am
To be fair to LA, I think they are doing many things to bring more and better transit, and they’ve even started to do more stuff on bikes. They are indeed doing planning around stations and were one of the first cities to introduce BRT in the country — something they should probably look a lot more at given how spread out and how cheap BRT is.
In any case, I think the ideas and leadership is there on the local level. Its the federal investment we need to really get things going.
October 24th, 2009 at 9:41 am
Here’s a simple solution then:
– California can stop giving ridiculous pensions (that it cannot afford anyway) to retired state workers, and the cities and counties can do the same
– California should let property taxes float back to county and city governments, for those entities to raise or lower as they see fit
Once that happens, I rather expect a bunch of money will be available for whatever purpose (transit, etc) that the localities and CA as a whole want.
Why should my tax dollars go to fund the completely out of whack priorities of the idiot governments of California? Let them straighten out their own mess first.
October 24th, 2009 at 9:48 am
California is a massive donor state, James. You know this – or should – yet you make these idiotic comments.
October 24th, 2009 at 9:50 am
Joe,whether CA takes more or gets more from the Feds is irrelevant. The problem is that they spend what they do get stupidly. I’d prefer to limit the largesse so long as the stupidity continues. California is Vallejo write large. They need to fix that first.
October 24th, 2009 at 9:54 am
@5 and yet he used 28% to justify spending more on public transit when he well knows that almost half that 28%, 12%, car pool and use no public transit in commuting to work.
What part of that do you not understand?
October 24th, 2009 at 10:04 am
Re James Robertson
Although it’s easy to blame the politicians in Sacramento and the various local jurisdictions in California for the problems in that state, they only share responsibility with the voters who have brought much of the disfunction on themselves with ill-conceived referenda and ballot initiatives. Mr. Robertson points out the issue of property taxes. Remember proposition 13? That placed a cap on property taxes throughout the state which the legislature can’t overturn, except through another referendum.
As an example of why the state is dysfunctional, consider the initiative relative to same sex marriage which was passed last year by a close vote. That initiative amended the states’ constitution. Regardless of the position one takes on the issue of same sex marriage, the notion that a state constitutional amendment can be passed by a simple majority vote is absolute nonsense.
October 24th, 2009 at 10:09 am
The initiative process should be gotten rid of, or very restricted. The problem is simple: voters take each one as a one off, and don’t really consider them holistically.
Last time I looked though, the state and local governments are the ones who have handed out completely unaffordable pensions to government workers. Between the requirements of the initiatives and the pension bomb, the entire state is going to fiscally implode. Whether sanity will follow is unclear.
In the meantime, shoveling more federal money into that disaster is about as useful as stacking piles of hundred dollar bills and lighting them on fire.
October 24th, 2009 at 10:17 am
Yes it is true that 84% (those who rely on cars in some fashion) is not ‘everyone.’ But it is darn close.
I agree that LA should probably be making the changes in priority that Matt recommends, But the idea that given the existing building and infrastructure stock LA is going to be able to make dramatic changes in commuting patterns by 2050 is fantasy.
October 24th, 2009 at 10:18 am
SLC… You are largely correct and I remain amazed that the California Supreme Court continues to uphold the referendum process and its products.
Who said “The Constitution is not a suicide pact?”.
But what else do we see in California?
That however should not let the politicians off the hook.
The Muscle Man in Chief and the rest of the ruling class have no problem using the referendum process to further their political goals.
It is fair to ask, as James Robertson does, if the Feds should assist in that suicide.
October 24th, 2009 at 10:23 am
I also have to question how much of a rich/poor issue this is. As Matt alluded in his DC plan comments, expanding fixed rail investment is likely to be a good development strategy. But given the relative scarcity of transit friendly, walkable communities gentrification is likely to be the end result, not redistribution of services.
Bus service does have a different dynamic though.
October 24th, 2009 at 10:29 am
I have to agree with all of the anti-initiative comments. When I was in Colorado many of the same problems existed. People voting themselves a tax cut on the same ballot that they would vote to increase spending.
At the very least all ballot initiatives should be required to be PAYGO. If you propose cutting taxes you have to own the spending cuts. If you want to propose spending increases you have find offsetting cuts or raise the taxes or fees to pay for it.
October 24th, 2009 at 10:29 am
James, if CA stopped being a donor state I bet they could solve many of their fiscal problems. As long as they are still giving more to the feds in taxes than they take in in federal spending it is somewhat silly to say we should not be “shoveling more federal money into that disaster.” If the feds were to START shoveling as much into CA as they take out the CA fiscal situation would look better and recipient states, like MS and AL would look much worse.
October 24th, 2009 at 10:30 am
Lumping in carpooling with the non-driving options is pretty weaselly. 84% commuted by car, 7% by public transit and 11% by something else, which could include telecommuting.
October 24th, 2009 at 10:31 am
#17 – If that was the only problem California had, I’d agree. However, it’s not even in the top tier of problems. It’s so far down the list of problems that it’s nearly invisible. It’s the sort of problem raised by people who want to ignore the real problem, get more money, and kick the can down the road a few more feet.
At some point, California has to act like a real state and solve its problems. Once they do that, we can talk about the minor problem of federal inflow/outflow.
October 24th, 2009 at 10:51 am
Strikes me that California has also done great things with tax dollars, like setting up a GREAT university system that benefits both California and the US. Unfortunately, it is beginning to deteriorate due to the extreme fiscal problems.
October 24th, 2009 at 10:55 am
#20 – and the fiscal problems for the University are largely due to funds being misallocated by
– the pileup of conflicting initiatives
– the absurd pensions the state and localities are committed to
Giving California more federal money is like giving a crack addict a credit card.
October 24th, 2009 at 11:04 am
James, if CA stopped being a donor state I bet they could solve many of their fiscal problems. As long as they are still giving more to the feds in taxes than they take in in federal spending it is somewhat silly to say we should not be “shoveling more federal money into that disaster.”
Donor state is irrelevant. This is not an appropriate investment for the federal government. Californians should save the whining for issues that are the true responsibility of the federal government, like transportation infrastructure that crosses state lines.
October 24th, 2009 at 11:18 am
Then stop making this argument, James:
October 24th, 2009 at 11:21 am
The affirmative policy argument Matt actually made:
Instead, it makes more sense to build density near existing rail stations, to invest in improved bus service and bicycle infrastructure, and to encourage future development to take on a more compact form.
October 24th, 2009 at 11:21 am
#4: Maybe they just don’t keep bother keeping statistics in Atlanta, Minneapolis, Cleveland, Detroit, or Miami. Actually, there are lot of largish metros mysteriously absent here. Tampa Bay, Pittsburgh, and Kansas City are also missing.
October 24th, 2009 at 11:22 am
Re ChooChoo
The problem is that the referenda and initiatives that are causing the problems in California are the ones put on the ballot through petitions, not by the legislature. Proposition 13 is the prime example. One should read what Warren Buffet has said about the property tax situation in California.
Re James Robertson
1. The pensions that Mr. Robertson refers to are the result of lobbying by public employees unions, the most powerful of which is the prison guards’ union. Because of initiatives like the 3 strikes and you’re out law, the prison population in California exceeds the number of university students in the state with a commensurate number of prison guards.
2. Another problem is the number of children of illegal aliens attending public schools in the state. Policing the borders is supposed to be the responsibility of the Federal Government but lobbying by firms, farms, and ranches that employ such people has resulted in the Feds taking a pass.
October 24th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
I love how J-Rob, suburban compoundista, thinks that the real problem in California is those greedy greedy state employees and their pensions, and not, say, the structural calamities of giving property owners a free ride since Prop 13.
That’s because J-Rob is a kiss-up, kick-down kind of guy.
October 24th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Well, JR achieved his main object, which was to direct the thread away from Matt’s post and onto himself, so I can’t imagine he’s doing anything other than grinning at this point.
Love the way he disparaqes the sanctity of contracts. I’m guessing that’s a one-way street for him, though.
October 24th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Yet again, the anonymous coward shows his inability to read. Part of California’s problem is pensions – the payouts are unsustainable (this is a simple math problem).
The other one is the way initiatives have created conflicting demands on the govts of California that cannot, collectively, be sustained.
October 24th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
The relative sizes of the blobs on the graph make it pretty clear that only the cities proper are being counted (look how small Washington — which has a much larger metro area than Denver — is). Since some metro areas (like San Diego) are heavily “city” while others (Miami, Washington) have proportionately smaller city limits, this gives a skewed impression. Since driving correlates so strongly with whether one is in an *effectively* urban or suburban area, what this seems to measure in many cases is primarily how big a fraction of the metropolitan population is in the city limits.
I note that Columbus, Indianapolis, and Jacksonville, which have very large city limits that encompass most of the metropolitan population, are at the extreme end of the distribution, even though these cities aren’t really laid out that differently from other midwestern or southern cities farther down the curve.
October 24th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
@James Robertson #7,
I’m confused. I believe I’ve read posts by you extolling the imperative that contracts be honored. But of course, that’s only when it benefits corporations and the rich, right? Those slacker public employees are no better than the dog-poo on your shoe, isn’t that correct? They deserve to be defrauded!
I do think that California missed the boat by not sunsetting the original plan provisions several decades ago as did many states with “30 years and out” plans and adopting a more age-based plan. You have cause for anger at decades of legislative indifference on that score.
But the public employees of California are not the state legislature (even if as a disciple of Limbaugh and Beck you believe the state employees “own” the legislature). They should not — and thank goodness, Constitutionally may not — be derived their contractual rights because of the legislature’s negligence.
October 24th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
I think SLC is right to emphasize the voters’ role in CA’s mess, along with how hamstrung the legislature is and how distorted the lobbying of it is, and how this all fits together. That said, one should realize just how dysfunctional the CA legislature as an institution is: part of the blame that belongs to the legislature thus belongs to the political infrastructure rather than individual members (although nearly all the R’s have basically written themselves off as being able to be bargained with).
California’s legislature has gerrymandered itself so that there are barely any competitive districts. It’s stuck at a 60/40 D/R split, not enough for the Dems to do what they can to fix the mess since you need a 2/3 vote to raise revenue and pass a budget. The legislature is further weakened by term limits (only 6 yrs for the Assembly and 12 for the Senate).
The gerrymandering as well as the fact that California is ideologically very split with the coast versus the Oklahoma-like interior results in a legislature that has at once the most liberal Democrats *and* the most conservative Republicans of any state legislature. See this box plot: http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/mlm/npat_boxplot_states_parties_mcmc.png
October 24th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
@James Robertson #19,
My God you’re stupid! In 2005, the latest year shown by The Tax Foundation, California received 78 cents back from the Federal government for every dollar sent to Washington by its citizens, placing it 43rd (the seven even lower are all, like California, deep blue states). Most of the high dollar “recipient” — let’s just be honest and say “basket case” — states are as red as the blood dripping off your fangs.
Not so bad, you say?
Well, that overlooks the fact that the number of dollars sent was 289.7 billion. And the number received back was 242 billion. That is almost 48 billion dollars. PER YEAR! And it’s been below 90 cents returned per dollar sent since 1990.
I’d say that the Feds owe it to California to pick up their shortfall for a couple of years.
October 24th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Yes it is true that 84% (those who rely on cars in some fashion) is not ‘everyone.’ But it is darn close.
If 84% of people were white, would you say that darn close to everyone was white?
In a place like Los Angeles, 16% is a lot of people. Fantasizing that the lifestyles of those people are simply not relevant to LA’s planning needs is an exercise in willful ignorance.
And Jim-Bob, shut the fuck up. People are discussing the transportation options and need for the government to address them for a large number of people, and all you can babble about is a bunch of indignation that public employees have jobs that you consider to be too good for their station in life. If those jobs are so great and easy, then why aren’t you, your wife, and your children working at them?
October 24th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Dang, I wrote a comment showing various ways in which Southern California was addressing the very points that MY made in this post, but the website didn’t take it, presumably because there were too many links in it. So anyway:
Check L.A.County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s website to see the 2009 Long-Range Transportation Plan that they approved on Thursday.
Check the L.A. City Planning Department’s site for the Bicycle Plan that is currently up for public review and comment.
Check out the website of SCAG (Southern California Association of Governments) for their Compass 2% Plan, which concentrates growth in the 2% of SCAG’s territory that is in regional centers, accessible by transit, etc.
And check out any number of websites (SCAG is one) explaining SB 375, the law that took effect January 1st of this year that compels MPOs throughout the state to integrate land-use and transportation planning.
October 24th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Adam,
Thanks for the great post and the excellent news included in it.
October 24th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Matt,
You are preaching to the choir when it comes to LA. The powers that be are totally pro-density, pro-public transit. Come visit North Hollywood and see all the high rises apartment building that are being built around then end of the subway line.
But it’s not going to make much of a difference for decades. And California has bigger problems, namely a population that doesn’t generate enough wealth relative to the huge cost of living in the state.
October 24th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
Sailer is right on this one. Matt, if you have any questions about planning in L.A., you’re welcome to ask me. I use my real name. There is a ton of high-rise development going up near Red Line stations.
October 24th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
Look, public employees get shitty salaries and pensions. This is true everywhere in the US. So it’s not the public employees that are the main cause of the problem in California. Stating otherwise is being disingenuous.
Train transport in LA doesn’t run often enough, and it’s damned expensive. Everyone always talks about getting infrastructure in place. A bunch of it is in place. If there were frequently-running trains and a statewide push to solve the last-mile problem, this could work. Of course all that would cost money and would draw the ire of the selfish like James Robertson.
October 24th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
But Sailer is wrong about the revenue part. If commercial property weren’t taxed at 1978 levels and were the income tax more progressive, this state would be manageable.
People like Arnold like to say that we have a spending problem. But when you’re faced with closing universities altogether, it’s clear that the problem is a revenue problem. There’s no more fluff to cut from the budget. We’re talking about cuts that disproportionally affect the poor and middle class.
October 24th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
If commercial property weren’t taxed at 1978 levels and were the income tax more progressive, this state would be manageable.
See, *that’s* the part that most people forget about the odious Prop 13. It’s not the disparity between what Warren Buffett pays on his property in the midwest and his property in Laguna, it’s the fact that companies like Disney pay the 1978 rate on the property that Disneyland sits on. How much has the value of that land skyrocketed in 30 years?
Here’s the reality of transportation for me and all my friends here in Los Angeles: it’s patchwork at this point. You simply cannot take one bus or one train to get to point A > B if they involve going from, say, the Santa Monica to Long Beach.
I live near Downtown and had a temp job in Westwood that paid so well, it was worth the morning and evening rush hour hell. Or so I thought: after a week of driving there, I was done with that and decided to take the bus. I had to catch a bus before 7:00 am, make two transfers, which meant I relied on of 4 buses being on time HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! and it took 45 minutes longer than driving. What’s my incentive to use public transportation again?
October 25th, 2009 at 3:15 am
My experience is that as a tourist I could find much superior
transit choices in California that local folks would let me believe. SO I checked on Henry here:
one can get a direct but number 20 from downtown to Westwood and it takes 40 minutes — according to Google Map, so it cannot be wrong! Mind you, one can walk a mile in 15 minutes, and bike in 5 minutes, so one could bike from downtown to Westwood in ca. 40 minutes (leisurely speed). In that case this is 40 minutes door-to-door.
Another observation: like in NYC, during rush hour bicycle pass cars in LA, and are passed in turn. My taxi was paralleling a bicycle for something like 20 minutes.
October 25th, 2009 at 7:06 am
Yep, raising commercial real estate tax rates is a totally awesome way of promoting both density and employment.
October 25th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Yep, it sure is. You can very easily confirm this observation by comparing the density and employment in, say, Boston and Washington with that in such low-tax havens as Jackson, Mississippi and Knoxville, TN?
“Boo hoo, why can’t we attract any businesses? Our taxes are so low we closed three schools, but they still won’t come!”
October 25th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
joe, so you’re saying the tax advantages of Farifax county had no bearing on people building office parks all around Tysons, Vienna and Gallows road for thirty plus years, while M street and New York Ave corridors are only getting built up white collar commercial now?
October 26th, 2009 at 3:56 am
@42 you are a complete tool if your superior transit choices involve rush hour cab rides
October 26th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
@45: LA isn’t vulnerable to cross-border tax arbitrage. The fact that you can benefit from Washington’s metro area development without paying Washington taxes is perverse, but not relevant to California.
October 26th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
@42 you are a complete tool if your superior transit choices involve rush hour cab rides
I am not from LA, I was visiting UCLA and got a grueling one hour ride from the airport. I am not sure if there is recommendable bus connection from the airport to Westwood. But downtown-Westwood looks OK.
In the same time, I misread the distance on google map. 11 miles for bike commute is only for the dedicated few, and not recommended on a temp job. But with a good road bike one could keep pace with cars, or better (as observed while riding from the airport) and there are recommended avenues with bicycle lanes.
October 26th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
[...] the first meeting on the bike plan. Twenty-eight percent of L.A. commuters rely on something other than driving alone. Slower traffic should stay to the right, even on a bike path. The Interior Department says no to a [...]
October 26th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
[...] by Damien Newton on October 26, 2009 Mode share by city. Image: Think Progress/Yglessias [...]