Associate Professor of Urban Planning Michael Manville wrote an article for The Atlantic about the disastrous impact of parking requirements in American cities. Zoning laws that require homes and businesses to include space for parking cars have created “an unreasonable, unaffordable and unsustainable city,” he wrote. “American urban history is stained with tragic missteps and shameful injustices, so parking requirements are hardly the worst policy cities have tried. But they are notable for how much needless damage they have caused, over a long period, with few people even noticing.” Manville argued that parking mandates make driving less expensive and development more so, which in effect prioritizes the needs of cars over the needs of people. He concluded, “In an age of ostensible concern about global warming, it shouldn’t be illegal to put up a building without parking and market it to people without cars.”
The New York Times spoke to Associate Professor of Urban Planning Michael Manville for a piece on the trends behind the yearslong slide in bus ridership in many U.S. cities. In addition to demographic shifts and the changing nature of work, Manville pointed to the rise of Craigslist, which has made used cars easier to find and cheaper to buy. In California, he added, a state law granting driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants may have reduced the pool of transit riders. Manville recommended making the true costs of driving more pronounced by raising prices for gas, parking and driving on congested roads, while building a system that gives advantages to public transit. “At the end of the day, we may never know what is driving this decline,” Manville said. “But I guarantee you that if you took a lane of Vermont Avenue in Los Angeles and gave it only to the bus, ridership would go up.”
Urban Planning Professor Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris was featured on KPPC’s Take Two discussing the lasting impact of racist policies such as redlining in urban neighborhoods. A recent New York Times report found that formerly redlined neighborhoods experience some of the highest temperatures in the summer. Loukaitou-Sideris explained how the now-illegal practice of redlining, which classified some communities as “least desirable for investment,” facilitated segregation as banks refused home loans and insurance to low-income and minority people who lived there. According to Loukaitou-Sideris, “greenery and trees are the best way to protect from the urban heat island effect,” but disinvestment in high-density areas generally means less money to spend on planting, watering and maintenance of trees. “We need to do something to make these neighborhoods more livable,” Loukaitou-Sideris said in the segment beginning at minute 17. She proposed using empty and underutilized lots for green spaces and increasing city funding for tree planting and maintenance.
A new UCLA report shows that the 2020 Census will severely undercount immigrants, low-income people and people of color.
Two key reasons are the COVID-19 pandemic and a directive issued July 21 by the Trump administration to cut population data collection operations short by one month; the Census Bureau must now end field data collection by Sept. 30.
To date, 93 million households, nearly 63% of all households in the U.S. have responded to the 2020 Census. In 2010, 74% of households in the United States filled out and mailed back their 2010 Census questionnaires, matching the final mail participation rate of the 2000 Census.
The White House directive and the public health crisis have made it an enormous challenge for the Census Bureau to ensure a complete and fair enumeration for the 2020 Census, according to the researchers. They write that racial and economic class biases threaten and undermine the goals of equal political representation and just allocation of resources.
The current report examines changes from 2010 to 2020, and the spread between tracts with high response rates and tracts with low response rates. While the overall response gap from 2010 to 2020 has closed to three to four percentage points as of Aug. 1, some communities have experienced more barriers to participating. Low-income and minority neighborhoods had lower response rates in 2010 than more advantaged neighborhoods, and that gap has only widened in 2020.
“It is highly likely and unfortunate that the 2020 Census will be flawed with severe undercounts of people of color and low-income individuals,” said Paul Ong, co-author of the report and director of the Center for Neighborhood Knowledge at UCLA Luskin. “At this juncture, it is critically important to start developing methods to adjust the counts to develop a more accurate statistical picture of America and its people.”
Ong is also the founder of Ong & Associates, which provided its research services pro bono for the report.
The report results show that neighborhoods with high concentrations of Asian, Black, Hispanic and Indigenous populations experienced a greater decline in response rates relative to non-Hispanic white neighborhoods, when comparing 2010 and 2020 response rates. The estimated median response rates are 69.1% for non-Hispanic white, 66.7% for non-Hispanic Asian, 49.7% for non-Hispanic Black and 50.1% for Hispanic.
The research reveals that Hispanic (12.7%) and Indigenous (12.3%) people have the largest temporal gap from 2010 to 2020. What is particularly dramatic is the decline for Hispanic neighborhoods, which may be attributable to the stigma and fear associated with the controversial attempt to include a citizenship question on the 2020 census form. Moreover, the pandemic appears to have created more barriers to participation for non-English speaking households and/or those without good internet connections.
The report finds that 2020 Census response rates vary systematically with economic class, ranging from 73.2% for the most affluent neighborhoods to 47.4% for the poorest neighborhoods. When comparing 2010 and 2020 Census response rates, the gaps also vary systematically by economic class, ranging from a less than one percentage point decline for the most affluent to a nine-percentage point decline for the poorest.
On April 18, the New York Times reported that the COVID-19 crisis had seriously hampered self-reporting, causing the Census Bureau to adjust its timeline and initially prolong the collection process to counter any shortfalls. The data collection period was extended from mid-August to October 31, but the recent White House directive will cause operations to end one month sooner.
The report points out that lower self-response rates will generate disproportionately more homes that must now be visited during an abbreviated — and labor-intensive — non-response follow-up phase. This will add great strain to the Census Bureau’s limited budget and resources, and add an overwhelming burden on Census workers, community-based organizations and other stakeholders participating in 2020 Census outreach efforts.
According to the authors, COVID-19 further compounds the challenges by creating barriers to face-to-face contacts because of a continued need for social distancing and other public-health precautions. Finally, the systematic low self-response rates in disadvantaged neighborhoods compound the problems because these are the same neighborhoods most affected by COVID-19.
The challenge that lies ahead is how the nation will address a seriously flawed enumeration, one with a significant overall undercount and differential undercount that will disproportionately hurt the poor and people of color, the researchers warn.
The authors recommend developing data and methods that enable researchers and statisticians to adjust the count and produce a more accurate and unbiased numerical picture of America and its people. The Census Bureau’s post-enumeration study will help, but it is also critically important for academic researchers to develop independent approaches.
“An adjustment is fundamental to ensuring fair political representation, just resource allocations, and social equality,” the researchers write.
A new UCLA study found that being a woman, identifying as LGBTQI, having a long commute, or waiting in poorly lit areas significantly increased the likelihood of being sexually harassed on public transit.
In the UCLA Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies report, “Transit Safety Among University Students,” Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris of UCLA Luskin Urban Planning and researchers sought to better understand the characteristics of individuals and circumstances that increased their risk of harassment during their public transit journeys.
Professor Loukaitou-Sideris reported the findings during the Lewis Center’s April 3 InterActions LA conference, which brought together researchers, transit agencies and community activists around the topic of women’s safety in transportation.
The study surveyed 1,284 students from UCLA and the California State University campuses of Los Angeles and Northridge. According to the report, this population was chosen because university students are typically more transit-dependent than the general public, and because their young age may make them more vulnerable to victimization. Los Angeles was one of numerous cities studied as part of a global research project.
Much of the preexisting data on perceived safety and incidents of sexual harassment on transit in Los Angeles did not identify such characteristics as gender, sexuality and race. This study also uniquely delved into when in the course of a transit journey — walking to or from a station, waiting for the bus or train, or on the actual vehicle — sexual harassment occurred.
According to the study, 72% of respondents experienced some form of harassment on a bus, compared to 48% on rail, with women experiencing far more numerous instances than men. However, very few students (10%) reported the experience to either law enforcement or transit agencies. And more than half of women reported changing how they dressed or adjusting their travel patterns, such as riding only during daytime or waiting in well-lit areas.
Because women make up more than half of transit riders in the United States, Loukaitou-Sideris said it’s imperative to prioritize their safety.
“Their safety is an important concern that we need to tackle if we want to have more women riding transit and — for women who are already captive transit riders — riding transit more comfortably and without fear,” she said. “I think everyone deserves that in our transit systems.”
Safe Transit During COVID-19
The challenges that women and vulnerable populations face have only been magnified by the current COVID-19 crisis. Under statewide and local “safer at home” orders, it is frequently low-income women of color who are still traveling to work to provide essential services to the rest of the region, according to the other panelists at the InterActions event, including speakers from Pueblo Planning, Los Angeles Walks and Alliance for Community Transit-Los Angeles (ACT-LA).
“COVID-19 has revealed that our transit system is a lifeline,” said Mariana Huerta Jones, senior coalition and communications manager at ACT-LA, a nonprofit organization dedicated to ensuring equitable access to public transit infrastructure and funds.
During the InterActions presentation, Huerta Jones said public transit is often the only transportation option available to low-income residents working in jobs deemed essential in industries such as grocery stores, hospitals and sanitation.
Ensuring Women’s Safety
Other InterActions speakers like Monique López, founder and social justice planner at Pueblo Planning, spoke about the importance of including the voices of marginalized communities when crafting policy recommendations. And Daisy Villafuerte, advocacy and engagement manager from Los Angeles Walks, discussed grassroots efforts to improve transit experiences.
Presenting the next steps from LA Metro’s recent “Understanding How Women Travel” report, Meghna Khanna, senior director of the Countywide Planning and Development Department, and her team found that safety is still the biggest concern and barrier to riding transit for all women riders. While 60% of women felt safe traveling on Metro during the day, that number decreased to 20% at night.
Khanna and her team at LA Metro found that women frequently mentioned increased police presence as a solution that would help them feel safer on transit; however, not all transit riders agree.
“For many people of our community, more police doesn’t mean more safety. It can actually mean the opposite. It can mean racial profiling, harassment, criminalizing of poor or houseless individuals,” Huerta Jones said.
Solutions beyond policing — such as increased service frequency, improved cleanliness around stations, and the presence of non-police transit ambassadors — are just first steps in ensuring women can use transit without fear.
