Posts

L.A. Metro’s Struggle with Homelessness Is ‘Big Dilemma,’ Loukaitou-Sideris Says

Urban Planning Professor Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris was featured in a Los Angeles Times article about Metro’s attempts to grapple with homelessness. Unhoused residents have long found shelter in the transit agency’s stations, trains and buses, but their numbers have grown as the L.A. homelessness crisis has deepened. Metro counted 5,700 homeless riders on its system last August. A study by the UCLA Institute of Transportation Studies found an increase in the number of homeless people on the Metro during the pandemic as shelters closed and commuters stayed home. “It’s a big dilemma,” explained Loukaitou-Sideris, lead author of the study. As Metro aims to revive transit ridership, many commuters are concerned about the issues of homelessness and rising crime. “The agencies to a certain extent, and rightly so, feel that they are in a transportation business, and they have to deal with a challenge that is not of their own making,” Loukaitou-Sideris said.


Gas Hike a Litmus Test for Mass Transit, Matute Says

Juan Matute, deputy director of the UCLA Institute of Transportation Studies, spoke to the Los Angeles Times about the impact of soaring gas prices on transit ridership in Los Angeles. The article said many Angelenos are concerned about the number of homeless people and the increase in violent crime on the Metro, which slashed its bus and rail service this year amid a COVID-fueled driver shortage. Many transit planners have argued that the cheap cost of driving vehicles keeps commuters from jumping on a bus or train. Matute noted that the spike in gas prices will now serve as a litmus test for mass transit. “If driving gets 50% more expensive because of the increase in gas prices and you’re not seeing a corresponding increase in ridership, maybe there’s something you have to look at about their service, improving it, whether it be reliability, safety or passenger experience,” Matute said.


Blumenberg on Car Access and Upward Mobility

Urban Planning Professor Evelyn Blumenberg spoke to station WFAE about attempts to increase transportation options for low-income residents of Charlotte, North Carolina. Officials have adopted a plan to make the city more dense, walkable and transit-accessible, but it would take decades to implement. Since the city was designed around the automobile, some are advocating increasing access to cars. Options include subsidies to purchase a vehicle, vouchers for ride-share services and neighborhood car-sharing programs. Blumenberg, director of the UCLA Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies, said her research shows that low-income people with cars are able to move to better neighborhoods and are more likely to find and keep a job. “A car gives you a lot of flexibility and a lot of choice,” she said. Blumenberg also described the Los Angeles program BlueLA, which subsidizes the sharing of electric vehicles, noting that encouraging the use of EVs could make increased access to cars more politically palatable.


 

New Transit Doesn’t Alleviate Traffic, Manville Says

Associate Professor of Urban Planning Michael Manville spoke to the San Diego Union-Tribune about the anticipated effects of a new trolley line in San Diego. The 11-mile trolley runs from Old Town to UTC mall in La Jolla and is expected to carry 20,000 daily riders in the coming years. While the trolley line may seem like an ideal solution to reduce traffic congestion in the area, Manville explained that all the cars the trolley removes from the freeway “will almost certainly get replaced by backfilling prompted by reduced congestion” as open space on the freeway is filled by new commuters. “It’s a very established empirical fact that new transit doesn’t alleviate traffic,” Manville said. “It’s self-undermining, because congestion is the No. 1 thing that blunts demand.” He agreed that the new transit line is good for the economy and the region but noted that “you need to be realistic about what transit can and can’t do.”


Taylor on Setbacks to Memphis’ Public Transit Vision

Brian Taylor, director of the Institute of Transportation Studies at UCLA Luskin, spoke with the nonprofit newsroom MLK50 about changes to the public transportation system in Memphis, Tenn. Ridership on Memphis Area Transit Authority (MATA) lines plummeted during the COVID-19 pandemic; current labor shortages have made it difficult to hire an adequate number of bus drivers; and the city’s plan to overhaul the transit system by 2040 remains underfunded. A recent round of cuts to routes and services has caused disruptions to riders, 71% of whom are from households earning less than $20,000. Taylor said that the people who use MATA are likely forced to by circumstances: Either they have to, because they can’t drive or don’t have a car, or they want to, because parking where they’re going is expensive. The second group “vanished” during the pandemic, Taylor said, noting that, when a bus system operates as infrequently as once an hour, it’s almost exclusively for the first group.

Taylor on Political Economy of Transit Projects

Brian Taylor, director of the Institute of Transportation Studies at UCLA Luskin, joined St. Louis on the Air to discuss the political motivations behind transportation projects. The passage of President Joe Biden’s infrastructure bill has prompted discussion about the potential expansion of the MetroLink light-rail line in St. Louis. While light rail is popular among politicians and residents who use it as an occasional alternative to driving, most essential workers would benefit more from improved frequency and reliability of bus services. According to Taylor, “Opportunities to cut ribbons in front of things is much better [for elected officials] than making broad improvements.” He explained that while transit users benefit from improved service, politicians prefer dramatic, concrete improvements that will garner more political support from all voters. “The issue with a light-rail line is that most people don’t ride transit, but almost everyone can see the light-rail line,” Taylor said.


Callahan on the Future of High-Speed Rail

Colleen Callahan, deputy director of the UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation, spoke to the Washington Post about federal funding for new infrastructure projects and the future of rail transit in the United States. President Biden has signed a trillion-dollar infrastructure bill into law, and $65 billion is earmarked for rail projects. However, Callahan expressed doubt that the new package will go toward high-speed rail. “This package is not the silver bullet for the bullet,” Callahan said. “We won’t see much of it go to high-speed rail.” Bullet trains are popular around the globe and can unite cities hundreds of miles apart without excessive carbon emissions. However, the federal funding for rail projects is expected to go largely to the federally owned Amtrak. Many transportation experts predict that Amtrak will use the funding to address problems on its traditional lines instead of investing in new high-speed rail projects.


Wasserman Cautions Against Overinvesting in Rail

Jacob Wasserman, research project manager at the UCLA Institute of Transportation Studies, spoke to the Los Angeles Business Journal about the explosion of rail construction projects in Los Angeles. Four major rail projects are currently under construction in L.A. County, with several more projects in the pipeline. “For the modern era, this is a huge investment in rail transportation on the scale rarely seen in recent memory,” Wasserman said. However, rail transit ridership has been steadily declining in L.A. County, a trend that was exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, Wasserman cautioned against overly investing in rail. “Remember, the vast majority of people taking transit in L.A. County take the bus, so the rail system has drawn a disproportionate amount of funding and resources,” he said. “Rail should be reserved for those instances where the congestion and density are high enough that there’s a demonstrable time savings over other modes of travel.”


Manville Explains Equity of Congestion Pricing

Associate Professor of Urban Planning Michael Manville spoke to the Washington Post to help debunk myths about highways and traffic. While some cities have widened their highways in an attempt to decrease traffic, “the iron law of congestion” explains the phenomenon in which widening highways results in a proportional increase in cars on the road. Some economists and urban planning experts, including Manville, have proposed congestion pricing as a solution to traffic congestion by making drivers pay for the space they take up on the highway. Some opponents of congestion pricing have argued that the policy would hurt the poor, but Manville responded, “Free roads are not a good way to help poor people.” Manville explained that affluent people drive more regardless of whether or not congestion pricing exists, so the best way to help low-income residents is actually by improving infrastructure and public transit, which can be funded through congestion pricing revenue.


Matute Proposes Consolidated Public Transit Platform

UCLA Institute of Transportation Studies Deputy Director Juan Matute was featured on a “Connect the Dots” podcast episode about the future of public transit following the pandemic. “Those using transit in Los Angeles tend to be lower-income than cities like San Francisco, Washington, D.C., and even New York, where there is more white-collar commuting,” Matute explained. As a result, Los Angeles saw relatively high pandemic ridership compared to pre-pandemic levels. “Diversity of mobility options helps serve those who want or need to get around without a personal vehicle,” Matute said. “The introduction of micro-mobility, such as e-scooters and bike share, provide additional options for people to get around.” Matute said he would like to see a platform where people could access many forms of transportation in one place, which would make it easier for transit riders to get around.