TRANSPORTATION PLANNING: THE POLITICS OF TRANSIT IN LOS ANGELES

KayJatta

March 23, 2011

THE PROBLEMS OF TRANSPORTATION IN LOS ANGELES

The problems of transportation in Los Angeles (LA) were not uniquely characteristic of that city. Air pollution and traffic congestion are generally ongoing concerns for many metro regions in the United States.  Many cities attempted a change to transit in order to ease these problems.

However, the dilemma facing many cities, particularly Los Angeles is how to simultaneously lure suburban commuters out of their cars (by developing rapid transit system to the suburbs) and improve inner-city transportation.

Transit makes sense for Los Angeles because of the following factors:

·         88% drives to work by 1990 compared to 79% for Chicago and 63% for New York.

·         The use of transit is still low in Los Angeles. The flow of work-bound traffic in Los Angeles was only 24% in 1980, compared to 74% for Chicago and 60% for New York.

·         There was no clear evidence in Los Angeles that transit disproportionately benefit the White majority than minorities.

·         Los Angeles is more diverse than many comparative cities, but it was highly segregated racially and ethnically.

·         Jobs and activity centers are widely spread out in Los Angeles. There are at least 28 district sub-centers (satellites) outside the Central Business District (CBO).

However, despite the above mentioned factors, Los Angeles still has to grapple with the questions of whether transit should aim at getting people out of their cars or whether it should aim at serving people with fewer transportation choices. These two choices appeared to represent “a clash of civilizations” to borrow a phrase (although less fitting in this case) from the celebrated political scientist, Samuel Huntington. In 1994, a grassroots movement in Los Angeles that called itself the “Bus Riders Union” (BRU) filed a civil rights lawsuit after an expensive rail transit system to the suburbs was built in Los Angeles. The purpose of the lawsuit was to force the policymakers of the city of Los Angeles to meet the needs of the poor minority bus riders in the inner city.

According to Burrington and Heart (1998) in Joe Grengs (2002), this was the first successful challenge to transit agency decisions on the basis of civil rights and discrimination. The outcome of the lawsuit, described as one of the biggest civil rights actions includes these two:

·         Improved inner city bus services

·         Gave formal role to Bus Riders Union (BRU) in planning process

It is important to note that similar lawsuits in Philadelphia (1990) and New York (1995) failed woefully for reasons I will discuss in a later chapter.

CONTROVERSIAL SOLUTIONS TO THE PROBLEMS OF TRANSPORTAION IN LOS ANGELES

In 1980, voters in Los Angeles approved a ballot measure (Proposition 8) for a new subway and rail system. This appeared to be an elite move aimed at appeasing suburban elite interests involving up to 25% of revenue devolved to local governments. The result is several urban rail lines including these:

·         The Blue Line (1990) connecting Long Beach to the Central Business District (CBO).

·         The Red Line (1993), an urban underground system including a downtown subway segment.

·         The Green Line (1995) running an east to west direction from Norwalk to Redondo Beach and the Los Angeles International Airport.

·         The Metro link which is a suburban commuter rail.

For all of these, as mentioned above, low income advocate bus riders received only a three-year reduction in bus fares. That sounds like a short end of the deal, right?

Los Angeles’ choice of rail as a solution to its transportation problems was not especially unique to the city. However, rail is a controversial choice. The critics of rail argue that:

·         It is very expensive. In Los Angeles, it was $6 billion in capital costs and $7 billion in debt.

·         Inappropriate for Los Angeles’ diverse economic activities

·         Does not attract enough riders

·         Would not reduce the twin urban evils of pollution and congestion

·         Takes away funds from a more cost-effective bus system

·         A mere political show that serves none other than the business people and their cronies (the growth machine).

·         Buses use existing infrastructure

·         Buses have higher ridership

·         Buses serve high-need populations

Proponents of rail however maintain that rail provides the following benefits:

·         Rail is a nationwide trend

·         An opportunity to use federal dollars

·         Reduction of pollution and congestion

·         Saves energy

·         Reduces urban sprawl

PLANNING THEORY

Transportation in Los Angeles could be analyzed in the light of several planning theories, such as consensus, advocacy, communicative action theory and critical theory.

Joe Grengs (2002) identified three factors (two internal and one external) in the political process model that every social movement comprises of. They are:

·         Political opportunities (external)

·         Organizational strength (internal)

·         Leadership and strategy (internal)

Although the opening of political opportunities represents the most important factor, the Los Angeles Bus Riders Union has been roundly praised for its organizational strength. The strong internal organization in the BRU around a common overriding issue (consensus building) was a major reason for its success. The lack of this internal consensus is perhaps the reason for failure elsewhere in New York (1995) and Philadelphia (1990) for example.

In the opening chapter to his article “Community-based Planning as a Source of Political Change”, Joe Grengs, a doctoral candidate at Cornell University argued that “if planners do not…take action in political settings, they risk failing to make constructive change” (pg. 165).

The Los Angeles Bus Riders Union, by every right is an advocacy group. It represents a particular interest group and actively lobbied, protested, and filed lawsuits (Paul Davidoff’s legalistic model) on their behalf. BRU effectively utilized a proactive participatory procedure that combines planning and political process to achieve a desired goal for the public good; Davidoff, P (1965).

The Bus Riders Union also relied on communicative action to argue for the implementation of their alternative plan for resolving the transportation problems in Los Angeles; Forrester, J (1980). They did not only critique the rail transit system but they also laid down the advantages of better bus service in the inner city. They even succeeded in qualifying mass transportation as a human rights issue in Los Angeles. The fact that the Bus Riders Union provided an alternative transportation plan against the rail transit plan of the city planners, it appears to be consistent with the pluralistic planning concept.

The BRU’s argument also bordered on questions of justice and equality. The Union successfully defined the controversy in terms of civil rights, perhaps drawing inspiration from both communicative (critical) planning and equity planning theories as proposed by Jorgen Herbamass and others.

REFERENCE:

1.       Community-based Planning as a Source of Political Change, Grengs, J. (2002)

2.       Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning; Davidoff, P. (1965)

3.       Critical Theory in Planning; Forrester, J. (1980)

4.       Ethical Frameworks and Planning Theory; Campbell, H et al (1999)

5.       Planning Through Consensus Building: A New View of Comprehensive Planning; Innes, J.E. (1996)