• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Bus Rapid Transit as an Agent of Change: A Study of Neighborhoods Surrounding the Los Angeles County Silver Line Jessica Mitchell May 4, 2018 Occidental College Department of Urban and Environmental Policy Professor Mijin Cha and Professor Bhavna Shamasunder Mitchell 2 Acknowledgements Thank you, thank you, thank you to Professor Cha and Professor Shamasunder for your guidance and feedback throughout this project! Thank you Professor Sadd, I could not have completed my research without GIS - I am so thankful for your suggestions and teachings. Thank you, Valerie Lizárraga! You have been integral to my life and growth at Oxy. I am grateful to have worked with you and to have learned from you. Thank you to my family and friends for your support and for your warmth. Specifically, thank you, Mom for reading this entire thing! Thank you Michael and Veronica for your kindness and solidarity in completing this research! Thank you to my housemates for being so sweet! Mitchell 3 Introduction In November 2016, Los Angeles County voters approved Measure M. This ballot measure approved an increased sales tax in order to fund transportation and infrastructure improvements throughout the County (Metro n.d.). While this may seem like good news to some, many have expressed cynicism about the introduction of additional public transit to Los Angeles County, as demand for transit could induce gentrification in neighborhoods (Rosenthal 2018 and the LA Times Editorial Board 2016). However, scholarly literature has not been conclusive in linking public transit to this form of neighborhood change (Kahn 2007). This discrepancy among lived experience and literature necessitates a better understanding of the relationship between public transportation, as a form of public investment, and the neighborhoods in which it is introduced. On one hand, transit is necessary in linking people to opportunity through the places where they can work, exercise, eat, and enjoy their leisure time (Semuels 2016). But at the same time transit holds damaging potential of displacing groups that need transit in order to access these opportunities (Rosenthal 2018 and LA Times Editorial Board 2016). Not only is this damaging towards the neighborhood’s sense of identity, but spatially this is counterintuitive in that often the groups that have the greatest need for public transportation are the same groups that are vulnerable to displacement. To understand debates on the impacts of public transportation on surrounding communities and the actions that transit agencies should take towards avoiding or mitigating negative impacts, this study focuses on the Metro Silver Line, a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) lite line in Los Angeles County (Figure 1). Specifically, this study examines the extent to which neighborhoods surrounding the Silver Line have experienced changes in demographics relative Mitchell 4 to that of Los Angeles County using an index of change created using Decennial Census and American Community Survey data. Interviews with Silver Line riders were also conducted in order to give more context as to how these changes can be categorized. Figure 1 - Map of Los Angeles County Silver Line Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 2015. “Metro Silver Line: Introducing Express Service.” The aim of this study is to provide research in order for LA County and Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) officials to make informed decisions when implementing transit in the future. If the Silver Line has induced positive change, how can this be replicated in the future? One the other hand, if it has induced negative change, what form of transit would be favorable for the future of the County? Mitchell 5 Background This section contextualizes for the study of the Silver Line’s effect on neighborhoods that surround it by defining and and providing a history of BRT. This section also delves into the specific history of the Silver Line and its current functionality. What is BRT? Bus rapid transit (BRT) systems can be described as innovative bus systems that mimic the quality of light rail but utilize buses rather rail cars, generally at a lower cost. In their federally-funded report “Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision Making” Diaz et al (2009) use transit expert Herbert Levinson’s definition: A flexible, high performance rapid transit mode that combines a variety of physical, operating and system elements into a permanently integrated system with a quality image and unique identity. Although this definition neglects to mention that BRT systems operate using buses, Levinson’s definition puts emphasis on the flexibility and uniqueness of the system. BRT differs from traditional bus transit by combining a number of traits such as segregated bus lanes, limited stops, and weather-protected stations. These traits are included with the aims of providing riders with faster and more reliable service. Each BRT system is unique, as Levinson states, in that there is not a set quota in the number defining traits a BRT system must have in order to be considered a BRT system. The following are traits of BRT: ● Running ways ● Bus stations ● Limited stops ● Quick boarding ● Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Elements ● Fare collection ● Branding/ advertising Mitchell 6 Transit systems that combine a mix of traditional bus traits and BRT traits have also emerged. These systems, dubbed “BRT Lite,” may have an exclusive bus lane only for parts of the line or may only board from one of their doors, for example. History of BRT BRT emerged out of necessity. In the early 1970’s, the city of Curitiba, Brazil had to meet the transit needs of its residents but the light rail transit (LRT) system that was planned for the city would be too costly. Instead, the city implemented an innovative bus system that used bus-exclusive lanes that were separated from the road by a median. Curitiba’s bus system grew to become the first BRT system in the world in 1982 (Lindau et al 2010). BRT systems have since spread throughout Latin American cities, including Bogotá, São Paulo, Ciudad de México, Guayaquil, and Lima. Additionally BRT has spread in Asia, to cities including Guangzhou and Jakarta. BRT as a system has received praise for being a cost-effective way to alleviate the transit-burden – the difficulty of getting to and from spaces necessary for daily life, such as places to shop or to earn a wage – and to lessen pollution from automobiles (Hidalgo and Carrigan 2010). BRT has had limited popularity in the United States. This is likely due to negative perceptions of buses in the United States (Ben-Akiva and Morikawa 2002). Two of the most successful BRTs in the US, Cleveland’s Healthline and Los Angeles’ Orange Line, are single corridors, rather than an entire BRT system. However, these lines have been successful in reaching or exceeding estimated ridership. Even with BRT’s successes, this transit system tends to be viewed as an intermediary step between traditional buses and rail, rather than a complete Mitchell 7 system in its own (Vincent 2010). Still, others argue that BRT is a viable and cost-effective alternative to rail, in which the US should invest (Ginberg 2006). Silver Line Metro introduced the Silver Line in December of 2009. The Silver Line served as a way to combine and simplify existing express buses that connected El Monte, a small city just east of Los Angeles, to San Pedro, another small city in the Los Angeles County South Bay area (Figure 1). The lines that were replaced by the Silver Line include the 444, 446-447, 484 and 490, all of ​ which were express bus lines - meaning they had less frequent stops than a typical bus (Camino 2009). The Silver Line is categorized as BRT lite rather than a full BRT line, because although it operates on exclusive High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) or bus-only lanes for the majority of its route, it acts as a traditional bus line in the Downtown Los Angeles leg of its route. The line’s route in total is approximately 26 miles long (Weikel 2014). Notably, when it opened, the Silver Line’s fare was $2.45, nearly a dollar more than the $1.50 fare of Metro’s existing rail and busways. The uncharacteristically high fare was set at this value in order to be comparable to the fares of Foothill Transit, a separate public transportation agency that operates primarily in the San Gabriel and Pomona Valleys whose Silver Streak bus operates on the proposed route. Though the Silver Streak and the Silver Line now charge the same fare and accept the opposite’s multi-day passes, Metro justified the $2.45 fare by stating that existing riders would see lower-quality service because of the time it would take for them to transfer to the Silver Line. Additionally, Metro officials write that the transfer and change in fare would necessitate fare inspections on the Line, which could also slow down service speed (Metro Operations Committee 2009). Mitchell 8 While the Silver Line has not reached ridership levels that are comparable to Metro’s other high quality transit lines, including rail and BRT, the line’s ridership has increased substantially since its opening at the end of 2009. During 2010, its first full year open, the Silver Lines ridership was 2,108,032 rides for the year. In 2016, Metro’s most recently reported year, ridership was at 4,509,983 - an average increase of 400,325 boardings per year. In comparison over the same period of time the Orange Line, Metro’s full BRT line located in the San Fernando Valley, only had an average increase of 111,297. However the Orange Line, which opened in 2005, had a much higher ridership for the year of 2016 with 7,754,858 boardings.

Load more

  36

Copy Link