Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford
LA had higher transit ridership pre-Metro. Why didn't Metro "induce demand"?
Ridership is mostly a function of "how difficult is it to drive".
|
I generally agree with you that ridership is mostly a function of how difficult and expensive it is to drive and park. But I do think that rail is an amenity that can and does shape its surroundings in a way that buses do not. The presence of rail can and should lead to increased density around it. It can help anchor a sprawling city, and guide growth in cities like LA that are largely built out and need to find corridors to build up. Just like freeway beltways encouraged sprawl, having a rail line that actually provides convenient and fast car-free connections to places people want to be can encourage reinvestment in urban areas along the rail.
There are a number of reasons why LA's total ridership has fallen even as more rail continues to come online. One is that California started allowing illegal immigrants to obtain driver's licenses. Another is that the city is gentrifying quickly, and pushing some of the old transit riders further out into the suburbs and exurbs where they have no choice but to drive. I think ridership on the rail lines themselves has increased (not entirely sure about this, but I know the new-ish Expo Line has excellent ridership), and there is a ton of transit oriented development right now in places like Hollywood (red line), Culver City (expo), Koreatown and Westlake (red, purple), and downtown (essentially all). The extension of the purple line first to La Cienega and eventually to UCLA will be a game changer for LA rail transit, I think. So many more tourist attractions will be connected by this line, and it will reinforce Wilshire's prominence as the urban spine of LA. I also expect the Crenshaw Line will have great ridership, and it will be great to finally have a real rail connection to LAX. So while overall ridership on bus+rail might be down, I suspect it will rise in coming years.