It was the best of times. It was the worst of times.

Think back to 2006. Worsening traffic congestion in LA County was on everyone's mind, and all over the media.

In response, a local coalition convened by Move LA worked to convince LA Metro and LA Mayor Villaraigosa to give voters an opportunity to invest in a dramatic enhancement of the county's transit systems, a ballot measure that won approval with 67.9% of the vote. LA Metro under Mayor Garcetti's leadership returned to the ballot in November 2016 with Measure M, which also extended Measure R. Voters said Yes by 71.1%, providing LA Metro with $120 billion over the next 40 years.

During this same period downtown Los Angeles has undergone a remarkable revival, recreating a real urban core for the region. And the digital and high-tech industries have seen opportunity to expand to LA.

Is LA on a roll?

Maybe. Maybe not.

New industries arrive and create prosperity for some. Yet a housing affordability crisis has ensued and created displacement, uncertainty and homelessness. Many of the people who are working full-time cannot afford to make rent. More than 50,000 people are living on the streets in LA County. Traffic congestion has not ebbed, and transit ridership is way down, despite voter support for solutions.

Is this a Tale of Two Counties?

Challenge #1
Transit ridership falls because of fare increases and service cuts: Job losses during the Great Recession combined with fare increases and service cuts lead to an 11% transit ridership decline from 2010-2015.

Challenge #2
Transit ridership continues to fall because of rising housing costs: New industries bring new high-income residents. LA County housing costs rise. Gentrification, displacement and an increase in homelessness follow.

Challenge #3
Regional and global transportation-related challenges reach the tipping point: Air pollution, climate change and traffic congestion threaten regional health and prosperity.

HERE ARE THE NUMBERS:

Challenge #1

Transit ridership falls because of fare increases and service cuts: Job losses during the Great Recession combined with fare increases and service cuts lead to an 11% transit ridership decline from 2010-2015.

Historically the ridership base of LA Metro has come from low-income communities of color:
Metro bus riders: 91% people of color; median income $17,605
Metro rail riders: 77% people of color; median income $35,223

During the Great Recession, LA County lost 330,000 jobs and unemployment reached 12.5%. In 2010, to offset revenue losses during the recession, LA Metro approved a fare increase and reduced revenue service hours by more than 10%.
RESULT: job losses plus fare increases plus service cuts and bus ridership declines by 6.0%

In 2014 fares are raised again. An APTA study predicts a 4% ridership decline will result.
RESULT: bus ridership actually declines by 5.4% for a total of 11.4%

But LA Metro's bus ridership mysteriously continued to decline over the next 4 years despite the fact that the effect of fare increases should have leveled off in a couple of years. What gives?

Challenge #2

Transit ridership continues to fall because of rising housing costs: New industries bring new high-income residents. LA County housing costs rise. Gentrification, displacement and an increase in homelessness follow.

During the decade from 2005 to 2015 LA County experienced a dramatic increase in households with six-figure incomes. LA County also experienced a concurrent and dramatic loss in low-income households: the decline in HHs with incomes of less than $30,000/year decreased by 168,189 (a loss of 16.6%); the growth in HHs with incomes greater than $100,000/year increased by 311,100 (a 49.7% increase). We believe this sudden increase in our high-income workforce created new pressures on housing costs, both for-sale and rental housing, gentrifying neighborhoods and displacing many low-income residents.

Many of those who were displaced moved out of town; some may have become homeless. Many members of the displaced households were probably transit riders. Thus, between 2005-2015 LA Metro lost nearly 17% of the population that provided its ridership base, largely due to rising household costs. This loss of low-income households has continued and probably how exceeds 20% since 2005.

It's no surprise then that in addition to riders lost in the aftermath of fare increases and service cuts, Metro transit ridership declines another 17% after 2015.

Challenge #3

Regional and global transportation-related challenges reach the tipping point: Air pollution, climate change and traffic congestion threaten regional health and prosperity.

Despite significant improvement in our air quality, Southern California continues to bear a heavy burden of diesel emissions from trucks and off-road vehicles. A new study from the Union of Concerned Scientists finds African American, Latino and Asian Californians are exposed to more PM2.5 pollution—43%, 39%, and 21% respectively—from cars, trucks and buses than white Californians. P2.5 particles are 20 times smaller than the diameter of fine human hair, can penetrate deeply into the lungs and bloodstream, and are estimated to be responsible for 95% of public health impacts from air pollution.

Furthermore, Southern California can lose significant federal transportation funding if we fail to meet federal attainment standards by 2031 and 2038.

In addition, California will not meet its ambitious climate goals unless Californians reduce vehicle miles traveled to 25% of 2005 levels, even if all the Air Resources Board's current regulatory programs on and incentives for low-carbon fuel, clean energy, and zero emission vehicles were put into effect tomorrow. This means that in order to achieve our ambitious climate goals Californians must drive 1.6 miles less per person per day.

But if low-income residents have been forced to move further from job opportunities because of rising housing prices, doesn't that mean Californians will be driving more?

So, shouldn't we also consider regional transportation strategies to accelerate the reduction of diesel and GHG emissions and not just rely on reductions in automobile use?