
L.A.'s Measure M Voters Fund Transit, but Don't Use It - noobermin
https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2019/01/los-angeles-public-transportation-tax-measure-m-metro/580609/
======
thescriptkiddie
Public transportation works best as a dense and highly interconnected network.
When you're first building out a system, it's just a patchwork, and so not
very useful. At some point you reach a certain "critical mass", and suddenly
your low ridership turns into overcrowding. Low ridership doesn't necessarily
indicate a lack of interest in public transportation, it just means that for
most individuals it isn't the most practical choice yet. From this
perspective, it makes perfect sense to support expansion of the network even
if you don't use it.

~~~
maxxxxx
This exactly describes LA compared to places like Munich or Paris. In Munich I
can easily get to most places using public transport without much planning and
it will overall be competitive with driving time in a car. In Los Angeles
there are a few lines here and there but it requires a ton of planning and
often takes three times as long as a drive would take. My commute takes 35
minutes by car and would take more than 3 hours with public transport.

~~~
gamblor956
In LA, it highly depends on the commute. For example, friends who work in
Hollywood have a 10 minute commute by public transportation (20 min round
trip)...but would have a 30-60 minute commute by car (1-2 hours round trip).
My commute in the morning takes is 30 min longer by rail than by car, but the
commute home is 30-45 minutes shorter by rail...

~~~
maxxxxx
True. If you are close to City Hall you are golden. Tons of options. But as
soon as you are a little away the situation is horrible.

------
wwweston
I voted for Measure M.

I'm a "sometimes" user of transport. I own a car and it's probably my most
frequent form of transport outside my legs. I'm lucky enough to live in a
neighborhood where I can walk to a grocery store, two restaurant/retail dense
streets, a mall, and even a university, so that's fun. If I'm meeting/visiting
friends across the city, though, there's rarely public transport options that
aren't going to triple or quadruple travel time. So, I often drive.

But not always. Some routes have convenient travel times -- for example, I can
get from LAX to my house for $1 on a bus. Metro to downtown LA or Santa Monica
is pretty convenient and lets me skip parking hassles/fees. Throw a rideshare
into the mix and you can get pretty great coverage.

And as a sometimes transit user, I can tell you that buses and trains are
_definitely not empty_ \-- sometimes they're uncomfortably crowded. People are
absolutely using them, even if not everybody uses them all the time.

So I was happy to support Measure M, be a sometimes transit user, and hope
that I can become a more frequent one as options expand.

About the only real complaint I have isn't really a transit network one per se
-- the modern society-wide issues of homelessness, mental health, and drugs
spill over into every public space. Cars and curated neighborhoods can give
you a bubble of comfort, but don't solve the problem. So I voted for Measure H
(among others) in hopes of seeing solutions there, too.

~~~
similarInLA
Yeah, I'm in a similar position. When the Expo line was expanded to Santa
Monica, I was actually working in the building next to the final Santa Monica
stop. But my house wasn't on the train line, so I would have had to somehow
get to the train to take it in, but I would have only been riding like 3
stops. It doesn't make sense to drive to the train in that case, and riding a
bike wasn't a realistic options because of the traffic I'd have to get
through. (There were parts that would have been dangerous for a bike.) On the
other hand, my yearly mileage is around 4-6k miles, so I don't feel like I'm
contributing too badly to the problem.

A coworker of mine was out in South Pasadena and tried taking the train one
day. His normally 45 minute commute turned into an hour and 50 minutes one
way. There's no way that makes sense.

I've since moved, as has our office. I still live about 3 miles from work, so
overall very low mileage each year. I looked up bus schedules as both my house
and work are near bus stops. My one-way commute time would go from about 15-20
minutes to 50-60 minutes. That's just stupid. I have a family I'd like to see
and making my commute 3-4 times as long just isn't worth it.

I'm all for public transportation, but if it doesn't go where I need to in a
timely manner, it's useless.

~~~
tomjakubowski
When the Regional Connector (funded by Measure R!) is finished in 2021 and
they realign Gold/Expo/Blue, there will be a direct light rail line from South
Pasadena to Santa Monica: no subway transfer to hop across downtown. I think
then the commute time will be around 1:00 or 0:50 each way.

------
SilasX
I'm sorry, is this supposed to be some big "gotcha" or evidence of
inconsistent decision-making?

>Instead, the top predictors of whether a voter supported Measure M were their
political party and their frustration with congestion.

You can believe the transit will be good for congestion even if you don't
expect to personally use it. Are you confused if you're an East Bay-SF
commuter who drives and also supports BART capacity expansion?

Edit: Furthermore, transit is hard to quickly scale up or down. It can be
reasonable to support expansions now, even not realizing you might find it
useful later as traffic gets more choked.

~~~
ninth_ant
You are missing an important point of the article. Voters for this measure
believed increased transit would reduce congestion for drivers, but it doesn’t
usually work that way in practice. Even the most transit-friendly cities in
the world have clogged freeways.

The benefits of increased transit is significant and worth supporting, but
reduced congestion is not one of those benefits.

~~~
SilasX
It's not an issue of "clogged" vs "not clogged" but "more clogged" vs "less
clogged" and "have an option to bypass gridlock" vs "don't have an option".
You have to compare to the counterfactual. Yes, transit-friendly cities have
clogged freeways, but it's _much better_ than it would be if they didn't have
the trains at all -- see what happens whenever BART shuts down.

------
vamos_davai
I've lived in LA for 3 years and voted to support Measure M. My take on this
is that by increasing the capacity for public transit, we'll be able to
support a continuously growing city. One of the ticket items that got me to
support Measure M is funding for the Sepulveda Transit Pass, which will build
a train route from Sherman Oaks to UCLA and down to Culver City and ultimately
connect to the Purple Line.

The problem with the graph is that it doesn't factor in population growth,
which seems to have grown from 3.2 million to 6.9 million from 1970 to 10
million 2013. If you calculated the miles travelled in transit per year,
you'll interpret many folks in LA benefit from the Measures.

As a result, I believe the article is disingenuous by attacking a successful
measures by relying on poorly interpreted data.

------
RobLach
I don't see how the effectiveness for something like public transit could be
measured so quickly, especially over a phone call. It's barely been 2 years.

After it's built it'll take a couple decades for housing developers and
businesses to properly exploit the ease of transportation to them.

~~~
lincolnq
I agree. I’m certainly holding out lots of hope. It would be interesting to
survey people who recently moved to or within LA, and figure out what % moved
to anticipated subway accessible locations — that should at least be a leading
indicator of willingness to use transit.

------
vikingcaffiene
I would LOVE to have a viable public transportation option here in LA. Its not
an understantement to say it would transform the city. Ridership is not going
to increase though until the city deals with the massive safety and sanitation
concerns that exist at present. I’ve witnessed fights, muggings, people
defecating themselves, drug use, and open harassment while riding. The trains
are unpredictable to schedule around and on the average, slower than driving.
There’s also the last mile problem which is starting to get solved by scooter
services and such but if you look at a city like London you get a glimpse of
what could be.

~~~
HillaryBriss
> I’ve witnessed fights, muggings, people defecating themselves, drug use, and
> open harassment while riding.

+1

don't forget very loud music playing out of someone's boombox (no doubt for
the benefit of all other riders)

another joyful aspect of some of LA's public transport lines is you never know
what you're sitting on: some guy who's just pissed himself may have been the
previous occupant of your seat, or someone was walking on it or propping their
feet on it. OTOH, I've been quite impressed with the cleanliness and comfort
of one of the Commuter Express bus lines.

------
byproxy
I can't say the findings presented in this article are surprising.

That said, I currently reside abouts Downtown Los Angeles and have no car. I
find I'm in walking distance to most places I'd like to go, though I realize I
have a much higher tolerance for walking than most people. I've found it
usually takes no more than one bus/train route to get to places outside of my
walking range, say an hours ride or so (which I don't mind as I usually read
during this time). Public transportation has been serving me well. Granted,
I'm in the densest part of Los Angeles. I'd like to see the survey results
overlaid on a map of the county. Those in the more sprawled out portions of
Los Angeles County probably don't feel any benefit to increased public
transportation spending.

An aside: I find the typeface this website uses for its headings to be
terrible.

------
SilasX
What the fudge happened? This story was posted yesterday, as was my comment
(shows one day ago in my profile [1]), but now that same comment is showing "1
hour ago" if you go directly to it[2] and this story, 3 hours ago.

I know mods move comments, but I've never seen them reset the timestamps.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=SilasX&next=18968338](https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=SilasX&next=18968338)

[2]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18968338](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18968338)

------
ravenstine
Well yeah, when there's never any cops to kick off the homeless insane, people
are going to prefer the privacy of their own car.

~~~
james-mcelwain
There's tons of police on the metro -- I see them nearly every time I ride.

~~~
ravenstine
Where on the metro do you normally ride? I took the Gold Line almost every day
from 2016 to 2018, and there were hardly any police either on the trains or at
stations. Maybe 3 times a month I would encounter some guy shouting
obscenities at random riders or harassing people on the platforms. Each time,
I ended up having to be the one to call the police. About 6 months after the
completion of the Gold Line extension, the number of police on trains dropped
off dramatically and I almost never had my ticket checked. I gave up taking
the Gold Line anywhere in early 2018 because I got tired of the exposure to
belligerent riders, as well as those who are foul smelling; I'm glad I can
start my days without having to smell mildewy body odor.

~~~
magduf
By contrast, I just took a vacation in Germany and took public transit a fair
amount, and never did see any police in the subways. But I didn't see any
belligerent riders or all these other problems either.

------
T3OU-736
Seems like the fairly unambiguous instance of
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribute_substitution](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribute_substitution).

Urban traffic congestion is a difficult, complex problem. So, instead of the
nontrivial question posed by the proposition on the ballot of "Would this
measure succeed in its stated goal, in the face of evidence that prior
attempts have failed, and have the factor(s) which caused the prior failures
been mitigated?" the simpler question that the mind solves is (and, given the
results, answered in the positive) "I hate traffic. This measure claims it
will help. Should I support it?"

Kahneman's "Thinking, Fast and Slow" is a damned good read on these sorts of
things.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
Congestion is an unsolvable problem. If there's congestion it just means that
those people have a higher tolerance (or less alternatives) for sitting in
traffic (or standing on a clusterfuck of a subway platform) than whatever your
threshold is for deciding what is and isn't "congestion".

Consjestion isn't just about cars. You can generalize it to all forms of
transit (MTA anyone?).

You can't "solve" congestion. At best you can add additional capacity (of the
same type or a different type) in order to reduce the amount of time when
congestion is at its worst. Instead of "rush hour" being from 3-7 increased
capacity (of any type, people will naturally load balance by choosing the
least worst option for their situation) could potentially make it only from
4-6 by allowing the same number of trips to happen in less time.

If you add capacity (of any type) and congestion is unchanged that is still a
win because it means more trips are being taken which is an indication of more
stuff getting done, more commerce, higher quality of life).

~~~
bobthepanda
It is not necessarily a win. In the case of highways, often times new
greenfield development that is spurred on is just development being reshuffled
across the region, so you spend money to make the same amount.

It’s true that transit doesn’t solve congestion; however, it provides an
extremely high capacity alternative. Speed and reliability of a highway lane
is approx 2k people per hour, but try nudging past that and you start getting
phantom traffic jams. The New York City subway has a theoretical peak capacity
of 60k people per hour.

------
futureastronaut
What a nonsensical conclusion. Here's the crux:

> Demographically, the average Measure M supporter resembled someone with a
> very high likelihood of driving: They owned cars, enjoyed free parking at
> home and work, and had higher incomes.

Most people in LA drive. They own at least one car, and parking is not scarce.
Are we supposed to be shocked and dismayed that people who want to fund
competent mass transit don't use a system that fails to meet their needs?

> So party identity strongly swayed voters.

It might be fun to call transit supporters a bunch of party-first limousine
liberals, but the dull conclusion is that Republicans reflexively vote against
taxation measures.

The article does get at that, but the headline is clickbait and consideration
of "likelihood to use transit" in a place with mass transit as messed up as LA
is a red herring.

------
jlarocco
I think the premise of the article is nonsense.

If I'm reading the chart correctly, rail trips have steadily increased since
the city started building it. And that's with only 110 miles of track, which
seems absurd for a city the size of LA.

For comparison, Denver's RTD has 90 miles of track, and I know from living
there that it's not nearly enough. People would love to take it, but it's such
a limited deployment most of the time they can't. We've even voted for tax
increases to build track between Denver and Boulder, but RTD and the other
government agencies are dragging their feet.

So the voter behavior seems completely logical to me. People want to use
transit, but they can't until it's built up.

------
northerdome
Has there been enough time for Measure M to succeed? It was passed very
recently.

------
rossdavidh
Uh, the graph in this very article shows rail ridership increasing from 1% in
1991 to 25% in 2016. So, if that's what "don't use it" means, ok, I suppose
25% is still less than 50%, so perhaps most trips aren't taken using rail. But
It sure seems like progress to me, if we assume that a train can hold more
people than a bus, and so do better at peak times.

This seems like an article trying to hold off an increasing support for
transit rail, perhaps worried by the fact that urban support for it (in L.A.
at least) seems to be increasing.

------
inetknght
People won't use a service if they don't know it exists as an alternative.

Show advertisements demonstrating how long it takes to get from A to B and
when the service is available to accomplish that.

------
gok
Has _any_ metropolitan area ever gotten car usage to meaningfully decrease?
Yeah there are cities that have high (and increasing) transit ridership, but
they never had high car ridership.

Once someone starts tasting driving, they're hooked on it. The best bet for
transit would be to market to the next generation.

------
MiddleEndian
Semi-related hypothetical question:

Say two conflicting groups (perhaps one electrified light rail plan and one
DMU plan that basically follow the same path) get their questions on the same
ballot, and both pass. What happens?

~~~
gamblor956
Nothing. These plans aren't put to voters for approval on the ballot.

------
vkou
Anybody who drives benefits from public transit, by the fact that it keeps
cars off the roads.

