Submission: LA’s transit plans need to consider effects on low-income populations

When Angelenos take to the polls Tuesday, they will decide the trajectory of public transit and transit-oriented development in Los Angeles County for years to come. Measure M and Measure JJJ endeavor to expand transportation networks and safeguard affordable housing, respectively. Both promise to advance the region’s sustainability goals while transforming where and how transportation is constructed in Los Angeles.

While most sustainability-minded voters will agree that any investment in public transportation represents a step in the right direction, there is some debate as to how these funds can be leveraged most effectively. A growing body of research produced by UCLA scholars indicates that significant investments in public transportation – and rail networks in particular – must be considered as part of the planning process.

Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris, a professor of urban planning at UCLA, explains that development often concentrates around transit stops in hopes of attracting frequent users.

However, research conducted by Loukaitou-Sideris and her colleague Paul Ong, a fellow urban planning professor and member of the UCLA Institute of the Environment and Sustainability, suggests that this kind of development may have negative consequences – namely, the massive displacement of low-income, transit-dependent populations.

According to Loukaitou-Sideris, as affordable housing is replaced by condos and middle-class development, a more affluent population takes root in the neighborhood, sparking gentrification. Existing residents who cannot keep up with rent increases are pushed out of the area, farther away from budding development, employment opportunities and access to public transportation.

The irony isn’t hard to spot: As rail networks expand, their core ridership – low-income communities and transit-dependent people – is displaced by a population that relies significantly less on public transportation.

Lina Stepick, a Sustainable LA Grand Challenge Policy fellow and Ph.D. candidate in sociology, has reached the same conclusions in her own research. She’s found that investments in rail transit in historically disinvested low-income neighborhoods displace their original residents.

Stepick has also observed a counterintuitive trend in the wake of transit-oriented development: Transit ridership decreases while both driving and vehicle miles traveled increase. That’s because the people who move into these developments own cars and aren’t as dependent on transit as the previous residents.

But the region’s transportation infrastructure can be improved without edging out low-income populations. Researchers, policy makers and community leaders must shift their attention to focus on the needs of transit’s core ridership. To have effective, strategic policymaking, officials must be informed by those who stand to lose the most as a result of transit-oriented development.

The responsibility for executing this vision, Ong says, doesn’t end with government officials. “Society as a whole has responsibility for what begins as a process of change. And that responsibility includes making sure that those who are potentially hurt by this process are not hurt and that those who are disadvantaged get their share of the positive benefits which come out of it.”

Stepick’s, Loukaitou-Sideris and Ong’s research suggests many ways for sustainable and equitable transportation investment. Among them are anti-displacement measures to buffer gentrification pressures, community benefits agreements to ensure that developers act with the interests of residents in mind, rent stabilization ordinances, mandatory supplies of affordable housing and fiscal incentives for builders to provide affordable housing as part of their transit-oriented development plans.

In addition, Stepick adds that bus access is the most important transportation issue for low-income households. Her research shows that heavy investment in rail transit often occurs at the expense of bus lines, making public transportation less convenient for the populations that rely on buses most heavily. If the aim of investment in public transportation is to provide a sustainable means of transport for the greatest number of people possible – and it should be – these investments should be geared toward improving the transit networks that are most widely used. This process can begin by providing discounts, vouchers for bus passes or other transportation subsidies for low-income families.

Los Angeles must consider the needs – big and small – of all its residents as it plans for a 100 percent sustainable future by 2050. Developing and writing policies that meet the region’s sustainability needs while protecting marginalized populations will not be an easy process, but in order to fully meet its sustainability goals, Los Angeles will have to find a way. As a first step, research exploring social justice issues must receive adequate funding at the university level, and the findings of this research must be made part of the larger legislative conversation about transit-oriented development.

Research concerning the impacts of transit-oriented development on marginalized populations is being conducted at UCLA, and policies like Measure JJJ have begun to address these concerns from a legislative angle. However, if Los Angeles’ proposed improvements to transit are to be truly sustainable and feasible for all segments of the population, these efforts must represent the beginning of a more extensive shift in thinking and process for academics, legislators and community leaders.

Wyman is a fourth year communication studies and French student and Grand Challenge project assistant for the Sustainable LA Grand Challenge.