Los Angeles, California, USA is seeing a once-in-a-generation transit revolution. Region-wide efforts to build new lines and improve access, taking back the freedom of movement from the grip of...
Exemplary
Los Angeles, California, USA is seeing a once-in-a-generation transit revolution. Region-wide efforts to build new lines and improve access, taking back the freedom of movement from the grip of the automobile, are happening rapidly and in great quantity.
The LA County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, known as Metro for short, hopes to build on that momentum as it pours billions into building more rail lines — many of which are slated to open in the next few years. Flush with cash from two countywide sales tax measures, and racing to build as much as possible before the 2028 Olympics, the agency is in the midst of a $120 billion push to create the first truly regional rail transit system LA has seen in 70 years.
LA was not always a great big freeway. In the early decades of the 20th century, the city and its suburbs were linked by America’s largest streetcar network, stretching more than 1,000 miles across the Southland. [...] As transit use declined in the postwar years, planners and developers began producing a landscape of freeways and single-family homes where cars were practically a requirement for citizenship. [...] Almost immediately, however, local leaders realized that abandoning rail was a mistake, and began planning for a renewed system.
Now the region’s most transformative projects are approaching fruition. Next year, Metro plans to open its first direct rail connection to LAX, which will connect the recently opened K Line to the airport’s forthcoming automated people mover system. The Wilshire Boulevard subway, now called the D Line, will open in phases starting in 2025, connecting downtown to Beverly Hills and UCLA.
Other planned projects are almost too numerous to name. Light rail lines and extensions are coming to the east San Fernando Valley, the San Gabriel Valley, parts of southeast LA and the South Bay. Planning is also underway for an extension of the K Line from Crenshaw in south LA to West Hollywood, and a new rail line through the chronically congested Sepulveda Pass.
To bolster passenger counts, Metro is also increasing the frequency of its trains, addressing a common rider complaint. To speed buses, it’s installing 30 miles of bus-only lanes across the city of LA, tripling the existing mileage. And it introduced a new fare-capping policy that ensures most riders will never pay more than $5 per day.
Emphasis mine. Transit enthusiasts have long enjoyed poking fun at Los Angeles' shamefully lacking public transportation system, calling it a smog city doomed to hell-by-automobile. Yet LA has lately been taking enormous strides—more, probably, than any other city in the US, perhaps even more than New York City—to improve its transit network. As the article says, there's a lot being built, and Metro aims to incorporate transit-oriented development into its new projects, meaning the areas near transit stations will be walkable, livable, and dense, improving transit access and reducing car-dependency.
LA's decentralized layout makes it a unique case. Metro is a county-level agency and therefore needs permission to make changes to streetscapes and transit networks within the individual cities of the LA network, often leading to delayed project timelines. But officials in many of these cities are open to transportation improvements that will improve the quality of life of their constituents. The area's mountainous geography can also require expensive tunnels for trains.
But in some ways, LA is ahead of the pack. The recently completed regional connector unifies multiple disparate train lines, allowing for through-running trains which dramatically improve operational efficiency and in many cases reduce the need for transfers. This means more and faster service as the "turnaround" time for a train is reduced. In this respect, the LA system resembles mature transit networks in cities like London (Elizabeth Line) or Paris (RER stations), as opposed to the immature disjunct radial networks of most American cities. New York doesn't even have through-running trains: Grand Central and Penn Station are, regrettably, not connected.
The article states that the system still has a lot of problems. Crime, or the perception of crime, is apparently a deterrent for many riders. (If you detect skepticism, it is because my experience with LA's metro system, though limited, is absolutely not one of mortal fear. Then again, I live in Philadelphia. And perception does matter a lot.) This problem is being addressed through outreach programs as well as greater ridership. Still, car culture is so heavily embedded into the Los Angeles culture that many people who would happily take the train literally don't know that it exists.
In the backdrop of all these local improvements, Brightline West plans to build a high-speed inter-city rail line between Los Angeles and Las Vegas by 2027, just in time for the 2028 Olympics. The project has been fully approved by regulators, so all that's left to do is obtain funding. Brightline hopes to receive $3.75 billion in grant money from Biden's 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Bipartisan Infrastructure Law) to put shovels in the ground. We will apparently learn whether they got the grant this or next month.
In the more distant background, the California High-Speed Rail project is still underway, slowly but surely making progress in the Central Valley. While the connection to LA is unlikely to be complete by 2028 (lol), investment into the region is likely to continue for some time. For more information on the status of CAHSR, please see the California High-Speed Rail Authority 2023 Project Update Report (August 2023).
It's not San Francisco levels, but there is still a huge influx of homeless population in LA. It's definitely too big of a problem to ignore if you travel alone. It's a problem California has...
. (If you detect skepticism, it is because my experience with LA's metro system, though limited, is absolutely not one of mortal fear. Then again, I live in Philadelphia. And perception does matter a lot.
It's not San Francisco levels, but there is still a huge influx of homeless population in LA. It's definitely too big of a problem to ignore if you travel alone. It's a problem California has struggled with long before the pandemic but only became worse due to it.
If they are trying to "clean up" the city in 4 years for the Olympics they have a Herculean task ahead of them, even if we focus on LA alone.
I have only ever taken the LA subway solo. Anecdotally, my experience was that it was a pretty normal train, but almost empty except near Union Station. Most of the time, I experienced nothing...
Exemplary
I have only ever taken the LA subway solo. Anecdotally, my experience was that it was a pretty normal train, but almost empty except near Union Station. Most of the time, I experienced nothing negative of note. I can recall at least one person I would call mentally disturbed, but they were not a threat to anyone's safety, just talking to themselves. I felt that these experiences were not markedly worse than any of the other many metro systems I've taken in my life. It has been some time since I was in LA, but I think it was recent enough that my anecdote is applicable today.
It's worth noting that homeless presence is a different metric than violent crime rates. Media usually discuss them simultaneously and many transit riders do not distinguish between them, i.e. they believe that a homeless presence in a transit system automatically or necessarily makes it dangerous. Strictly speaking, this is misleading, both because they are separate factors and also because "homeless people" are a relatively broad category. Most people understand an archetype of a "homeless person," so some transit riders who are homeless may not be identified as such by non-homeless persons because they do not "look homeless." Public transit systems can be an important way for homeless (but not "homeless-seeming") and otherwise not offensive persons to commute to work or receive services.
Ding et al. 2021 write in "Homelessness on public transit: A review of problems and responses" the following:
The APTA survey of 49 transit operators found that 73 percent of them believed that homelessness on their systems affects their ridership (Bell et al., 2018). On one hand, people using buses and trains as shelter or traveling to social service destinations increase transit ridership; on the other, their presence makes some other riders uncomfortable and deters some “choice riders” from using transit (Bell et al., 2018). Boyle (2016) found that additional negative effects of homelessness reported by transit operators include uncleanliness, crime, disruption and harassment, need for service re-routing, fare evasion, funding challenges, and community opposition. However, a study focussing [sic] on Bay Area Rapid Transit—a California operator whose homelessness issues have received intense media focus—found that homeless counts had no significant independent effect on ridership (Wasserman, 2019; Wasserman et al., 2020).
In general, most agencies do not seem to quantify the budgetary or ridership impacts of homelessness on their operations (Loukaitou-Sideris et al., 2020). As a result, while homelessness undoubtedly has effects on transit service, safety, and quality, the literature is not clear about the extent of those effects.
From my understanding of the available research, both unhoused or unemployed and gainfully employed and housed transit riders may, as a general rule, have some of the following individual qualms about riding public transit (I mention both because the former group is a category of legitimate riders too, even though they are not necessarily recognized as such in the general consciousness):
The sight of disheveled or unhygienic persons in a transit system is uncomfortable
The sight or experience of panhandling/begging is uncomfortable (usually distinct from busking)
The sight of drug use is uncomfortable, and the presence of drug users may be frightening
The presence of mentally disturbed persons in a transit system is uncomfortable and sometimes frightening
The presence of visible violence (including verbal aggression and physical assault) is frightening or terrifying
The absence of people perceived to be "normal" or non-threatening can be uncomfortable or frightening
The corollary one may make is that many transit riders attempt to avoid contact with people they perceive as homeless or otherwise dangerous. This avoidance may be primarily for social reasons (such as discomfort with being asked for money) or safety reasons (such as discomfort around a disturbed or aggressive person). Transit riders may address this issue by continuing to ride transit but simply minimize contact with such persons; they may ride transit only when accompanied by another individual; they may ride transit only when transit personnel are present; or they may not ride transit (among other potential decisions).
Some officials refer to the delta associated with the presence of these factors as "choice riders," sometimes implying that there exist static groups of people who are forced to ride transit ("the poors") or those well-to-do persons who deign to do so only when the poors are kept to a minimum ("the upstanding members of society"), though as you might guess I find this a potentially antiquated and misleading, class-centric way to discuss mobility which tends (or at has the capacity) to exacerbate inequitable transit decisions by reinforcing a preference for operating and improving services favoring riders who are already economically advantaged, rather than improving service for socioeconomically disadvantaged potential riders.
While to some extent this distinction exists, insofar as some people have a higher threshold for disruptive behavior on transit than others due to having a different personality, background, or alternative transportation options available, it is not binary or static. Other factors beyond the oft-discussed frequency and speed may affect ridership, including cleanliness or perceived cleanliness of stations and trains; noise levels; accessibility; navigability; cost; and the effectiveness of alternative modes. As demonstrated by some of the studies linked above, a homeless presence by itself does not always have a "significant independent effect" on ridership.
There is surprisingly little psychological research on the exact features of a transit system's perceived safety that cause higher or lower ridership, and by how much. Most transit agencies also have only a vague sense of how many chronically unhoused people are even using their system. But as a rule of thumb, a homeless presence is a nuisance which some transit riders tolerate (to varying degrees), whereas visible violent crime is tolerated by fewer transit riders (also to varying degrees); the same may be said for any factor.
The observation I would make is that this perception of danger—which, particularly in the case of literal violence, is often exaggerated by media—can indirectly have very real effects on actual levels of safety. When that negative perception and resultant discomfort causes a drop in ridership, there is less general "social accountability" within a transit system. In cases of so-called "random crime," offenses are less likely to occur in front of bystanders than when a criminal and victim are alone or nearly alone. This is because the presence of other individuals (and potential reactions to a crime) can deter offenders from violating laws and/or social norms. (Qualitatively, we understand this intuitively and may have observed it often. But at a high level, this is reflected in quantitative data from the National Crime Victimization Survey (p. 5), which indicates that single people [whether never married, separated, divorced, or widowed] are universally more likely to be the victims of crime, perhaps in part because when they travel, they are more likely to travel alone; although there are many confounding factors in this particular data point.)
As a result, low transit ridership can result in a less safe environment, depending on the system. Additionally, transit agencies may provide less staffing (transit police, social workers) to routes with low ridership to save on costs, which can result in higher levels of homelessness or crime, potentially exacerbating the issue. Likewise they may increase personnel along popular routes at the request of riders.
This is all to say that, indeed, the presence of chronically unhoused persons seeking shelter in transit systems has a negative effect on ridership. The solutions to this problem are probably out of scope of this already-long comment, but are likely related to: decreasing the cost of housing, increasing homeless shelter availability, employing more personnel in transit systems, and providing other incentives to unhoused people to seek shelter outside the transit system while not barring them from using it for transportation.
I completely agree and I don't purposefully mean to say all homeless people commit crimes. But this growing homeless problem combined with a rapid decline of mental health has produce a lot more...
It's worth noting that homeless presence is a different metric than violent crime rates. Media usually discuss them simultaneously and many transit riders do not distinguish between them, i.e. they believe that a homeless presence in a transit system automatically or necessarily makes it dangerous.
I completely agree and I don't purposefully mean to say all homeless people commit crimes. But this growing homeless problem combined with a rapid decline of mental health has produce a lot more "unstable" homeless people. There is a significant difference between the homeless people dressed in rags but otherwise just wants to be left alone and the kind of people mumbling to themselves while pacing or even yelling about in the streets. And I've unfortunately noticed a significant uptick in the latter after starting to get outside more. Nothing violent (in my personal life, but I've heard 2nd and 3rd hand reports), but very much behavior that will put you on guard in case something happens. I can't say how much of it involves drugs and how much simply a system that has failed for decades to address deeper rooted societal issues.
The observation I would make is that this perception of danger—which, particularly in the case of literal violence, is often exaggerated by media—can indirectly have very real effects on actual levels of safety. When that negative perception and resultant discomfort causes a drop in ridership, there is less general "social accountability" within a transit system.
There has definitely been a lot of anecdotes around social media on how people post-pandemic have felt "less considerate, more angry" and if there's any merit there, it would be unsurprising for the sentiment to be amplified by the most down on luck people.
Again, I don't want to claim any of this as proof, but I at least want to note that at best, even casual onlookers are feeling something different these days. At worst, social media (including various discussion forums) may itself have fallen for such media coverage and is spreading it further. And as you said, maybe media isn't just reflecting but bending reality a certain way.
(personal anecdote: I have not experienced this sentiment . People are generally neutral, if a bit cold in casual life, and LA traffic has always sucked, pre or post pandemic. But I live in a suburb instead of downtown directly).
The solutions to this problem are probably out of scope of this already-long comment, but are likely related to: decreasing the cost of housing, increasing homeless shelter availability, employing more personnel in transit systems, and providing other incentives to unhoused people to seek shelter outside the transit system while not barring them from using it for transportation.
I 100% agree on all fronts. Don't want to take this too off topic, but given their goal and timeline, the solutions involve much more than the transit system itself. I just hope the looming Olympics is lighting a much needed fire to really start addressing the roots (and not sweep it under the rug, again).
This is one of those comforting lies people tell themselves about homelessness. In cities all over the country, people like to paint their homeless population as being outsiders, people from out...
It's not San Francisco levels, but there is still a huge influx of homeless population in LA.
This is one of those comforting lies people tell themselves about homelessness. In cities all over the country, people like to paint their homeless population as being outsiders, people from out of town, etc. However, in any given city, the vast majority of homeless are from the local area. What do you think happens to people when they're already renting the cheapest form of housing available, and prices rise more than they can afford to pay? They end up on the street.
Moving across the country is not a cheap or easy thing to do. Homeless people don't tend to have a lot of money. Most people who are homeless become homeless because they're priced out of the housing market, and then they just find themselves living on the street of wherever they happened to be.
Didn't mean to imply this. I imagine many of the homeless did in fact lose their home over the pandemic as prices rose to extremes and companies laid off whoever they can this year. In my instance...
In cities all over the country, people like to paint their homeless population as being outsiders, people from out of town, etc. However, in any given city, the vast majority of homeless are from the local area.
Didn't mean to imply this. I imagine many of the homeless did in fact lose their home over the pandemic as prices rose to extremes and companies laid off whoever they can this year. In my instance they "arrived" from L.A. itself ("influx" may have not been the best term to use there, my apologies).
Ah, sorry. I shouldn't have assumed. I'm in an area with a high homeless population, also one of the most rent-burdened in the region. And yet even here I hear people spout some of the biggest...
Ah, sorry. I shouldn't have assumed. I'm in an area with a high homeless population, also one of the most rent-burdened in the region. And yet even here I hear people spout some of the biggest myths about the homeless such as, "they're all from out of town," "they're all a bunch of drug addicts," or "they prefer being homeless to working a regular job."
This article frames it in binary terms (a "myth"), but the article's own data shows that the truth is more complicated. For example, if 65% of homeless in LA previously lived there, 35% did not,...
This article frames it in binary terms (a "myth"), but the article's own data shows that the truth is more complicated. For example, if 65% of homeless in LA previously lived there, 35% did not, and people were coming from elsewhere. It's not a majority, but it's large enough to be relevant.
Given recent news, it seems particularly out of date for New York? See previous discussion.
So interpreted properly, this is less of a debunking and more putting it into context: migrants are part of the problem, and sometimes it's a pretty significant part. Apparently, policies guaranteeing housing can attract a lot of people if widely publicized. That seems relevant for policy discussions.
Moving across the country is not a cheap or easy thing to do.
Those are two different things. It's not easy, but it's often pretty cheap if you don't have a lot of stuff. Bus tickets are not that expensive and sometimes you can get other people to pay for them. They're far cheaper for cities than providing shelter. Buying someone a ticket to a place where they want to go can be done cynically and has been politicized, but sometimes it's helping them. For example, it does make sense sometimes to help migrants to connect with relatives or other people they share ties with.
Instead of each city having its own policies and being tempted to foist the problem on someone else, maybe it would make sense to have regional or national policies?
Building housing in places where land is cheap makes a lot of economic sense, in theory. I have trouble imagining how that would work in a modern context, though.
Historically, poor immigrants would migrate to wherever there are jobs and there are also other people from the same region. At one time that might have been the sweatshops of New York or the coal mines of Pennsylvania.
Those times were terrible and people suffered. History is interesting but mostly terrible. Maybe we could imagine something better, though, that includes movement. How could you build a place so that some homeless people would want to move there? Why are the most popular destinations for immigrants big cities?
Of all the places for that to happen LA is honestly the least surprising. Spending enough time in that smouldering clusterfuck of a road system will "radicalize" anyone towards a near religious...
Of all the places for that to happen LA is honestly the least surprising. Spending enough time in that smouldering clusterfuck of a road system will "radicalize" anyone towards a near religious view of the concept of delay free commuter rail.
There's a reason rich west coast assholes fly in private jets so much and it's not just so they can flex in a manner befitting the environmental impact of a Captain Planet villain.
Los Angeles, California, USA is seeing a once-in-a-generation transit revolution. Region-wide efforts to build new lines and improve access, taking back the freedom of movement from the grip of the automobile, are happening rapidly and in great quantity.
Emphasis mine. Transit enthusiasts have long enjoyed poking fun at Los Angeles' shamefully lacking public transportation system, calling it a smog city doomed to hell-by-automobile. Yet LA has lately been taking enormous strides—more, probably, than any other city in the US, perhaps even more than New York City—to improve its transit network. As the article says, there's a lot being built, and Metro aims to incorporate transit-oriented development into its new projects, meaning the areas near transit stations will be walkable, livable, and dense, improving transit access and reducing car-dependency.
LA's decentralized layout makes it a unique case. Metro is a county-level agency and therefore needs permission to make changes to streetscapes and transit networks within the individual cities of the LA network, often leading to delayed project timelines. But officials in many of these cities are open to transportation improvements that will improve the quality of life of their constituents. The area's mountainous geography can also require expensive tunnels for trains.
But in some ways, LA is ahead of the pack. The recently completed regional connector unifies multiple disparate train lines, allowing for through-running trains which dramatically improve operational efficiency and in many cases reduce the need for transfers. This means more and faster service as the "turnaround" time for a train is reduced. In this respect, the LA system resembles mature transit networks in cities like London (Elizabeth Line) or Paris (RER stations), as opposed to the immature disjunct radial networks of most American cities. New York doesn't even have through-running trains: Grand Central and Penn Station are, regrettably, not connected.
The article states that the system still has a lot of problems. Crime, or the perception of crime, is apparently a deterrent for many riders. (If you detect skepticism, it is because my experience with LA's metro system, though limited, is absolutely not one of mortal fear. Then again, I live in Philadelphia. And perception does matter a lot.) This problem is being addressed through outreach programs as well as greater ridership. Still, car culture is so heavily embedded into the Los Angeles culture that many people who would happily take the train literally don't know that it exists.
In the backdrop of all these local improvements, Brightline West plans to build a high-speed inter-city rail line between Los Angeles and Las Vegas by 2027, just in time for the 2028 Olympics. The project has been fully approved by regulators, so all that's left to do is obtain funding. Brightline hopes to receive $3.75 billion in grant money from Biden's 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Bipartisan Infrastructure Law) to put shovels in the ground. We will apparently learn whether they got the grant this or next month.
In the more distant background, the California High-Speed Rail project is still underway, slowly but surely making progress in the Central Valley. While the connection to LA is unlikely to be complete by 2028 (lol), investment into the region is likely to continue for some time. For more information on the status of CAHSR, please see the California High-Speed Rail Authority 2023 Project Update Report (August 2023).
It's not San Francisco levels, but there is still a huge influx of homeless population in LA. It's definitely too big of a problem to ignore if you travel alone. It's a problem California has struggled with long before the pandemic but only became worse due to it.
If they are trying to "clean up" the city in 4 years for the Olympics they have a Herculean task ahead of them, even if we focus on LA alone.
I have only ever taken the LA subway solo. Anecdotally, my experience was that it was a pretty normal train, but almost empty except near Union Station. Most of the time, I experienced nothing negative of note. I can recall at least one person I would call mentally disturbed, but they were not a threat to anyone's safety, just talking to themselves. I felt that these experiences were not markedly worse than any of the other many metro systems I've taken in my life. It has been some time since I was in LA, but I think it was recent enough that my anecdote is applicable today.
It's worth noting that homeless presence is a different metric than violent crime rates. Media usually discuss them simultaneously and many transit riders do not distinguish between them, i.e. they believe that a homeless presence in a transit system automatically or necessarily makes it dangerous. Strictly speaking, this is misleading, both because they are separate factors and also because "homeless people" are a relatively broad category. Most people understand an archetype of a "homeless person," so some transit riders who are homeless may not be identified as such by non-homeless persons because they do not "look homeless." Public transit systems can be an important way for homeless (but not "homeless-seeming") and otherwise not offensive persons to commute to work or receive services.
Ding et al. 2021 write in "Homelessness on public transit: A review of problems and responses" the following:
From my understanding of the available research, both unhoused or unemployed and gainfully employed and housed transit riders may, as a general rule, have some of the following individual qualms about riding public transit (I mention both because the former group is a category of legitimate riders too, even though they are not necessarily recognized as such in the general consciousness):
The corollary one may make is that many transit riders attempt to avoid contact with people they perceive as homeless or otherwise dangerous. This avoidance may be primarily for social reasons (such as discomfort with being asked for money) or safety reasons (such as discomfort around a disturbed or aggressive person). Transit riders may address this issue by continuing to ride transit but simply minimize contact with such persons; they may ride transit only when accompanied by another individual; they may ride transit only when transit personnel are present; or they may not ride transit (among other potential decisions).
Some officials refer to the delta associated with the presence of these factors as "choice riders," sometimes implying that there exist static groups of people who are forced to ride transit ("the poors") or those well-to-do persons who deign to do so only when the poors are kept to a minimum ("the upstanding members of society"), though as you might guess I find this a potentially antiquated and misleading, class-centric way to discuss mobility which tends (or at has the capacity) to exacerbate inequitable transit decisions by reinforcing a preference for operating and improving services favoring riders who are already economically advantaged, rather than improving service for socioeconomically disadvantaged potential riders.
While to some extent this distinction exists, insofar as some people have a higher threshold for disruptive behavior on transit than others due to having a different personality, background, or alternative transportation options available, it is not binary or static. Other factors beyond the oft-discussed frequency and speed may affect ridership, including cleanliness or perceived cleanliness of stations and trains; noise levels; accessibility; navigability; cost; and the effectiveness of alternative modes. As demonstrated by some of the studies linked above, a homeless presence by itself does not always have a "significant independent effect" on ridership.
There is surprisingly little psychological research on the exact features of a transit system's perceived safety that cause higher or lower ridership, and by how much. Most transit agencies also have only a vague sense of how many chronically unhoused people are even using their system. But as a rule of thumb, a homeless presence is a nuisance which some transit riders tolerate (to varying degrees), whereas visible violent crime is tolerated by fewer transit riders (also to varying degrees); the same may be said for any factor.
The observation I would make is that this perception of danger—which, particularly in the case of literal violence, is often exaggerated by media—can indirectly have very real effects on actual levels of safety. When that negative perception and resultant discomfort causes a drop in ridership, there is less general "social accountability" within a transit system. In cases of so-called "random crime," offenses are less likely to occur in front of bystanders than when a criminal and victim are alone or nearly alone. This is because the presence of other individuals (and potential reactions to a crime) can deter offenders from violating laws and/or social norms. (Qualitatively, we understand this intuitively and may have observed it often. But at a high level, this is reflected in quantitative data from the National Crime Victimization Survey (p. 5), which indicates that single people [whether never married, separated, divorced, or widowed] are universally more likely to be the victims of crime, perhaps in part because when they travel, they are more likely to travel alone; although there are many confounding factors in this particular data point.)
As a result, low transit ridership can result in a less safe environment, depending on the system. Additionally, transit agencies may provide less staffing (transit police, social workers) to routes with low ridership to save on costs, which can result in higher levels of homelessness or crime, potentially exacerbating the issue. Likewise they may increase personnel along popular routes at the request of riders.
This is all to say that, indeed, the presence of chronically unhoused persons seeking shelter in transit systems has a negative effect on ridership. The solutions to this problem are probably out of scope of this already-long comment, but are likely related to: decreasing the cost of housing, increasing homeless shelter availability, employing more personnel in transit systems, and providing other incentives to unhoused people to seek shelter outside the transit system while not barring them from using it for transportation.
I completely agree and I don't purposefully mean to say all homeless people commit crimes. But this growing homeless problem combined with a rapid decline of mental health has produce a lot more "unstable" homeless people. There is a significant difference between the homeless people dressed in rags but otherwise just wants to be left alone and the kind of people mumbling to themselves while pacing or even yelling about in the streets. And I've unfortunately noticed a significant uptick in the latter after starting to get outside more. Nothing violent (in my personal life, but I've heard 2nd and 3rd hand reports), but very much behavior that will put you on guard in case something happens. I can't say how much of it involves drugs and how much simply a system that has failed for decades to address deeper rooted societal issues.
There has definitely been a lot of anecdotes around social media on how people post-pandemic have felt "less considerate, more angry" and if there's any merit there, it would be unsurprising for the sentiment to be amplified by the most down on luck people.
Again, I don't want to claim any of this as proof, but I at least want to note that at best, even casual onlookers are feeling something different these days. At worst, social media (including various discussion forums) may itself have fallen for such media coverage and is spreading it further. And as you said, maybe media isn't just reflecting but bending reality a certain way.
(personal anecdote: I have not experienced this sentiment . People are generally neutral, if a bit cold in casual life, and LA traffic has always sucked, pre or post pandemic. But I live in a suburb instead of downtown directly).
I 100% agree on all fronts. Don't want to take this too off topic, but given their goal and timeline, the solutions involve much more than the transit system itself. I just hope the looming Olympics is lighting a much needed fire to really start addressing the roots (and not sweep it under the rug, again).
This is one of those comforting lies people tell themselves about homelessness. In cities all over the country, people like to paint their homeless population as being outsiders, people from out of town, etc. However, in any given city, the vast majority of homeless are from the local area. What do you think happens to people when they're already renting the cheapest form of housing available, and prices rise more than they can afford to pay? They end up on the street.
Moving across the country is not a cheap or easy thing to do. Homeless people don't tend to have a lot of money. Most people who are homeless become homeless because they're priced out of the housing market, and then they just find themselves living on the street of wherever they happened to be.
https://palletshelter.com/blog/homelessness-myths-they-are-not-local/
Didn't mean to imply this. I imagine many of the homeless did in fact lose their home over the pandemic as prices rose to extremes and companies laid off whoever they can this year. In my instance they "arrived" from L.A. itself ("influx" may have not been the best term to use there, my apologies).
Ah, sorry. I shouldn't have assumed. I'm in an area with a high homeless population, also one of the most rent-burdened in the region. And yet even here I hear people spout some of the biggest myths about the homeless such as, "they're all from out of town," "they're all a bunch of drug addicts," or "they prefer being homeless to working a regular job."
This article frames it in binary terms (a "myth"), but the article's own data shows that the truth is more complicated. For example, if 65% of homeless in LA previously lived there, 35% did not, and people were coming from elsewhere. It's not a majority, but it's large enough to be relevant.
Given recent news, it seems particularly out of date for New York? See previous discussion.
So interpreted properly, this is less of a debunking and more putting it into context: migrants are part of the problem, and sometimes it's a pretty significant part. Apparently, policies guaranteeing housing can attract a lot of people if widely publicized. That seems relevant for policy discussions.
Those are two different things. It's not easy, but it's often pretty cheap if you don't have a lot of stuff. Bus tickets are not that expensive and sometimes you can get other people to pay for them. They're far cheaper for cities than providing shelter. Buying someone a ticket to a place where they want to go can be done cynically and has been politicized, but sometimes it's helping them. For example, it does make sense sometimes to help migrants to connect with relatives or other people they share ties with.
Instead of each city having its own policies and being tempted to foist the problem on someone else, maybe it would make sense to have regional or national policies?
Building housing in places where land is cheap makes a lot of economic sense, in theory. I have trouble imagining how that would work in a modern context, though.
Historically, poor immigrants would migrate to wherever there are jobs and there are also other people from the same region. At one time that might have been the sweatshops of New York or the coal mines of Pennsylvania.
Those times were terrible and people suffered. History is interesting but mostly terrible. Maybe we could imagine something better, though, that includes movement. How could you build a place so that some homeless people would want to move there? Why are the most popular destinations for immigrants big cities?
Of all the places for that to happen LA is honestly the least surprising. Spending enough time in that smouldering clusterfuck of a road system will "radicalize" anyone towards a near religious view of the concept of delay free commuter rail.
There's a reason rich west coast assholes fly in private jets so much and it's not just so they can flex in a manner befitting the environmental impact of a Captain Planet villain.