The northern tip of the Vermont Square neighborhood in South Los Angeles has experienced significant gentrification over the last decade.
As median incomes soared, the number of Black residents in the area diminished, and rapid increases in home prices placed Vermont Square among the ten neighborhoods with the fastest-growing real estate prices in the region.
Visible signs of this change included new apartment buildings sprouting along Western Avenue.
However, an alarming and less visible change has also taken place: a steep decline in public transit ridership.
Between 2012 and 2017, the bus ridership in Vermont Square fell by 24%, coinciding with an average rental increase of $468 per month during the same period.
This trend raises questions about the interactions between housing costs and public transportation use, particularly in neighborhoods traditionally reliant on transit.
Researchers from UCLA investigated these trends in a study published last year, analyzing transit ridership changes alongside housing market dynamics in various neighborhoods across Los Angeles and Orange counties.
Their findings revealed a stark correlation: in neighborhoods where rents increased, transit ridership tended to decline, especially in areas well-served by public transportation.
For instance, in Chinatown, rents rose by an average of $379, while transit usage dropped by 21%.
Similarly, a portion of Pacoima in the San Fernando Valley saw a rent increase of $305, accompanied by a 28% decrease in transit ridership.
The regional analysis indicated that a neighborhood-wide rent hike of approximately $230 forecasted a 22% drop in bus and train boardings.
According to urban planning professor Michael Manville, who led the study, the likely reason behind this trend is that rising costs displace lower- and moderate-income renters—the primary users of public transit—forcing them out of their homes and into less transit-friendly neighborhoods.
As these lower-income residents move away, they often replace them with a more affluent demographic that tends to rely more on personal vehicles.
The implications of this trend extend beyond mere convenience; a decrease in accessibility to transit has serious ramifications for social equity.
The consequences of gentrification affecting public transit are not isolated to California.
Across North America, various cities are dealing with similar challenges. The displacement effect is identified as part of a broader phenomenon known as the ‘suburbanization of poverty’, where lower-income individuals are pushed further from urban job centers, stripping them of efficient public transit options.
This displacement severely restricts the mobility of these individuals, exacerbating issues related to employment opportunities, health, and social isolation.
In California, particularly, the housing affordability crisis intertwines with this issue, causing deteriorating conditions throughout the state.
The sharp rise in housing costs not only contributes to homelessness but also widens the gap of economic inequality.
Consequently, many residents find themselves living farther from job opportunities, resulting in longer commutes that increase traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions.
The situation faced by Vermont Square echoes similar narratives unfolding across California, confirming that the state’s housing crisis is rendering its transit challenges more complex.
The urgency of addressing these intertwined issues has not gone unnoticed.
Legislators in Sacramento are considering strategies to tackle both the housing and transit crises.
Senator Scott Wiener, representing San Francisco and known for advocating for increased housing production alongside transit support, has championed Senate Bill 79.
This proposed legislation would facilitate denser apartment developments around major public transit hubs, including on properties owned by transit authorities.
Wiener emphasized the importance of ensuring that residents can access public transit after significant public investments have been made in transportation infrastructure.
While the bill has navigated through multiple committee hearings, it has faced challenges, garnering opposition from various stakeholders, including construction labor unions and local governments concerned about the implications of increased density on their communities.
Some anti-density activists and advocates for housing equity argue that merely increasing market-rate developments without sufficient affordability measures risks exacerbating displacement of core transit users—those low-income individuals who currently rely on transit services the most.
In correspondence with legislative committees, a coalition of anti-poverty and environmental justice groups stressed the need for California law to prioritize the benefits of transit-oriented development for existing low-income households and communities of color, as these groups are disproportionately represented among regular transit users.
The ongoing debate encapsulates a broader divide within the California Democratic Party.
On one side are those who view bolstering housing availability for incoming residents as a viable solution to counteracting gentrification, while others contend that prioritizing market-rate housing fails to address the essential need for affordable residences.
Manville posited that enhancing housing density near transit hubs could boost ridership from new residents, who, despite being more affluent, could help reduce overall vehicle use.
Ultimately, the relationship between housing and public transit continues to evolve, with pressing questions surrounding how to balance the needs of existing residents with the influx of new ones.
As California grapples with these interconnected crises, the outcomes may shape the future of communities across the state.
The realities faced by neighborhoods like Vermont Square could serve as a bellwether for larger trends affecting urban environments nationwide.
image source from：https://www.kqed.org/news/12042348/california-rent-hikes-drive-down-bus-ridership
