Interviews - Summary and Analysis

Interview Background

First we need to point out that the eight questions above capture the relation my predictor variables (cost, accessibility, implementation, and technology) have to my outcome variables (spatial structure of urban society, social interaction, social mobility, and health of the urban economy). We began with over sixteen questions, which is the number of questions necessary for each predictor variable to align with each outcome variable. My final eight questions encompass these sixteen questions in multiple parts so as to facilitate the interviewing process. Finally, in order to capture the variable relations, we compare the answers of each question and note similarities and discrepancies. We also provide links to the corresponding areas of the site where respondents' quotes are used to support variable relations.

Interview Questions with Summary Analysis of Answers

Question

Who do you think are the primary beneficiaries of public transportation in Los Angeles?

Summary: The primary users of Los Angeles public transportation are from lower-income areas. In addition, the primary mode of transport is bus, which is used primarily by low-income commuters, while trains are sparser and are used mostly by higher-income workers traveling to and from work.

Analysis

• Who uses public transportation and why
• Allocation of public transit funds in Los Angeles

Question

Do you think public transportation in Los Angeles is as affordable as it should be? If not, what could be done to make it more affordable?

Summary: Manville and Ford feel that prices should be adjusted to accommodate the lower-income commuters that are dependant on the Los Angeles transit system for getting around. Ford suggested achieving this adjustment by taking into account income, time, and distance. Ortner, meanwhile, feels that current prices are affordable, but we need to find ways of preventing them from becoming less affordable.

Analysis

• Utilizing congestion pricing to ameliorate peak-load problems

Question

Are there obstacles preventing Los Angeles public transportation from expanding and improving? If so, what are they?

Summary: Obstacles preventing Los Angeles public transportation from expanding and improving include the city's dispersed and automobile dependant structure, a negative public image of public transit, insufficient taxpayer support, lack of capital funds, union work rules, and the consent decree placed on the MTA by the federal courts which requires the MTA to address its overcrowding problem prior to expanding its service.

Analysis

• Transportation policy - control of transit companies, fare structures, and planning goals
• Unequal transportation services promote distance barriers

Question

On a scale of 1-10, 10 being the most accessible, how accessible do you feel public transportation is for the average citizen? How do you think access to public transportation in Los Angeles may be improved?

Summary: Quality of access to public transportation depends on the commuter's location and desired destination. Dispersed location and reliability problems (primarily with the buses) make for a system that leaves a lot of room for improvement. The highest quality service is provided by the railway, which unfortunately covers only a small area and caters primarily to higher-income workers.

Analysis

• Access to transportation - distributional impacts of physical mobility upon social mobility

Question

How does public transportation technology in Los Angeles compare with that of the rest of the world? How does it compare with the technology of private transport?

Summary: Los Angeles public transportation appears to be making progress in regard to improving technology. Currently in implementation or planning are smart cards, GPS locators, signal synchronization, and CNG, LNG, or clean diesel (to meet California clean air standards) buses. While this progress is significant, it does not yet measure up with European technologies.

Analysis

• Public transit's negative image in Los Angeles

Question

Do you think the presence of public transportation and its facilities facilitates social interaction in the community?

Summary: While Manville believed that interaction between commuters using Los Angeles public transportation is kept to a minimum (as a result of socioeconomic divisions between areas serviced by public transit), Ford felt that it promoted an environment for social interaction. At the same time, however, Dr. Ortner points out that access to areas hosting social activities is not ideal, and that most automobile owners will use their car to reach these areas instead of public transit.

I would like to point out that this is in strong contrast to Switzerland (where we grew up), as the public transportation system there was often used by my family and friends, in lieu of the automobile, for transportation to social activities and events.

Analysis

• Motorization isolates urban travelers from community life

Question

How does public transportation in Los Angeles affect urban structure and vice versa? In other words, is the Los Angeles geography conducive to the expansion of a public transportation network? And how does public transportation affect the spatial structure of the city (segregation of neighborhoods), etc.?

Summary: The street cars of the early 20th century are largely responsible for the dispersed organization of Los Angeles urban regions (the street cars were owned largely by real-estate speculators, who used them to open new land for development). Because the urban region is dispersed, trip times via local transit (express bus and commuter rail excluded) no longer affect the urban structure. In many wealthy areas, there is little public transportation. While in lower income areas, public transportation is generally available.

Analysis

• Demand for transit services determined by urban size, age, and density
• Interrelations between urban spatial patterns and commuting behavior
• Technological change determines land costs and changes in economic activity

Question

How does public transportation in Los Angeles affect social mobility? For example, is it useful in providing transport services for people commuting between their residence and place of employment? Can you think of a transport service which it should, but does not, provide?

Summary: The public buses in Los Angeles service primarily low-income areas where the commuters depend on the buses because they cannot afford the costs associated with private travel by automobile. The railways, on the other hand, provide a path from place of residence to work for the few - and mostly upper-income - workers that live along or near the rail lines.

Analysis

• Flexibility afforded by automobiles reduces residential mobility and increases job mobility