If eyes are the window to the soul, then public transportation is the window to a city’s soul. A city’s transit system allows an inside look on its culture and values. Observing passengers, including their mannerisms and way of interacting with others, illustrates social dynamics. Public transportation is a key aspect of urban planning—how cities are designed and how that affects the way we live our lives. So what does Los Angeles’ system say about our city?
From 2022 to 2023, ridership of public transport in the United States increased over 17%. The U.S. transit sector generates roughly $56.5 billion annually in operating revenue and provides over 7.66 billion trips in 2024. The industry employs more than 437,000 people. And still, the sector is continuing to grow as technology and environmental awareness advance.
Despite LA being the second most populous city in the U.S. and arguably one of the most urban, its transit falls short in comparison to those in Boston, D.C., Austin, and, of course, New York City, according to surveys and opinion polls. Other cities leading the world in public transport include Hong Kong, Singapore, Seoul, Tokyo, Stockholm, Zurich, Madrid, and Amsterdam.
LA’s system is primarily unsuccessful because of two key reasons. First, the quality of the metro rides themselves. Buses are reported late roughly 21.5% of the time. Many light rail lines must wait at traffic signals along with cars, which undermines the speed advantage of rail. The current transit map often requires multiple transfers. Concerns about cleanliness and code of conduct enforcement, such as smoking, on trains and in stations, contribute to poor rider experiences. All this culminates in people simply not wanting to use the Metro, which results in less money going into the system, which then results in budget cuts and the quality of the rides worsening even further.
The second problem is a little more widespread. A polycentric city is one with several “centers,” or concentrated, densely populated areas. Unlike New York City (Manhattan), Austin (Congress Avenue), or Chicago (The Loop), Los Angeles has multiple centers—DTLA, Santa Monica, Hollywood, Pasadena, Long Beach—making it polycentric.
Polycentric cities like LA require more complex, multi-layered public transport networks because they are not built around a single downtown. Right now, LA’s system has not achieved that, but it does not mean it is impossible. Cities like Tokyo, Seoul, Moscow, and Jakarta serve as models for successful public transportation in polycentric cities.
What do all those systems have in common? It probably is not what you would expect; not all spend significantly more than Los Angeles on public transport as a whole. Moscow’s transit budget is $14.1 billion as opposed to the LA budget of roughly $9B, but Seoul’s is just $0.9 to $1.2B, and Jakarta’s is $0.33B. Tokyo is a bit of a special case, with a highly privatized system, meaning its funding comes from a mix of private and public financing. What is similar, though, is how the cities designed their routes. Moscow, Seoul, and Tokyo all use orbital routes, connecting the population centers to the suburban areas on the outskirts, and allowing for truly unified transportation. And though Jakarta, like LA, has a primarily radial network (running toward the center), they are working towards a more circular rail line.
Los Angeles has a lot to learn from these models. As it embarks on its 28 By ’28 project to expand its public transportation before the 2028 Summer Olympics, I urge it to stop the current “All Roads Lead to DTLA” system. LA does not have just one center, and its transit should reflect that.
