Across Los Angeles, buses still rumble down their routes, but fewer people are waiting at the stops. Train platforms sit emptier than they did just a few years ago. While it’s tempting to attribute this decline in public transit ridership solely to pandemic disruptions or the rise of ride-share apps, the story is far deeper—and more disturbing. As rents rise, riders vanish.
A new CalMatters report and a UCLA study offer a compelling and troubling explanation: gentrification is quietly killing California’s bus systems. As longtime, transit-dependent residents are priced out of neighborhoods with strong bus and rail service, ridership plummets, service weakens, and California’s broader goals—for equity, climate, and transportation—become even harder to reach.
The Vermont Square neighborhood in South Los Angeles tells a familiar story. Once a working-class Black neighborhood, Vermont Square has seen sharp increases in home prices and median income. The visible signs of gentrification are everywhere—new apartment buildings, coffee shops, and boutique storefronts.
But one of the most profound changes is less visible: a 24% drop in transit ridership between 2012 and 2017. Over the same period, the average neighborhood rent increased by $468 per month. The result is a demographic and economic reshuffling: those most likely to rely on public transit—low-income renters—are being replaced by more affluent residents who are more likely to drive.
The UCLA Institute of Transportation Studies examined ridership and rental data from neighborhoods across Los Angeles and Orange counties.
They found a consistent pattern: in neighborhoods where rents rose significantly, transit use declined sharply. In South Chinatown, rents increased by $379 and transit ridership dropped by 21%. In Pacoima, a $305 rent hike coincided with a 28% ridership decline. Overall, the study found that a $230 per month rent increase was associated with a 22% drop in local bus and rail boardings.
This relationship reveals a powerful and underrecognized form of spatial mismatch. Transit-rich neighborhoods are often home to the people who need those services the most. But when those neighborhoods gentrify, they become unaffordable for the very riders that keep public transit systems functioning.
As low-income residents are priced out and more car-reliant newcomers move in, ridership falls—even when transit service remains the same. It’s not just the buses that disappear—it’s the people.
The implications stretch far beyond public transit. California is in the throes of a housing affordability crisis that touches every corner of life. It pushes people into homelessness, exacerbates income inequality, deepens racial segregation, and now, we are learning, threatens the viability of our public transportation systems.
Worse still, this decline in transit use undermines the state’s climate goals.
Transportation is California’s largest source of greenhouse gas emissions. Every time a low-income transit rider is forced out of a well-served neighborhood and into a distant car-dependent suburb, they are more likely to drive—and more likely to contribute to air pollution and climate change.
As the UCLA study authors note, these effects are particularly dangerous in a place like Southern California, where a large share of transit riders are very low-income. In the study years, the median household income of a Los Angeles Metro rider was just $18,000. Around 40% of bus riders earned less than $15,000 per year. These are the riders most likely to be displaced by gentrification. These are also the riders least likely to be replaced by people who rely on transit.
Once displaced, those former riders often move to areas with less transit service and fewer job opportunities. In the process, they may be forced to buy a car—at tremendous personal and financial cost. For those who can’t afford a car, the consequences are worse: social isolation, unemployment, and deteriorating health.
Research consistently shows that fewer transportation options can have cascading effects across a person’s life. Being priced out of transit access isn’t just a mobility issue; it’s a structural disadvantage.
This phenomenon is not confined to Los Angeles. It reflects a broader pattern across California and North America: the “suburbanization of poverty.” As urban cores become more expensive, low- and moderate-income residents are increasingly pushed to the outskirts, where transit is less frequent, jobs are further away, and services are harder to access.
This reshaping of our cities is remaking the geography of opportunity—and not for the better.
The stark irony is that cities are investing heavily in public transportation infrastructure, often in hopes of reducing car reliance and carbon emissions. But these investments cannot succeed if no one can afford to live near the train or bus lines.
That’s the fundamental contradiction at the heart of California’s current approach: we’re building transit for people who won’t ride it, while pushing out the people who would.
Some lawmakers are trying to address this contradiction.
State Senator Scott Wiener has introduced Senate Bill 79, which would allow dense housing construction near major transit hubs, including on land owned by transit agencies. Wiener argues that if the state is going to invest in transit, it must also ensure that people can live near the stops and stations.
Otherwise, we’re pouring money into infrastructure that sits underused.
But the bill faces significant opposition—from labor unions, city governments, and anti-density advocates. Some critics argue that SB 79 doesn’t do enough to ensure affordability, and that without stronger tenant protections or affordability mandates, it could accelerate displacement.
Others oppose it because it limits local control over land use. Still others fear that market-rate development will continue to cater to higher-income tenants who are unlikely to use transit, deepening the very problem it seeks to solve.
The underlying tension reflects a broader split in California’s political coalition: between those who believe that solving the housing crisis requires building much more housing—including market-rate—and those who see market-rate development as a driver of gentrification and displacement.
The UCLA research helps clarify what’s at stake. It shows that if rents rise in neighborhoods where transit use is high, ridership falls. If we want to reverse that decline, we need to make sure low-income people can afford to stay in those neighborhoods.
This isn’t just about equity. It’s about survival—for our transit systems, for our climate, and for the future of California’s cities. The loss of transit riders is not simply a transportation issue. It’s a warning sign that our housing policies are undermining our mobility, our environment, and our sense of shared community.
Public transportation in California is standing at a precipice. Federal rescue funds that kept systems afloat during the pandemic are drying up. Transit agencies are facing fiscal cliffs. And now we learn that displacement—not just pandemics or Uber—is eroding the ridership base that these systems depend on. If we don’t act, we risk a vicious spiral of cuts, service reductions, and further decline.
The story of Vermont Square, and countless other neighborhoods like it, makes one thing clear: housing justice, transit access, and climate action are not separate issues. They are one crisis. We need policies that treat them as such. We must build more affordable housing near transit. We must protect tenants from displacement. And we must design cities where low-income people don’t have to choose between paying the rent and catching the bus.
Because when the rent goes up, and the riders go missing, the entire system breaks down. Not just the buses—but the promise of a fairer, greener, and more connected California.
Quite a bit to “unpack” in this article, but let’s start with this:
From article: “State Senator Scott Wiener has introduced Senate Bill 79, which would allow dense housing construction near major transit hubs, including on land owned by transit agencies. Wiener argues that if the state is going to invest in transit, it must also ensure that people can live near the stops and stations.”
Given the claims stated in this article regarding gentrification and reduced transit ridership, does Wiener’s bill require AFFORDABLE housing in regard to this forced density?
Or would Wiener’s bill exacerbate the concerns brought up in this article in the first place – gentrification?
“California is in the throes of a housing affordability crisis that touches every corner of life. It pushes people into homelessness, exacerbates income inequality, deepens racial segregation, and now, we are learning, threatens the viability of our public transportation systems.”
That is an insane conclusion. First of all, once again you sound the alarm with the ‘crisis’ word. But even toned town so we aren’t filled with adrenaline for the rest of our lives. So high prices — threaten the viability of our public transportation systems? That’s like saying not building like crazy in Davis to bring in more children is a threat to the viability of our public schools. Schools are here to serve our population, and should be appropriately sized. Public transit is here to serve the needs of the population, and should be properly sized. You don’t change the housing landscape to save public institutions. That is a depraved mindset!
Also, what is your complaint here exactly? So there is infill, which will raise rents on average, because new housing is expensive, unless you subsidize it on a massive scale, which CA can’t do due to the budget, and if you did you’d create inflation, which is a hidden regressive tax, which hurts lower income persons the most, universally. So there is here build baby build infill, which you praise almost daily, but you then criticize what you perceive as a negative outcome of that very policy? As they say, elections have consequences. You know what else has consequences? Infill! Development! . . . Consequences!
“Once displaced, those former riders often move to areas with less transit service and fewer job opportunities” Wait, what? If they are moving to lower income areas, aren’t those, by the very premise of this article, usually areas with more transit? Why would they move to somewhere with less jobs? People usually move because of housing prices and jobs.
“they may be forced to buy a car—at tremendous personal and financial cost.”
We study this all the time in my field. One of the reasons that transit ridership is down is because lower income people have a far higher percentage of cars than they did a decade ago. This was already happening before the pandemic. Why? Because people want to have a car, for mobility. During the pandemic, car ownership percentages grew even more as people wanted mobility without exposure to others, like on the bus.
You also ignore other trends: regional rail ridership was trending up before the pandemic, even as local bus ridership was trending down. Electric bikes and scooters were solving the last mile issue, so local public transit was less needed. Also a huge dent in local bus ridership has been the explosion of cheaper taxi service via Uber & Lyft. While not cheap, it is on demand which saves time, and time is a commodity as or more valuable than money to humans. So public transit must adapt, and focus on regional and intercity rail transit over local bus services, which have much competition and much less demand today. To focus on local buses and trying to fill them would be like trying to adapt the housing to the schools, instead of the schools to the housing – and any sane person could see that the former would be madness!
“As urban cores become more expensive, low- and moderate-income residents are increasingly pushed to the outskirts, where transit is less frequent, jobs are further away, and services are harder to access.”
I thought you wanted urban cores developed.
“This reshaping of our cities is remaking the geography of opportunity—and not for the better.”
I thought you wanted cities reshaped — for the better.
“The stark irony is that cities are investing heavily in public transportation infrastructure, often in hopes of reducing car reliance and carbon emissions. But these investments cannot succeed if no one can afford to live near the train or bus lines.”
You just said these areas are being redeveloped for more people with more money — so they indeed *can* afford to live near train and bus lines, by definition.
“That’s the fundamental contradiction at the heart of California’s current approach: we’re building transit for people who won’t ride it, while pushing out the people who would.”
But but but . . . oh I give up :-|
No I don’t . . . so, you want to build in the inner core, densify it, but keep the people there who can’t afford to live there, in the new housing which by definition costs more. How ya gonna pull that off, Sparky?
“Some lawmakers are trying to address this contradiction.”
It’s not a contradiction, it’s a reality.
“State Senator Scott Wiener . . . ”
Here I come to save the daaaaaaaaaaaaaay!!!
“has introduced Senate Bill 79, which would allow dense housing construction near major transit hubs, including on land owned by transit agencies. Wiener argues that if the state is going to invest in transit, it must also ensure that people can live near the stops and stations.”
You just said all this was due to more people living near transit stops in the core.
“Otherwise, we’re pouring money into infrastructure that sits underused.”
Then tailor the transit to people’s needs, not the other way around.
“But the bill faces significant opposition—from labor unions, city governments, and anti-density advocates. Some critics argue that SB 79 doesn’t do enough to ensure affordability, and that without stronger tenant protections or affordability mandates, it could accelerate displacement.”
I think affordability is a duck anyway, but even critics say this won’t allow people who can’t afford to live there, to live there. So why bring up this bill and your hero Wiener?
“Others oppose it because it limits local control over land use. Still others fear that market-rate development will continue to cater to higher-income tenants who are unlikely to use transit, deepening the very problem it seeks to solve.”
This whole article seems to be a circular argument about deepening problems one seeks to solve.
“The underlying tension reflects a broader split in California’s political coalition: between those who believe that solving the housing crisis requires building much more housing—including market-rate—and those who see market-rate development as a driver of gentrification and displacement.”
I think all y’all are nuts on either side of that argument.
“The UCLA research helps clarify what’s at stake. It shows that if rents rise in neighborhoods where transit use is high, ridership falls. If we want to reverse that decline, we need to make sure low-income people can afford to stay in those neighborhoods.”
How ya gonna pull that miracle off, Sparky? Subsidies? Where is that mass of money going to come from? And what happens when all that money increases inflation? What’s that do to low income persons? Your solutions also hurt the very people you try to help,
“This isn’t just about equity. It’s about survival—for our transit systems, for our climate, and for the future of California’s cities.”
That is not the issue.
“The loss of transit riders is not simply a transportation issue. It’s a warning sign that our housing policies are undermining our mobility, our environment, and our sense of shared community.”
No, it’s a sign that we keep investing in highways and are still not shifting to the mass investments in our rail infrastructure that is needed. So that building can occur around transit naturally, not forced, and people want to use transit because it is more convenient, not forced. You will never solve any of the issues by trying to force people. People want cars and are moving away form local transit, because our continued investment in all the wrong transit places makes cars more convenient.
“Public transportation in California is standing at a precipice.”
Yes it is.
“Federal rescue funds that kept systems afloat during the pandemic are drying up.”
Yes they are — and they aren’t coming back, and they contributed to inflation.
“Transit agencies are facing fiscal cliffs.”
Yes they are. So are schools.
” And now we learn that displacement—not just pandemics or Uber—is eroding the ridership base that these systems depend on. If we don’t act, we risk a vicious spiral of cuts, service reductions, and further decline.”
Decline is going to happen long before any of your proposals could possibly reverse that decline, even if your proposals were sane, which they are not, could move people back to the inner city, into magic new apartments that cost less, to save the transit systems that will supposedly save the planet. It’s all magical thinking.
“The story of Vermont Square, and countless other neighborhoods like it, makes one thing clear: housing justice, transit access, and climate action are not separate issues. They are one crisis.”
So everything is a crisis in your world? “Everything, all the time” – Life in the Fast Lane, The Eagles
“We need policies that treat them as such.”
Anti-crisis policies. Subsidize everything!
“We must build more affordable housing near transit.”
How about building the right transit where the demand is, to change how people transit?
“We must protect tenants from displacement.”
So when they can’t pay their rent, their landlord pays their rent, or the government pays their rent?
“And we must design cities where low-income people don’t have to choose between paying the rent and catching the bus.”
I got nothing :-|
“Because when the rent goes up, and the riders go missing, the entire system breaks down.”
The entire system broke down decades ago. Have you seen LA traffic? Did you know LA used to have one of the most extensive public rail transit systems in the world?
https://www.reddit.com/r/LosAngeles/comments/ccf4oq/this_map_of_the_old_la_light_rail_system_in_1925/#lightbox
“Not just the buses—but the promise of a fairer, greener, and more connected California.”
You ain’t gonna do it by subsidizing rent so the buses have another few riders.