Blogging Social Difference in L.A.: Week 4

This week’s post will focus on the experience of taking the 720 metro bus. As a UCLA student without a car, I rely on public transportation to mobilize myself. I have taken the 720 various times whether heading towards Downtown Los Angeles or going to Santa Monica. Riding the 720 is in itself an interesting feat; the experience on this bus differs greatly from other bus experiences, such as riding the Santa Monica Big Blue Bus per se. The 720 takes you through Wilshire Boulevard for the most part, which is a boulevard that traverses various different neighborhoods enabling a greater understanding of the neighborhoods in Los Angeles. Due to the diverse neighborhoods the 720 drives through, it brings together a variety of people on this bus, which allows for the most fascinating people-watching.

The 720 metro rapid is usually red to distinguish from the orange local buses and it is usually a two-cart bus in order to transport more people. The interior of it is pretty standard; it has many seats facing all directions, TV screens, numerous large windows and a few sets of doors. Most of these buses are also a bit more ran down and many of them have tag marks throughout the bus. The neighborhoods included in the 720 bus route range from the upper-class shopping strip of Rodeo Drive to the ethnic community of Koreatown to the college-town like city of Westwood. On this bus ride, I was able to identify well maintained, high class neighborhood such as Beverly Hills, streets with Korean commercial signs in Koreatown, and also segments of Wilshire Boulevard where streets are dirtier, not as well maintained and the architecture does not describe high-end. It is intriguing to learn that on different ends of the same boulevard there are people from the extremes of the socio economic divisions and how the wealth of a city does not spill over to its not so well-off neighboring cities. My observation for this contrast is to go from the neighborhood of Beverly Hills with world-renown luxurious stores 2.2 miles east and find a 99 cents store. The proximity of these two types of stores amazes me because of the contrasting clientele they target.

As a result of the variety of destinations, the passengers on the bus also vary greatly. UCLA students can be seen taking the bus to go to their internships, jobs or even going home, uniformed workers are going to or from work, tourists take it due to their lack of other mode of transportation, elders are unable to drive or do not have cars who spend their days wandering from place to place and there is always the crazy or homeless person on the bus that nobody wants to be near.  Depending on where the bus is at a certain moment, the crowd starts to shift. For example, as the bus approaches Westwood, more students are seen on the bus. The metro buses also have a diverse ridership, therefore different languages are employed on the bus for the instructions, advertisements or shows aired on the TV screens.

The interaction among people on the bus is also noteworthy. Only in some few cases do people strike up a conversation with the random person near you and have a meaningful chat, otherwise when riding alone on the bus people tend to avoid eye contact and communication with other fellow bus riders. I also noted that there are a few people who I will call “bus locals” who are the frequent commuters that seem to ride at the same time and become acquainted with each other. They tend to see each other around and eventually become semi-friends. The example that comes to mind is of a group of Hispanic woman sitting sort of together and chatting about work (they seem to all work as cleaning ladies) and other superficial topics on the bus. Neither of them got on at the same time nor do they get off at the same time and their exchanges seem to be the basic small talk. As a result, although the bus is mobile, there is still a routine established within the bus, which enables the comparison of the bus to a neighborhood.

Riding the bus has a social stigma attached to it that is imbedded in society that the majority of the people who take the bus are not able to drive or do not have enough economic resources to have a car, because that’s the social standard; while only a small portion of bus riders do so to avoid driving long distances and worry about parking. In an article published recently by the Atlantic Cities from the Atlantic Company titled, “Race, Class, and the Stigma of Ridingthe Bus in America” the author goes much in depth about  the social connotations of bus-riding and the reasons for these beliefs. An interesting fact from the article states, “In Los Angeles, 92 percent of bus riders are people of color. Their annual median household income is $12,000.” Hence, riding the bus determines a certain socio-economic status and because most people seen on the bus are of color, all these characteristics become correlated. Conducting further research into the bus stigma, I came across titles such as public transport segregation or “loser cruiser,” “the poor man’s vehicle,” and various others. This reinforced my perception of the strong existence of this demeaning factor of taking the public transportation. The conversation below from the 2004 movie “Crash,” depicts that sentiment:

“Anthony: You have no idea why they put those great big windows on the sides of busses, do you?
Peter: Why?
Anthony: One reason only. To humiliate the people of color who are reduced to riding on 'em.”

Massey and Denton discuss about pervasive discrimination and the significance of race in “The Continuing Causes of Segregation.” Although their focus is on housing segregation, their analysis underscores the belief of an ethnic hierarchy, which is also created through the public transportation stigma. These types of discrimination can only further segregation, which will never concede to an integrated America.

Lastly, another point I wanted to make with regards to public transportation in Los Angeles is its mobility limitation. Ernest Burgess mentions movement and mobility in his article “Growth of the City,” in which he states that in order to have change in a place, there needs to be mobility, and mobility will most likely occur when there is movement. The reason is that only with movement, can there be opportunity for new experiences, and only with new experiences can there be stimulation, and with that comes change.  Consequently, it can be argued that public transportation hinders some group’s chances for progress. While the city expands, people who are able to mobilize themselves will benefit from the change and stimulation by receiving more opportunities; however, the communities limited by their mobility tend to fall behind. Therefore, in order for society to progress as a whole, everyone needs to advance together.