Transit sucks, so no one uses transit.
No one uses transit, so funding is sub-optimal.
Funding is sub-optimal, so transit sucks.
This cycle can be broken by funding transit properly. I have been to plenty of cities where transit was cheap, convenient, and useful. And before someone trots out the density problem, I have been to plenty of places that are far less dense than LA and have far better transit.
Europe, mostly, where what are essentially small towns and villages are often connected by good train or bus service to each other. You may consider it inter-urban rather than intra-urban, but the distances would easily fit within LA, and the density is clearly lower (because there are farms in between).
You wouldn't know it, but LA has a pretty decent transit system, in terms of one that can get you most places you'd want to go. It's largely bus-based, and can take a while, but it is effective. Compared to some mid-western and southern cities, it's worlds better.
I'll grant that it may be good by US standards, but that is sort of damning it with faint praise. Yes, it is good in the sense that you can get anywhere you want to go, eventually. When I say good, however, I mean comparable to driving in time and convenience.
Transit sucks, so no one uses transit. No one uses transit, so funding is sub-optimal. Funding is sub-optimal, so transit sucks.
This cycle can be broken by funding transit properly. I have been to plenty of cities where transit was cheap, convenient, and useful. And before someone trots out the density problem, I have been to plenty of places that are far less dense than LA and have far better transit.