Is there a solution for Los Angeles?

Grescoe (2012) claims cynically: 

Los Angeles can try to aim for an integrated public transportation system that can compete better with the car, and include more complementary policies like Germany has. However, my research indicates that in order to achieve this, much time would be needed, as well as a great financial investment. I do believe that there is hope for Los Angeles; however, until public opinion about the car culture shifts, and until more funds become available, in order to support some of the solutions I suggest below, it will be unlikely that Los Angeles will be able to find a quick fix for its current public transportation debacle. 

Grescoe (2012) states firmly: “…Los Angeles will have to become something many Angelenos never wanted it to be: a city, rather than an unplanned convention of suburbs” (p. 54).

Possible solutions:

Currently, there is a professional divide between land use planning and transportation planning, and a great lack of communication between researchers, planning officials, and policy makers (Marshall & Banister, 2007, p. 1). This leads to issues when it comes to trying to link up land use and public transportation. Los Angeles should aim to improve public transport accessibility near existing settlements. Although Los Angeles has already built some of its subway and rail lines, new stops with good transfer options could be provided within walking distance of existing populated areas (Marshall & Banister, 2007, p. 38). In the past, it has been difficult to achieve this because of backlash from local communities. In order to achieve the goal of building public transportation near existing populated settlements, the community needs to be made more aware of the benefits of having nearby stations through a mass education effort and public relations campaign, as well as by being included in planning discussions. Despite the benefits of public transportation, due to backlash, this goal might be difficult to achieve. However, future housing should be built near existing stations and transit routes (Marshall & Banister, 2007, p. 40). “Reurbanizing and densifying currently low-density suburban environments will also be a necessary ingredient in strengthening transit in the United States” (Beatley, 2000, p. 132). This will allow for more of the population to be within walking distance of stations, and will act as a greater incentive for the population to use the nearby, easily accessible public transportation. 

Additionally, "local government zoning plans require ample car parking ..." (Buehler & Pucher, 2012, p. 564). Free parking is provided as a benefit for most employees, and even counts as a tax deductible expense for firms (Buehler & Pucher, 2012, p. 564). The ample amount of free parking encourages a car culture. If there are continued incentives to use cars, people will continue to find riding cars more attractive than riding public transportation. Future zoning plans should require that less parking be made available, and the price of parking one's car should be increased. 

However, one of the largest differences between Germany and the US is that “...local, state, and federal governments in the USA have failed to restrict car use in cities, raise the cost of driving, and improve land-use policies...Indeed, all levels of government in the USA have subsidized roadways, car use, and parking" (Buehler & Pucher, 2012, p. 563-564). The U.S. Federal Government, as well as many state governments, have not increased the gasoline tax for about 20 years, as a result of political opposition from motorist groups. This has also led to large deficits in state and highway trust funds (Buehler & Pucher, 2012, p. 546). Increasing the price of gas in Germany has been effective in limiting the amount of people that choose to ride their cars, and has made riding public transportation seem more attractive. This could work in Los Angeles, as well as the greater United States. However, this will not realistically happen in the near future, due to the political power that motorist corporations currently have. 

Road pricing is also a tool that could be used to reduce congestion. “Charging a financial premium for cars wishing to enter the city at particular times of the day—road pricing or congestion pricing—has been in use for a number of years in several European cities” (Beatley, 2000, p. 156). This has been highly successful in cities such as London, and it would be interesting to see how this would work in Los Angeles. However, before road pricing is heavily enforced, the public transportation system needs to be further improved. Meanwhile, as the cost of having a private vehicle rises, fares should be made more attractive. This can be made possible by having integrated tickets, allowing for one ticket for an entire trip, even if multiple transfers are made and different modes of public transportation are used. This is a system that is already in place in Berlin. 

Grescoe (2012) also believes that Los Angeles will have to undergo some changes for mass public transportation to work. Grescoe (2012) claims, “The first is already happening: the system of existing subways, light rail, and rapid buses is being expanded and interconnected” (p. 53). Eberhard (2013) argues for a grid system, rather than a spiderweb. Spiderweb shaped transit systems are best for cities with a central downtown job center, with residential areas surrounding. A spiderweb system has all lines going to a central downtown area. However, in Los Angeles, residents need to travel to many centers, so a grid system with quick, and frequent lines, like Berlin has, would be best for LA (Eberhard, 2013). The grid system has worked well in Berlin, because it allows for people to make easy connections and transfers, and is thus more appealing to a larger portion of the general population. Having a grid system also truly enables riders to access all parts of the city. 

Eberhard (2013) argues that this could be done by building along corridors like EW lines on Wilshire Blvd, 10 Freeway, Pico Blvd., and Venice Blvd. and NS Lines along Pacific Coast Highway/Lincoln, 405 Freeway, La Cienega Blvd, Crenshaw Blvd, Western Ave, Vermont Ave. However, building rail here would be expensive and extremely time-consuming. Eberhard (2013) believes that Bus Rapid Transit lines would be necessary along these corridors, in order to save money and to get a system up and running as soon as possible.

In Saarbrücken, Germany, it was found that buses were not practical because there was already too much street traffic, buses had a high cost due to drivers, and buses would only further contribute to air quality issues. The tram was opened in 1997, and was found to be a better solution (Beatley, 2000, p. 114). Urban reconstruction could also occur in Los Angeles with a new tramway route that brings together subcenters (Marshall & Banister, 2007, p. 40). In Berlin, Germany, buses are used, but only in cases where the subway or rail systems cannot fill the gaps, and in areas with lower population density. Furthermore, buses are given their own lanes, in order to avoid traffic. If buses continue to remain stuck in traffic, they will not be seen as an attractive option by residents of Los Angeles who are not transit dependent. In the long-term, Los Angeles should try to invest in rail or subway routes in high density areas, but for a short term solution, buses might be more viable. Furthermore, in order to make transfers more efficient and comfortable to use, more stations should display real-time information in Los Angeles. This will allow for passengers to easily schedule their trips. In 2012, the City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) expanded 14 more DASH routes to display real time information. A total of 19 routes now have real time information available, and hopefully this will be expanded to additional routes (The City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation, 2012).

Eberhard (2013) also believes that streets need to be made more pedestrian friendly, and bike friendly, so that people can reach the beginning of their line to start their travel to an end destination. If there are more alternatives available when it comes to public transportation, including friendlier pedestrian and bikeways, public transportation will be made much more attractive and efficient, allowing for individuals to choose the mode of transportation most convenient to them. Grescoe (2012) also believes that “a significant amount of new, and dense, construction will have to happen near transit lines for truly walkable neighborhoods to be carved out of the sprawl” (p. 53-54), although this would be very expensive. However, public transportation should be made accessible to those who need to walk or bike to get to certain stations.

Bicycle usage can be increased through the creation and promotion of bike trails in Los Angeles, development of separate bike lanes, and possibly constructing bridges and tunnels for bikes to connect routes. This can be seen in many Dutch cities like Utrecht, Amsterdam, and Leiden (Beatley, 2000, p. 168). If biking is given flexibility that driving doesn't have, it will become more attractive, such as by including short-cut routes (Beatley, 2000, p. 173). Public bike programs have also developed in European cities, such as Copenhagen, and bikes can be rented (Beatley, 2000, p. 178). 

Other alternatives could supplement modes of public transportation in order to reduce congestion, such as carpooling and using smart flexible cars. A new trend in travel includes smart card car rentals, providing an alternative for "people who find themselves without a ride to and from work, or who are sick of transit strikes and the lack of car park spaces in the city." Such cars include Flexcar. Unlike Zipcar, Flexcar does not need to be returned to the original spot it was retrieved from. Flexcar has vehicles parked throughout LA, Pasadena, Burbank, Santa Monica, and Long Beach, available for hourly or daily use. These cars have reserved parking spots, petrol, insurance, and servicing; parking costs are included in their hourly rates. Rates begin at $10, amounting to about $50 per day. Vehicles can be used with a smart card, and the smart cars will track hours and miles travelled; members receive a bill at the end of the month (Card technology today, 2003, p. 5-6). If more Angelenos use such flexible smart cars, or carpool, congestion will be vastly reduced. 

Most importantly though, there needs to be citizen and stakeholders participation, and plans need to be well communicated to allow for the participation of community members (Marshall & Banister, 2007, p. 65). Beatley (2000) also suggests that growing concerns about our actions as a society could lead to change, stating: “In part, the answer is about nurturing and growing a transit ethos, such as exists in European cities. The very real equity implications of relegating the poor, the young, and the old in our society to a second- or third-rung mobility class is perhaps the beginning point here of a societal discussion” (p. 129). Perhaps through developing such a "transit ethos," we would become more concerned and aware citizens that would be willing to focus on the issues related to having a public transportation system that is currently unequal. 

Future Plans in Motion:

In 2010, 68% of Angelenos voted in favor of the sales tax of Measure R, "...a half-cent sales tax intended to guarantee a $22 billion revenue stream for public transportation over the next thirty years” (Grescoe, 2012, p. 64). Measure R is estimated to bring in a total of $40 billion, and 35% of this is already designated to go towards rail projects. This includes an extension of the bus rapid transit line from Canoga Park to Chatsworth and the extension of the Metro Gold Line (Cho & Aragon, 2012).

Measure R was opposed by the Bus Riders Union, because they wanted the money to go towards a bus-centered system. Grescoe (2012) admits that buses can be “excellent forms of transit, especially when they run along dedicated rights-of-way, as they do on the Orange Line” (p. 64). However, she asserts that “subways are permanent infrastructure that benefit the working poor and middle class alike—and unlike bus lines, which can be cut overnight when civic budgets get tight, rail transit lasts. No subway system in the world has ever permanently stopped running” (Grescoe, 2012, p. 64). The Bus Riders Union might have too narrow of a scope in terms of its goals, though there does need to be a balanced bus and rail system. The measure was promoted by Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, whose goals are a “Subway to the Sea” and eleven other transit projects, including to extend the Purple Line along Wilshire Boulevard to Rodeo Drive, Century City, UCLA, Westwood, and even to Santa Monica, at an estimated cost of $9 billion (Grescoe, 2012, p. 65). Measure J was also proposed, which would extend the sales-tax increase by 30 years to 2069 in order to work on the transit projects in the next five years. However, by a small margin it did not pass (Cho & Aragon, 2012).

Besides improving public transportation and reducing congestion, it is important to limit greenhouse gas emissions for the health of the environment, as well as for residents of Los Angeles. According to Portney (2013), “One of the cornerstones of LA’s sustainability effort is the city’s GreenLA climate change program" (p. 240). In addition to this program, plans such as the Clean Air Action Plan of the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach help to reach the goal of improving air quality and limiting greenhouse gas emissions. The Los Angeles Plan aims to “reduce [Los Angeles'] greenhouse gas emissions 35 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and to increase the city’s use of renewable energy to 40 percent by 2020” (Portney, 2013, p. 240). The plan further includes the aim of converting the "city’s fleet vehicles to alternative fuels, a bicycle ridership program...and many others…” (Portney, 2013, p. 241).

Biking: 

Los Angeles received a Bronze Bicycle Friendly Community award by the League of American Bicyclists because of the expansion of the bicycling network and addition of 75 miles of bikeways in 2011 (City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation, 2012). Additionally, the City of Los Angeles has a Green Bike Lanes program that uses green colored pavement for bike lanes to promote safety for bicyclists. However, there are not currently many of these (City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation, 2012). These lanes should be expanded in the future in order to allow for more accessibility for potential bike riders in all locations. Funding for green bike lanes is also through measure R (City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation, 2012).

In addition to the construction of bike lanes, there are events put on in Los Angeles that help promote biking. For instance, CicLAvia is an event put on in order to make "the streets safe for people to walk, skate, play and ride a bike." The event began as a response to congestion and pollution, and happens throughout Latin America and the United States. CicLAvia proclaims: "In Los Angeles we need CicLAvia more than ever. Our streets are congested with traffic, our air is polluted with toxic fumes, our children suffer from obesity and other health conditions caused by the scarcity of public space and safe, healthy transportation options. CicLAvia creates a temporary park for free, simply by removing cars from city streets" (CicLAvia, 2013). CicLAvia is a way to reimagine the city. Metro also promotes riding bikes by having a bike week in the summer (Metro, 2012).

Metro Projects: 

Metro has created a new identity, especially for its Metro Rapid Transit system. Metro's creative director states: "Our goal is to employ design to attract discretionary riders--those who have a choice--by giving Metro a distinct style...At the same time, we're giving those who are transit-dependent--those who don't have a choice--a system they can be proud of" (Walker, 2007).

The 30/10-American Fast Forward Project plans to use revenue from Measure R sales tax to allow Metro to build transit projects in 10 years instead of 30, and benefits would include: “77 million more transit boardings, 521,000 fewer pounds of mobile source pollution emissions, 10.3 million fewer gallons of gasoline used, and 191 million fewer vehicle miles traveled” (Metro, 2011).

The East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor is a study meant to analyze how “to improve north-south transit opportunities in the east San Fernando Valley that offer connections to the regional transportation network” (Metro, 2013). 

The ATMS (Smart Bus) Project: 

List of Ongoing Metro Projects here.

These projects include a Crenshaw/LAX Transit Cooridor, modifications to the design of the Division 13 Bus Maintenance Facility, the Exposition Transit Corridor Phase 2 to Santa Monica (extending the Culver City rail station to Santa Monica), the Gold Line Foothill extension (to expand the Metro Gold Line to Montclair), I-405 Sepulveda Pass Improvements Project (adding a 10 mile lane and improving infrastructure and widening existing lanes), the Regional Connector Transit Corridor (a review of a project that would link the Metro Gold, Blue and Expo light rail lines to Downtown LA), and a Westside Subway Extension of the Metro Purple Line (to expand the purple line) (Metro, 2013).