Los Angeles at the Crossroad: Prolong Individual Car Ownership or Sustainable Transport Systems?

The answer to whether people should choose between individual car owner ship or mass transit would come as a no-brainer to many. Cheaper, more environment friendly, faster and more efficient are all conditions to create a more sustainable society. However, the current land use policies add up to make this quandary a much more complex matter. There are different suggestions on how to go forth dealing with future transportation issues. I have considered two proposals attempting to attack the issue from different perspectives. In doing so, I have shared with these authors my point of view, which can be read on the respective site. The first article is written by Nate Berg on Planetizen.com, entitled “better transportation need better cities.” He employs an appealing approach. He explains that in order to improve the mass transit we need first to adapt our cities to become friendlier to any idea of transportation system. Furthermore, I consider a post by David Albert on greaterwashington.com. The post is entitled, “let’s stimulate with a major bike sharing program.” David Albert is a strong supporter of environment friendlier alternatives and suggests the benefits of the bike sharing programs in his article. He offers a more specific solution to how we can mitigate traffic and at once develop a sustainable environment.

"better transportation need better cities.”

Comment

I am glad that somebody else recognized that the grand idea is not only to start mass transit projects with expectations that congestion from cars will be reduced and transit will increase. I agree with you that the first task is to build a city where there is no need for cars. You touch on this point by stating that the city needs a better mix that’s better distributed. Further more you state that we would start walking if it were possible to walk 20 minutes and pass a grocery store, a childcare facility, a restaurant, a pub a park and so forth. This is a great initiative and a closer look at other cities such the ones in Europe is a proof of a functioning model (see left). The real issue to me seems to be the complexity with land use policies and the zoning laws that cause a setback in changing the structure of the old. Having lived in Sweden for many years, I have had the benefits of both great mass transit system and also a community that caters to all my consumer needs within a close range in proximity to where I live. The problem the people of Los Angeles face is that they make a great distinction between where they live and where they fulfill their daily needs such as shopping, running errands as such. Thus I am curious to ask you whether you suggest this model solely for the city or the “suburbia” as well. It seems to me that many people are rather comfortable with housing in the residential area being separated to the shopping and business in the commercial area. Do you think that the people of Los Angeles are susceptible to the idea of integrating all these various businesses into their communities? In addition, I am interested to see if you think that it is possible to take it a step further and actually associate the commercial side to a closer range of proximity to where we live. Such example being to incorporate these businesses like a modern grocery store or other appropriate entities as close as beneath or between housing structures. Yet as the idea may appear unattractive and unpleasant to many urban and suburban dwellers, it can actually be very practical and by architectural means approved in terms of design and functionality as it conforms to the rest of the structure. Knowing that Californians are not accustomed to this type of model, it would be great to see what you think about a similar idea in the future being implanted in the urban planning of Los Angeles.

“let’s stimulate with a major bike sharing program.”

Comment

Though I have never experienced a part of the bike sharing program personally, it appears to me that it brings about a positive attitude to a new wave of dealing with transportation systems, as it reduces the dependency of cars and at once eases congestion in metropolitan areas. The Parisians were first to try this, and they have as a result of the experiment experienced less congestion in their city, but only to the expense of the vandalism and the thefts that have occurred in relation to the program. You mention in your post that Washington being the first state to try this project has not experienced the negative spillovers such as the ones mentioned above. Thus, I am curious whether you think that a similar project could be employed in Los Angeles, being that the urban planning is somewhat different and the distances are greater than what a regular bike route is considered by normal standard. Furthermore, as you are optimistic about the bike sharing programs bringing about an improvement of the infrastructure (friendlier bike transit) like a chain reaction, assuming that the more bikes we have, the better infrastructure. I am a little skeptical whether that is sufficient reason to invest in such a project, being that a bike is relatively just a small cost and very accessible to the average consumer. On the other hand, the infrastructure is the main concern and I would like to know is you don’t think that just having enough stalls and friendlier bicycle lanes is itself more important and sufficient than a bike sharing program, as it will boost the economy as people buy their own bikes (I know it’s a far stretch, but just an example).