Transportation in Los Angeles
In January we delved into the topic of transportation of after responding to Emma’s blog post. Many of the responses focused on Los Angeles’s lack of convenient and efficient modes of public transportation. The most common modes of public transportation include buses, metro, and subway. There are multiple metro lines in Los Angeles although taking them seems to be more difficult than taking another form of transportation. In our previous discussion we assessed the current means of navigating our city in addition to future solutions that could improve the traffic and congestion in Los Angeles. After mentioning this topic to my father he told me about the how general motors and firestone tires paired up in order to derail future plans for infrastructure in Los Angeles. In 1938 through 1950 National City Lines and its subsidiaries, American City Lines and Pacific City Lines- gained control of additional transit systems in about 25 cities including Los Angeles. The National City Lines was acquired through investments from General Motors (GM), Firestone Tires, and Standard Oil. The aforementioned companies provide main components used to safely operate motor vehicles. Their relevance in the car industry serves as the explanation for their desire to control the transportation industry. National City Lines converted the previous railway infrastructure in cities such as Los Angeles, St. Louis, and Baltimore in favor of a less efficient bus system. NCL sought to disrupt the progress that was being made in the transportation industry in order to maintain/increase their revenue. While the majority of the effects have been negative the prevalence of cars in Los Angeles has created a pervasive car culture that is unique to California. Los Angeles has a climate that is perfect for keeping cars because there is no snow or rain that would cause cars to rust.Do you see the results of National City Lines corporate greed in your daily life?How does the lack of viable means of public transportation contribute to pollution in Los Angeles?What are the pros/cons of having such a reliance on cars?
.
I definitely feel the effects of poor transportation in LA whenever I try to use public transit haha. Before I could drive (and even now that I can since my car is ancient) I took public transit (buses and trains) everywhere.It was suuuuch a pain. I'd never even heard of National City Lines but based on what I just learned right now, I guess a lot of the failures of LA's public transit can be attributed to NCL and their desire to control the transportation industry, which in LA manifested in less efficient bus lines and a focus on transportation via car. I think the car culture in LA definitely contributes to pollution in LA. I read a couple weeks ago that the idea of toll roads has been proposed in LA, mainly to combat traffic, but I could also see how this might address the issue of pollution from too many cars on the road. I wonder how likely this would be to happen?
ReplyDeleteThe lack of public transport definitely contributes to LA's pollution, as each car both emits their own pollution and uses fossil fuels to run. (This is a major con of having such a reliance on cars.) However, the geography and climate of Los Angeles also lead to its bad air quality, so it's not just the preponderance of cars that has caused it.
ReplyDeleteThe car culture has other negative effects, including social segregation. As we discussed last time, it seems like the lack of public transportation leads to more isolation of individuals and communities from each other.
I know you talked about cars as pollutants, but in terms of public transit contributing to the city's pollution, I know that within the past few years, Metro retired their diesel buses and traded them in for those running on compressed natural gas (CNG), a cleaner alternative. Also, I know that both the transportation department in Garcetti's office and Metro are collaborating to convert current trains and buses to an even cleaner, low-carbon alternative fuel. I forget what it's called. I honestly can't think of any pros of exclusively relying on cars for transit...not only is it bad for the environment and makes for roads and highways that take up valuable urban space, but our reliance on cars literally isolates people and divides communities. I'd never heard of the National City Lines thing, but it doesn't surprise me. Just another private sector effort to monopolize something that is defined as a public trade...Elon Musk is doing a similar thing with The Boring Company.
ReplyDeleteMy dad and I try to use public transit whenever we can because of how much money we spend on gas, especially with the prices are increasing. However, due to the lack of public transit in LA sometimes it's hard to get certain places (like having to switch from bus to train to bus) or it takes an absurd amount of time. There are so many cons connected to having such a large reliance on cars and unfortunately there are not many pros regarding LA's pollution.
ReplyDeleteI see the effects of the NCL's corporate greed and poor transportation system almost everyday. I honestly wish there was a better Metro system in Los Angeles because I would use it everyday, the only reason I don't use it is because there's zero train stations near my house or even in my city. I have to commute to school everyday and basically everywhere I go and there's no way I could use public transportation unless I switched from the bus to the metro and then back to the bus which would take forever. There is a bus called the commuter express where I live that is a great way for people to get to Downtown or other major centers but they only have limited places they go and only has two stops in my neighborhood and they also only go to the Civic Center where I live. I also think the car culture in LA contributes to the pollution because of all the exhaust and if a car has smog as well. Also due to the high number of people with cars and low supply of gasoline it costs like $4 in California now, like I just got gas tonight and it was $4.05 for regular gas which is insane.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sophia that using most cars is bad for the environment, however, with the invention of electric cars and cars that run off hydrogen, we should be able to use those cars that cuz less environmental devastation. The Arco gas station near my house started adding the hydrogen car fuel stations, which I think encourages people to switch to electric and hydrogen cars as they are much cheaper to fuel. With companies beginning to make solar panels that you can install in your home to charge your electric car, I think that as the public begins to shift towards more environmentally friendly cars, we will be able to have the advantages of having a car while being able to deal less damage to our environment.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI'd agree that cars have definitely contributed to Los Angeles' poor air quality, but I also think it just has to do with our sheer population and natural environment and topography. In my first blog post, I talked about how freeways/roads/highways contributed to the racial segregation of many parts of Los Angeles County, but I also think the cars that drive on these roads play just as big as a role in this racial/economic divide. Because Los Angeles is relatively new compared to most major cities in the United States, the car industry had the power to build our transportation infrastructure from the start. When cars were first created, they were designed for the rich. Since then, not much has changed. This divide between economic groups is fostered by both private entities and our own government. With new services like Uber Air and Tesla tunnels coming in under a year, I think we're only going to see this problem get worse. I sadly don't even really know how to address this issue because it is so deeply entrenched in the city's inception.
ReplyDeleteLike most people have already said, the lack of public transportation definitely contributes to LA’s pollution issue. Because our public transportation system isn’t super widespread or fast, owning a car is seems like a more reasonable option. However, cars are one of the leading causes four pollution issue. Although, like Jono mentioned, electric cars are on the rise, the majority of the population hasn’t switched over. I do believe that if our public transportation system continues to expand to reach more destinations, and faster too, that more people will begin to use them. It’s just a matter of when people start to realize that the pollution issue is actually an issue that they can fix.
ReplyDeleteOf course, the more cars (and thus, fewer buses/trains) we have in operation at any (and every) given time, the more we are adding to the perennial LA smog and the more damage we are doing to the environment. I think, especially in an uber-liberal, wellness conscious place like this, that people would be willing to try to make a shift (even if just for the reputation boost) if it was more convenient, accessible, and overall tenable.
ReplyDeleteI also think that having such a reliance on cars is dangerous, especially since it’s probably a lifestyle that we are going to have to alter drastically in the relatively near future. I feel like that’s going to be a difficult process, especially here in LA.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletetbh not entirely sure i answered the prompt correctly :/
ReplyDeleteIn Los Angeles and San Francisco, over half the population own and operate cars (whereas in other major cities like NYC, only around 40% of the population own cars)- so I think it’s safe to say that the amount of cars in California are contributing to our pollution problem. I was thinking about what other people said about the electric car solution and was wondering why more people haven’t switched over. As of November 2018, only around 500,000 electric cars have been sold in California. The reasoning behind the lack of switching to electric cars is that no electric car has ever surpassed let alone met the range of a gas car, the charging time is slow, and high prices. While I understand this logic, I honestly wonder if these cons outweigh all the pros of getting an electric car and saving our planet.
To the point of public transportation in Los Angeles, it’s clear that the system isn’t great - while it’s designed to be convenient, it can easily turn a trip that might take 20 minutes by car into an hour or more simply because of changing buses or metro lines, etc - aka very inconvenient. It has also become less safe and security detail is lacking. However, the billions of dollars in taxes going to improving the LA transit system have not been wasted - while projects are slow, without this money, there would be no transit system, meaning traffic would be 100000x worse and LA would be overflowing (way more than it already is) with cars. I think a solution to improving the public transportation system would be (In a perfect world) to speed up the rail and bus expansion and renovation processes, and to use clean-energy buses to help our deplorable pollution prob.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletecars can be annoying. Yes, LA is a place that at times demands that one drives a vehicle. The freeways and roads and streets interweave throughout the city and allow people everyday to commute from point A to point B. While there is such a high demand in cars, this also means more traffic. And sure the city CAN create more lanes on a freeway; however, how cost efficient is that? Furthermore, gas is also a costly product that people need quite often. With an influx of cars, there is more money being spent, more traffic being created, and more pollution and toxic fumes within our atmosphere. Cars are convenient, but detrimental in several ways. I do appreciate how LA has taken the initiative to provide more electric scooters and bikes throughout the city; however, this is still a flawed system as many of these "Birds" and "Limes" really only pop up in privileged communities, trendy popular spots in Los Angeles, or around college campuses where several well off tuition paying students can purchase a scooter. It seems as if those who do not have access to these devices are left out and therefore must rely on their car. A little unfair, but hopefully LA can be better at this.
ReplyDelete