Sustainable Transportation of Los Angeles

INTRODUCTION

Some of the negative impacts of traditional transportation includes: increasing car accidents, worsening of the environment. Los Angeles is also one of the most polluted cities in the U.S. The air pollution not only brings health problem to residents but also comes with financial consequences. These problems are all caused by the traditional transportation system, which only focused on improving mobility, especially for motor vehicles, ignoring other aspects of society and the wider consequences.

The public transportation system in the City of Los Angeles is also facing many criticisms, such as inefficiency, delay, and so on. Different from cities with better public transportation system, such as New York, San Francisco, the residents of Los Angeles have always had a negative opinion of our public transports system. This is because of the inefficiency of the current transportation infrastructure.

Our recommendation to the City of Los Angeles is to deter a portion of people from private vehicles by increasing the costs of using cars and owning cars. Meanwhile, we need to improve the public transportation system by improving metro buses and metro rails systems. The third way to transform to sustainable transportation is to promote green vehicles by encouraging the use of low emission cars and other environmental friendly transport modes.

BENEFITS OF SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION

Sustainable transportation is among the components of the broader sustainable development and originates from the term sustainable development. It refers to a transport system with minimal environmental impact, and it is about not only green energy cars or about reduction in carbon emission resulting from transportation, but also a system of transport planning that considers more about sustainability. It includes green vehicles, car sharing, and environmental friendly development among others. According to European Union Council of Ministers of Transport, a sustainable transportation system must,

Satisfy societies and individuals needs of transportation while taking into consideration the balance between human and environment.
Be efficient and affordable with a variety choice of transport modes.
Ensure minimum carbon emission and other wastes in a range that the planet Earth is able to absorb. It also encourage the renewable resources recycle every reusable component, minimum use of non-renewable resources, land and the noise from production.

Economic benefits Sustainable transportation enables economic development in numerous ways. Firstly, it attracts new business opportunities and ideas, leads to privatization of transport businesses, and stimulates retail trading, which assists in economic development. In addition, because development requires labor power, sustainable transportation creates new jobs that solve the unemployment problem. Most importantly, it reduces the cost of traditional transportation and increases productivity. Furthermore, sustainable transportation reduces infrastructure costs and increases economic productivity where less money is spent on express highways and directed to economic productivity. It also encourages high value and land use because most apartments and offices are constructed near the rail lines and footways. As it encourages local circulation of currency through the money spent on public transport, it generates sales through repairs of things like bikes and other accessories (Rodney, 2003).

Environmental benefits

Sustainable transportation aims at minimizing the negative impacts to the environment, and focuses on the balance between development and nature (Schiller, 2010). Public transportation is one of the solutions encouraged by sustainable transportation. A suitable public transportation system attracts more people ditch their cars at home, hence reducing the number of cars, which in turn reduces carbon emissions. It also reduces noise pollution by easing traffic during rush hours, because people do not need to press horns to each other in order to move. Sustainable transportation, like green vehicles, is more energy efficient and environmental considerate.

Purpose

The ultimate objective of sustainable transportation is to find the balance between meeting our needs, minimizing the negative impacts to economic, and environmental aspects as well as moving towards a more environment friendly direction. The development of sustainable transportation may meet many challenges, such as government policies and inadequate funds, but the future is sustainability that creates a transportation system that can support and benefit us in the long term (Rodney, 2003).

NEGATIVE IMPACTS OF POLLUTION

Air pollution is associated with an abundance of negative health effects. Poor air quality can lead to respiratory and cardiac problems, increased medication usage, hospital visits, and death. According to the World Health Organization, 2.4 million people die due to causes associated with air pollution. In the United States, Los Angeles is one of the most polluted cities with some of the highest car usage – a large contributor to this pollution. Some of the largest levels of lethal pollutants are in Los Angeles as reported by an EPA study. (Littlefield 2009) Air pollution can also have detrimental effects on children growing up in polluted cities. Lengthy exposure increases risk of developing long term health issues such as asthma, respiratory infections, sicknesses including pneumonia, and can affect birth rates in a population. (World Health Organization 1999)

Poor air quality also comes with plenty of financial consequences. Increased hospital visits, medication use, health complications that require immediate care all put a toll on the financial resources of community’s health care system. The British Columbia Lung Association conducted a study finding that even a minor decrease in pollutants could save $29 million in Vancouver. The money saved could easily be applied to researching and implementing new ways of reducing air pollution.

TRANSPORTATION PROBLEMS IN LOS ANGELES

In recent years, Los Angeles has been attempting to add more public transportations systems, most notably the metro. But due to the layout of the city, and no real central location or meeting point, a few transportation systems do not meet the needs of millions of commuters. The current systems do not serve enough locations, nor is it any faster than driving a car. This forces most commuters to use a car in their daily commute and even for daily errands and weekend traveling. An example of the lack of practicality of public transport is the Metro’s one underground railway. The ‘subway’ is only 11 miles in length and hits Downtown and Hollywood – it is currently reserved for weekend tooling around, not serious commuting. The lack of centralization also proves to separate work and the rest of life for most residents, the sprawl of the Los Angeles’ plethora of suburbs creates real distance between points. In cities like New York, pedestrian transit is much higher due to the close proximity of work and living environments. In Los Angeles, destinations are too far in distance for most to walk or even ride a bike.

Another problem with the current public transportation system in Los Angeles is the lack of belief in its quality. Many commuters in Los Angeles look down on public transportation usage and see it as the mode of commuting for lower class populations. Unlike New York, where most commuters of all socioeconomic backgrounds use public transport, in Los Angeles, it’s commonly viewed that if you can afford a car, you use one and they avoid public transportation in most situations, especially for daily commuting.

RECOMMENDATIONS & ADAPTABILITY

As a car-centric city, it seems almost every Angeleno needs a car to go anywhere in Los Angeles, regardless of the distance. Anyone who has ever driven a car here understands the city’s transportation infrastructure problems. Additionally, those who are more environmentally conscious find public transportation both inadequate and inefficient. As a result, people have become increasingly reliant on their cars. Luckily, there are ways to solve both these problems. We recommend a two-pronged solution: through deterrence of vehicle ownership and improvements of the public transit system, specifically, the Metro buses. With the implementations of these recommendations, it is possible to reduce our impact on the environment as well as encourage more use of the ground transportation system.

DETERRENCE

The primary way of promoting sustainability and conserving limited resources in transportation is to limit the number of vehicles on roads. A straightforward approach to deter people from using their private vehicles is to raise associated costs. This will directly result in the decrease of vehicular usage. It will also dramatically improve traffic conditions.

Several deterrence measures used in Singapore have already proven to be very effective. Los Angeles can emulate these measures to appraise its usability here.

Electronic Road Pricing (ERP)

One of the methods Singapore use to control vehicle traffic on the roads is through an Electronic Road Pricing system. Such system would charge a fee based on traffic conditions as time of day (peak rush hour or non-rush hour, etc). In addition, most of the ERP checkpoints are on the roads leading into the main financial and commercial districts, as well as on roads that experience high traffic volumes.

What Los Angeles and its Department of Transportation can do is conduct a trial test of the ERP system, perhaps around the Financial District in Downtown. Since that area is the main business district within the city, daily car usage will be quite high. To show that such system can work in a major metropolitan area, a similar toll way system is already in place at both the Lincoln Tunnel and Queens Midtown Tunnel leading into Manhattan in New York City. If the trial is successful at reducing vehicle levels, then the DOT can consider trying out the congestion pricing system in other parts of Los Angeles, perhaps in the Westside.

How would the City and the DOT adapt this system in Los Angeles? Since the ERP system is essentially a mandatory toll way system, anyone who wishes to enter an area that has an ERP checkpoint along the way will be required to pay. To prevent those who will try to avoid paying, each car will be required to install a device known as an In-vehicle Unit (IU). These units can store a card that already has cash deposited. When a vehicle equipped with an IU passes under an ERP gantry, a road usage charge is deducted from the CashCard in the IU. Therefore, the DOT would simply place checkpoints along routes leading into the Financial District at Bunker Hill. These checkpoints, equipped with both cameras and sensors, will identify incoming vehicles and automatically charge a fee to those drivers. Of course, these charges will vary depending on the amount of cars on the road, as well as to the time of day.

Such a scheme would tremendously benefit LA’s roads. A tiered pricing system for the use of roads will prevent road congestions and efficiently manage traffic around problematic areas. It will ease traffic into and out of Downtown Los Angeles during peak hours. People will also look at alternative methods of transportation, such as carpooling. People will also opt for public transportation, and foregone driving altogether.

Having such a system in place in Los Angeles will not only lower emission levels within the most densely traveled areas, but it will also reduce commute times.

Higher costs to own a vehicle

In addition to a implementing a possible congestion pricing system, Los Angeles can also increase the cost of owning a private vehicle. For example, in Singapore, part of the cost of vehicle ownership is the annual road tax. This road tax is the equivalent of the vehicle registration fee in California. The road tax is based on engine capacity. Therefore, people who have cars with bigger horsepower will have to pay a higher road tax. By having such a tax in place, it would be an incentive for people to purchase smaller, less-polluting vehicles. Thus, it not only can the city reduce the number of cars on the road, but it can also reduce the severe pollution problem that it is well known for.

How would the city go about adapting this? Again, we recommend the city test a road tax on a trial basis, perhaps to those within a certain zip code. Since it would be unfair to tax only those who live in a neighborhood within Los Angeles and not to another neighborhood, using a randomly selected area by zip code is the most fair.

Theoretically, both of these measures (ERP and the road tax) can be easily adapted and put into use in Los Angeles. However, due to the unavoidable strong opposition these policies are bound to face, it is unlikely that it will be possible to put these measures into wide use. We do recommend that the City and the Department of Transportation introduce and test them for adaptability in phases, instead of immediate, citywide deployment.

Certificate of entitlement (COE)

Our last suggestion in regards to limiting the amount of vehicles on the road is the effective deterrence measure used in Singapore known as the Certificate of Entitlement. In essence, COE is a certificate that allows a person to purchase a new vehicle. Singaporeans must bid these certificates to attain the right to buy a new vehicle. The government controls the number of new vehicle registrations by determining a quota (LTA, 2009). This is designed to limit vehicle ownership. Furthermore, these certificates are only valid for a period of 10 years. Thereafter, owners must either scrap or export their vehicles, or extend their COE for another 5 or 10 years at the prevailing rate if they choose to keep their vehicle (Singapedia, 2011). However, those who renew their certificates for only 5 years must scrap their vehicle at the end of that period. There are incentives to scrap or export vehicles before they become 10 years old. For instance, the Preferential Additional Fee (PARF) benefit is a rebate given to owners for doing so. There are also different categories for different types of vehicles and engine capacities – higher capacity vehicles command higher COE prices.

COE prices change monthly depending on demand during bidding exercises. These fluctuations can be drastic. Over the past three years, COE prices of the open category have reached a low of SGD $3,000 in February 2009, and a high of SGD $78,001 in November 2011 (ST701, 2011). Overall, the generally high prices of the certificates have immensely deterred people from buying new vehicles. Below is a graphical illustration of recent COE prices.

Figure 1: COE prices since 2009 (ST701, 2011)

Implementing a similar program in Los Angeles will improve traffic by drastically limiting the number of vehicles on roads. Authorities will be able to control the number of new car introductions, while high COE prices will deter many potential new vehicle owners. Roads will be less congested due to fewer cars. Additionally, encouraging owners to keep newer vehicles will have benefits such as less pollution and smog in the city. However, on top of Singapore’s version of COE, Los Angeles should also provide more COE categories for vehicles with different emission levels, and assign different quotas. Los Angeles should include the possibility of a category dedicated to hybrid vehicles that is not governed by any quota. This would translate to relatively lower COE prices, thereby promoting green vehicles. Another option is for Los Angeles to increase COE prices for post 10 year extensions. This will further discourage ownership of older and therefore more polluting vehicles.

ALTERNATIVES

The above recommendations for Los Angeles to adopt a series of tools administered by the government of Singapore are for the deterrence of private vehicular usage. However, as was previously mentioned, there must be alternatives solutions to fulfill the transportation needs of the public to counter the decrease in mobility that will arise. Los Angeles must consequently establish an efficient and effective public transportation infrastructure that can help achieve the goal of sustainability. To this end, we recommend that the city Los Angeles specifically improve its Metro Bus and Rail system.

Improving the Metro Bus System

First, the city should improve its fleet of buses. Most people who refuse or are disinclined to use public transportation often cite the lack of amenities and comfort within the buses as the primary reason why they have not used public transportation on a regular basis.
One of the ways the City and Los Angeles Metro can improve ridership is to offer a premium bus service, similar to those used in Singapore. Premium bus service charges a slightly higher face. However, the buses that are part of this service not only are air-conditioned, but every passenger is guaranteed a seat onboard. This service strictly prohibits any standing-only passengers. While the fares are higher than regular service, this service provides comfort for all the riders simply because there will not be any overcrowding issues on buses.

In addition to creating a premium bus service, the Metro should also implement a real-time bus tracking system where commuters can receive real-time travel information through monitor screens at station, their mobile devices or the internet. The system is very complex. It allows riders to check all the buses’ location within 30 minutes of a select stop, street or post code. This would not be costly because the Department would only need to install a GPS device on each bus. As a result, people can more accurately plan their itinerary because they are able to track the location and arrival times of their specific bus before leaving for the bus stop. This will dramatically reduce waiting time for riders.

This real-time bus tracking system has been used in many big cities, such as London, Chicago and New York. This method receives a positive respond from the riders to public transportation. In Chicago, 48% of riders report that they are much more satisfied to the public transit after the installation of bus tracker system.

This method would calm down those complaints for those who take public transportation in Los Angeles are the inefficiency of the buses due to frequent delays. Thus, by having real-time information available, we can eliminate inefficiencies of the buses and inspire the passion of Los Angeles to public transportation.

A second recommendation for the Metro Bus system is to improve travel time while on buses. Most people here in Los Angeles often complain that it takes longer to get to their destination by buses than by driving; so there’s less incentive for people to leave their cars at home and take buses. To reduce this problem, there are several measures that Los Angeles can take, based on the effective methods used in Singapore. First, there should be more creation of bus-specific lanes to help buses move smoothly even in traffic. However, since buses do have to wait for vehicles that make turns at intersections, we propose that buses get right of way at intersections, even over those vehicles that are making left turns. Furthermore, drivers should also yield to buses that are exiting from bus stops. These measures drastically reduced en route travel times in Singapore, and we believe similar measures used here in Los Angeles can also increase ride times.

These measures should not be difficult to adapt here in Los Angeles. For example, since our roadways already have multiple lanes, it would not be difficult to designate a lane as bus-specific. The lane closest to the shoulder would be the ideal lane for bus only.

Finally, we recommend having a hub-and-spoke system for the bus system. This means that there should be specific routes that go directly to a central hub for those who need to transfer to a different bus. By having nonstop bus service that go from residential areas directly to a central station, coupled with having bus-specific lanes, riders can get to their work or final destination much quicker. As part of this recommendation, we also want to suggest eliminating any transfer fees for those who need to take multiple routes. This means that riders can use a single pass for any bus or rail routes. Again, implementing these should not be difficult or costly for the city. For example, eliminating transfer fees is merely a management decision. Creating a “hub and spoke” transport system requires some design, but the result should encourage more people to take buses.

Improving the Metro Rail System

Our second recommendation for the city is to improve the Rail network. Although the city has an extensive rail system, there are still lots of people who are unfamiliar with the rail system. If people are unfamiliar with it, they are not going to take advantage of it.

Our first suggestion is to install stations near residential areas as well as commercial areas. By having numerous stations within walking distances, people will be more likely to take a ride on the trains. Since Los Angeles already has many stations near major attractions and commercial districts, it would not be difficult to add more stations near residential areas. The city should focus on those areas that are more dependent on public transportation first, before expanding onto other possible areas.

A second possible solution is to extend the current lines of the Metro Rail system to areas directly outside the Los Angeles metro area. Because most of the residential areas are in suburban, and most of the current lines are limited to areas around Downtown, people are not able to go to work by trains or buses. If Metro expands the rail network, it can become more convenient for people to take trains that can carry them directly to their work or destination. Also it can reduce the traffic in rush hours by deferring a portion of people to public transportations. Thus, parties, car users and bus riders can save their time on the road.

Green initiatives

In addition to improving the Metro Bus and Rail systems, Los Angeles should create incentives to promote the use of environmentally friendly vehicles. One way is to lower the costs of owning a low emissions vehicle. The city of Los Angeles can provide additional tax breaks and offer rebates for the purchase of such vehicles. Los Angeles should also partially subsidize the costs associated with the maintenance. Several options exist, including parking benefits. Los Angeles should reinstate the free metered parking program, which is available in many cities, for alternative fuel vehicles, which was abolished in 2009 (Hybridcars, 2010). This scheme should include private parking structures as well. Additionally, dedicated environmentally friendly vehicle parking lots should be made available at parking structures located conveniently, next to disabled person parking stalls that are located near entrances. Another option is to allow for all low emissions vehicles to use the carpool lanes of the city even if the passenger occupancy criterion is not met. Lastly, Los Angeles can also consider constructing a dedicated lane for such vehicles on major freeways within the city in the future. These suggestions will certainly encourage people to switch to such vehicles, and eventually minimize pollutions greatly.

A large-scale bicycle-sharing scheme within Downtown Los Angeles will also prove to be highly advantageous. Such a scheme would resemble those in Paris, Montreal, London, and certain U.S. cities. These initiatives, although relatively recent, have already proved to be extremely successful in reducing pollution while increasing mobility. This is largely due to the zero emissions produced by bicycles; they do not leave any carbon footprints. It would work by integrating numerous self-automated docking stations throughout Downtown Los Angeles with a fleet of bicycles that are available for rent. One could rent a bicycle from one docking station and return it at any other docking station for a small fee. This scheme should encompass a grace period of 30 minutes to promote its usage. Charges should then exponentially increase after the 30th minute as it is designed to substitute the use of vehicles for short distances. Implementation is also easy and can be done quickly. Although this scheme might not be profitable, its pollution and traffic reducing effects far outweigh its costs. The tremendous positive impacts that this scheme could potentially contribute for Los Angeles should be the basis for a straightforward favorable decision to employ it.

CONCLUSION

Sustainable transportation is the mobility of future, also a long term solution for the City of Los Angeles. It can not only improve the environment, but also benefit local businesses. The residents of Los Angeles will also be able to enjoy a more convenient public transportation system.

In order to transform to sustainable transportation, we divided our recommendation into two parts. We first recommended factors of deterrence including a congestion pricing system, along with issuing Certificates of Entitlement, which limits the number of cars available for personal purchase. These deterrence should help reduce the amount of vehicles on the road, thereby improving the environment, and move towards a more sustainable future. However, in order for the deterrence to be effective, we must also improve our public transport infrastructure. For that, we recommended better bus and rail networks by improving travel time and a smoother, more comfortable ride. Finally, we believe that to become fully sustainable in transportation, the city should also have a green initiatives program. This program encourages people to use alternative modes of transportation such as hybrid vehicles and bicycles.

Sources used:

http://www.lta.gov.sg/ltmp/pdf/Community_guide_English.pdf

http://www.sbstransit.com.sg/transport/trpt_bus_overview.aspx

http://secondavenuesagas.com/2011/10/18/for-london-a-comprehensive-bus-tracking-system/

http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/The-312/October-2011/Bus-Tracking-The-Most-Interesting-Thing-I-Read-About-Public-Transportation-Today/