Smog-Free, Congestion-Free, and Carbon-Neutral Now!

[phattonez]

Originally Posted by klamedia

There was also those decades immediately following WWII that LA didn't feel that it needed a strong mass transit system because of the way it perceived itself as a city of the future.

By building roads. The reason we are so dependent on cars in this city is because of the way that this city was planned, not necessarily because that's what the people really wanted,

[PragmaticIdealist]

image hosted on flickr


Here's the original public transportation system in southern California. The Kite-Shaped Track of the Santa Fe Railroad provided a day-long excursion train for tourists, as well as some commuter service with headways of two hours. And, the Pacific Electric Railway, the world's largest electric system, was organized into two nexuses, Los Angeles and San Bernardino, that were connected to each other by the interurban Orange Empire Line.

image hosted on flickr


Intraregional rail transportation has a long and romantic history in southern California, and transit proponents should be using this fact to advocate for new systems that are designed well and that introduce or re-introduce greater density in ways that are sensitive to the culture and character of existing neighborhoods and cities.

[klamedia]

Originally Posted by phattonez

By building roads. The reason we are so dependent on cars in this city is because of the way that this city was planned, not necessarily because that's what the people really wanted,

That's silly to put all of the blame on planners and act as if LA was Stalinist Russia after WWII. The idea of the crowded tenement slums of NY's Lower East Side was fresh in the minds of many of the newcomers to Southern California and they were deliberately escaping that type of urban experience. So Cal was sunshine, a sense of freedom and most importantly not crowded. It very well represented what the American Dream was at that time and that dream did not include subways and walk ups. This was what the people wanted, it was the mood of the time. From the beginnings of the dismantling of the PE system and the other at grade rail systems in So Cal proposals for a new and more efficient heavy rail system was brought to the voters over and over again. It was voted down over and over again until the 1980's when the end of the American "pipe" Dream's end had come into sight. This is all well documented and has been expounded upon by many historians. Even the Watts uprisings of 1965 is attributed partly to this suppression of an efficient mass transit system that was continually voted down by majority of So Cal motivated by all sorts of things including race and class.

[Fern~Fern*]

All I have to say is, in a city like Los Angeles how do you expect to go Smog-Free, Congestion-Free, and Carbon-Neutral Now. When this city and/or State has drilled in our heads that we must live in 3+2 home w/ attached garage with a white picket fence and a minimum of 3 auto mobiles per household.

[AlexTheMartian]

Originally Posted by Fern~Fern*

All I have to say is, in a city like Los Angeles how do you expect to go Smog-Free, Congestion-Free, and Carbon-Neutral Now. When this city and/or State has drilled in our heads that we must live in 3+2 home w/ attached garage with a white picket fence and a minimum of 3 auto mobiles per household.

if they drill into our heads that we must jump off a bridge, would you?

[phattonez]

Originally Posted by klamedia

That's silly to put all of the blame on planners and act as if LA was Stalinist Russia after WWII. The idea of the crowded tenement slums of NY's Lower East Side was fresh in the minds of many of the newcomers to Southern California and they were deliberately escaping that type of urban experience. So Cal was sunshine, a sense of freedom and most importantly not crowded. It very well represented what the American Dream was at that time and that dream did not include subways and walk ups. This was what the people wanted, it was the mood of the time. From the beginnings of the dismantling of the PE system and the other at grade rail systems in So Cal proposals for a new and more efficient heavy rail system was brought to the voters over and over again. It was voted down over and over again until the 1980's when the end of the American "pipe" Dream's end had come into sight. This is all well documented and has been expounded upon by many historians. Even the Watts uprisings of 1965 is attributed partly to this suppression of an efficient mass transit system that was continually voted down by majority of So Cal motivated by all sorts of things including race and class.

How do you blame the people of LA? Are they in charge of the planning commission?

[PragmaticIdealist]

Originally Posted by Fern~Fern*

All I have to say is, in a city like Los Angeles how do you expect to go Smog-Free, Congestion-Free, and Carbon-Neutral Now. When this city and/or State has drilled in our heads that we must live in 3+2 home w/ attached garage with a white picket fence and a minimum of 3 auto mobiles per household.

I think car sharing, both "work-side" and "home-side," holds incredible promise for us, especially since the cars can use the existing infrastructure. So, they can be implemented immediately, and they are completely scalable. One of the other advantages of car sharing is that it has the potential to dramatically increase the total number of clean-energy cars on the road.

Improving the passenger experience and the overall effectiveness of the bus system and marketing it better also seems like low-hanging fruit.

As transit ridership increases through these measures, it can, then, grow exponentially when service expands and becomes more comprehensive and convenient. Similarly, transit-oriented development becomes geometrically more effective. There is a threshold at which we can form a virtuous circle. Several places around the world have found that critical mass in mass transit that allows it to be self-supporting.

Additionally, people will continue seeking substitutes for car transportation as oil prices rise, and they will want more alternatives to car ownership in order to avoid its associated fixed costs.

[PragmaticIdealist]

Multi-family housing can also be cleverly-designed in ways that provide renters and owners with all the advantages that come with single-family detached houses.

In fact, cities need to be very specific about the quality and amenities condominium and apartment buildings should possess.

[klamedia]

Originally Posted by phattonez

How do you blame the people of LA? Are they in charge of the planning commission?

No but they have and had input in the way that the city looks. Try to change (low density, detached sfh)zoning laws almost anywhere in the city and you'll see how easy it is to do so. As I said above in my other post, "suburban" type living was the mood of the time and is what many people wanted as the cities emptied.

[klamedia]

Originally Posted by PragmaticIdealist

Multi-family housing can also be cleverly-designed in ways that provide renters and owners with all the advantages that come with single-family detached houses.

In fact, cities need to be very specific about the quality and amenities condominium and apartment buildings should possess.

What are the "advantages" of a single family home?

[phattonez]

Originally Posted by klamedia

No but they have and had input in the way that the city looks. Try to change (low density, detached sfh)zoning laws almost anywhere in the city and you'll see how easy it is to do so. As I said above in my other post, "suburban" type living was the mood of the time and is what many people wanted as the cities emptied.

Ok. I never liked the zoning in Westwood. It was always not nearly dense enough for my liking. How do I go about changing that?

[klamedia]

Originally Posted by PragmaticIdealist

Several places around the world have found that critical mass in mass transit that allows it to be self-supporting.

Public transit = self supporting? Sounds like an oxymoron to me.
Why would we need a public agency to be self supporting when it is a decision made by all of us to provide a service that all can use from the wealthy to the persons who don't have means? If we provided public transit at cost most poor people probably wouldn't be able to afford it therefore circumventing the very reason that we created the public agency to begin with. More people riding also means more operators operating and higher frequencies.

[PragmaticIdealist]

One of the problems with transit, like Metrolink, is that the fixed costs need to be offset by full utilization of the capacity. But, I digress.

[klamedia]

[klamedia]

Our view on gas tax: Price holds key to ending nation's addiction to oil
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion...ial26_ST_N.htm

[klamedia]

Should We Scrap the Gas Tax and Simply Have More Tolls?
http://www.infrastructurist.com/2010...ve-more-tolls/

[PragmaticIdealist]

Returning to the gas tax I proposed that involves an across-the-board tax rebate, such a rebate could be structured based on income. In that way, the poorest among us and the middle class, who are both usually the most dependent on cars for commuting to job centers that have unaffordable housing, would not experience the regressive effect of such a tax.