Driving Away from the Car
How to balance transportation demand and supply in Los Angeles for improved efficiency and sustainability?
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Car centricity in Los Angeles leads to inefficient, unsustainable urban transportation with issues such as lost time in congestion, air pollution, and inequitable accessibility and mobility. With the rising population in the city, the increasing gas prices, and the growing issues caused by climate change, reform is needed, a system that prioritizes alternative modes and decreases the number of cars on the streets. Cities with effective urban transportation systems have both the built environment and the integrated travel behavior that allows alternative modes of travel to thrive. The goal in Los Angeles would be to achieve such an effective system by increasing the supply of alternative modes through reform in policy and the built environment. However, the users’ current demand for spaces for cars is too high and for alternative modes is too low for drastic changes to be realistically implemented. Traditional tools to alternate demand might not be equitable or economically feasible in the current state of the city. The transition from car-centricity needs to be sustainable and realistic, which means that a series of policies that builds on the current environment and context of the city instead of a single drastic action that would ultimately fail. LA must implement well-thought-out of progressively stronger policies that consider the demands of both Los Angeles and its citizens, both in the short term and long term.
INTRODUCTION
The last of Los Angeles’s famous Pacific Electric Railways was shut down the same year the National Defense and Interstate Highway Act was made in 1965. Transportation and land use planning had started to center on building out systems that can accommodate cars and public transportation was deemed less effective and therefore less useful (Adler, S., 1991). As the availability of vehicles grew, more and more cars appeared on roads and consequently fewer and fewer people choose other modes to travel.
The decreased interest in other modes has started to reflect in the built environment and policies of Los Angeles. The city started to neglect its public transit. Urban sprawl, workplaces, and residences have become further separated. Streets with multiple wide lanes and missing or unsafe sidewalks crosswalks and bike lanes have become the norm. Public spaces turned into large parking lots instead of green spaces. (Merck, 2019)
This further reinforced the dependency on cars and the travel behavior of citizens starting to reach an unattainable level. Data from the U.S. Census estimated that in 2020 that 79 % of trips to work in LA County were made by private car of which only 9 percent were carpooled. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020). This change in travel behavior is overwhelming the city and its road systems, toppling all three ‘E’s of sustainability (environment, economy, equity) in the process.
The city urgently needs to find a way to reform transportation in Los Angeles, creating a more efficient system that accounts for the balance in the environment, economy, and equity of the city and that can accommodate for the demands of its residents and commuters. Los Angeles must make comprehensive changes that make transportation more sustainable in the long run while keeping systems functional for the short term.
FACTS
Þ The average Los Angeles driver loses approximately 1,774 USD and 82 hours each year in the form of lost time and wasted fuel, stuck in congestion. (TRIP, 2018).
Þ California’s transportation sector accounts for about 50 percent of the state’s greenhouse gas emissions and the traffic density in Los Angeles is the number one contributor to air pollution (California Energy Commission, N/D), (Garcetti, 2019)
Þ Car dependency reinforces economic segregation for people who cannot afford or maintain cars leading to inefficient unequitable mobility and accessibility. (Merck, 2019)
Þ In California, the lack of physical activity leads to about more than 23,000 deaths yearly. (Maizlish, 2016)
Þ Highways and low walkability strengthen the segmentation of the city and the lack of community in neighborhoods leading to the decline of small businesses, a decrease in personal safety, and social division and isolation (Price, 2021), (Jacobs, 1993)
The Connection Between Built Environment and Travel Behavior Their Relation to Travel Demand and Supply
Although there are several well-known problems with transportation in Los Angeles, two main historical drivers behind these issues can be pinpointed. (1) Travel behavior and (2) the built environment and systems in the city. Translated into simpler, economic terms, travel behavior is the demand generated by users, and the built environment is the supply offered by the city. In Los Angles, the citizens have a strong attachment to owning and traveling via private automobile that was generated and reinforced by the systems, built environment, and policies that accommodate cars more than any other modes of transportation.
A common tactic for changing travel behavior is by manipulating factors that influence the supply and demand of the users and the city. The three major factors a city prioritizes are (1) accessibility, (2) mobility, and (3) efficiency. The four main factors that influence users’ demand are (1) time and (2) cost spent as well as the overall (3) convenience and (4) safety of the trips (Rodrigue, Jean-Paul, et al. 2016), (Speck, J. 2012). Using this theory, we can identify several tools and common transportation policies that can be used to mitigate car dependency. These policies are often successful in other cities.
EXAMPLES
Þ Reducing passenger vehicle traffic: Carpool lanes, High-occupancy toll (HOT), and higher parking fees (Rodrigue, Jean-Paul, et al. 2016), (Speck, J. 2012)
Þ Transportation Oriented Developments (TODs): improve the accessibility of low-income neighborhoods making them more walkable and providing opportunities for households without cars. (Cervero, 2004)
Þ Restructuring Land Use: Encouragement of mix-use, spreading out workplaces, and fixing spatial mismatch as well as provision of local amenities (work, shopping, and recreation opportunities (Rodrigue, Jean-Paul, et al. 2016), (Speck, J. 2012)
Þ Improved Walkability: Complete streets, pedestrian zones, and walkable or car-free city centers.
Þ Improved Public Transportation: Speed, extent, connectivity, and Quality (cleanliness, consistency, and safety). In Germany, in 2020, approximately 91.4 percent of the population had great access to public transportation (Salas, 2022). These conditions allow a wide range of commuters to travel with alternative modes over cars.
Þ Improved Bicycle infrastructure: Construction of buffered cycle lanes. Amsterdam has over 400 km of well-connected bike lanes that are led to (and encouraged by) the high demand for biking (Planetizen, n/d)
In other words, planners can influence travel behavior by implementing policies that create less supply for car use and more supply for alternative modes. Sounds Simple, right? Unfortunately, some factors must be considered before such reforms.
No demand, no supply. No supply, no Demand.
In the current state of Los Angeles, most of these policies cannot be realistically implemented. Even though limiting car use, or simply making better conditions for alternative uses makes great sense in theory, introducing such policies into a city with complex zoning laws and land use policies and a built environment with a long history of its socio-spatial organization and transportation trends is a difficult and long process that rarely successful, attainable, or sustainable.
To reach the city’s needs, such a policy cannot be forceful; it must consider both the city’s and the users’ demands. In other words, planners and decision-makers must consider Los Angeles’ long history of car use and the well-established symbolic meaning of car ownership. Everyone can agree that, in theory, it would be ideal if fewer cars were on the road, but in reality, not many people will give up their ‘freedom’ for a promised but uncertain ‘greater good’.
European cities such as Vienna and Paris are famous for their walkable city centers, with wide sidewalks, and pedestrian zones, with boutiques, bakeries, coffees, and restaurants lining the streets.
But, no matter how sustainable the walkable city center of Vienna and Paris is, in LA, a city built for cars banning cars from the center is not unrealistic. Here, walking is not habitual and is often deemed dangerous for certain demographics, demand for walkability is seemingly low and therefore not prioritized by the city making in-line retail and window shopping economically infeasible. With no investment, there are no developments, with no developments there are no users, and with no users, there are no investments. As years pass without any change, habits, trends and therefore demand gets more integrated, it gets exponentially harder to claim spaces back for pedestrians.
In Los Angeles, to build out such extensive bike routes or public transportation networks as in the Netherlands or Germany would mean first pulling space, time, and fundings away from vehicular travel. This would leave a city with a transitional period, where the supply of alternative modes increases, while the users’ demands remain unchanged. This disconnect can ultimately lead to reform failure and therefore needs to be considered during policy planning (Willson, 2018).
With its already-built environment that has led to car-dependent travel habits and demands to be deeply integrated, making big and sudden policy reforms that lead to a restructuring of the land use and transportation supply of Los Angeles is simply unrealistic at this stage.
The list of long-term benefits of a mix-used transportation system is extensive but if such policies are pushed on the users without some concrete and immediate motivators it will meet pushback, be undermined, and ultimately become unsustainable (hindering their original goal of long-term goals). Instead of being forced, drivers need a strong and tangible motivator to change their travel habits.
Balance of Economy and Equity
Policies that are made to fulfill the demands of the city and users can also indirectly lead to inequity in transportation, which must be avoided. For example, Los Angeles would greatly benefit from a well-connected and extensive rail system such as the former Pacific Electric in Los Angeles or the current high-speed rail of Tokyo. To achieve this, however, would mean the destruction of already existing properties, and forced relocation of residents to make and further segmentation of neighborhoods by new rail lines. These changes most often affect low-income households. We can take what happened during the highway act as an example where the effects of these road constructions on low-income neighborhoods households were disproportionately higher (Avila, 2014).
Planners must be careful and find the balance between efficiency and equity. HOT and higher parking fees are for example effective tools and are often utilized tools to regulate and manipulate car use. Unfortunately, they are also inequitable since the economic tools would affect a lower-income individual more severely, limiting their mobility faster, and creating inequity in transportation. Another example would be TODs which although improve accessibility, also often gentrify a neighborhood (Cervero, 2004). Therefore, to truly improve sustainability, the cost and benefits of transportation policies must be looked at from multiple points of view of sustainability and approached carefully.
We meet a dilemma here. Reforms must be started to be introduced with no delay, making big changes towards sustainability in the long run but they must not be so drastic that they become impossible to implement or maintain. New policies that create supply change need to keep in sight the demand of users and the city. These reforms must achieve a more effective and sustainable system that can accommodate a large number of commuters while remaining equitable, realistic, and economically feasible.
RECOMMENDATION
Los Angeles needs an approach that satisfies the demands of both the city and its users. These policies need to be realistic, that consider the scale as well as LA’s built environment, and already existing habits and changes. Action needs to be immediate, but that does not mean that solutions need to solve the problems immediately. The city needs policies that make the city’s transportation sustainable in the long run. A series of policy changes that examines the context of the city (0), identifies already existing positive trends (1), reinforces these positives, and makes progressively bigger changes (2) which can lead to reaching bigger changes and making the desired difference in the city’s system. This process would offer immediate relief, mid-term changes, as well as long-term differences to the current system. The involvement of the city and the users as well as professionals from different backgrounds is crucial for this framework.
STEP 1: WHAT IS WORKING?
Good news! Los Angeles is not all doomed, some systems are working, some policies were effective and positive trends that are unique to the city! As the first step of the framework, we must identify as many of these characteristics as possible and realize why were they suitable for the city and if there is potential to improve or learn from them. Here are some of the opportunities LA can offer:
Wide Streets:
Although it might seem negative at first, the built environment of LA; the wide streets, several lanes, and large parking spaces can be a positive starting point. These spaces can provide great opportunities if repurposed and developed correctly. In Europe where streets were formed well before the appearance of vehicles, the narrowness of urban spaces limits their potential growth. Los Angeles does not have this problem. In LA standard local street is 50 ft wide, while an arterial street can be as wide as 136 ft (Siu, 2015). In Europe, where city centers have formed well before mass traffic this number is much smaller on average (in the historic core of Budapest for example, streets can be as narrow as 25–30 ft (Atlas of Urban Expansion, n/d)), causing many parking and circulation issues. Although it is currently used inefficiently, the possibility of development and repurposing these roads and spaces provide an advantage over older European cities.
Beaches, Weather, Tourism:
We also do not have to go far to find good examples of walkability. One of Los Angeles’ most popular places is the beach. Interestingly, it is also one of the most walkable places in the city. There are no cars allowed at Santa Monica Pier or Venice Beach. Supported by the ever-sunny Los Angeles weather, these places are swirling with crowds of people walking, skating, and biking, offering tons of pedestrian-oriented activities swimming, playing sports, shopping, and dining. These places serve to accommodate the vast number of residents and the added large number of tourists LA county beaches welcome about 50 million visitors yearly (Department of Beaches & Harbors, n/d). Although there is parking close by, the beaches themselves are protected from any type of automobiles.
Tourists not only visit beaches, Griffith Park and the Observatory, the Hollywood Sign and Walk of Fame are some of the most visited places by visitors of the city. All of these are partially or highly walkable. Recovering from the pandemic, Los Angeles welcomed about 40 million tourists in 2021 (Vianna, 2022) Tourism and urban hiking are closely related to walking therefore it can be an economic incentive for businesses and the city to improve walkability (Clavé 2019). This proves that we do not have to go over to Paris to find examples of pedestrian-focused urban spaces, the different beaches in Los Angeles are staples of walkability and the city has further opportunities for growth.
Existing Mass Transit Options:
Another good news for LA is that it does have a transit system. The problem with the current transit is not that it does not exist, but that it is heavily stigmatized, unsafe, and inefficient. The real as well as perceived safety of LA transit is poor, discouraging commuters from using it, and lowering the demand for it. The system is not extensive or well-connected enough for the extent of the city it also fails to connect the LA county as a who together which also makes it less convenient for use. While public transportation is a crucial element of traditionally well-working urban transportation systems such as the ones in Europe and should be a focus in the long run, we can first explore other ways of mass transit that might suit LA better and make people more familiar with the concept of leaving their cars behind.
The transit solution also does not need to be traditional or follow European models. One of the staples of the US commute, the school bus system, is working efficiently and creates a great example of the type of solutions the city needs. They can carry around 48 adults or 72 children per bus making it a highly efficient form of transit. They only carry children, making it into a safe and familiar environment with a strong sense of community. They go around targeting specific households, eliminating the first and last-mile problem. They stay in the neighborhood minimizing travel distance, they are also one of the safes vehicles with less than 1% of all traffic fatalities involving children on school transportation vehicles (NHTSA, n/d). They only do pick up and drop off, therefore, can park off-site. Although California does not require school systems to provide buses and does not fund school transportation, this model is a comprehensive way of transportation unique to the United States that should be utilized more in Los Angeles.
Reversed Roles: Foods and Goods delivery habits:
The usage of various delivery systems and mobile services in LA has a long history but it even got more popular during the lockdown period of the Covid-19 pandemic. Food trucks and street food vendors have been present in Los Angeles since the 1870’ and have been providing economic opportunities for small business owners as well as heightened accessibility to food in low-income neighborhoods and food deserts (Elliott, 2015)
During the lockdown, the use of delivery apps such as Instacart, Door Dash and online shopping through Amazon also become popular in higher-income households, creating more economic incentives to popularize delivery and mobile amenities. Study shows that e-commerce in the United States increased by 31.8% from the first quarter to the second quarter of 2020 (Wang, X. C et al., 2021). Although people are reverting to normal shopping habits, reversing the roles, if done efficiently, could potentially decrease the number of trips and number of vehicles on the roads while also providing an equitable solution for accessibility for neighborhoods, without the danger of gentrification, therefore should be reinforced more by Los Angeles.
Current Trends: Remote Work and Rising Gas Prices:
Although not unique to LA or USA, but unique to the time, the introduction of remote work and free transit during Covid-19 in 2020, in addition to the currently rising gas prices in 2022 presents the perfect opportunity to promote and reform transit. The lockdown during Covid-19 showed that remote work is not only possible but also can be just as functional for many workplaces, a 2020 study shows that people working from home are 47% more productive (Nagy, 2020). The combination of remote work and online shopping could cut car use down by 14 million in the US leaving streets empty, and open for other uses (Silberg, 2020).
Although currently, Los Angles have reverted to its old ways, this shows that the city must reinvestigate and promote the possibility of remote and hybrid work while it is still in the conversation. Currently, rising gas prices are making vehicular travel less and less economically feasible. This also provides the perfect opportunity to promote transit as the gap in the cost of travel by vehicle compared to transit keeps increasing.
STEP 2: REINFORCE POSITIVES, MAKE THE CHANGE
As the next step, we need to realize how to reinforce the positives that Los Angeles can offer. We need to examine the opportunities the city should lean into and the way to reinforce already existing good habits. Los Angeles should make progressively bigger changes and policies based on these positives that can encourage further growth. A couple of examples of such changes would be:
Using wide streets and improving existing walkability and transit:
It was established that Los Angeles has wide enough streets to increase the supply for other modes while also leaving enough space for cars. This repurposing can take many forms, for example, the creation of complete streets would encourage more walking and biking or increase separate lanes for carpooling and transit.
Walkability should be encouraged in spaces that attract the most foot traffic. First, similarly to the beaches and tourist attractions, other public spaces that can attract visitors and consumers could be adapted into more pedestrian-friendly spaces. Blocks and streets in Downtown LA, Hollywood, or the fashion district as well as already existing transit centers and TODS, should be made more walkable. Complete streets with comprehensive public transportation, wide sidewalks, bike lanes, and bike parking options, trees, and green space should be included in these spaces, to encourage walkability. Since streets are wide enough these modifications should not alarm drivers, and the number and width of lanes leading to these places should be decreased, giving space for other modes and street shopping, and other modes of travel. These alterations would make vehicular travel less convenient than alternative modes, allowing a slow but steady transition to a more walkable downtown.
The demand for transit could rise alongside the increased options for walking. The city could start to make funding for transit a priority, invest time and money and implement policy changes to recover it. Making it cleaner, including amenities, and connecting them to activity sites would be a good start. Then, the city could also increase the separated lanes for transit making it a more extensive and connective system.
Parking should also accommodate this change with transit lines. Because of the mandatory parking requirement, there is also a lot of parking space in the city. Around transit hubs that lead into city centers, in the suburbs, and on the outskirts of LA where transportation is not as congested yet, there should be an increased supply of parking. The promotion and popularization of Park and Ride (P+R) parking spaces, that are cleaner, safer, or have more space and amenities, can encourage city dwellers coming from the suburbs to park their cars at public transport centers and continue using transit from there (Sinhasane, 2020).
If enough good alternative option is provided, the convenience of car use would be decreased, and the demand for car spaces would further lessen. The more people using transit the safer and less stigmatized it is, further increasing demand and therefore encouraging supply and the possibility of increased funding.
Creating opportunities for travel behavior change through private agencies:
Los Angeles must start to support alternative modes. As we could see the traditional way doesn’t work, so the city must do what it knows to do and make the change through private organizations.
Covid has shown the possibilities of remote work and its impact on the daily commute. Los Angeles must recognize the advantages of this opportunity and encourage workplaces, schools, and companies through incentives and funds to support allow and their employees with the possibility of remote and hybrid work.
If remote work is not possible, because the worker needs to be physically present such as essential workers in retail, construction, warehouse, or in the public sector such as healthcare, or the police force. In these cases, alternative modes should be encouraged. We concluded that in the US overall, privet mass transit options might fit better with the current social norms than public ones. Workplaces and schools might provide a better opportunity to create employee and student transportation services like the current school bus system in the rest of the US and some places in LA. Los Angeles should recognize these opportunities and provide, private organizations and activity sites such as workplaces, retail, healthcare, and recreational facilities to provide transit options, and encourage carpooling and alternative modes for their employees and customer.
Such private mass transit options would of course only work with workers that live in the proximity of their workplace so another option would be to encourage mass transit from the other way around. By this I mean, carpooling with neighbors and alternatively providing mass transit opportunities through the housing companies. In Los Angeles, housing firms, such as Lorenzo, have for example started to offer shuttle systems for its residents to USC and UCLA which became one of the strongest amenities of the housing company. These options would create an efficient, safe, and convenient alternative mode of travel through telecommunication and mass transit that can battle with car-dependency.
STEP 3: FROM CHANGE TO DIFFERENCE
After identifying the problem and the opportunities the city prepared and started to break down negative habits and encourage positive behaviors. We must circle back to step 0th. To our original goals of changing the built environment and travel behavior of Los Angeles and making the city more livable through transportation. At this time Los Angeles and its commuters would be ready for some substantial policy to be realistically implemented that would make a true difference to travel without minimal unwanted side effects. To point out some of these:
Sufficient, Extensive Public Transit, Bicycle infrastructure, and pedestrian spaces:
With a stable demand for transit and walkability, the real potential of an increase in demand and interest could create a well-founded reason to increase supply. The prior improvements to public transit and private mass transit would decrease the negative stigma associated with transit as well as the symbolic prestige of owning a vehicle it would potentially provide a more receptive and stable number of users. Several of the wide streets of Los Angeles, at this point, would have been repurposed for alternate modes and are now would be ready for more permanent changes such as Rail System, or can be turned into an extensive Bus Rapid Transit, such as the one in Curitiba, Brazil, which is a highly cost and time-effective transit mode that might be still more fitting for LA than a new Railway (Lindau et. al., 2010). This could lead to a more extensive, connective transit, creating a strong alternative to cars.
Similarly, breaking from the cycle of lacking demand and irrationality of increasing supply, Downtown LA where tourist attractions, central places, and streets would have been made more accommodating for walking and alternate modes and would be ready to be extended further or converted into complete streets and pedestrian zones with parks and activity centers.
Cars left home or parked outside of the city center, residents, commuters, and tourists can enjoy restaurants on the streets, inline retail, clean air, and large green spaces. The eyes on the street would strengthen the community and safety in LA, further encouraging social interactions in public spaces (Jacobs, 1993) It would also strengthen the local economy, as residents and tourists would be more encouraged to walk to and spend more money in local street shops and restaurant, vendors, food trucks and in-line retail rather than malls and big block retail centers. More activity sites would mean more pedestrians on the street achieving economic growth and building a greater sense of safety and community in LA, further improving the transportation, and living conditions of the city.
Land Use and Remote Work:
The city could also lessen the strain on transportation by changing land use and zoning policies. Although restructuring the current environment and spatial organization of LA is currently not realistic, there is a possibility that employment centers in the inner city can be rethought. Leaning into remote work, telecommunication, the city, and companies could also collaborate to offer more possibilities for remote work. It should be encouraged to work from home or create remote workstations. Offices that gather people based on location rather than a line of work, and company. At such stations they still can be around people in an office environment providing supervision and separation of work-life spaces but at a location much closer to their place of residence. This could dismantle employment centers in the metropolis and fix spatial mismatch in the city and decrease the number of city dwellers.
CONCLUSION
We can see that changing travel behavior and the changing built conditions often go hand in hand and therefore should be reformed simultaneously. This connection causes most of the problems in trying to reform transportation. The users’ demand for alternative modes currently is not high enough to have a valid argument for transferring supplies from vehicular transport to alternative modes. Los Angeles needs to focus on policies that can relieve the current overwhelmed transportation in the city without too many negative short- or long-term impacts.
Sustainable and significant change cannot be reached by only one policy or in one day. Although changes cannot be delayed, these changes cannot be rushed. Cities need to consider the users’ short-term wants and align them with the city’s long-term needs. The solution must be a comprehensive and well-thought-out framework that considers the unique habits and socioeconomic backgrounds of the city and incorporates the needs and wants of Los Angeles and its people.
Work Cited
1. Adler, S. (1991). The Transformation of the Pacific Electric Railway: Bradford Snell, Roger Rabbit, and the Politics of Transportation in Los Angeles. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 27(1), 51–86.
2. Anton Clavé, S. (2019). Urban tourism and walkability. The future of tourism: Innovation and sustainability, 195–211.
3. Ambrosino, G., Nelson, J. D., Boero, M., & Pettinelli, I. (2016). Enabling intermodal urban transport through complementary services: From Flexible Mobility Services to the Shared Use Mobility Agency: Workshop 4. Developing inter-modal transport systems. Research in Transportation Economics, 59, 179–184.
4. Avila, E. (2014). The folklore of the freeway: Race and revolt in the modernist city. U of Minnesota Press.
5. Cervero, R. (2004). Transit-oriented development in the United States: Experiences, challenges, and prospects.
6. Elliott, F. (2015). The history and politics of street food in Los Angeles. Eater. Retrieved from https://www.eater.com/2015/7/22/9014483/history-and-politics-of-street-food-los-angeles
7. Garcetti, E.(2019). Green New Deal for La. City of Los Angeles. Retrieved from https://ladot.lacity.org/livable-streets/green-new-deal-la
8. Huang, Z., & Loo, B. P. (2022). Urban traffic congestion in twelve large metropolitan cities: A thematic analysis of local news contents, 2009–2018. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 1–23.
9. Jacobs, J. (1993). The death and life of great American cities. Vintage Books
10. Lindau, L. A., Hidalgo, D., & Facchini, D. (2010). Bus rapid transit in Curitiba, Brazil: A look at the outcome after 35 years of bus-oriented development. Transportation Research Record, 2193(1), 17–27.
11. Nagy, A. (2020, May 19). Prodoscore research from March/April 2020: Productivity has increased, led by remote workers. Business Wire. Retrieved from https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200519005295/en/
12. Maizlish, N. (2016). Increasing walking, cycling, and transit: Improving Californians … Office of Health Equity, California Department of Public Health from https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/OHE/CDPH%20Document%20Library/Maizlish-2016-Increasing-Walking-Cycling-Transit-Technical-Report-rev8-17-ADA.pdf
13. Merck, A. (2019). This city ditched its car-centric traditions to better serve all transportation users. Salud America from https://salud-america.org/this-city-ditched-its-car-centric-traditions-to-better-serve-all-transportation-users/
14. Price, A. (2021). The negative consequences of car dependency. Strong Towns. Retrieved from https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/11/2/the-negative-consequences-of-car-dependency
15. Rodrigue, Jean-Paul, et al. The Geography of Transport Systems. 4th ed., Routledge, 2016.
16. Salas, E. B. (2022). Germany: Public transport accessibility by State. Statista. from https://www.statista.com/statistics/1310159/public-transport-accessibility-germany-by-state/
17. Siu, K. (2015). Standard Street Dimensions. Bureau of Engineering — City of Los Angeles. Retrieved from https://eng2.lacity.org/techdocs/stdplans/s-400/S-470-1_20151021_150849.pdf
18. Speck, J. (2012). Walkable city: how downtown can save America, one step at a time. New York, Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
19. Shoup, D. C. (2011). The high cost of free parking. Routledge.
20. Shaheen, S., Sperling, D., & Wagner, C. (1998). Carsharing in Europe and North American: past, present, and future.
21. Sinhasane, S. (2020). Park and ride system: Is it defining better future for urban commuters? Mobisoft Infotech. Retrieved from https://mobisoftinfotech.com/resources/blog/park-and-ride-services/
22. Vianna, C. (2022, December 20). Los Angeles Tourism Stats Round-Up Post. Xola. Retrieved from https://www.xola.com/articles/los-angeles-tourism-stats-round-up-post/
23. Wang, X. C., Kim, W., Holguín-Veras, J., & Schmid, J. (2021). Adoption of delivery services in light of the COVID pandemic: Who and how long?. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 154, 270–286.
24. Wachs, M. (1993). Learning from Los Angeles: transport, urban form, and air quality. Transportation, 20, 329–354.
25. Willson, R. W. (2018). A guide for the idealist: Launching and navigating your planning career. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group
26. N. A., (2018) Los Angeles Transportation by the Numbers, TRIP
27. N.A., (2019). Updating the Metric of Transportation Impact: Benefits of Vmt., California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpOsLf1i_7k&feature=youtu.be&ab_channel=Governor%27sOfficeofPlanningandResearch.
28. N.A., (2020) The American Community Survey, and the 2020 Census, US Census Bureau
29. N. A. (n.d.). Transforming transportation. California Energy Commission. Retrieved 2023, from https://www.energy.ca.gov/about/core-responsibility-fact-sheets/transforming-transportation
30. N.A (n.d.). What is bike infrastructure? Planetizen. Retrieved 2023, from https://www.planetizen.com/definition/bike-infrastructure
31. N. A. (n.d.). Atlas of Urban Expansion — Budapest. Atlas of Urban Expansion. Retrieved 2023, from http://www.atlasofurbanexpansion.org/cities/view/Budapest
32. N.A. (n.d.). History. Department of Beaches & Harbors. Retrieved 2023, from https://beaches.lacounty.gov/history/
33. N.A. (n.d.). School Bus Safety. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Retrieved from https://www.nhtsa.gov/road-safety/school-bus-safety
