Los(t) Angeles: Lessons Learned from London and Paris

While in my previous posts I have utilized various internet resources to research sustainable living practices used around the globe, for this week's entry I have decided to write about the sustainable techniques used in London and Paris that I experienced first hand while travelling through these two cities last week. Although during my travels I visited Buckingham Palace, The Queen’s Gallery, the Tower of London, Harrods, countless Pubs, the Louvre, the Eiffel Tower, the Pompidou Modern Art Museum, the Arc De Triumph, and French cafes, the sustainable techniques employed in these two European cities, while they might be foreshadowed by the aforementioned historical monuments, are as impressive and innovative. More specifically, London’s clean and efficient public transit systems coupled with its congestion pricing plan helps deter automobile use, while the pedestrian orientation of public space in Paris also helps create a environment capable of sustainable living. With London’s clean and efficient transit system and Paris’ public space makes both London and Paris two of the most beautiful and sustainable cities in the world.

According to a 2006 report, the city of London holds around 7.5 million residents, while the greater Los Angeles area has a population of 9,878,554. Even though Los Angeles has more residents living within its city boundaries, the city of London is capable of housing almost as large of a population compared to Los Angeles and still maintain sustainable practices through the use of an effective mass transit system combined with the practice of congestion pricing. While Los Angeles’ public transit system is under utilized for a number of reasons (see recent posts regarding Los Angeles public transit) the city of London’s public transit system is very popular for it is clean, it is efficient, and it is affordable compared to driving a private car during congestion charging time slots. London’s congestion charging system was introduced into central London in 2003 as a way to reduce traffic congestion and raise revenues to fund transport improvements. The London Congestion Pricing Report states that “a basic economic principle is that consumers should pay directly for the costs they impose as an incentive to use resources efficiently.” This report explains further than if road space remains free then traffic volumes will continue to increase until traffic congestion limits further growth. By using a congestion pricing system people will be forced to pay a toll to drive to and through the city of London in order to help discourage the build up of congestion . Since February 2003, motorist driving through central London between the hours of 7 am and 6:30 pm during the weekdays are required to pay 8 Euros. Since the enacting of the congestion pricing system in London, traffic entering the original charging zones, marked by signs (see above image), remains 21% lower than pre-charge levels, there has been a 6% increase in bus passengers during charging hours, and 137 million Euros have been raised in the 2007/08 financial year alone according to the Transport for London website. All revenue created by the congestion pricing system is invested back in London’s transportation infrastructure to help better accommodate London’s future population. These numbers prove that congestion pricing can help discourage the use of automobiles and help encourage the use of more sustainable means of transportation while generating a sufficient source of transportation revenue.

With London’s congestion pricing system keeping travelers out of environmentally unfriendly automobiles, London’s efficient and clean double-deck bus lines help get pedestrians from point A to point B at reasonable prices. Compared to the buses used in Los Angeles, London’s double-deck buses seem to be manufactured by Rolls Royce. London’s double-deck buses are waste free, graffiti free, are equipped with two wide doors to expedite loading and unloading time, along with an Oyster card sensor to expedite the time it takes riders to pay their fare. Upon entering the bus in London every rider pays their fare of two Euros before taking their seats. The other benefit of using double-deck buses in London is that double-deck buses take up less space than the regular elongated buses used in Los Angeles, which further alleviates congestion problems during peak driving hours.

Compared to London, Paris too has clean and efficient mass transit systems that allow Parisian travelers t0 get to and from their destinations by sustainable modes of transportation. While getting around Paris is extremely easy even for the non-French speaking traveler, what really stands out in Paris is the amount of public space allocated to the pedestrian. In 2001 Paris enacted a new Transportation Master Plan in order to reduce car traffic, improve public transit, and encourage walking and biking as important modes of urban transportation. Since 2001, Paris has been able "to increase its city’s public health and air quality, foster accessibility and social justice, boost the local economy, and to make the city more beautiful and enjoyable to live in,” by giving public space back to pedestrians, public transport, and bicycles. By re-allocating public space from the private automobile back to the pedestrian, Paris has enabled itself to become a pedestrian-oriented city, and therefore more sustainable. With more public space allocated to the pedestrian, Parisian commuters have more space to walk and bike, and are not stuck without a car. Since enacting the new Transportation Master Plan, across Paris, sidewalks have been widened, bikes lanes striped, trees have been planted, and there are currently around 200 miles of dedicated bike lanes in Paris. (See the separate automobile street, bike lane, and pedestrian walk way above). With all the public space allocated for the pedestrian in Paris, sustainable practice programs such as the Vélib bike-sharing program have been able to thrive within the city.

Since July 15, 2007 Paris has offered its citizens affordable public bikes to travel around the city. Around 20,000 Vélib bicycles are available twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, and can be rented from one of the, 450 self-service rental stations placed conveniently around Paris. Renting a Vélib bike is relatively cheap, which makes using these bikes even more attractive than travelling by automobile. While one may be charged 150 Euros if the bike is not returned with twenty-four hours, the first half hour of renting a Vélib bike is free, with minimal charges after the first thirty minutes. The Vélib bicycle sharing program has been highly successful in Paris. In the first year the 2.1 million Parisian residents have made 27.5 million trips on Vélib bicycles, which is around 120,000 trips a day. While Los Angeles currently has around 320 miles of bike routes throughout its city, these bike routes are under utilized for they are unsafe and are not separated from dangerous, fast-paced automobiles, like they are in Paris. By following Paris’ lead by reclaiming public space for pedestrians and bike-users, more Los Angelinos may be willing to ride their bicycles to and from daily commutes like the Parisians, and in conclusion become more sustainable.

Los(t) Angeles: Substituting Free Parking For Fare-Free Transit

As I have referred to in previous posts, Los Angeles’ auto-oriented society along with Los Angeles’ dominating urban sprawl growth model creates difficult circumstances for Los Angelinos and the city of Los Angeles to become environmentally sustainable. With the decreasing revenues for mass-transit systems across the country leading to the contraction of current mass transit lines (see previous post “How the Vehicle Mileage Tax System Can Save President Obama’s Transportation Stimulus Package”) it is clear that turning Los Angeles into a sustainable, pedestrian oriented city is no easy task even with President Obama’s transportation stimulus package.

For this week’s post, I have decided to search the blogosphere in order to find new easily implemented solutions that can help Los Angeles reverse its urban sprawl growth model and in turn help Los Angeles head into the direction of becoming a pedestrian oriented city. The first feasible solution that I came across comes from an article found on the planning and development blog Planetizen, titled: “Why Is Fare-Free Transit The Exception Rather Than The Rule?” In this article, author Dave Olsen explains that using fare-free transit is the only effective way to promote mass transit ridership resulting in a shift towards sustainable living. Olsen explains that comprehensive mass-transit research demonstrates that the cost of operating a mass transit system is similar to its projected revenues. Olsen further explains that, “collecting fares is as or more expensive than the revenue it brings in.” With no stable source of income for mass transit systems, even when these systems collect fares, Olsen argues that public transit systems should then shift their priority from making a profit to prioritizing the main mandate of public transportation systems, that is getting people to use public transit. Olsen highlights the previous success achieved in cities that use fare-free transit systems like Hasselt Belgium, which increased public transit ridership by 1223% after switching to fare-free transit in only four years.
(See above image: a bus with no fare box).

The second solution to Los Angeles’ urban sprawl and car-oriented problems that I found is from the article: “Putting Parking into Reverse,” found on the Planetizen blog post: Cities Begin To Rethink Parking Policies. The solution identified in this article helps put an end to the negative urban sprawl cycle that is created with the allocation of required parking spots for existing and new developments. When a new development is built, city planners require a minimum number of subsidized on-site parking for that development. For example “office buildings [require] 2.79 [parking spaces] per 1,000 square feet; large shopping centers require five spaces for every 1,000 leasable square feet; and even apartments often have a minimum of two spaces.” (See left image: lost public space caused by required amount of parking). By requiring a minimum amount of parking spaces for each new development, these spaces facilitate and promote the use of cars, which causes an increase in private automobile use, decreases the use of public transit, and pushes buildings farther and farther away, leading to further urban sprawl and the need of more parking spaces. This article prescribes that city planners decrease the amount of public parking, increase the cost to use public parking based on current demand and congestion, and to allocate parking maximums rather than parking minimums for new developments, all in order to discourage the use of automobiles. By increasing the cost of public parking, and decreasing the amount of public parking available, urban citizens would choose to use other means of transportation over the use of private automobiles. My insight about these articles can be found on their websites, and below.


“Why Is Fare-Free Transit The Exception Rather Than The Rule?”

Thank you for this interesting post, I find the idea of fare-free public transit to be a perfect solution of promoting mass transportation ridership in the auto-oriented city of Los Angeles. With the decreasing revenue created by the sales and gas tax, the Federal Highway Trust Fund is being forced to cut mass transit service routes and is laying off employees. While the VMT tax system has been suggested to help generate revenue for the Federal Highway Trust Fund, switching to a fare-free transit system seems to be an even easier easy solution to implement.

It would be interesting to see the actual numbers and evidence of the research conducted on the costs of collecting fares, but if these numbers do show that the cost of collecting fares is more than the revenue collected by these fares, then there is no reason not to use fare-free transit. I agree that public transit is a public service, and therefore the United States should follow the trend started by Washington State, and try and get people onto public transit for the sake of the public rather than making profit.

I am confused as why you say, “the refreshing absence of advertising anywhere in the [fare-free] system definitely adds a large part to that shine,” for I do not see the problem with offering advertisement space on fare-free transit. You discuss in this post multiple post-fare funding techniques, why cannot selling advertisement space also be a technique to help generate funds?

Also I would like to add that while I do agree fare-free public transit is a viable option to help promote mass transit ridership, it is definitely not the only effective option. Curitiba Brazil has one of the most successful public transit systems due to their integrated land use and public transit planning along with their sophisticated tube stations. Under Curitiba’s combined transportation and land use policies, Curitiba Brazil only allows high-density zones to be built along large avenues that are only used for public transit. The buses that run on these large avenues are not subject to traffic or traffic lights, and run every 90 seconds. Due to Curitiba’s tube stations, riding the bus is more similar to riding the subway. Riders pay one fare for unlimited bus trips before entering the tube station. And once inside the tube station buses with extendable platforms and extra wide doors, allow all of Curitiba’s bus riders to exit and enter the buses in 15-20 seconds. Therefore fare-free transit is not the “only” way to run a public transit system, however it might be the best way to operate a public transit system that is in an area confined to urban sprawl.

Putting Parking Into Reverse

This article offers great insight about the negative consequences created by the minimum rather than maximum parking spaces required for new developments. By decreasing the amount of parking spaces, increasing the costs to park in parking spaces, and requiring a maximum amount of parking spaces per new development, cities will be able to reclaim the public space that is currently being used up by public parking.

While I agree with all of the parking tenants Dr. Shoup prescribes in order to discourage the use of automobiles, I question what happens in a city that does not have an efficient public transit system that is able to transport citizens in a effective and timely manner? While progressive cities like San Francisco have been quick to enact as many of Dr. Shoup’s parking tenants as possible, San Francisco has a successful public transit system to rely on to effectively transport citizens around its city. Los Angeles on the other hand may be enacting some of Dr. Shoup’s tenants but only for the sake of easing street congestion and raising revenue. With urban sprawl in Los Angeles, all areas within Los Angeles County are poorly connected by public transit, for its inaccessibility and its exposure to private automobile congestion. While this article defends that by eliminating free parking that urban sprawl will be put to a halt, this solution provides no means of alternate transportation and therefore cannot be as successful in Los Angeles than in a high-density city like San Francisco. Due to this reason I feel that it is important that cities like Los Angeles that direly need to decrease the use of their automobiles in order to become more sustainable enact as many of Dr. Shoup’s parking tenants as possible in conjunction to creating an effective and efficient mass transportation system in order to become a sustainable, pedestrian oriented society.

Los(t) Angeles: Promoting Sustainable Living Through Incentives

With the growing concern for the degradation of the environment and the continual, yet slow development of the green revolution, one can find a plethora of sustainable replacement products anywhere in the market. The main factor that poses a problem is not whether we have the necessary means to live greener, but if those available means are affordable, efficient, and overall beneficial for mass lifestyles. For example, the sustainable Toyota Prius and 7th Generation’s post-consumer goods are all easily available but are not frequently bought because of their higher prices compared to more generic, affordable brands. In our current economic downturn, it is not surprising that people are more concerned with the economy than saving the environment or finding alternative energies. That being said, it is still important for Americans to live environmentally responsible lives in order to meet the needs of the present population without compromising the ability of future generations to live sustainably and safely. Instead of having the public view “living environmentally friendly” as a costly, luxury investment, the perception needs to shift so that the public sees living eco-friendly as a cost-efficient, financially benefiting lifestyle choice. Thus, the United States government needs to promote its citizens to live sustainable lives and can effectively do so by creating incentive and rebate programs. Already existing programs, like the ones currently being used in China, Sweden, and Brazil, would serve well as models.

This past month, China announced a rebate program to offer generous incentives for people looking to buy green vehicles. China has launched this program in order to help reduce emissions in major cities. The rebates handed out will be in cash amounts depending on the size of the green automobiles- ranging from hybrid passenger cars to fuel cell powered buses. While this reimbursement system does not help curb China’s record high car growth or transform China’s transportation system into more sustainable transportation growth methods, this rebate system will help China reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by advocating the use of more sustainable automobiles, like pure electric vehicle pictured above. Chinese cities like Beijing are going even further to support the use of hybrid vehicles by offering citizens up to $3,700 in incentives to give up their old gas-guzzling and heavy polluting cars along with subsidies to purchase new environmentally responsible cars. These incentives and subsidy programs not only promote the utilization of sustainable vehicles for all income levels, but also help lower income levels become able to afford fuel-efficient vehicles. Other sustainable programs can be see all over the globe. The recycling incentive programs used in Curitiba Brazil and Sweden have created some of the highest recycling rates in the world. In Curitiba, ex-Mayor Jaime Lerner invented an incentive program where residents collect, sort, and exchange their garbage for fresh vegetables, food delivered weekly, and travel vouchers to use for Curitiba’s mass transit system. In Sweden, legal motivation is used to promote recycling by taxing each Swedish citizen according to the volume of trash they place in landfills. With these two recycling programs in place, it is not surprising that Curitiba recycles 2/3 of its waste every day while in Sweden “70% of paper, 95% of glass, 71% of plastic bottles, 85-90% of aluminum cans and 75% of tin cans,” were recycled in 2003.

While currently there are no numbers that indicate the success of China’s rebate and incentive programs for fuel-efficient vehicles, the successful recycling rates in Sweden and Curitiba prove that with government motivation, comes active participation in using sustainable products. If the United States were to enact a similar incentive program to promote the use of fuel-efficient vehicles then the amount of people that would be willing to switch to hybrid cars would be astronomical. While there are current tax-break incentives for those who drive fuel-efficient hybrid vehicles, these tax-cut programs do not make hybrid vehicles affordable to all Americans. Therefore, U.S incentives are less effective than China’s rebate and subsidy program, which pays its citizens money to give up their old gas-guzzling cars while offering subsidies on the purchase of new fuel-efficient vehicles. If the United States was serious in the promotion of fuel-efficient vehicles than they would need to mirror China’s program by presenting capital to all American citizens so that all income demographics within the United States would be able to afford and ultimately choose to drive fuel efficient vehicles. However, the United States did create the hybrid HOV incentive in 2005 which allows owners of fuel-efficient vehicles to drive solo in highway carpool lanes. Sadly the DMV in California has not issued any of these HOV stickers since 2007, as the California State Law had only allocated 85,000 of these sticker-incentives to be issued to hybrid owners.

Although California and Los Angeles do have existing incentives to promote sustainable living, they are not as well marketed and received as the programs used in China, Sweden, and Curitiba. China’s incentives were broadcasted over radio-channels, Sweden’s incentives are enforced by law, and Curitiba’s incentives continually give evident, tangible rewards to its citizens. California’s Public Utilities Commission and Energy Commission websites, Go Solar California, provides California residents with information about the incentives, rebates, tax credits, and possible capital gained by using solar energy for home or development. According to this website, not only does switching to solar power decrease an energy bill to up to 60%, but it produces income from extra energy produced by the solar panels. The only reason that these solar powered incentives are not being mass utilized is because programs such as this are not being publicized. If the California government was to invest in creating a campaign that advertised the benefits of using eco-friendly products such as switching to solar power will not only save money spent on energy bills, but also generate extra income from extra energy produced, then California families would be more apt to place solar panels on their homes to utilize solar energy. (Pictured above). If the United States wants to promote sustainable living then the United States needs to not only enact successful incentive programs, but also put effort and funding into publicizing these initiatives in order to create the mass utilization of these programs.