Greening Los
Angeles – Filling the Mostly Empty Glass
By Max Tomaszewski and Dick Platkin *
(Published in CityWatchLA on August 3,
2012)
In the field of city planning there is little mystery about
the relationship between urban land use patterns and climate change. Los Angeles’s auto-centric design forces
automobile travel, and therefore locks most residents into extensive use of greenhouse
gas-emitting fossil fuels. These
emissions have immensely contributed to SMOG and now to climate change; have
pushed the atmosphere’s carbon content to dangerous levels, with some outcomes,
such as this summer’s extreme weather events, already observable.
Los Angeles’s
Auto-Centric Design: In Los Angeles, auto-centric
development blankets the metropolis from the foothills of the San Gabriel, San
Bernardino, and Verdugo mountains to the Pacific coastline. An extensive freeway network connects this
urban quilt, now over 70 years old. Horizontal,
automobile-centered development has made Los Angeles an icon for urban sprawl, traffic
congestion, and air and water pollution.
What were once primarily local issues of SMOG, have now become a global concern
over the green house gases responsible for climate change.
A
recent study by UCLA researchers and a newly released scientific report
commissioned by numerous state and federal agencies emphasize the costly and
deadly implications of climate change for Southern California. According to the UCLA report,
conducted by climatologist Alex Hall, temperatures in the Los Angeles region
are expected to increase four to five degrees Fahrenheit within this century.
The number of days above 95 degrees will dramatically increase. Meanwhile, California’s sea level, which has
risen seven inches over the past hundred years, is predicted to rise as much as
5 ½ feet by the end of this century.
When today’s kids are nearing retirement age, California’s climate and coastline
will be completely transformed.
Needless to say,
these shocking changes will inevitably impose great costs upon the local energy
infrastructure and endanger the safety of everyone living along the California
coast and within the Los Angeles basin. These
harrowing outcomes are, in part, the results of excessive greenhouse emissions
due to citywide unsustainable practices, designs, and technology. It is
our contention that the only road leading out of these conditions is not paved
with asphalt and populated by automobiles, but instead a mindful combination of
sustainability-oriented adjustments to public policy and the implementation of
eco-friendly urban design principles.
These problems are compounded by Los Angeles’s vast,
non-ecological legacy of land use policies and transportation infrastructure. Currently, separated land uses, extensive
freeway networks, and limited pedestrian and public transportation services
compel most residents and visitors to rely on cars for mobility. Frequently these journeys are lengthened by
freeway congestion. The need to travel
long distances and the excessive time required to make those trips contribute
to Los Angeles’ reputation as one of this planet’s least sustainable cities.
While this situation is grim, there are clearly many policy
and programs options to transform the Los Angeles metropolitan area. The purpose of this essay is to explain how
this could be done through existing programs and practices. They are already working in other cities and
could be readily grafted onto Los Angeles.
In other words, there are no technological barriers, only the political
and economic ones maintained by the city’s elected officials and special
interests.
The city’s potential makeover is based on a straightforward
principle: to make Los Angeles a more compact and less auto-centric city, new
development and infrastructure must be designed so residents can comfortably
and sustainably live within a smaller area.
Officially
Adopted Policies to Promote Sustainability:
On paper Los Angeles has begun to address sprawl through multiple approaches,
including many formally adopted policies in the General Plan’s Land Use, Air
Quality, Transportation, and Framework Elements. They contain many goals and programs that –
if implemented -- would reduce congestion and promote more sustainable development.
For example, one General Plan Framework goal, adopted in
1996, is “to create safe, livable and sustainable neighborhoods.” This section explains that “mixing uses
within projects, […] locating housing in proximity to a mix of uses, and
developing Transit Oriented District plans” are some of the methods by which
neighborhoods can become more sustainable.
The General Plan specifically commits the Los Angeles to the development
of mixed-use boulevards, pedestrian- and transit-priority districts, and
multi-family developments to reduce sprawl and automobile use.
Furthermore, the General Plan’s Transportation Element
clearly supports the improvement of transit services and transit- and
pedestrian-friendly site designs, including an expansion of bus services,
transit-oriented development, curb management for pedestrian areas, and the use
of alternative fuels (and eventually zero-emission) in fleet vehicles. Furthermore, the recently adopted Los Angeles
Bicycle Plan represents still another planning effort to “transform Los Angeles
from an auto-centric city to one with a multi-modal transportation system that
includes not only cars and trucks, but also buses, trains, pedestrians, and
cyclists”
On paper these
General Plan policies and programs offer a solution to sprawl, congestion, and
pollution. If properly adopted and
enhanced by a full range of actual public improvements, the dense, mixed-use
development and alternative mode infrastructure proposed by the General Plan
would substantially alter Los Angeles’s physical design and reduce travel time,
the need for extensive travel, automobile reliance, and associated greenhouse
gas emissions. Of course, the emphasis
is on proper adoption because so far there is little evidence that the City’s official
policies correspond to actual funded programs.
Furthermore, the City of Los Angeles has abandoned all monitoring
programs to measure and assess the implementation of these well-intentioned
policies. As a result, much of the
City’s adopted sustainability agenda remains unimplemented.
Recommendations for making Los Angeles
less Auto-Centric: In Green
Metropolis, David Owen argues that New York City’s combination of mass
transit and compact and pedestrian-friendly urban design imposes sustainable behaviors
on its residents. Conversely then, Los
Angeles’s automobile-oriented infrastructure and private development promote
unsustainable personal behavior. In both
cities, residents and visitors have no choice but to live within the limitations
of the built environment. Therefore,
creating a more sustainable and less-sprawled Los Angeles requires multiple changes
in urban design and infrastructure that will, in turn, transform individual patterns
on a citywide scale. What would this
entail?
First, land use policies must be revised to diminish the
need for long-distance travel. Despite its
General Plan, Los Angeles still suffers from dramatic separations of land uses. Residents and visitors must utilize their
cars and the freeways to access to the City’s widely dispersed commercial and
residential destinations. The best
solution to this dilemma is mixed-use development. A concentration of diverse uses at a single
site enables a more sustainable outcome.
Quite simply, an individual does not need to go far if his or her needs
are met within walking distance.
Mixed-use development creates a more compact neighborhood, less
automobile congestion, and less greenhouse gas emissions, because of reduced
car use.
Similarly, transit-oriented development (TOD) places
residential and commercial activities near major public transit hubs. TOD further reduces automobile reliance by
providing easy access to public transportation for visitors and residents. To be effective, however, TOD must
incorporate a full range of complimentary on and off-site improvements, such as
street furniture, newspaper vending machines and pay phones, street vendors and
kiosks, ADA curb-cuts and widened walkways, tree canopies, street lighting, and
bike lanes. Based on Owen’s analysis,
they all comprise the walkable street environment needed to scale-down the auto-centric
urban environment. By refocusing urban
design away from the convenience of the automobile and toward the bicyclist, transit
rider, and pedestrian, a more sustainable Los Angeles could be systematically
built. Furthermore, the State of
California adopted the AB 1358, the Complete Streets Act, in 2008, and all California
cities, including Los Angeles, have a mandate to fully consider transit riders,
bicyclists, pedestrians, and the handicapped in all planning-related actions.
While this comprehensive makeover of Los Angeles sounds
like a fantasy, other than New York, these techniques have already been partially
achieved in Vancouver, San Francisco, Portland, and Boston. While, old habits may be hard to break, David
Owens has demonstrated how alterations in urban design cause far-reaching
changes in personal behavior. Even some portions
of Los Angeles successfully demonstrate the transformative effects of such
policies. For example, Old Pasadena and
Larchmont Boulevard are examples of thriving business districts that have
implemented pedestrian-oriented principles.
In addition to whittling away at automobile use, walkability presents
unique economic opportunities for these communities. Their pedestrian-friendly design enhances the
appeal of these local commercial hubs, and provides clear example of successful
pedestrian principles that could be rolled-out on a citywide basis.
Another critical aspect of Los Angeles’s comprehensive
transformation revolves around the quality and extent of its public
transportation system. Public
transportation must be improved to satisfy demand and simultaneously address
the negative effects of urban sprawl. An
expanded transit system based on heavy rail, light rail, bus rapid transit, and
traditional buses would establish a dense enough transit system to reduce traffic
congestion. More specifically, METRO and
LADOT must increase the number and size of their public transit service
vehicles to encourage and accommodate larger numbers of passengers. Articulated buses should be employed in
increasing number. Light rail
development should continue, as well as the expansion of the current heavy rail
subway system. In essence, Los Angeles’s
public transportation system must become bigger and better, so that it can
actually meet the needs of a dispersed public.
In addition, the quality of service must improve dramatically. For example, every bus stop should feature a covered
shelter with real time signage indicating bus arrival and departure times. More importantly, public transportation needs
to have shorter headways, reduced fares, and arrive and depart according to schedule. Furthermore, public transportation should be
given priority access on streets and freeways, such as Wilshire Boulevard’s
proposed Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system.
Public transit deserves exclusive right-of-way lanes; the
vehicle-traffic signal coordinating systems employed currently by BRT should be
applied to all public transportation vehicles.
Every measure must be taken to make public transportation the fastest,
safest, and most convenient travel option.
In this manner Los Angeles could mitigate traffic
congestion and address environmental concerns associated with high levels of automobile
emissions. Furthermore, all of this is
based on existing technology and infrastructure whose design and effectiveness
has been developed and demonstrated in many other urban areas, and, in some
cases, locally.
Conclusions: Reversing Los Angeles’s auto-centric
urban design and infrastructure is a key component of its General Plan. Furthermore, the General Plan identifies many
key strategies for transforming Los Angeles into a more sustainable, less
automobile-dependent city. However, this
document is not comprehensive enough to offset many decades of unsustainable growth. In addition to promoting carefully designed mixed-use
and transit-oriented development, the city’s streets and sidewalks must be
redeveloped for walkability and bikeability.
The City must make every effort to shift development away from the
convenience of the car towards pedestrians, transit riders, and bicyclists.
Then, the City must work to improve
and expand the public transportation system within its existing
boundaries. The accompanying reductions
in car use, roadway congestion, travel time, and pollution will begin to
reverse the effects of urban sprawl, and could transform Los Angeles’ into a highly
sustainable city.
·
Max Tomaszewski graduated from USC’s
Sol Price School of Public Policy in May 2012 and looks forward to pursuing
graduate work in urban planning.
·
Dick Platkin teaches courses on
sustainable city planning at USC.
Comments