Final- Los Angeles' Original Land Use and Transportation Sin

Los Angeles’ Original Land Use& Transportation Sin

A Wrong too Wrong to Right?Analyzing LA’s Greenhouse Gas Emission Plans

Giovanni A. DubonNew York, NY

Los Angeles’ Original Land Use and Transportation Sin:

A Wrong too Wrong to Right? Analyzing LA’s Greenhouse Gas Emission Plans

A thesis submitted to the Center for Global Affairs at New York University in partial

Fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Masters of Science in Global Affairs

Concentration: Energy and Environmental Policy

Advisor: Carolyn Kissane

Giovanni Alexander Dubon

New York, NY

Fall 2015

Table of Contents

Abstract ........................................................................................................................................................... 3

Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 4

INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................ 5

Methodology ................................................................................................................................................... 9

Limitations ..................................................................................................................................................... 10

SECTION 1 NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL TRENDS .................................................... 11

Global Energy Revolution............................................................................................................................... 11

Oil and Pricing ............................................................................................................................................... 11

Clean Energy and the Grid ............................................................................................................................. 16

Climate Change and Environmental Policy ..................................................................................................... 17

Urban Planning: Transportation, Land Use Theory, and Spatial Models ........................................................ 22

SECTION 2 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA .................................................................................. 27

Historical Urban Development ....................................................................................................................... 32

Transportation and Land Use Planning .......................................................................................................... 35

Analysis: Energy Pricing and Transit .............................................................................................................. 44

Results of Analysis ......................................................................................................................................... 46

The Electric Vehicle will drive down LA’s GHG emissions ................................................................................ 47

SECTION 3 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA ....................................................................................... 51

Historical Development ................................................................................................................................. 54

Land Use and Transportation Policy ............................................................................................................... 56

SECTION 4 THE ETERNAL CAR CITY ........................................................................................ 60

Findings ......................................................................................................................................................... 60

Recommendations ......................................................................................................................................... 61

Conclusions .................................................................................................................................................... 62

WORK CITED ................................................................................................................................... 63

Giovanni A Dubon | A Wrong Too Wrong to Right? | Page 3

Abstract

This thesis studies the impact of land use and transportation policies on greenhouse

gas emissions reduction plans in Los Angeles. The study is contextualized as part of a larger

climate change, energy policy, and sustainable transportation narrative to serve as a bridge

between energy policy and urban planning. It evaluates land use, mobility, and air quality

plans of Los Angeles’ sustainability plan, pLAn, to assess the feasibility of emissions

reduction. Along these lines, a historical urban development analysis served as an

indispensable lens to explain how land use and transportation planning of the past has

influenced and shaped LA’s current urban form and car centric nature. The study finds that

land use and transportation policy cannot reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Los Angeles.

Energy policy must be infused and serve a key role in urban planning to effectively reduce

greenhouse gas emission. The San Diego region is used as a case study to highlight the

efforts of a car centric region in blending energy policy with transportation and land use

planning.

Key Words: Energy Policy; Land Use and Transportation Policy; Climate Change; Cities

Giovanni A Dubon | A Wrong Too Wrong Right? | Page 4

Executive Summary Los Angeles, California continues to be the epitome of an automobile centric city with

a high dependence on gasoline as a primary fuel for its transportation sector. California’s

climate change law (AB 32) mandates local jurisdictions to create an action plan to achieve

the states greenhouse gas emissions goal. Since the transportation sector accounts for 37% of

the state’s emissions, sustainability plans must emphasize clean and sustainable

transportation as a main priority to greenhouse gas emission reduction. This thesis explores

Los Angeles’ feasibility to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation via urban

planning and energy policy.

The results of this thesis suggest that Los Angeles cannot successfully reduce

greenhouse gas emissions via land use reform. Los Angeles’ historical urban development of

the 1920s and its resulting urban form, and sprawl are obstacles that cannot be overcome and

will impede the implementation of successful greenhouse gas emission reduction plans via

land use and transportation projects. Los Angeles was created for the automobile thus any

land use changes to encourage mass transit use will be fruitless because most plans focus on

traffic and congestion management rather than CO2 reduction. San Diego is used as a

comparative lens of a car centric city that can meet greenhouse gas emission reduction goals.

Electric vehicles have a greater potential to reduce greenhouse gas emission in Los

Angeles because they do not require an overhaul of the urban form, they can utilize existing

roads and highways, provide mobility freedom for drivers, and are quickly becoming more

economically viable. Additionally, EVs will use clean energy since California energy policy

is focused on decarbonizing the electricity sector through its Renewables Portfolio Standards

to achieve 50% renewables by 2030. The point is not to reduce traffic; it is to reduce CO2

emissions. Herein lies the reason why EVs rather than land use policy will drive down CO2

emissions in Los Angeles.


Introduction

California is a unique and special place. People from all around the world flock to its

shores, mountains, deserts, forests, and cities to experience and explore its wonders. Even

without the strong pop culture push towards a dominant car culture, visitors realize the

necessity of driving in the Golden State. Whether it be to explore the redwood forests, surf at

Newport Beach, visit Disneyland in Anaheim, or snowboard on Mammoth, the car is

essential for mobility in the state with the largest population in the country. Particularly for

residents of Southern California, the car is an essential form of mobility for residential,

commercial and recreational purposes because of the sprawl. The transportation sector is the

largest consumer of energy (37.8%), followed by industrial (23.6%), and residential and

commercial tied with 19.3% each.1 Not surprisingly, California has the highest total

registration of vehicles in the nation as well as the longest commutes and most vehicle miles

travelled. In terms of industrial output, it continues to remain one of the most competitive in

the country and one of the top producers of crude oil, after Texas and North Dakota. Despite

being a leader in energy intensity industries, it has one of the lowest per capita energy

consumption in the country.2 3 4

Due to the high perforation of vehicles, cities across California continuously rank in

the top 10 most polluted metro areas by ozone concentration, year round particle pollution,

and short term pollution.5 Additionally, the state is the second largest emitter of carbon

dioxide emissions in the country after Texas.6 Geography does play a significant role in

exacerbating the air pollution level as the mountainous region of the Sierra Nevada and Los

1 California State Profile and Energy Estimates-Overview. U.S. Energy Information Administration

2 California State Profile and Energy Estimates-Analysis, U.S. Energy Information Administration

3 State & Urbanized Area Statistics. U.S. Department of Transportation- Federal Highway Administration

4 Petroleum & Other Liquids- Crude Oil Production Data. U.S. Energy Information Administration

5 Most Polluted Cities. See http://www.stateoftheair.org/2015/city-rankings/most-polluted-cities.html

6 Environment- State Carbon Dioxide Emissions. U.S. Energy Information Administration


Angeles National Forest trap pollutants by an inversion layer of warm air.7 The problem is

particularly acute in Central Valley region and Los Angeles metro area. Despite this, the

transportation section is the most significant source of emissions followed by industry,

electricity generation, agriculture, residential, and commercial (37%, 23%, 20%, 8%, 7%, and

5% respectively).8

Concurrently, California has led the country as one of the most progressive states with

the strongest and most stringent environmental and climate change policy. It had been a

renowned leader even before Richard Nixon signed the Clean Air Act in 1970. During

Ronald Regan reign as governor, the Federal Air Quality Act of 1967 gave California special

legal power to have higher and stricter standards on tail pipe emissions.9 That same year, the

California Air Resource Board (ARB) was created to ‘promote and protect public health,

welfare, and ecological resources through the effective and efficient reduction of air

pollutants while recognizing and considering the effects on the economy of the state.’10

Since then ARB has been the leading regulatory body to track and reduce the emission of

toxic gasses from the various economic sectors. The landmark passing of AB 32-California

Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 became a watershed moment for ARB as they were

tasked with the implementation of the new law. AB 32 is one of the most significant pieces of

environmental legislation in the world and the first in the United States to require a reduction

of greenhouse gas emission to 1990 levels by 2020 by pursuing comprehensive regulatory

programs and market mechanisms to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a real, quantifiable,

7 “Why the Air gets trapped?” See http://www.valleyair.org/newsed/ca_primer/bigpicture/iiia4.html

8 California Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory 2015 Edition. California Environmental Protection Agency-

Air Resource Board 9Key Events in the History of Air Quality in California. California Environmental Protection Agency- Air

Resource Board 10

ARB Mission and Goals. See http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/mission.htm


and cost effective manner.11

Since then, California has aggressively developed programs to

comply with AB 32 that include:

1. A strong Renewable Portfolio Standard (which requires utilities and electricity

providers to procure 33% of electricity from renewable sources by 2020)

2. The Advanced Clean Cars program ( new cleaner car standards to reduce smog and

GHG emissions, and promoting new fuels for clean cars)

3. The Low Carbon Fuel Standard Program (reducing carbon intensity from petroleum

based fuels)

4. A cap-and-trade program (market based regulation that sets limits on GHG emissions

and credits to set price on tradable carbon allotments).12

Arguably a dilemma emerges in reconciling California’s strong environmental record

with its dependency on the car as the primary form of mobility. Transportation infrastructure

in California was designed for cars and cities like Los Angeles and San Diego grew

tremendously during a time when mass transportation was on the decline and automobiles

became more affordable and desirable. The flexibility in urban mobility that the automobile

presented for Southern Californians in the 1920s was enthusiastically accepted and

entrenched in the psyche and culture in the Los Angeles metro region. To this day, the urban

form reflects the car culture that dominates cities in Southern California. The popularity of

the car facilitated the rejection of the monocentric city model and embraced the

decentralization of the city of Los Angeles, pushing the residential and commercial sectors

further away from the central business district (CBD). In Los Angeles, city and county

governments did not have a city planning agency until 1920 and did not begin working

effectively for a couple of years following their inception. Planners at the time approved the

11

Key Events in the History of Air Quality in California, http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/brochure/history.htm 12

“California greenhouse gas inventory shows state is on track to achieve 2020 AB targets”. 6/15/2015.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/newsrelease.php?id=740


direction of decentralization that the city was facing at the time. Horizontal growth was

embraced and the role of the car became essential to urban mobility which shaped the urban

form of the city.13

Land use and transportation policies of the past in Los Angeles and San Diego that

shaped the urban form around the automobile along with a strong cultural connection to the

car are intrinsically in opposition to the current environmental and climate change goals that

California is pursuing. Despite decades of strong environmental policies, the state has not

been able to wean itself away from the strong car culture and thus the GHG emissions from

the transportation sector remain one of the highest in the nation. Can California’s climate

change policies undo decades of local land use and transportation policies that have

accommodated car culture? Can the goals to reduce CO2 emissions in Southern Californian

cities by increasing alternative modes of transportation, providing alternative fuels, and

increasing emissions standards be accomplished when the urban form and culture reflect a

city designed for the automobile? Can Los Angeles correct its transportation and land use sins

or is it a wrong too that is too wrong to make right?

This paper will assess the feasibility of Los Angeles to reduce GHG emissions in

compliance of California’s climate change policies from the transportation sector; specifically

light duty personal use vehicles used as a means of commute. Additionally, it will include

San Diego as a secondary case study to compare and frame the Los Angeles study.

Conclusions will be based on the viability of the current sustainability plan with an analysis

of historical land use and spatial development, political will, economic policy, and public

acceptance of alternative modes of transportation while controlling for energy costs as factors

to emission reductions. Given that oil remains an integral part of California’s economy and

13

Foster, Mark. “The Model-T, the Hard Sell, and Los Angeles’s Urban Growth: The Decentralization of Los

Angeles during the 1920’s” Pacific Historical Review, Vol.44 No. 4. Pp459-484.


transportation sector, the geopolitics of energy must be included in any analysis as a variable

to consider in Los Angeles and San Diego’s ability to reduce GHG emissions.

Southern California is the epitome of car culture. Los Angeles and San Diego were

identified to be the best case studies because they are two of the largest cities in the region

and are a component of a much larger metropolitan region; together they two form the

southern California megaregion. San Diego will be used as a comparison to Los Angeles to

illustrate the similarities and differences of each city’s approach to reduction and their ability

to reach their goals.

Section 1 will provide an overview of the national and international trends in the

energy and land use and transportation sectors, and environmental and climate change

policies. Section 2 will analyse the Los Angeles city and metropolitan regions’ ability to

reduce GHG emissions from the transportation sector. Subsections will utilize the

aforementioned analysis framework to understand Los Angeles’ ability to overcome the car

culture and meet California’s environmental/climate change standards. Section 3 will

compare the San Diego city and metro area’s ability to reduce GHG emissions from the

transportation sector. Section 4 will include findings, recommendations, and conclusions.

Methodology

This study will be comprised of both quantitative and qualitative components to

compare two case studies. Research will draw upon primary sources, secondary sources,

interviews, lectures, and conferences. Primary sources will be in the form of interviews and

conversations with experts, urban planning theory work, research papers, and government

reports. Secondary sources will be drawn from news articles, journals, white papers, and

documentaries. Quantitative sources come from government issued figures on energy and

transportation data. This study will also include descriptive statistical analysis and correlation


analysis using SPSS. Time and resource limitations, however, are impediments to further

delve into the analysis.

Limitations This report is based on publically available information from government websites,

and course work completed. Limitation to this report includes time constraints, limits to

availability of public information, and monetary constraints preventing further primary

research. The report has the potential to be larger with far more variables identified and

analysed utilizing alternative software. Analysis is limited only to personal use automobile

based transportation.


Section 1 National and International Trends

Global Energy Revolution

The energy sector has never been static, whether it is in the oil and gas sectors or in

electricity generation. High oil prices in the 2000s contributed to the expansion and

commercialization of shale gas by means of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal

drilling in the United States. An overflowing increase in supply, coupled with a weaker

demand sent oil prices tumbling in the summer of 2014. As the world grapples with low oil

prices, US consumers face lower gas prices at the pump, which for better or worse, have

implications on transportation and urban mobility. Simultaneously, world is in the early

stages of clean energy revolution. Costs associated with solar and wind power has

dramatically declined for the past 10 years making these technologies more competitive with

traditional fossil fuels as sources of power. With the increase of clean energy and growing

energy demand in developing countries, electricity is poised to grow in importance as a fuel

of choice. It is important to understand the global energy market forces and geopolitics in

play because California exists and operations within this global environment. National and

international trends in the energy sector contextualize the options presented to politicians and

consumers in terms of the reactions to policies and at the microeconomic level.

Oil and Pricing

Oil and its derivatives will continue for decades to be the bloodline of the

transportation sector. Goods and people, regardless of the means of transit, would come to a

standstill today without oil. The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) reported in the

August 2015 Short-Term Energy Outlook that the world consumed 92.36 million barrels per

day (mb/d) of liquid fuels, with an estimate of 93.62 mb/d for 2015. Total worldwide supply


in 2014 oversupplied demand with a production of 93.33 mb/d.14

In the United States, 19.03

mb/d were reportedly consumed in 2014. The total petroleum consumption in the

transportation sector in the US was 13.45 mb/d in 2014.15

The United States consumed 98.3

quadrillion British Thermal Units (btu) of liquid fuels, of which 34.8 is petroleum. Of this

petroleum, 71 % is used by the transportation sector. This sector comprises 27% of total

energy consumption and 92% of the fuel consumed is derived from petroleum.16

Given the

importance of oil in the transportation sector, it is essential to understand the mechanisms that

affect pricing in order to predict future transit patterns that are affected by changes in prices.

US energy independence has been the elusive policy goal that politicians and

presidents have claimed would strengthen the American economy; loosen the dependence on

oil imports from volatile regions, like the Middle East, and increase national security. In the

January 2015 Columbia report Navigating the U.S. Oil Export Debate, authors Jason Bordoff

and Trevor Houser explained “the 1970’s shook the oil industry to the core and brought

energy security to the fore of American public consciousness.”17

The Arab oil embargo,

Iranian Revolution, and resource nationalization revealed to Americans the effects that a

decline in domestic oil production and increased dependence on global oil market imports

could have on gasoline prices. By 2005, US oil imports had peaked at 10.1 mb/d.18

Since

then, the usage of hydraulic fracturing has once again transformed the energy landscape of

the United States.

14

U.S. Energy Information Administration | Short-Term Energy Outlook - August 2015. Table 3d. 15

U.S. Energy Information Administration |

http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/flow/petroleum.pdf 16

U.S. Energy Information Administration | Promary Energy Consumption by Source and Sector.

http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/archive/flowimages/2014/css_2014_energy.pdf 17

Bordoff, Jason and Trevor Houser. “Navigating the US Oil Export Debate.” Columbia Center on Global

Energy Policy. January 2015. 18

Winner, Andrew, and Sarah Emerson. “The Myth of Petroleum Independence and Foreign Policy Isolation”,

The Washington Quarterly, 37:1, pp. 21-34, Spring 2014.


Between 2005 and 2014, U.S. crude oil production increased by an astonishing 65%

as a result of tight oil and shale gas development up from about 5 mb/d in January 2006.

New technological advances made hydraulic fracturing economically feasible in regions that

were once considered too expensive to develop. Shale formations in North Dakota (Bakken),

Texas (Permian and Eagle Ford), and Pennsylvania (Marcellus) provided the boost in crude

oil production which stood at 9.2 mb/d in June 2015.19

The tremendous increase has changed

the energy landscape in the United States where oil and natural gas scarcity is no longer

forecasted in the short to medium term outlooks. Despite favourable conditions for the

development of shale gas in the United States, low oil prices threaten the future of shale. Low

oil prices will cause hydraulic fracturing to become unable to compete economically with

cheap oil from Saudi Arabia or Russia.

Low oil prices have both upsides and downsides. The simple explanation for low

prices is supply and demand. The energy revolution in North America (U.S. and Canada),

stronger Libyan and Iraqi production, and steady supply from Russia and Saudi Arabia all

increase the global supply of oil. On the demand side, energy efficiency in vehicles in

developed countries, weakening economies in Europe and an economic slow-down in China

has kept demand from growing at the same pace as supply. For countries that import oil,

lower oil prices cause lower gasoline prices for consumers and frees up consumer spending.

For countries that rely on oil exports, lower prices are a curse. Oil producing countries like

Russia, Venezuela, Nigeria, and Gulf countries have seen their oil revenues slashed by half

and face domestic political and economic unrest as a result. To maintain market share, the

Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) at Saudi Arabia’s strong pressure

19

Ladislaw, Sarah and Maren Leed and Molly Walton. “New Energy, New Geopolitics” Center for Strategic

and International Studies. April 2014. Pg 1


has refused to cut production thus keeping oil low to price out competing producers abroad

(i.e. drive U.S. shale producers out of business through low prices).20

Analysts and speculators all point to a future, at least through 2020, with prices under

$80 per barrel.21

The relationship between oil prices and gasoline prices is important because

they ultimately impact the purchasing cost of gasoline, which impact certain driving trips.

The EIA has identified oil prices and refining costs and profit margins to be the elements that

account for the most variability in price, along with retail and distribution cost, and taxes as

elements that determine gasoline prices in the U.S. EIA concludes “Brent crude oil prices are

more important than WTI crude oil prices as a determinant of US gasoline prices in all four

regions studied…[additionally] the effect that a relaxation of current limitation on US crude

oil exports would have on US gasoline prices would likely depend on its effect on

international crude oil prices, such as Brent, rather than its effect on domestic crude prices”.22

The four regions with viable gasoline spot market that were analysed were US East Coast

(NY Harbor), US Gulf Coast, Midwest (Chicago), and West Coast (Los Angeles). From this

analysis, it can be concluded that the price of oil does have an effect on the gasoline prices in

the markets studied here fore, the price of oil is one indicator of the price of gasoline.

Gasoline prices, at least through 2016, will remain on average below the $2.50 per gallon.

Prices in July 2015 in the Petroleum Administration for Defense District (PADD) 5 (West

Coast, including Alaska and Hawaii) stand at $3.50 p/g while the US average stand at $2.75

as illustrated in Graph 1.

20

Krauss, Clifford. “Oil Prices: What’s Behind the Plunge? Simple Economics”. The New York Times. 31

August 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/business/energy-environment/oil-prices.html?_r=0 21

Annual Energy outlook 2015 with projections to 2040. U.S. Energy Information Administration, April 2015

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383(2015).pdf, Anderson, Richard. “Are low oil prices here to stay?”

BBC, 24 February 2015. http://www.bbc.com/news/business-30814122 22

“What drives U.S. gasoline Prices?” U.S. Energy Information Administration. October 2014, Pg. 5

http://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/gasoline/pdf/gasolinepricestudy.pdf

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383(2015).pdf


Graph 1: Regular retail gasoline prices (2014-2016)

This proof is significant. Reports conducted on the impact to urban transit from

gasoline price reveal that substantially higher rates of commuter ridership on rail 5.27% and

heavy rail 4.85-6.15 % were found when gasoline prices passed the $3.00 p/g mark. It also

found that “total change in ridership ranges from 0.84 percent to 1.16 percent in response to a

10 percent increase in gasoline prices. Higher values of elasticity were found for gasoline

prices higher than $4 for light rail and higher than $3 for the other modes.”23

In other words,

if gasoline prices go up more people would use transit. This is an economics issue which

should be kept in mind when planning transit.

This shows that lower gasoline prices as detrimental to public transit ridership. If

lower oil prices mean lower gasoline prices then less people would be utilizing transit. In

fact, this is supported by traffic volume trends that indicate an increase in automobile travel

23

Iseki, Hiroyuk and Rubaba Ali. “Net Effect of Gasoline Price Changes on Transit ridership in U.S. Urban

Areas”. Mineta Transportation Institutue. Report 12-19. December 2014.

http://transweb.sjsu.edu/PDFs/research/1106-gas-price-changes-and-transit-ridership.pdf , “Potential Impact of

Gasoline Price Increases on U.S. Public Transportation Ridership, 2011-2012.” American Public Transportation

Association. 14 March 2011.

http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/APTA_Effect_of_Gas_Price_Increase_2011.

pdf

http://transweb.sjsu.edu/PDFs/research/1106-gas-price-changes-and-transit-ridership.pdf


on all streets and roads by 4.3% in September 2015 from the previous year.24

Lower gasoline

prices, however, have not prompted an increase in gasoline consumption because of increases

in vehicle efficiencies and other demographic and economic factors.25

A prolonged drop in

oil prices will continue to supress gasoline prices which is already showing a growth in

vehicle mile travelled in the US. It is important to continue to view sustainable transit in the

context of global oil markets and pricing, but also its effect on mobility in cities. Since

public transit ridership is a factor used to determine funding, it is important for the

development of sustainable transit to maintain a vigilance on oil markets and pricing.

Clean Energy and the Grid

The energy revolution in the United States has continued beyond fossil fuels and onto

renewable energy sources. From solar to wind to alternative fuels, clean energy is growing at

a rapid pace. In 2014, renewable energy stood at 10% of total energy consumed, of which

13% went to the transportation sector.26

Renewable sources of energy, primarily solar

photovoltaics (PV) and wind power have increased at a significant rate in the US creating a

clean source of electrical power for both residential and commercial sectors. Alternative fuels

for the transportation sector have also been on the rise.27

The US transportation sector uses

5% of biofuels, 3% natural gas, and 3% of other sources (electricity included) as alternative

fuel additives. The largest fuel source for transportation remains gasoline at 56%. Biofuels

continue to grow increasingly from ‘10 million gallons in 2001 to 1.4 billion gallons in

2014’.28

The growth in popularity of electric vehicles in some states is catalysing a push for

24

September 2015 Traffic Volume Trends. See

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/travel_monitoring/15septvt/ 25

“Gasoline prices tend to have little effect on demand for car travel.” U.S. EIA 15 December 2014.

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=19191 26

U.S. Energy Information Administration |

http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/flow/petroleum.pdf 27

Randal, Tom. Fossil Fuels Just Lost the Race Against Renewables. 14 April 2015

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-14/fossil-fuels-just-lost-the-race-against-renewables 28

Use of Energy in the United States. See http://www.eia.gov/Energyexplained/?page=us_energy_transportation


the modernization of the electric grid to accommodate both vehicles and distributed energy.

The advent of alternative fuels are relevant to sustainable transportation as biofuels are mixed

into gasoline thereby reducing the reliance on oil to shield from volatile oil markets.

Additionally, the increase of electric vehicles (EVs) and their promise of reducing carbon

dioxide (CO2) emissions mean renewable sources of energy must increase in order for EV’s

to be zero emission vehicles (ZEVs), and the electricity grid must be modernized to

accommodate the charging and discharging of electricity onto the grid.

Utilities across the United States, none more so than in California and New York, are

laying the groundwork to create a smart grid to accommodate the modern ways energy is

produced and consumed. Smart grids are shaped by the new distributed energy supplies,

technology, and changing patterns of consumer consumption that are now overwhelming and

threatening the current electricity grid. In light of these efforts, states that modernize their

electricity grids have a higher potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from their

transportation sector. Energy policy in these states is pushing electricity markets towards

more renewable energy which has the potential to radically transform the transportation

sector. Electricity powered vehicles would have a higher impact on GHG emissions

reduction since the power would be derived from renewable sources.

Climate Change and Environmental Policy

All discussions revolving around sustainability and greenhouse gas emission

reduction is part of the overarching issue of climate change and its impending effects. With

97% of scientist agreeing that climate change is due to anthropogenic activities, questioning

by American political factions of this scientific fact is invalid and dangerous. The 2014

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report further concludes that human

activities are the drivers of changes to the climate system by the increase of greenhouse


gasses (primarily carbon dioxide) since 1750.29

In this view, it is essential, therefore, to take

proactive steps not only mitigate the effect on climate change but also adapt to the

irreversible impacts that may be too late to stop. According to the IPCC report, driving the

increase in CO2 emissions to unprecedented levels is global economic and population growth

which surge energy production, industry, building, and transportation.30

Observed impacts of climate change will be seen in the changes in natural and human

systems around the world. Regions will experience disruption to water systems in the form

of changing rain patterns, varying snow levels, ice formation, glacier formation, and

intensification of storms. Impacts will also be felt in regions that will experience more

prevalent droughts and higher temperatures. These will lead to a loss of natural habitats

which will result in mass extinction and reduction in species diversity. Extreme weather

patterns, higher sea levels, and higher surface and water temperatures will also affect human

systems of food production, risk coastal settlements and cities with flooding, and health

levels. Climate change is poised to exacerbate already existing problems in vulnerable

countries which have the potential to cause violent social unrest, economic calamities, health

epidemics, and shifts in cultural and political institutions. The image below illustrates the

changes in surface temperature, precipitation, and sea levels as calculated by the IPCC. As

cities become ever more important settlements to accommodate the growing population,

solutions to mitigating climate change and adapting to its effects of will be found in cities.

Cities are the ideal locations for finding solutions to climate change because as centers of

innovation and creativity as they attract highly educated skilled work force. Cities also have

more at stake as the impacts of climate change will be felt more in cities.

29

Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report. Pg 45 30

Ibid Pg 46


Mitigation and adaptation to climate change are strategies that are more widely used

to reduce the risks associated with climate change. The IPCC provides definitions to both

these concepts: “Adaptation is the process of adjustment to actual or expected climate and its

effects in order to either lessen or avoid harm or exploit beneficial opportunities. Mitigation

is the process of reducing emissions or enhancing sinks of greenhouse gases (GHGs), so as to

limit future climate change.”31

These are two strategies that are essential for any successful

environmental policy that aims to address climate change. As aforementioned, the

transportation sector is of importance to minimizing climate change because of its high

consumption of fossil fuels and CO2 emissions. Reducing the consumption of energy in this

sector to reduce greenhouse emissions would be classified as a mitigation tactic, one that is

more widely used in US environmental policies and regulations.

31

Ibid Pg 76


One of the most significant pieces of legislation in the United States to regulate

hazardous emissions from automobiles was the Clean Air Act of 1970. The Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) administered the Clean Air Act which mandated the reduction of

hazardous air pollutants that have adverse effects on public health.32

While the term ‘global

warming’ wasn’t brought into the public conscious until 1975 by US scientist Wallace

Broecker, the Clean Air Act was ahead of its time in tackling toxic emissions of carbon

monoxide, sulfur and nitrogen dioxide, lead, and ozone by holistically approaching the issue

of air pollution and linking public health and environmental concerns. Carbon dioxide

emissions were determined to be detrimental to public health and a contributor to global

warming in 2009. It was not until June of 2013 that President Obama announced the plan to

cut CO2 emissions as a national policy by deploying clean energy and promoting renewable

energy over carbon pollution of power plants, and investing in clean energy. Specifically for

the transportation sector, the plan called for an increase in fuel economy standards and

deploying more advanced technology in the form of alternative fuels.33

The US Department of Energy (DOE) leads several research projects and programs to

transform transportation into a cleaner and more efficient sector with vehicle fleets that

consume alternative fuels that include electricity, biofuels (e.g. vegetable oils, animals fats,

recycled diesels, ethanol), hydrogen, natural gas, and propane. Leading the shift to

alternative fuels is the Clean Cities program, established in 1993, that “advances the nation’s

economic, environmental, and energy security by supporting local action to reduce petroleum

use in public transportation.”34

Through building partnerships and funding local initiatives,

Clean Cities has saved 6.5 billion gallons of petroleum; 1 billion of those gallons were saved

32

Summary of Clean Air Act. See http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-air-act 33

“The President’s Climate Action Plan”, Executive office of the President. June 2013 34

About Clean Cities. See http://www1.eere.energy.gov/cleancities/about.html


in 2013 alone. Programs like Clean Cities illustrate the importance of public private

partnerships to reduce the consumption of oil in the transportation sector.

Federal policies and regulations are now confronting the problem of emissions by

discouraging emissions from their source to mitigate the effects of climate change. Since

climate change is highly politicized in Washington DC, environmental legislation is very

difficult to pass from bill to law. The Obama administration has therefore utilized executive

orders to advance environmental laws and regulations past the political gridlock in the

legislative branch. Carbon dioxide emission plans are therefore at risk should a future

president decide climate change is outweighed by perceived economic doom from a cleaner

energy economy. In the absence of a strong federal consensus on climate change, states are

left to pursue climate change policies. In this sense, California has one of the most

progressive environmental and climate change policy in the nation. Assessing the impact

environmental policy in California has on transportation is assessing the future of

transportation and sustainability.

For decades, California has led the nation with forward-thinking and progressive

legislation on environmental and climate change policy. Concurrently, Californians embraced

the automobile and embedded car use into the states culture and built an infrastructure to

accommodate this love. Consequently, transportation accounts for 36% of the state’s

greenhouse emissions making it the number one cause of air pollution. Leading the force in

air pollution reduction is the California Air Resource Board (ARB). The ARB enforces

transportation emissions from motor vehicles and fuels by having one of the strictest gasoline

standards in the nation.35

The ARB is also in charge The California Global Warming

Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32), one of the most significant piece of legislation on climate

change for the state in the country, which aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990

35

History of Air Resource Board. See http://www.arb.ca.gov/knowzone/history.htm


levels by 2020. The law requires all state agencies to develop a Scoping Plan every 5 years on

how they will meet the state mandated goals. All sectors in the state are affected and obliged

to reduce GHG emissions through policies, planning, incentives, market approaches,

regulations, and voluntary actions.36

Local jurisdictions all across California are responsible

for developing their own sustainability and GHG reduction plans to comply with the state

law.

International, federal, state and local jurisdictions are increasingly acknowledging the

negative effects climate change will have on life on Earth. In developed countries,

environmental and climate change policies are essential in reducing GHG emissions from the

transportation sector. The reduction of emissions cannot be left solely to business and car

companies. A holistic approach to environmental and climate change policy is the most

effective way to convince the populous of the adverse effects of GHG emissions (whether

from air pollution to adverse health effect).

Urban Planning: Transportation, Land Use Theory, and Spatial Models

Transportation in the United States has continuously been shaped by population

growth and new technological advances in mobility that allowed cities to expand. Whether it

be from the horse and carriage, to the locomotive train, or car, transportation has been central

to the growth of cities and urban areas. The purpose of transportation is to move people,

goods, and information within and throughout metropolitan areas. Urban transportation is

essential to the successful function of a city. Transportation means and routes exist as

bloodlines for cities to grow, expand, and survive as part of the urban form. As such, urban

planning and transportation planning exist in a co-dependent relationship where

transportation is moulded and adapted to urban planning schemes while urban planning

moves where transportation lanes move. Neither can exist without the other, therefore

36

Assembly Bill 32 Overview. See http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ab32/ab32.htm


studying both is essential to understanding the mechanisms and forces that shape

transportation.

Climate change policy and greenhouse gas emission goals are typically not factors in

traditional land use and transportation theory primarily because these are new policies which

have not yet been incorporated as part of their models. Currently, at the federal level,

transportation and land use projects must comply with The National Environmental Policy

Act of 1969 (NEPA) which requires projects to undergo an evaluation on the impact of the

project on the human and natural environmental and its effect on the future generation. It

applies to federal legislative proposals that include official policy, plans, programs, and

federal projects or that receives federal funding. These reviews are in the form of

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). In California, the California Environmental Quality

Act (CEQA) was adopted in tandem with NEPA with jurisdiction over “discretionary projects

proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies, including, but not limited to, the

enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances, [and] the issuance of zoning variance….”

CEQA further requires projects to identify the significant effect on the environmental and

take mitigation actions for each adverse effect.37

These two tools are used to not only review

the environmental impact of a project, but also provide public disclosure on the project. It

must be noted that these reports are less about the actual environment and more about

bringing an awareness of the environmental consequences the construction phase and the

actual project will have. The length of these reports has increased through the years as they

are becoming the means by which developers can dissuade law suits for their projects. In

certain instance, no action is required to mitigate the effects of the project on the environment

as regulators can deem the project cleared. In California, climate change policy is being

37

NEPA and CEQA: Integrating State and Federal Environmental Reviews. Office of the President and Office

of the Governor of California. March 2013

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/NEPA_CEQA_Draft_Handbook_March_2013_0.pdf


reflected in new sustainability plans being developed by cities across the state in order to

grow cities in a more sustainable manner.

Traditional land use and transportation theories and models were originally developed

from qualitative reviews and were limited in the available quantitative data. Research scholar

Genevieve Giuliano from The University of California Transportation sector first explored in

1988 that the empirical research conducted rarely supported the theoretical expectations from

previous studies. Urban land use theory revolves around relies on the assumption that the city

is a monocentric entity with fixed points of commercial and residential locations influenced

by the time and cost [of the transportation mode and land value] of commuting from home to

work. Residential or household location theory assumes that households choose the location

based on an economic analysis by the consumer based on a fixed employment location, cost

of rent (or housing), transportation cost, and commuting cost.38

Don Pickrell, urban

economist, further adds that distance from the city’s central business district (CBD) decreases

that price of housing thus developers substitute this decline in land price for more land for the

cost which reduces the density of housing.39

The concept of density gets introduced as a

consequence of the economic factors associated with land use demand. The closer a residence

is to the CBD, the higher the housing cost thus the higher the density; this however lowers the

cost of transportation. The opposite is also true, that the further away a residence is from the

CBD, the lower the cost of housing, the lower the density, but the higher the transportation

cost. Further, the employment location theory continues the residential theory by assuming

the employment location is a function of rent cost, commuter cost, and other economic costs.

Pushkarev and Zupan, leading scholars in land use and transportation policy, more strong

support the employment theory after providing some statistical evidence to support high

38

Fujita M, 1984, "Urban land-use theory", working papers in Regional Service and Transportation, Department

of Regional Science, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 39

Pickrell, Don. 1999. “Transportation and Land Use,” in Essays in Transportation Economics and Policy: A

Handbook in Honor of John R. Meyer, Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, pages 403-435.


concentrations of employment are better suited from higher frequency transit service which

can be operated at a reasonable price.40

The monocentric spatial model, or standard urban

economic model, uses assumptions for the theories that are oversimplistic; however, they

continue to be useful for theoretical purposes and its economic assumptions are still valid.41

More recent models that account for the additional factors are Maximum disorder

model, Mosaic of Live-Work communities, Polycentric city model, and the constrained

dispersal model (workforce is outside the CBD, employment subcenters and mixed use

communities exist outside of walking or biking ranges). Although all models are found to be

correct and applicable to different cities, the constrained dispersal model was found to be the

most prevalent spatial model of cities in the United States. Figures 1-5 illustrate the models of

commuting trips.42

40

Ibid 41

Bertaud, Alain “The Spatial Distribution of Land Prices and Densities” 42

Angel, Shlomo, Alejandro Blei. “Commuting and the spatial structure of American Cities”


In order to incorporate climate change and GHG emission reduction goals to the

transportation sector in Californian cities, it is essential to know the spatial composition of

cities and the land use and transportation dynamics that influence the type of transit mode

that would best fit a city given an economic analysis based on the urban land use theory. It is

important to note, however, that the goal of this thesis is not to identify the best mode of

transportation that will reduce traffic. The goal is to assess the feasibility of accomplishing

California’s climate change policies in the transportation sector; with the relationship

between land use and transportation as a variable specifically in Los Angeles and San Diego.


Section 2 Los Angeles, California

The city of Los Angeles has an approximate population of 3.9 million people and is

part of the Greater Los Angeles metropolitan region that has an estimate of the 18 million

residents. It is the largest metropolitan area in California and second largest in the nation. The

greater Los Angeles region is composed of 5 surrounding counties (Los Angeles, Orange,

Ventura, Riverside and San Bernardino); for comparative purposes, if this region were its

own state, it would be the 5th

most populous state in the country.43

Los Angeles County is

comprised of 88 incorporated cities and 120 unincorporated communities governed by the

county.44

It is an agglomeration of cities and a region that developed in a decentralized

fashion that reflect an appreciation and dependency on the automobile for it primary mode of

transportation.

On April 8, 2015, the City of Los Angeles released its first sustainability plan titled

Sustainable City pLAn; pLAn’s promise is to create a Los Angeles that is more

environmentally sustainable, economically vibrant, and equitable for all with both short term

and longer term goals that mitigate, adapt, and build resiliency to climate change.45

For

purposes of this thesis, only three subsections of pLAn will be utilized as they pertain to land

use, transportation, and emissions issues. These are Housing & Development, Mobility &

Transit, and Air Quality. Table 1 below reflects the pLAn’s policy objectives and the

potential impact it might have on GHG emissions reduction. Specifically, the plan calls for a

43

Facts about Los Angeles. 5 October 2015. http://www.discoverlosangeles.com/press-releases/facts-about-los-

angeles 44

“Cities within the County of Los Angeles”. Los Angeles County, 5 October 2015. 45

http://plan.lamayor.org/about


Table 1: pLAn Impact on GHG emission46

46

pLAn Sustainability Plan

Visions Strategies Priorities Impact on GHG Emissions

Expand Zoning capacity in

key transit nodes and

corridors

··Leverage re:code LA to promote a transit-oriented

city and new Transit Neighborhood Plans

·· Complete community plans currently underway

·· Revise FAR in mixed-use zones on targeted

commercial corridors

·· Pilot new transitional height zones at key transit

nodes

·· Pilot new regulations governing second units

and granny flats

Medium Impact- mix land use

zones and density rezoning can

shorten/eliminate automobile

trips for certain

neighboorhoods.

Create pathways for

permanent sources of TOD

and affordable funding

·· Work with Metro on affordable housing joint

development and funding opportunities

·· Rebuild the Affordable Housing Trust Fund

with a combination of federal, state, and local

sources.

·· Ensure HCID’s “Managed Pipeline” prioritizes

TOD projects

Low Impact- TOD has limited

impact in Los Angeles and

affordable housing does not

equate GHG reductions.

Streamline the building of

TOD and affordable

housing

·· Implement Build LA and Parallel Design

Permitting process

·· Update parking regulations to include

standards for bike and car-share infrastructure

Medium Impact- updating

parking and alternative

transporation modes is

essential to managing car usage.

Preserve existing afforable

housing

·· Revise density bonus and explore value

capture strategies through AB2222

implementation

·· Use portion of local housing development

funds to preserve existing affordable housing

units

·· Collect rent data via RSO registration process

to better target affordable housing preservation

strategies

·· Strengthen Ellis Act affordable housing

replacement provisions

Low Impact- Aside from the

residential density, affordable

housing is not an environmental

issue. It can be considered an

environmental justice issue,

however the social issue does

not translate to GHG reduction.

Housing & Development

·· By 2017, start construction of

17,000 new units within 1,500 ft

of transit

·· By 2025, 150,000 new housing

units

·· By 2035, reduce number of

rent-burdened households by

15%



Improve pedestrian and

bicycle infrastructure

and other sustainable

transport, emphasizing

connections to mass transit

··Support implementation of Metro’s first-mile,

last-mile strategic plan

·· Build bike infrastructure (lane network, racks,

districts) per DOT strategic plan and 2035

Mobility Element

·· Build out the LA River Bike Path (See “Urban

Ecosystem” chapter)

·· Site and build multi modal Integrated Mobility

Hubs with infrastructure for car share, shared

rides, and bike share

·· Support strategic mode shift opportunities

for short trips with more Transportation

Management Organizations (TMOs), car sharing,

and improved pedestrian connectivity for major

events and destinations

·· Upgrade Jordan Downs pedestrian and bike

infrastructure

High Impact- By providing

alternative modes of

transporation, Angelinos can

decide which mode to use.

Providing low carbon options in a

step forward.

Expand high-quality transit

options across the city

··Expand and upgrade Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) on

Vermont Ave and other corridors through

implementation of Metro’s BRT Study

·· Expand capacity of park and ride network

·· Keep Measure R build out on schedule to

expand rail network

·· Fund Airport Connector and keep build out on

schedule

·· Modify existing DASH routes and expand

service to better connect with regional transit

services and future light rail

High Impact- Expanding transit

option is benefitial if the mode is

able to reduce car usage.

Identifying key destination can

reduce single passanger driving.

However, infill by new drivers

can reduce the positive impact of

expanding transit.

Leverage zoning, planning

and community vibrancy to

move Angelenos closer to

work and transit

··Use tools to increase TOD (e.g. expanding

Transit Neighborhood Plans, and density bonus

revision). (See Housing & Development chapter)

·· Increase vibrancy of streets and improve

pedestrian and bike safety. (See Livable

Neighborhoods chapter)

Low/Medium Impact- Studies

have shown limited succesful

impact in LA from TOD. Safety

is a concern inso that it can give

confidence to Angelinos on the

use of alternative modes of

transit.

Secure new funds for

mobility projects

·· Explore a new County-wide transportation

funding mechanism

·· Create new funding mechanisms for neighborhood

and district specific mobility and traffic

management projects

·· Pursue Cap-and-Trade funding for “active”

transit projects

·· Pursue Federal transit funding through the

Small Starts and New Starts programs

Medium Impact- Generating

extra funding is essential,

however if the culture of driving

does not change, increasing

funding will not have the desired

effect.

Revise parking management

to align with

new infrastructure and

mobility options

·· Expand dynamically priced parking

·· Revise parking minimums and create Parking

Districts near transit hubs

·· Pilot and expand initiatives on alternative car

structures and technologies (including car

sharing of traditional and autonomous vehicles)

High Impact- Reducing parking

and pricing it adequately will have

a higher impact on reducing cars

on the road for certain trips. It is

a strategy worth pursuing to

reduce GHG emissions.

Mobility & Transit

·· By 2017, 65 bike share

stations and 1000 bikes

·· By 2025, 5% reduction in

vehicle miles travelled per capita

·· By 2035, at least 50% of all

journeys will be on foot, bike, or

public transit


45% reduction in GHG emission below 1990 baseline by 2025, 60% by 2035, and 80% by

2050. Priorities and strategies to accomplish this, however, are limited to increasing building

efficiencies and eliminating coal fire power plants despite acknowledging transportation as

one of the largest emission sources.

Here in its self is the first indicator that GHG emissions reduction from the

transportation sector will be a far more challenging feat to accomplish. Whereas pLAn

directly points to a vision of no coal use power plants as a means to reduce greenhouse gas, it

does not do so within the vision or strategy for neither mobility nor land use. An implicit

assumption that pLAn aims to reduce GHG emissions by land use and transportation changes

does not and should not be confused with an explicit commitment to reduce GHG from

transportation. The aims of the plan clearly illustrate that the primary objective is to reduce

traffic. By not providing an explicit GHG emissions reduction from personal automobile use,

it continues the status quo of putting the internal combustion engine car before climate

change. A reduction in traffic cannot be seen as the primary mean of reducing GHG emission

from transportation because it leaves GHG as a by-product of changes rather than a primary


Transition personal transport

toward zero emissions

· Develop more EV charging stations on public/

municipal property

· Develop and execute comprehensive EV

infrastructure strategy

· Streamline rates and permits to make charging

stations in homes and multifamily buildings

easier and cheaper

· Support California Air Resources Board (CARB)

rulings on efficiency standards for vehicles

· Work to include emission reduction credits for

EV charging infrastructure in AQMD’s Air

Quality Investment Program (Rule 2202) for

large employers

· Modify Green Building Ordinance to require EV

charging

High Impact- EV have a high

potential in reducing GHG

emissions; CA's increasing

energy mix means electricity for

these cars will use clean energy.

Prioritizing the infrastructure

needed will have a high impact on

reducing GHG emissions without

compromising the car culture,

history, land use, transportation

policy, and urban form.

Lead by example with air

quality improvements to the

City fleet, airport, and public

transportation

·· Green the City fleet to reduce fuel use (e.g.,

EVs, efficient vehicles, rightsizing, telematics,

and behavior change)

·· Pilot new forms of low-impact transport (e.g.,

EV buses, car share, taxis)

·· Implement LA World Airports air quality

actions

High Impact- City leadership on

more efficient vehicles, and low

impact transport can greatly help

in GHG emission reduction efforts

by modifying the existing mode of

transportation without major

disruption to transportation.

Air Quality

·· By 2017, +1000 newly

publically available EV charging

stations

·· By 2025, 0 days when air

pollution reaches unhealthy

levels

·· By 2035, 25% of all light duty

passenger vehicle on the road

will be electric or zero emission


objective. Even though a reduction in traffic would mean less carbon dioxide tail pipe

emissions, cars will not disappear which will result in a massive shift to public transportation.

In Los Angeles, the distances between two destination points (especially in the surrounding

cities) are further apart which means public transportation does not always provide adequate

mobility for these trips.

In fact, a second indicator is the political leverage that opposition groups in the city to

sustainability and mobility plans have on City Council. Despite an approval of the Mobility

Plan for 2035 in Los Angeles in August 2015 that would add hundreds of miles of bus and

bike lanes and seek to reduce reliance on the automobile whereby overhauling the city’s

transportation policies, by November 2015 opposition groups to this plan managed to get City

Council to rescind the plan for changes and further discussion. The opposition group, Fix the

City, filled a lawsuit against the City on the plan claiming bike and bus lanes would lead to

greater tailpipe emissions and greater congestion; the group questioned whether GHG

emissions would be reduced by getting people out of their cars and onto alternative modes of

transportation.47

It is important to note that Fix the City is continuously noted as a Westside

non profit group because the west side of Los Angeles is known for more affluent

communities which have opposed to extending public transportation through their

neighbourhoods.

A third indicator which is an extension of the second indicator is that public opinion is

polarized on whether or not Los Angeles must abandon the automobile for mass transit.

Groups like Fix the City are a reflection of segments of Los Angeles that rather than see an

47

Zahnister, David. “City Council sets stage for a do-over on 20 year traffic plan”. Los Angeles Times, 9

November 2015. See http://www.latimes.com/local/cityhall/la-me-mobility-revote-20151109-

story.html.

Zahmister, David. “Lawsuit says new L.A. streets plan creates more air pollution, not less”. Los Angeles Times,

9 September 2015. See http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-mobility-plan-20150908-

story.html.

http://www.latimes.com/local/cityhall/la-me-mobility-revote-20151109-story.html


http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-mobility-plan-20150908-story.html



extensions of alternative forms of transportation, would see an increase in funding for the

existing roads and infrastructure needed to accommodate future growth. Polls conducted by

Metro have revealed that tax increases would be accepted by the electorates to improve traffic

flow of streets, freeways, and highways. Two thirds of respondents said road and freeway

improvements was their top priority while only one fourth preferred light rail and bus

projects.48

A more recent poll by the Los Angeles Times and the University of Southern

California revelled that over 50% of respondents cited traffic and congestion their top

concern for the city.49

Angelinos have an obsession with automobiles and changing this

mentality and perception will be a challenging feat to accomplish. The strong political power

of the opposition will continue to pressure city officials to fix the roads, highways, and

freeways before extending alternative forms of transportation.

As it will be explored and proven, Los Angeles cannot reduce GHG emissions via

land use and transit because of deeply entrenched historical ties to the automobile, land use

policies, and its spatial form that was designed for the automobile. Supporting these reasons

are variables, such as economics and public acceptation (as was previously discussed), that

explain why Los Angeles will continue to have a strong car culture which will thwart

alternative modes of transportation.

Historical Urban Development

The city of Angels was first established as a Spanish settlement in 1781 and

successively under Spanish, Mexican, and finally American control in 1850 with the

admission of California as the 31st state. Los Angeles remained a small outpost out west until

the 1880’s when the Southern Pacific and Santa Fe railroad lines connected to the East and

48

Nelson, Laura. “Metro poll suggests strong support for 2016 transportation tax hike”. Los Angeles Times 49

Lelyveld, Nita and Shelby Grad. “Traffic still tops crime, economy as top L.A. concern, poll finds”. Los

Angeles Times, 7 October 2015.


began a population boom to Southern California. In the subsequent 30 years, Los Angeles

boasted from a myriad of electric street cars which radiated from the central business district

into the residential neighbourhoods that were developed along the street car lines. The

commercial and industrial center in Los Angeles developed as a around downtown and

served as the central core. After WWI, the 1920s experience a major population boom which

was accompanied by a real estate development and opportunely the wide availability and

adoption of the private automobile sealed LA’s fate as a sprawling decentralized metropolis

with the urban form to support, encourage, and dependency of the automobile.50

During the early 1910’s and ‘20’s, the fast growth of the city left urban planners at

odds as to how the city should develop. The speed of the growth far exceeded the capacity of

planners and city officials to reign in residential growth. The trolleys and electric street cars

had begun to fall into disrepair because of financial problem thus reducing the reliability,

quality, and expediency that it once provided. As effective as the rail system had been,

historical analysis has shown that it did not have a strong influence on the urban form of the

city.51

The fast growth during this period led to what Los Angeles is now famous for, traffic.

Automobiles liberated those who could afford them and move further out into the newly

developed suburban areas. Los Angeles by 1920 boasted higher than average automobile

ownership in the country. Relative low prices of cars, low density and larger residential lots

that facilitated ownership, the glamorization of the car by Hollywood, and lower gasoline

prices (which resulted after the shortage that prompted investment in the oil fields and

refineries in Los Angeles to increase production) simultaneously coalesced to make the

automobile an indispensable and necessary commodity.52

Traffic and congestion woes in and

out of the CBD grew tremendously and became a priority issue for civic leaders to solve.

50

Wachs, Martin. “Autos, Transit, and the Sprawl of Los Angeles: The 1920s”. Journal of the American

Planning Association, 50, 3, Summer 1984. 51

Ibid 52

Ibid


Thousands poured daily into downtown for work and shopping to the delight of local

business owners. However, the increase in traffic also threatened these business because of

the lack of parking and gridlock on the streets that discouraged and prevented people from

entering the CBD for reasons other than necessity. Efforts to control traffic in the CBD by

removing parking spaces in 1920 proved to be a highly controversial proposition and staunch

opposition and protests prompted this attempt to be abandoned. This has proven to be a

defining moment where cars as a mode of transportation became the preferred means and

illustrated the strong cultural and societal attachment to the vehicle. From that point onwards,

civic leaders and politicians prioritized the facilitation of streets, boulevards, and later

highways to accommodate the growth in cars.53

Los Angeles was an oasis of orange groves and perpetual sun and seen as an

antithesis of eastern cities like New York and Chicago which boasted large skyscrapers and

elevated rails that cast the streets below in perpetual shadows with considerable vices,

deplorable living conditions and unsanitary. The movement to maintain low density housing

and to decentralize the city was a strong movement supported by the public, business, and

civic leaders. The concept of the garden city filled the imaginations of planners and the

populous that would make transportation woes a thing of the past, and great a model city that

was clean, healthy, with open environments and utopian. The garden city, in principle, had

one central core with no more than 55,000 people. It would then be connected to satellite

cities that would have their own commercial centers for people’s everyday need and would be

within walking distance. These garden cities would be connected by rail and/or a road to the

central core and to each other in a circular form. In between each city would be a green belt

with open land. The idea was to maintain residential zoning at a low density and the traffic

congestion problem would dissipate by decentralizing development.

53

Axelrod, Jeremiah. Inventing Autopia: Dreams and Visions of the Modern Metropolis in Jazz Age Los

Angeles. University of California Press; Los Angeles, 2009.


The utopian idea of the garden city, however, became half-heartedly implemented

because of other competing interest and lack of political leadership and urban planning

capabilities. The premise of low density and a decentralized metropolis were the dominating

values that were ultimately implemented. The city objective was to develop in a decentralized

manner to remove traffic from the CBD and create more self-sufficient satellite cities.54

Planners were comfortable and eager to accept an alternative urban model that was

progressive and different than traditional urban models. In retrospect, the planners

accomplished their decentralization goals and the establishment of satellite cities around Los

Angeles too well. It is the historical development of the 1920s that set the path of Los

Angeles as an automobile paradise. The infrastructure and spatial formation all formed

around the automobile thus in order to shift the transportation focus away from the car and

toward alternative means would be extremely difficult. For a city that developed during the

initial age of the automobile, completely changing the fabric of the city will be impossible

thus any attempts to reduce GHG emission from the transportation sector in Los Angeles

must take into account this historic connection to the automobile and decentralized urban

form. Los Angeles will not be able to break the shackles of its past with regards to the

automobile, thus any attempts reduce car usage will be met with public resistance as history

has illustrated.

Transportation and Land Use Planning

Once the city and regional planning office was created and functional, the

decentralization of the city was formally codified and reflected in the way land use was

appropriated to private enterprises for development. Zoning was the tool by which,

theoretically, the city could manage the growth of the city with hopes of promoting the

54

Fogelson, Robert. The Fragmented Metropolis. Joint Center for Urban Studies of the Massachusetts Institute

of Technology and Harvard University Oxford University Press; London, 1967. P 255.


segregation of land use and rationalize how real estate would be used. The objective of urban

planners was to eliminate the ills that plagued the eastern US cities, reduce traffic, and great a

beautiful city. Decentralization led to the development of low density, single family housing

lots across LA and the creation of other CBD (Wilshire Boulevard being the primary

alterative). Given the historical development of Los Angeles and using it as a contextual

frame along with California’s climate change policies for the aforementioned sustainability

plan, the Housing and Development strategies and the priorities will not be successful in

reducing GHG emissions because the goal within the plan is to accommodate future

population growth by increasing density and developing along transit stops (Transit Oriented

Development). The Transit and Mobility strategies and priorities work to present alternative

transportation modes to the public and reduce miles driven by utilizing transit oriented

development (TOD) tools would also have limited impact in reducing GHG emissions. As

will be analysed, the relationship between density and auto use (which stand as a function of

the relationship between land use and transportation) which the sustainability plan is

premised on has been proven to work in cities across the U.S.; however, studies that have

assessed the feasibility of TOD to work in Los Angeles has consistently shown a weak

correlation. LA has developed into one of the most densely populated metropolis, however,

the historic development that caused a decentralized spatial and urban form prohibit the

successful development of TOD.

Traditional land use theory and conventional thinking, which are based on the

simplistic spatial monocentric model, stipulate that higher residential density facilitate and

concentrate point of origin for trip (residential location), by making alternative transportation

modes more cost effective and work more efficiently in moving commuters in larger

quantities. In Transportation and Land Use, Don Pickrell makes a compelling argument that

‘land use as a means to mitigate externalities such as traffic congestion and air pollution


generated by urban transportation thus seems unlikely to be an effective substitute for

rationalizing investment levels and pricing policies in urban transportation’.55

He further

explains “although empirical evidence on the relationship between residential density and

various aspects of travel behaviour has been widely reported, surprisingly little of it

withstands even the most superficial scrutiny.” He notes that various reports do not explicitly

recognize important variables such as income, household size, gasoline price, and automobile

taxation. He concludes that land use patterns have a small impact on travel; as such, land use

planning should not be the primary means to mitigate the effects of driving such as traffic and

pollution. The conclusion is based on an assessment on the relationship between residential

density and auto use as a function of land use and transportation. This is specifically true, if

not augmented, for a city like Los Angeles with a strong automobile culture and decentralized

urban form. In other words, GHG emissions will not be accomplished simply by land use

policies; economic incentives and driving disincentives would be more effective to

accomplish this feat.

The mobility and sustainability plans in Los Angeles aim at promoting alternative

modes of transit (biking, expanding light rail lines, and bus routes) and transit oriented

development as means of primarily reducing traffic, accommodating future housing demand,

and reducing air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions as mandated by California law. For

a city with one of the highest density in the country, developing alternative transportation and

utilizing TOD as a tool to develop along transit lines on the premise that residential location

theory is correct is a mistake for Los Angeles. Higher residential density does not predict a

drop in car usage in Los Angeles’ urban form; Higher commercial density as the firm

location theory stipulates would also not be suitable for Los Angeles because of the lower

density dispersal of residents across an expansive land area. LA’s decentralized urban

55

Pickrell 432


development of the 1920s emphasized transportation over land use development and it is this

legacy that prohibits a successful implementation of TOD in the region as numerous studies

have concluded.

Notable historians like Mark S. Foster provide a historical narrative to explain the

reasons a weak relationship exists between residential density and car usage in Los Angeles;

supporting Pickrells assertion. In his work, The Model-T, the Hard Sell, and Los Angeles’s

Urban Growth: The Decentralization of Los Angeles during the 1920’s, Foster attribute the

current urban form to two important factors that completely decentralized Los Angeles; first

is the high population growth rate that the city experience between 1920-1930, and secondly

the widespread adoption of the automobile. In The Decentalization of Los Angeles in the

1920’s, he echoes the criticism of historians that LA is not a city but rather suburbs in search

of a city. Los Angeles was envisioned to be the Paris of America, a new utopian paradise

with large boulevards and a spatial form of the theoretical garden city. Jeremiah B.C.

Axelrod, American historian and author of Inventing Autopia, supports and agrees with urban

historians like Mark Foster, Scott Bottles, Robert Fogelson, David Gebhard and Hariette von

Breton that planners of the 1920s failed in their garden city and utopian vision and let the

growth spiral out of control and resulting in sprawl. He states ‘Two decades of garden city

dreams had missed their real opportunity for realiziation, despite intermittent later revivals, as

a result of a loss of vision, political failure, and economic depression [after 1920].”56

By the

1930’s Los Angeles had ‘broken the mold of American urbanity; it had become a large

metropolis without being significantly centralized and concentrated.”57

Scott Bottle in Los

Angeles and the Automobile attributes Los Angeles sprawl as a function of its population

growth with the arrival of the car which “encouraged deconcentration before the city could

56

Axelrod, Jeremiah. Inventing Autopia: Dreams and Visions of the Modern Metropolis in Jazz Age Los

Angeles. University of California Press; Los Angeles, 2009. Pg311 57

Ibid


create a rigid, densely packed environment, resulting in highly decentralized traffic patterns

running through the suburbs.”58

It is clear that the historical urban development of Los

Angeles plays a very large role in the disruptive relationship between density and car usage.

The decentralized manner in which the city developed is a very important variable in the

variating relationship links found between transportation and land use policy in Los Angeles.

It must be clarified that this case is specific to Los Angeles. Similar analysis should be

conducted on other car centric cities to assess if history is a prohibitive factor in preventing a

successful reduction in GHG emissions from the transportation sector.

Supporting and as part of the historical narrative, Robert M. Fogelson in Fragmented

Metropolis frames the development of land use policies as reactionary to transportation

preferences and developers power over Los Angeles in the 1920s. The new and weak

planning commission of Los Angeles were unable to overcome political and private

developer’s interests to solve the unbearable traffic problems the central business district was

facing and the deteriorating street car system. The most popular solution devised was to grow

the city out of its traffic problem by developing pastoral lands, developing more streets, and

creating alternative commercial centers to ease traffic. Fogelson reflects that ‘in one

regulation after another the planners revealed an overriding concern for automobile

transport.”59

Planners devised segregated zoning regulations to separate commercial,

residential, and industrial sectors with restrictions, however, they were unsuccessful in the

implementation as they granted exceptions freely to developers who wished to build other

types of buildings. Alas, Fogelson writes ‘in sum, zoning reinforced land use segregation in

Los Angeles by investing the patterns imposed by private enterprise with governmental

sanctions”60

The power of private enterprises reverberated across Los Angeles in a way that

58

Bottles, Scott. Los Angeles and the Automobile. University of California Press: Los Angeles, 1987. 59

Fogelson, Robert 60

Ibid P 255


profoundly shaped the city around the growing mobility provided by the automobile. The

governmentally sanctioned land use policy based on the private developer’s profit margins

was the solution to the existing transportation problem; however, as Pickrell argues, land use

as the mean to solve a transportation problem is not an effective tool to combat the negative

externalities of transportation. Pickrell’s assertion that economics plays a larger role in

transportation is also correct. Land use policy in the 1920s was not based on premeditated

and theoretically based residential assumptions. They were based on profitability margins that

disregarded traffic as the primary objective solution. The easement of traffic occurred for a

short while until the continuous growth rate and new automobiles on the road effectively

rendered any expanded roads to the point of congestion again. The drop in density that once

occurred shifted and increased in the subsequent decades which create the existing conditions

of high density and high car usage. The urban form that was created would be difficult to

revise as the deep entrenched cultural and psychological identity of the car exists in Los

Angeles.

To solve Los Angeles traffic problems, formal city plans call for the usage of transit

oriented development to building residential and commercial densities around transit lines in

order to promote alternative forms of transportations. The success of the transit oriented

development has been documented across various projects and cities like Portland, Oregon

that increases density around transit stations. Caution, however, must be exercised in

applying TOD to Los Angeles. As Pickrell concluded, the relationship between density and

car usage is only superficially and land use policies (like TOD) have a small impact on car

usage. Given Los Angeles’ historical development, urban form, and placing it in J.M

Thomson’s categorical archetype of ‘Full Motorization’61

, the city is not a typical city and

61

Full Motorization is defined as:

-Small to no city centre (<120,000 jobs) without a radial transport system

-Employment in single storey buildings with extensive parking


applying a land use policy tool based on traditional centric models is a folly. If TOD is only

superficially successful in Los Angeles, then Los Angeles cannot rely on it as a tool to

effectively reduce GHG gas emissions.

Cervero and Gorham in Commuting in Transit versus Automobile Neighborhoods, test

the ‘new urbanist’ theories that by building more transitional cities of the past, automobile

usage can be reduced, and pedestrian and transit alternatives can be built. Despite these

theoretically proven ideals of TOD, the statistical support is underwhelming and limited due

to the lack of solid data. Cervero and Gorham compares Los Angeles and San Francisco to

illustrate that despite the similarity in geo-politics and extensive street cars, the two took

divergent paths. Whereas San Francisco kept its transit oriented form, Los Angeles sprawled

and took to the automobile much more keenly. When statistically testing TOD on a regressive

analysis of aggregate transit data, auto-centric neighbourhoods of Los Angeles had weaker

increase of tranship ridership than transit-centric neighbourhoods in San Francisco. The

expanse (sprawl) and lack of transportation corridors facilitate and necessitate cities in Los

Angeles more car-centric. It is therefore more difficult to successfully utilize and implement

TOD. Cervero and Gorham conclude that “densities had a proportionally greater effect on

inducing transit usage in transit-oriented than in auto-oriented neighbourhoods.”62

In other

words, in cities that developed in a more centric manner that retained their urban core despite

the advent of the automobile are more likely to have more successful outcomes than doing

TOD within an auto-centric neighbourhood in Los Angeles that developed in a decentralized

manner after the advent of the car. Developing TOD in Los Angeles will not necessarily

wean Angelinos away from their cars as other cities in the US have successfully shown.

-Low density single storey suburbs

-Large format shopping with extensive parking

-Grid format freeways (4–10 lanes)

-Buses on secondary highways, poor pedestrian environment

-Car is dominant and cheaper in generalised cost than PT to centres 62

Cervero, R & Gorham, R. (1995) Commuting in transit versus automobile neighborhoods. Journal of the

American Planning Association, 61 (2), 210.


Studies like Creating Successful Transit Oriented Districts in Los Angeles, despite

having an optimistic view of TOD, warns that there is lack of evidence that TOD can actually

reduce traffic in Los Angeles. The success of TOD would depend on successfully removing

cars from the roads rather than merely shortening the vehicular miles travelled (VMT), and

also changing the street capacity to disincentivize future drivers that would infill surface and

highway lanes should traffic be eased with TOD. This would involve a massive devolution of

streets coupled with street calming techniques to change the driving habits and attitudes of

people. The report recommends more investment in infrastructure projects and affordable

housing surrounding new transit stations, as well as re-evaluating regulations and policies

pertaining to parking requirements around already existing TOD like neighbourhoods that

have higher than average transit use.63

This recommendation, despite accurately postulating

the importance of economic disincentive to driving, does not go far enough in advising on

regulation and policy on parking in the auto-oriented neighbourhoods that would actually be

of benefit. Given the strong preference to drive, lower density communities which are more

affluent will not be keen on developing density and affordable housing in their

neighbourhoods, thus it would be politically unfeasible to develop TOD in the

neighbourhoods that actually will need them. Additionally, since Los Angeles follows the

constrained dispersal spatial model, transit lines directly to downtown Los Angeles would not

capture sufficient commuters. The city has been developing the downtown area with notable

and expected residential growth, however, to increase the success of public transit usage,

developers will have to be limited in the construction of available car parking for residents to

avoid an increase in vehicular traffic. TOD will bring certain jobs to the neighbourhood but

not the type of jobs needs for higher income residents. Thus, VMT will only be reduced for

63

“Creating Successful Transit-Oriented Districts in Los Angeles.” Center for Transit-Oriented Development.

February 2010.


recreational purposes rather than by overall commuting which will have a limited impact on

GHG emissions.

As has been illustrated, for the city of Los Angeles, higher density as promised by

TOD does not equal a drop in car usage because of its historical urban development which

formed the current spatial form, the large amount of unrestricted lands that LA occupies

which causes sprawl, and the auto-centric nature of LA. Given these reasons, land use

patterns in Los Angeles will have a minimal impact on car usage. Pickrell’s assertion that

land use should not be used as a primary mean of reducing transportations negative

externality is also correct; As such, scepticism should exist in the many promises of TOD as

studies have shown Los Angeles is a special case that does not conform to the urban

development of other cities in the United States. Bottles describes Los Angeles’ condition

perfectly when he stated “…It will take astronomical gasoline price, horrendous congestion,

or government fiat to force most people out of their automobiles…. It is unrealistic to expect

anything else in a society that celebrates individual choice and free market…no matter how

much social critics and urban planners push for rapid-rail systems, it is unlikely that urban

residents will give up the freedom and convenience afforded by the automobile.”64

The only strategy that has the potential to actually reduce GHG emissions is the very

last point of revising parking management, create new pricing mechanisms, and change

parking requirement for housing and development to discourage driving. This last point is the

fundamental change that can have an effect in GHG emissions because it associates a cost to

the externalities caused by the automobile. But as been seen historically, managing parking

spaces has been a contentious issue. When the public is faced between the prospect of losing

parking spaces and adopting climate change policies, Angelinos will no doubt hold onto their

64

Bottles, pg 253-254


vehicles. As has been seen before, even high gas prices at the pump have not discouraged

drivers in LA to abandon their vehicles for bikes and public transit.

Analysis: Energy Pricing and Transit

Californians have one

of the highest gasoline

prices in the country

because of their

reformulated gasoline

requirements,

isolation from major

pipelines to the east,

gas taxes, and foreign

imports. Angelinos

have a higher than average tolerance for gasoline prices as compared to the rest of the nation.

Referencing earlier notions that higher gasoline price leads to more public transportation

usage. Table 2 illustrates the average price of gasoline in Los Angeles, New York City,

Chicago, and Houston which consistently shows a higher gasoline price for Southern

California. Despite having higher gasoline prices in Southern California, this has not

translated to a shift away from car culture to mass usage of alternative transportation.

From Section 1, previous studies have concluded that average gasoline prices over

$3.50 at the national level will increase public transportation ridership; however verification

65

Source: IEA: Petroleum & Other Liquids 66

San Diego also has the same gasoline prices due to the same gasoline requirements and costs.

Date65

Los Angeles66

New York

City Chicago Houston

2001 $ 1.61 $ 1.55 $ 1.57 $ 1.37

2002 $ 1.52 $ 1.45 $ 1.46 $ 1.32

2003 $ 1.87 $ 1.68 $ 1.66 $ 1.48

2004 $ 2.20 $ 1.96 $ 1.94 $ 1.76

2005 $ 2.54 $ 2.36 $ 2.36 $ 2.21

2006 $ 2.88 $ 2.70 $ 2.70 $ 2.51

2007 $ 3.10 $ 2.86 $ 2.98 $ 2.66

2008 $ 3.56 $ 3.35 $ 3.45 $ 3.14

2009 $ 2.74 $ 2.44 $ 2.50 $ 2.23

2010 $ 3.16 $ 2.88 $ 2.98 $ 2.65

2011 $ 3.90 $ 3.69 $ 3.78 $ 3.41

2012 $ 4.13 $ 3.81 $ 3.90 $ 3.50

2013 $ 3.99 $ 3.70 $ 3.82 $ 3.38

2014 $ 3.83 $ 3.55 $ 3.64 $ 3.23

Averages $ 2.90 $ 2.70 $ 2.70 $ 2.40

Table 2: 2001-2014 Average Gasoline

Price in Major US Cities


of this assumption should be made as to the extent energy pricing has on public transportation

ridership specifically for Los Angeles and California rather than nationally because of their

car-centric nature. To test this, I conducted a correlation analysis between gasoline price and

MTA ridership as a total, weekly average, Saturday average, and Sunday average from 2000-

2015.67

The purpose of this analysis is to identify if there is a relationship between MTA

ridership and gasoline price in Los Angeles. Table 3 below illustrates the correlation results.

Table 3: Correlations Results

The correlation analysis revealed that between the average gasoline price and total

MTA ridership per year, a .125 significance existed and R (Pearson Correlation) = .400. This

revealed that there is no correlation between the total MTA ridership and gasoline price. This

is significant because it illustrates that gasoline prices have in fact not had a significant

impact in Los Angeles on public transportation. Data gather from the MTA included newly

67

Since 2015 has not finished, the average gasoline price was based on an aggregate of prices from January to

September of said year.


opened stations that should have accommodated more ridership; however, this analysis does

not reflect that as a significant correlation in relationship with gasoline prices.

The analysis revealed a .007 significance and R=.643 between gasoline prices and

average weekly ridership. This analysis revealed that a correlation does exist between the two

aforementioned variables at a .01 level. In other words, a relationship exists between gasoline

prices on public transportation ridership during the week with an assumption that these rides

are commutes to work but not during the weekends or on a 7 day week. The significance of

this is that during the work week, price and MTA ridership depict a correlative relationship.

Further research should be conduction utilizing a regressive analysis and additional social and

economic variables to conclude if oil prices are predictive of ridership during the 5 day

working week.

Results of Analysis

Significant reduction of GHG emission from the transportation section in Los Angeles

will not be an achievable feat under the current sustainability plan because of the historical

development from the 1920s which led the current urban form designed by and for the

automobile, the strong cultural and economic ties to the automobile as reflected in popular

culture and the correlative analysis previously performed that illustrates gasoline prices does

not have the same effect in public transportation use as national trends. The lack of

relationship found in the weekend transit use, and total transit use with gasoline price shows

that Angelinos, if it is not work related, will by-pass the use of public transportation

regardless of gasoline price. Additionally, previous studies show that transit oriented

development will not work in Los Angeles. This puts in jeopardy the Mobility & Transit, and

the efficacy of Housing & Development around these proposed transportation corridors. In

theory, taking cars off the road and onto alternative transportation will GHG emissions from


the reduction in traffic. In practice, however, taking cars off the road and reducing the amount

of gasoline used means the state and city will have less money for road maintenance, bridge

repairs, and other transportation infrastructure because the gasoline tax pays for this budget.

Fewer cars means less money for infrastructure.

The complexity and interconnectivity of land use, transportation, and

cultural/economic dependency on the automobile in Los Angeles is far too great at this point

to take sufficient amount of people out of their cars and onto alternative transportation to

effectively reduce greenhouse gas emission. The verdict rendered is that Los Angeles early

land use and transportation sins are far too great to overcome and the automobile will remain

an essential part of transportation. In this regard, the electric vehicle is the one technological

solution to reducing GHG emissions from the transportation section is Los Angeles as

proposed in pLAn.

The Electric Vehicle will drive down LA’s GHG emissions

The electric vehicle is the solution to Los Angele’s greenhouse gas emissions

dilemma. It satisfies the car-centric culture of Angelinos, it utilizes the existing transportation

infrastructure; sale prices are dropping as battery prices fall, and are increasing in popularity

and financial support in the shape of state and national incentives. The government has not

been the only entity supporting the energy infrastructure needed. Utilities and private

companies have lobbied the California Energy Commission to build charging stations;

Private companies are coming up with new business models which will help greatly in

financing the construction of the infrastructure needed to support electric vehicles.

Additionally, they save money on fuel costs, are three times more energy efficient, have no

tail pipe emissions, are quiet to drive, and are available in different configurations to satisfy


the driver’s needs.68

California’s increasing wind and solar power means that these vehicles

will continue to be powered to a greater extent by renewable sources of energy. There are

many agencies and organization in California that are leading the push to lay the electrical

infrastructure needed to support the increase in electric vehicles. At the state level, integration

of the various agencies towards the common goal of increasing EV is sharply evident and an

asset. The California Energy Commission writes:

The growth of the electric vehicle market requires the Energy Commission

to work closely with the California Plug-in Electric Vehicle Collaborative

Council, the Air Resources Board, the California Public Utilities

Commission, and the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) to

establish funding priorities for charging infrastructure, strategic planning for

smart charging services, investments to improve grid capability and

reliability, and related activities.

The California Energy Commission has awarded $25.3 million to an array of infrastructure

projects to increase the number of charging stations across the state.69

The state’s climate

change policies along with the planning of 1.5 million electric vehicles in 2025 means the

State will spend much more money and resources to accomplish the goal. Cities are best

positioned to capture these resources and create plans as to how to develop the infrastructure

needed at the neighbourhood level to accommodate the planned 1.5 million electric vehicles

on the road by 2025.

Additionally, according to the International Energy Agency, at least 20% of all road

transport vehicles will need to be electrically powered by 2030 in order to limit a 2 degree

68

Hybrid and Plug-in Electric Vehicles. California Energy Commission. 2011-2015. 29 November 2015. See

http://www.energy.ca.gov/drive/technology/plugin_electric.html.

69 Ibid

http://www.energy.ca.gov/drive/technology/plugin_electric.html


warming or less.70

Global efforts like the Urban Electric Mobility Initiative, sponsored by

UN-Habitat are working towards achieving a wider adoption of electric vehicles in cities

around the world. They call on a supply and demand side actor mobilization efforts to both

spur a demand for electric vehicles and supply the policy and infrastructure needs for

deployment.71

Global organizations and institutions are building a consensus that highlights

the necessity to electrify the mobility and transportation sectors to achieve greenhouse gas

emission reduction goals. The reduction is contingent on robust energy policies that

modernize the electricity grid to support both heavy charging loads and distributed generation

from renewable energy sources. Cities in the US in states with grid modernization plans and

RPS energy policies have the highest potential to reduce GHG emissions via the

transportation sector.

There are two main types of electric vehicles: Battery Electric Vehicles (BEV), and

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEV). Both have an electric motor powered by a battery,

however, PHEV have a gas tank that servers as an alternative power source for a separate

engine. This helps extend range and calm range anxiety. To charge these vehicles, there are

three levels of charging stations that can be built. The table below from San Diego

Association of Governments illustrates the type of charging station, the power levels needed,

the miles of ranger per charging hour along the location as to where it can be placed.

70

Paris Declaration on Electro-Mobility and Climate Change and Call to Action. See

http://newsroom.unfccc.int/lpaa/transport/the-paris-declaration-on-electro-mobility-and-climate-change-and-

call-to-action/ 71

Transport- Action Plan Urban Electric Mobility Initiative. Climate Summit 2014.


Table 4: Electric Vehicle charging type72

California already leads the nation with the adoption of EV in the country. Almost

half of all EV in the United States are in California; in the United States, the number included

70,000 BEV and 104,000 PHEV. 73

There are many incentives across federal, state, and local

governments aimed at subsidizing the purchase of EV which will make them more attractive

to perspective buys. The challenge will be to attract enough low-income buys who cannot yet

afford the higher EV prices in comparison to traditional ICE automobiles. A second market

for used EV will be a topic that needs further discussion and researched.

Electric vehicles are the means by with the Air Quality goals under pLAn can be

achieved. Building the infrastructure and developing a comprehensive strategy of growth will

directly support California’s ARB climate change mandates and meet GHG emission

reduction goals for the city and the state. Given that California’s strong climate change and

energy policies focused on incorporating more renewable energy into the electricity

generation mix, electric vehicles will draw upon clean energy to truly make EVs more

environmentally friendly. California and Los Angeles are in the best position to take

advantage of electromobility to achieve GHG emission reduction goals. This thesis suggests

72

“San Diego Regional Plug-In Electric Vehicle (PEV) Readiness Plan”. SANDAG and Center for Sustainable

Energy California, January 2014. 73

Chase, Nicholas and Allen McFarland (Principal Contributors). “California leads the nation in the adoption of

electric vehicles”. Today in Energy U.S. Energy Information Administration. 10 December 2014.


EV are the best recourse but cautions that due to political, technological, and economic

realities, the widespread perforation of electric vehicles in the market cannot be guaranteed.

Section 3 San Diego, California

The City of San Diego sits approximately 100 miles south of Los Angeles along the

Pacific coast. San Diego County boasts a population of 3.26 million; The City of San Diego

has a population of 1.38 million.74

It is comprise of 19 cities in an area 372 square miles and

bordered by Orange County to the north and Mexico to the south. San Diego can be

considered a microcosm of Los Angeles in the sense that it is plagued by the same ills from

transportation but at a smaller scale and scope. Having developed in much the same way

around the automobile in the early 1920s, it did not experience the same large population

growth that forced Los Angeles to adapt quickly. It is its smaller scale that is an important

factor in San Diego’s ability to implement California’s greenhouse gas reduction laws and

have an increase chance of achieving their goals. San Diego is an important comparison to

Los Angeles because of its similarities in car culture, development, and geographic and

geopolitical composition. It serves a view of the differences that exist and the diverging

potential to reduce GHG emissions from the transportation sector.

San Diego has actively pursued transportation and land use policies and planning to

move the city onto a more sustainable path. It has not only adopted a climate change plan at

the city level, but a sustainability plan at the regional transportation level. The San Diego

Association of Governments (SANDAG), which serves as a forum for city governments to

build a consensus on regional transportation issues, received a unanimous vote of approval by

its board members to adopt and put into action San Diego Forward. San Diego Forward is a

plan aimed at curving sprawling growth in San Diego and promoting more sustainable

74

San Diego. United States Census Bureau. 29 November 2015. See

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0666000.html


Sustainability and

Greenhouse

gas emission reduction

Strategies

1. Focus Housing and job growth in urbanized areas

2. Protect the Environement to ensure smart growth land use policies

3. Invest in transportation networks to provide choice

4. Address housing needs of all economic segments

5. Implement the Regional Plan through incentives

Building Blocks Land Use Pattern * Transportation Network * Managing Demand

Managing Tranportation System * Innovative Pricing Policy

growth, transportation, and land use choices for the next 30-40 years. The target for

SANDAG as mandated by the ARB is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions per capita by 7%

by 2020.75

San Diego Forward plan can be imagined as a pyramid where at the core are

specific building blocks that will support and frame the strategies to achieve a more

sustainable city and ultimately reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

In addition to sustainability planning, San Diego is unique in that support and action

for a cleaner and more sustainable city is coming from all an array of different segments of

the city. Aside from greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector, San Diego’s

universities, industries, government, utilities, and political/social will are also working

together and supporting initiatives that will reduce the regions GHG footprint.

75

San Diego Forward- The Regional Plan. San Diego Association of Governments. October 2015. See

http://www.sdforward.com/pdfs/RP_final/The%20Plan%20-%20combined.pdf


The National Geographic featured San Diego as one of the four in the world and only

city in the United States smart cities. It was chosen because of the technological innovation in

clean tech, smart public planning, and quality of life.76

San Diego Gas & Electric (SDGE) has won numerous awards for its climate change

leadership in the industry. SDGE provided 42% of its energy from carbon free sources; 20%

of which came from renewables.77

Surprisingly for any utility company in the world, SDGE

is one of the three major energy companies in California that is actively pressing to achieve

its renewable portfolio mandate for 30% renewables by 2020 and supporting the other

mandates. Unlike utilities in Germany, for example, utilities in California have not fought

governmental mandates. They have actually gone above and beyond to become further

involved in other clean measures. SDGE stands out in as much as that it wants to be an active

partner in facilitating the expansion of electric vehicles in the region by providing lower

electricity rates for households to charge their electric vehicles during off-peak hours, and

filing a request to the State of California to allow them to build electric vehicles charging

stations.

The city of San Diego and the leading research institute in the city, University of

California, San Diego announced in September of 2015 the creation of a partnership to create

the Metrolab Network to solve some of San Diego’s transportation, traffic and infrastructure

problems.78

The city is utilizing the institutes of higher education housed within the city to

conduct research and support the cities initiatives.

76

Casey, Shannon. “Video: National Geographic Channel profiles San Diego in World’s Smart Cities

Documentary. Clean Tech San Diego, 4 September. See http://cleantechsandiego.org/national-geographic-

channel-profiles-san-diego-in-worlds-smart-cities-documentary/ 77

Renewable Energy. San Diego Gas and Electric. 29 November 2015. http://www.sdge.com/renewable-energy 78

Casey, Shannon. “White House announces Metrolab Network partnership between City of San Diego and

UCSD”. Clean Tech San Diego Blog. 15 September 2015. See http://cleantechsandiego.org/white-house-

announces-metrolab-network-partnership-between-city-of-san-diego-and-ucsd/


FM3 Associates, a public-policy oriented opinion research firm, surveyed voters in

2010 on their views on climate change and their tolerance and support for policy to support

changes. In a surprising result, and now serving as an explanation of the continuous

development of GHG reduction projects and programs in San Diego, the survey revealed that

over 72% of voters supported San Diego County’s leadership in reducing GHG emissions,

believed that they had to choose the economy over climate change, strongly support key

policies that support the implementation of California law AB 32, and support more compact

and transit-friendly development.79

The strong public support for the type of development is

key to implementing policies that will encourage alternative modes of transportation and

smarter development. Important to note as well, is that San Diego is the only major city in the

U.S. to have a Republican mayor in office. It illustrates that sustainability and the

commitment to GHG emissions has transcended across party lines; this is a major feat in

American politics.

In fact, City Council voted unanimously on December 16, 2015 to cut greenhouse gas

emissions by 50% by 2035 and committed to using 100% of renewable energy to power the

city. It is a plan with broad support from the various groups and institutions previously

mentioned. San Diego is truly pushing the boundaries of sustainability and climate change

policies in California and is the most promising in achieving the goals it has set for itself.

Historical Development

The City of San Diego developed in much the same way as Los Angeles in its early

days of Spanish, Mexican, and later American settlement in 1769. The trade of hides in the

1820’s and ‘30’s brought greater trade and wealth to San Diego. Given San Diego’s excellent

deep water harbour, it was an excellent location for shipping trade and if connected by rail

79

Email. “Re: Key Findings from Recent Countywide Survey on Climate Change”. September 14, 2010. FM3.

See http://www.sandiego.gov/environmental-services/pdf/sustainable/100814key.pdf.


road could rival San Francisco as a major trading port and commercial center. The

downtown district flourished first around the first wharf and later around the new warf built

further south. San Diego was expected to rival San Francisco as a major port in California by

the 1870; this however would be contingent on the Southern Pacific (SP) railroad ending in

San Diego.80

San Diego would be perfect location given its harbour and trade possibilities.

An agreement was struck to bring the SP to San Diego and construction began to build the

line from San Bernardino down to San Diego. The population in San Diego doubled at the

prospect of the Santa Fe line ending in San Diego.81

This boom and celebration did not last

long. Whether because of ‘fate, accident, and politics’ as James Marshall wrote in “Santa Fe:

The Railroad that Built and Empire”, the transcontinental railroad line ended up being built to

Los Angeles.82

Los Angeles had a larger population than San Diego but lacked a harbour to

compete with San Diego or San Francisco. The struggle resulted in the construction of the

railroad to Los Angeles, thus determining Los Angeles as the center of Southern California

rather than San Diego.83

An extension line was built which eventually brought the rail to San

Diego, however Santa Fe moved its headquarters from San Diego to Los Angeles. Rail

eventually flourished throughout the 1920s and 1930s, and the trolley and street car peaked in

1924. The introduction of the automobile, like in Los Angeles, had many of the same effects

on public transportation. Trolley lines began to close and cars began to fill the streets.

The defining moment in San Diego’s historical development was when the railroad

companies decided to make Los Angeles the main hub in Southern California. To the

detriment of San Diego, at the time, it is this historic twist that created Los Angeles the

premier city; it is also this twist that could now put San Diego on a path towards

80

Mills, James. “San Diego…Where California Began”. The Journal of San Diego History, October 1967,

Volume 13, Number 4. See http://www.sandiegohistory.org/journal/67october/began.htm 81

Price, James N. “The Railroad Stations of San Diego County”. The Journal of San Diego History, Spring

1988, Volume 34, Number 2. See http://www.sandiegohistory.org/journal/88spring/railroad.htm. 82

Dotinga, Randy. “How San Diego’s big railroad dreams went off track”. Voice of San Diego. 18 July 2014.

See http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/desert-line/how-san-diegos-big-railroad-dreams-went-off-track/. 83

Fogelson P 43-62


accomplishing GHG emission reduction goals and a more sustainable city. Because San

Diego did not experience the type of population growth, and sprawl to the same extent in Los

Angeles, managing changes in land use and transportation are more manageable.

Land Use and Transportation Policy

As previously mentioned, San Diego has aggressive plans to pursue policies in land

use and transportation that will transform it into a more sustainable city with alternative

modes of transportation and lower carbon footprint. Propositions put to voters to leverage

additional taxes to finance transportation projects that promote smart growth and preserve

open space have been successful, thus facilitating the sustainability transition. Across San

Diego county, cities has made changes to their land use plans in order to manage residential

and commercial growth along existing transportation corridors where higher density is

proposed within existing communities. SANDAG, the regional transportation and planning

agency, has tirelessly worked with various stakeholders in an integrated manner to produce

land use plans that incorporate an array of views and inputs.

An example of this integrated planning is the 3 scenario exercise on the various uses

for land. The illustration below shows the three scenarios; Second unit and infill, Transit

Oriented Development, and Multiple Dense Cores. The exercise proved to have very positive


results. Given that the aim was to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the results were

calculated and valued accordingly. SANDAG concluded that “The growth projected in the

Growth Forecast will result in a 30 % less greenhouse gas emission that the growth projected

in the Growth Forecast prepared in 1999”.84

The image below illustrates the results of the

project. Whereas in 1999, growth in housing units grew east across San Diego county

reflecting a traditional sprawl, the growth in 2012, and forecast to 2050 reveal a much more

compact growth that incorporate the three aforementioned scenarios. Both residential and

employment will develop within the existing communities and transportation corridors.

SANDAG’s transportation policy reflects the commitment around providing current

and future residents alternative forms of transportation and reduction in greenhouse gas

emission. Forward commits to increasing the links between housing and jobs via transit in

order to connect more people with their destinations, and make transit more readily available.

Through the Active Transportation strategy, San Diego will be designed to promote more

walking, biking, and transit by investing on transportation projects and using land use as a

84

San Diego Forward Pg 32


stimulus. It is important to note in exploring the transportation literature between Los

Angeles and San Diego, San Diego plans do not make traffic and congestion their primary

goal to solve. Unlike Los Angeles, neither the public nor the media are as obsessed on the

reduction of traffic. The regional plans also call for changes to the highways by managing

lanes that are optimal for mobility. In managing lanes, the plans aims at adding express lanes,

carpool lanes, and transit only lanes to improve mobility.85

In addition, San Diego is also deploying an array of technologies in order to

modernize the transportation system and allow for new emerging technologies to connect

seamlessly. The first layer is the Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) that provides road

information to inform travellers of road conditions, accidents, toll bridging, etc. It is meant to

provide connection to the second layer which is vehicle technology and multimodal

transportation. As cars and transit systems become smarter and more prevalent, San Diego

roads, streets, and highways will be able to incorporate these technologies. It will also assist

with creating a smart parking system, where data is collected, analysed, and used to find

parking solutions for commuters.86

Additionally, electric vehicles are quickly increasing in popularity in San Diego. The

Center for Sustainable Energy in California reports that San Diego County has nearly 13,000

electric vehicle owners. They expect “…the San Diego region needs to deploy 75,000

residential charging ports and 12,000 workplace charging ports to support expected regional

PEV growth.”87

There are currently only 687 charging station in the region, but the city,

utilities, university, and technology industry working together in order to bring the

infrastructure needs for electric vehicles. San Diego also has a successful car sharing

85

Ibid 54 86

Ibid 73 87

“San Diego Regional Plug-In Electric Vehicle (PEV) Readiness Plan”. SANDAG and Center for Sustainable

Energy California, January 2014.


company, Car2go, that is entirely made up of electric cars.88

It is a city that is embracing the

electric vehicle and planning accordingly as an integral component in reducing GHG

emissions.

Integration in the various segments of the city towards the cleaner transportation

section is an indispensable working attribute that has been proven to work in other countries,

like Germany, where a smaller per capita GHG emissions than American average is

experienced. San Diego is able to pursue more integrated transportation planning because of

its smaller size and land use policy planning. It is a city that is embracing the electric vehicle

and planning accordingly for its eventual dominance of the transportation sector. San Diego

will successfully reduce its GHG emissions because of the historical twist that limited its

growth, the land use and transportation policies (and transit oriented development) that will

work because of its smaller size, and support from residents, businesses, utilities, and

education institutes.

88

How Car2go works. Car2ho. 29 November 2015. See http://sandiego.car2go.com/how-it-works/


Section 4 The Eternal Car City

Findings

Four findings were drawn from this thesis.

1. Los Angeles’s development in the 1920s, subsequent urban form, and sheer size are

greater obstacles that cannot be overcome and will impede the implementation of

successful greenhouse gas emission reduction policies via land use and transportation

projects. The wrong is too wrong to right.

2. San Diego, despite having a similar car concentric model and many similar attributes

as Los Angeles, will be more likely to achieve its greenhouse gas emission goals because

of its smaller population, the urban form is that of corridors, supported politically and

by the public opinion of voters, regional land use favour in-growth in existing

communities that limit sprawl and favour public transportation corridors and

alternative forms of transportation, an array of world-class universities in partnerships

with the city to facilitate data collection, analysis and research, a strong high-tech and

bio tech industry that supports clean/green tech, and utility companies eager to comply

with state law and be part of the expansion of renewables and electric vehicles.

3. Given that Los Angeles will not reduce in physical size, will not reduce street/freeway

lanes to make car use more difficult, cannot force surrounding cities to increase its

density and decrease single family home residential zones, and cannot change its urban

form without massive infrastructure projects, strong public support, and billions of

dollars, a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions cannot be achieved by neither

increasing public/alternative transportation, nor transit oriented development, nor


increasing further density in the city, because these measure are primarily for the

purpose of reducing traffic and accommodating future population growth.

4. Electric vehicles have a greater potential to reduce greenhouse gas emission because

they do not require an overhaul of the urban form, they can utilize existing roads and

highways, retain the car-centric culture of the city, and are quickly becoming more

economically more viable.

Recommendations

1. Given the limitations of this thesis, further research should be conducted on identifying the

quantitative mechanisms that prohibit transit oriented development to truly work in Los

Angeles. A regression analysis on the predictive factor of gasoline price on public

transportation using social and economic variables should also be conducted.

2. To reduce GHG emissions from the transportation sector, Los Angeles needs to work more

collaboratively with the outlining cities to improve the reliance and frequency of public

transportation. The automobile culture is too strong for any meaningful reduction in car use.

The city will have to take a political hit in reducing parking, and increasing the cost of

driving if it wants people to abandon the use of the automobile.

3. Study other automobile oriented cities in the US utilizing a historical lens to analyse the

land use and transportation dynamics. It can serve as a precursor for cities across the

developing countries with growing cities to identify patterns and markers that will say if that

city can reduce its GHG emissions or if it is too late.

4. Explore the impact that Millennials will have on urban mobility in Los Angeles to assess

the potential repercussions to transit and electric vehicles.


5. Partnerships should be formed between urban planning and the energy sector to increase

dialogue and planning on sustainability issues.

Conclusions

California’s climate change law will change energy and environmental landscape of

California in a positive ways. California law, however, cannot undo the deeply entrenched

historical connection that Angelinos have towards the automobile. The city was designed for

cars and will continue to be a car city. Specifically for Los Angeles, the city should increase

its reliance on alternative fuels and work on increasing the number of electric vehicles on the

road to reduce GHG emissions. It should also discourage the use of the traditional automobile

through pricing mechanism and reduce incentives to driving. Merely providing more

alternative modes of transportation will not reduce automobile use because cars would return

to the streets as congestion goes down, thus creating a vicious cycle. To truly reduce

congestion and promote public transit, Los Angeles would need to redesign its streets to

make them more narrow and increase pedestrian capacity and reduce the capacity of

highways in tandem with increase transit options and land use densities. Not all is lost

however, as San Diego has shown great potential to refocus a large majority of their city to

work together and implement sustainability practices across the entire county. In Los

Angeles, the wrong is too wrong to right, but in San Diego there is hope. California and

specially Southern California will continue to be a car centric region thus the best way to

truly reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to turn to electromobility.


Work Cited

About. pLAn. City of Los Angeles, October 2015. See http://plan.lamayor.org/about.

Anderson, Richard. “Are low oil prices here to stay?” BBC, 24 February 2015.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-30814122.

Angel, Shlomo, Alejandro Blei. “Commuting and the spatial structure of American Cities”.

Marron Institute of Urban Management NYU, 7 January 2015. See

http://marroninstitute.nyu.edu/content/working-papers/commuting-and-the-spatial-

structure-of-american-cities.

Annual Energy Outlook 2015 with projections to 2040. U.S. Energy Information

Administration, April 2015. September 2015. See

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383(2015).pdf.

ARB Mission and Goals. California Environmental Protection Agency- Air Resource Board,

27 March 2012. September 2015. See http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/mission.htm.

Assembly Bill 32 Overview. California Environmental Protection Agency- Air Resource

Board, 5 August 2014. September 2015. See

http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ab32/ab32.htm.

Axelrod, Jeremiah. Inventing Autopia: Dreams and Visions of the Modern Metropolis in Jazz

Age Los Angeles. University of California Press: Los Angeles, 2009.

Bertaud, Alain, “The Spatial Distribution of Land Prices and Densities”. Marron Institute of

Urban Management NYU, 19 February 2015. See

http://marroninstitute.nyu.edu/content/working-papers/the-spatial-distribution-of-

land-prices-and-densities.

Bordoff, Jason and Trevor Houser. “Navigating the US Oil Export Debate.” Columbia Center

on Global Energy Policy. January 2015.

Bottles, Scott. Los Angeles and the Automobile. University of California Press: Los Angeles,

1987.

California Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory 2015 Edition. California Environmental

Protection Agency- Air Resource Board, 30 June 2015. September 2015. See

http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm.

“California Greenhouse Gas Inventory Shows State in on Track to Achieve 2020 AB 32

Target” Press Release. California Environmental Protection Agency- Air Resource

Board, 30 June 2015. September 2015. See http://www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel

/newsrelease.php?id=740.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-30814122

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383(2015).pdf

http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/mission.htm

http://marroninstitute.nyu.edu/content/working-papers/the-spatial-distribution-of-land-prices-and-densities

http://marroninstitute.nyu.edu/content/working-papers/the-spatial-distribution-of-land-prices-and-densities

http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm


California State Profile and Energy Estimates-Overview. U.S. Energy Information

Administration, 2015. September 2015. See http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs-

2.

California State Profile and Energy Estimates-Profile Analysis. U.S. Energy Information

Administration, 2015. September 2015. See

http://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.cfm?sid=CA.

Casey, Shannon. “White House announces Metrolab Network partnership between City of

San Diego and UCSD”. Clean Tech San Diego Blog. 15 September 2015. See

http://cleantechsandiego.org/white-house-announces-metrolab-network-partnership-

between-city-of-san-diego-and-ucsd/.

Casey, Shannon. “Video: National Geographic Channel profiles San Diego in World’s Smart

Cities Documentary.” Clean Tech San Diego, 4 September. See

http://cleantechsandiego.org/national-geographic-channel-profiles-san-diego-in-

worlds-smart-cities-documentary/.

Cervero, R & Gorham, R. (1995) Commuting in transit versus automobile neighborhoods.

Journal of the American Planning Association, 61 (2), 210.

Chase, Nicholas and Allen McFarland (Principal Contributors). “California leads the nation

in the adoption of electric vehicles”. Today in Energy U.S. Energy Information

Administration. 10 December 2014. September 2015. See

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=19131.

“Cities within the County of Los Angeles”. Los Angeles County, 2012. 5 October 2015. See

http://ceo.lacounty.gov/forms/09-10%20cities%20alpha.pdf.

“Creating Successful Transit-Oriented Districts in Los Angeles.” Center for Transit-Oriented

Development. February 2010.

Dotinga, Randy. “How San Diego’s big railroad dreams went off track”. Voice of San Diego.

18 July 2014. See http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/desert-line/how-san-diegos-big-

railroad-dreams-went-off-track/.

Email. “Re: Key Findings from Recent Countywide Survey on Climate Change”. September

14, 2010. FM3. See http://www.sandiego.gov/environmental-

services/pdf/sustainable/100814key.pdf.

Environment- State Carbon Dioxide Emissions. U.S. Energy Information Administration,

2015. September 2015. See http://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/state/.

“Facts about Los Angeles”. Discover Los Angeles, 5 October 2015. See

http://www.discoverlosangeles.com/press-releases/facts-about-los-angeles.

Fogelson, Robert. The Fragmented Metropolis. Joint Center for Urban Studies of the

Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University Oxford University

Press; London, 1967. P 255

http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs-2

http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs-2

http://cleantechsandiego.org/white-house-announces-metrolab-network-partnership-between-city-of-san-diego-and-ucsd/

http://cleantechsandiego.org/white-house-announces-metrolab-network-partnership-between-city-of-san-diego-and-ucsd/

http://ceo.lacounty.gov/forms/09-10%20cities%20alpha.pdf

http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/desert-line/how-san-diegos-big-railroad-dreams-went-off-track/

http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/desert-line/how-san-diegos-big-railroad-dreams-went-off-track/

http://www.sandiego.gov/environmental-services/pdf/sustainable/100814key.pdf

http://www.sandiego.gov/environmental-services/pdf/sustainable/100814key.pdf

http://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/state/

http://www.discoverlosangeles.com/press-releases/facts-about-los-angeles


Foster, Mark. “The Model-T, the Hard Sell, and Los Angeles’s Urban Growth: The

Decentralization of Los Angeles during the 1920’s” Pacific Historical Review, Vol.44

No. 4. Pp459-484.

Fujita M, "Urban land-use theory", working papers in Regional Service and Transportation,

Department of Regional Science, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. 1984.

“Gasoline prices tend to have little effect on demand for car travel.” U.S. Energy Information

Administration, 15 December 2014. September 2015.

See http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=19191.

How Car2go works. Car2ho. 29 November 2015. See http://sandiego.car2go.com/how-it-

works/.

Hybrid and Plug-in Electric Vehicles. California Energy Commission. 2011-2015. 29

November 2015. See

http://www.energy.ca.gov/drive/technology/plugin_electric.html.

Iseki, Hiroyuk and Rubaba Ali. “Net Effect of Gasoline Price Changes on Transit ridership in

U.S. Urban Areas”. Mineta Transportation Institutue. Report 12-19. December 2014.

http://transweb.sjsu.edu/PDFs/research/1106-gas-price-changes-and-transit-

ridership.pdf.

Key Events in the History of Air Quality in California. California Environmental Protection

Agency- Air Resource Board, 6 January 2015. September 2015. See

http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/brochure/history.htm.

Krauss, Clifford. “Oil Prices: What’s Behind the Plunge? Simple Economics”. The New York

Times. 31 August 2015. See

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/business/energy-environment/oil-

prices.html?_r=0.

Ladislaw, Sarah and Maren Leed and Molly Walton. “New Energy, New Geopolitics” Center

for Strategic and International Studies. April 2014. Pg 1.

Lelyveld, Nita and Shelby Grad. “Traffic still tops crime, economy as top L.A. concern, poll

finds”. Los Angeles Times, 7 October 2015. See

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-traffic-still-tops-crime-economy-as-top-

l-a-concern-poll-finds-20151007-story.html.

Mills, James. “San Diego…Where California Began”. The Journal of San Diego History,

October 1967, Volume 13, Number 4. See

http://www.sandiegohistory.org/journal/67october/began.htm.

Most Polluted Cities. American Lung Association, 2015 Ranking. September 2015. See

http://www.stateoftheair.org/2015/city-rankings/most-polluted-cities.html.

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=19191

http://sandiego.car2go.com/how-it-works/

http://sandiego.car2go.com/how-it-works/

http://www.energy.ca.gov/drive/technology/plugin_electric.html



http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-traffic-still-tops-crime-economy-as-top-l-a-concern-poll-finds-20151007-story.html

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-traffic-still-tops-crime-economy-as-top-l-a-concern-poll-finds-20151007-story.html

http://www.stateoftheair.org/2015/city-rankings/most-polluted-cities.html


Nelson, Laura. “Metro poll suggests strong support for 2016 transportation tax hike”. Los

Angeles Times, 7 May 2015. See http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-poll-

transportation-ballot-measure-20150507-story.html.

NEPA and CEQA: Integrating State and Federal Environmental Reviews. Office of the

President and Office of the Governor of California, February 2014. September 2015.

See

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/page/files/nepa_ceqa_handbook_feb20

14.pdf.

Paris Declaration on Electro-Mobility and Climate Change and Call to Action. United

Nations. 2 December 2015. See http://newsroom.unfccc.int/lpaa/transport/the-paris-

declaration-on-electro-mobility-and-climate-change-and-call-to-action/

Petroleum & Other Liquids- Crude Oil Production Data. U.S. Energy Information


http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_crpdn_adc_mbbl_a.htm.

Pickrell, Don. 1999. “Transportation and Land Use,” in Essays in Transportation Economics

and Policy: A Handbook in Honor of John R. Meyer, Washington, DC: The

Brookings Institution, pages 403-435.

“pLAn- Transforming Los Angeles”. Mayor’s Sustainability Team, PwC, TBWA\CHIAT\DAY

design, Bloomberg Associate, etc. 8 April 2015. October 2015.

“Potential Impact of Gasoline Price Increases on U.S. Public Transportation Ridership, 2011-

2012.” American Public Transportation Association. 14 March 2011.

http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/APTA_Effect_of_

Gas_Price_Increase_2011.pdf.

Price, James N. “The Railroad Stations of San Diego County”. The Journal of San Diego

History, Spring 1988, Volume 34, Number 2. See

http://www.sandiegohistory.org/journal/88spring/railroad.htm.

Primary Energy Consumption by Source and Sector 2014. U.S. Energy Information


http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/archive/flowimages/2014/css_2014_energ

y.pdf

Randal, Tom. “Fossil Fuels Just Lost the Race Against Renewables”. Bloomberg, 14 April

2015. September 2015. See http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-

14/fossil-fuels-just-lost-the-race-against-renewables.

Renewable Energy. San Diego Gas and Electric. 29 November 2015. See

http://www.sdge.com/renewable-energy.

San Diego. United States Census Bureau. 29 November 2015. See

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0666000.html.

http://newsroom.unfccc.int/lpaa/transport/the-paris-declaration-on-electro-mobility-and-climate-change-and-call-to-action/

http://newsroom.unfccc.int/lpaa/transport/the-paris-declaration-on-electro-mobility-and-climate-change-and-call-to-action/

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_crpdn_adc_mbbl_a.htm

http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/APTA_Effect_of_Gas_Price_Increase_2011.pdf

http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/APTA_Effect_of_Gas_Price_Increase_2011.pdf

http://www.sandiegohistory.org/journal/88spring/railroad.htm

http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/archive/flowimages/2014/css_2014_energy.pdf

http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/archive/flowimages/2014/css_2014_energy.pdf


San Diego Forward- The Regional Plan. San Diego Association of Governments. October

2015. See http://www.sdforward.com/pdfs/RP_final/The%20Plan%20-

%20combined.pdf.

“San Diego Regional Plug-In Electric Vehicle (PEV) Readiness Plan”. SANDAG and Center

for Sustainable Energy California, January 2014.

September 2015 Traffic Volume Trends. Office of Highway Policy Information. U. S.

Department of Transportation. 10 November 2015. See

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/travel_monitoring/15septvt/

Short-Term Energy Outlook-Data-Table 3D. U.S. Energy Information Administration, 10

November 2015. September 2015. See http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/data.cfm.

State & Urbanized Area Statistics. U.S. Department of Transportation- Federal Highway

Administration, 2015. September 2015. See https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/

ohim/onh00/onh2p11.htm.

“Summary For Policy Makers.” Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report. IPCC. September

2015. Page 45-76. See http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-

report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf.

Summary of the Clean Air Act. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 17

November 2015. September 2015. See http://www2.epa.gov/laws-

regulations/summary-clean-air-act.

“The President’s Climate Action Plan”, Executive Office of the President. June 2013.

September 2015. See

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/president27sclimateactionplan.p

df.

Transport- Action Plan Urban Electric Mobility Initiative. Climate Summit 2014. United

Nations. 2014. See http://www.un.org/climatechange/summit/wp-

content/uploads/sites/2/2014/07/TRANSPORT-Action-Plan-UEMI.pdf.

U.S. Petroleum Flow 2014. U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2015. September 2015.

See http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/flow/petroleum.pdf.

Use of Energy in the United States Explained- Energy Use for Transportation. U.S. Energy

Information Administration, 17 July 2015. September 2015. See

http://www.eia.gov/Energyexplained/?page=us_energy_transportation.

Wachs, Martin. “Autos, Transit, and the Sprawl of Los Angeles: The 1920s”. Journal of the

American Planning Association, 50, 3, Summer 1984.

“What drives U.S. gasoline Prices?” U.S. Energy Information Administration. October 2014,

Pg. 5. See http://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/gasoline/pdf/gasolinepricestudy.pdf.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/travel_monitoring/15septvt/

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/data.cfm

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf

http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-air-act

http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-air-act

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/president27sclimateactionplan.pdf

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/president27sclimateactionplan.pdf

http://www.un.org/climatechange/summit/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2014/07/TRANSPORT-Action-Plan-UEMI.pdf

http://www.un.org/climatechange/summit/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2014/07/TRANSPORT-Action-Plan-UEMI.pdf

http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/flow/petroleum.pdf


“Why the Air Gets Trapped?” San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, 2006.

September 2015. See http://www.valleyair.org/newsed/

ca_primer/bigpicture/iiia4.html.

Winner, Andrew, and Sarah Emerson. “The Myth of Petroleum Independence and Foreign

Policy Isolation”, The Washington Quarterly, 37:1, pp. 21-34, Spring 2014.

Zahnister, David. “City Council sets stage for a do-over on 20 year traffic plan”. Los Angeles

Times, 9 November 2015. See http://www.latimes.com/local/cityhall/la-me-mobility-

revote-20151109-story.html.

Zahmister, David. “Lawsuit says new L.A. streets plan creates more air pollution, not less”.

Los Angeles Times, 9 September 2015. See http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-

me-ln-mobility-plan-20150908-story.html.





Final- Los Angeles' Original Land Use and Transportation Sin

Documents

Transcript of Final- Los Angeles' Original Land Use and Transportation Sin