Transit Incentive Program for Transit-Dependent Riders

1997 ◽  
Vol 1604 (1) ◽  
pp. 139-145
Author(s):  
James McLaughlin ◽  
Daniel K. Boyle

Five years ago, several transportation agencies in Los Angeles County began discussions on developing a process to reevaluate the existing bus service delivery system, including the opportunity for public involvement and participation. As a result, the concept of a thorough restructuring study was developed. Restructuring studies are closely related to other activities focused on the bus system. In March 1996, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) board approved a broad-based bus system improvement plan that tied together many of the ongoing service improvements with proposed plans and programs to provide a 2- to 5-year set of goals to improve bus service in Los Angeles. It is in this context that the MTA and the Los Angeles Department of Transportation commissioned a special work effort as part of the Central/East/Northeast restructuring study to examine options for a transit incentive program for transit-dependent riders. The transitory nature of transit dependency has gained increased awareness in recent years, but development of effective strategies has lagged behind as transit agencies have targeted discretionary travelers as the largest pool of potential riders. The approach taken is to identify and describe rider-incentive programs implemented at other transit agencies that target or can be applied to the transit-dependent population, to consider public input about incentives and rewards that would be attractive to these riders, and to note key neighborhoods in the study area where there are significant numbers of households without automobiles. The objectives are to develop options for a pilot incentive program and to define the type of area appropriate for a focused demonstration-type project. The application of ideas as part of the consent decree negotiated by the Los Angeles County MTA is summarized.

2014 ◽  
Vol 91 (4) ◽  
pp. 56-63
Author(s):  
Josh Sides

In 1916, Cornelius Birket Johnson, a Los Angeles fruit farmer, killed the last known grizzly bear in Southern California and the second-to last confirmed grizzly bear in the entire state of California. Johnson was neither a sportsman nor a glory hound; he simply hunted down the animal that had been trampling through his orchard for three nights in a row, feasting on his grape harvest and leaving big enough tracks to make him worry for the safety of his wife and two young daughters. That Johnson’s quarry was a grizzly bear made his pastoral life in Big Tujunga Canyon suddenly very complicated. It also precipitated a quagmire involving a violent Scottish taxidermist, a noted California zoologist, Los Angeles museum administrators, and the pioneering mammalogist and Smithsonian curator Clinton Hart Merriam. As Frank S. Daggett, the founding director of the Los Angeles County Museum of History, Science and Art, wrote in the midst of the controversy: “I do not recollect ever meeting a case where scientists, crooks, and laymen were so inextricably mingled.” The extermination of a species, it turned out, could bring out the worst in people.


2016 ◽  
Vol 93 (2) ◽  
pp. 4-16
Author(s):  
Brian Kovalesky

In the late 1950s and early 1960s, during the height of protests and actions by civil rights activists around de facto school segregation in the Los Angeles area, the residents of a group of small cities just southeast of the City of Los Angeles fought to break away from the Los Angeles City Schools and create a new, independent school district—one that would help preserve racially segregated schools in the area. The “Four Cities” coalition was comprised of residents of the majority white, working-class cities of Vernon, Maywood, Huntington Park, and Bell—all of which had joined the Los Angeles City Schools in the 1920s and 1930s rather than continue to operate local districts. The coalition later expanded to include residents of the cities of South Gate, Cudahy, and some unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County, although Vernon was eventually excluded. The Four Cities coalition petitioned for the new district in response to a planned merger of the Los Angeles City Schools—until this time comprised of separate elementary and high school districts—into the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). The coalition's strategy was to utilize a provision of the district unification process that allowed citizens to petition for reconfiguration or redrawing of boundaries. Unification was encouraged by the California State Board of Education and legislature in order to combine the administrative functions of separate primary and secondary school districts—the dominant model up to this time—to better serve the state's rapidly growing population of children and their educational needs, and was being deliberated in communities across the state and throughout Los Angeles County. The debates at the time over school district unification in the Greater Los Angeles area, like the one over the Four Cities proposal, were inextricably tied to larger issues, such as taxation, control of community institutions, the size and role of state and county government, and racial segregation. At the same time that civil rights activists in the area and the state government alike were articulating a vision of public schools that was more inclusive and demanded larger-scale, consolidated administration, the unification process reveals an often-overlooked grassroots activism among residents of the majority white, working-class cities surrounding Los Angeles that put forward a vision of exclusionary, smaller-scale school districts based on notions of local control and what they termed “community identity.”


2015 ◽  
Vol 64 (39) ◽  
pp. 1123 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amanda Kamali ◽  
Chhandasi P. Bagchi ◽  
Emmanuel Mendoza ◽  
Dulmini Wilson ◽  
Benjamin Schwartz ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document