Shared Thoughts & Shared Mobility

The fifth and final episode of this podcast series is about proposing real solutions to both Riverside and Long Beach City Council based on all of the information that we have gathered up to this point. These solutions are based on research-based transportation studies and how the cities could be individualized to maintain sustainability efforts. We offer solutions on a grand scale and keep it general, so that future sustainable transportation systems may thrive.

Audio Link:

Transcript

Cindy: Welcome to Episode 5, the FINAL EPISODE of Shared Thoughts and Shared Mobility. Until now, we have listened to local opinions on public transit in Long Beach and Riverside. We’ve also listened to some expert opinions from an urban planning and civil engineering perspective, and provided our own analyses of the cities’ transportation systems.

Aidan: So in this last episode, we are going to talk about our solutions and visions of shared mobility in Southern California.

Catherine: We propose the following policy solutions that can be both practical and effective. As a disclaimer before we start talking about these solutions, our solutions are based on our own research. So for the first solution we propose to increase the frequency and the amount of destinations that are offered for both metros and trains for more convenience. A lot of our interviewees prefer to drive because they cannot reach their destinations by direct and short transit bus or train. Public transit agencies should therefore focus on providing services to more destinations that people frequent. What do you guys have to say about this?

Aidan: Well I mean I remember Prof. Hyland (2019) pointed out during the interview that these transit agencies only have a limited budget, so they can only run certain frequencies on certain lines. There is this process. There are a lot of trade offs right? If they add more bus lines, you have to reduce frequency on those lines. And another very important thing is the concept of “stop spacing”. So if you have more stops you have more chances for the system to get behind on reliability, like there will be more delays. And also because you’re stopping at each stop you’re going to need more buses to provide a certain headwear frequency. So like 15 minute frequency versus 30 minute frequencies.”

Catherine: Therefore, it is important to keep a balance between affordable costs, more stops and preventing traffic congestions. Governments and public transportation agencies should do thorough researches on local traffic conditions and population density. Coaches can also be considered for intercity or mid-range commute.

Now let’s move on to the second solution. So the solution is to start late night bus services. Our research Broussard says that people do not take public transit because they cannot get home by bus when they get off work late at night. Public transit companies should therefore consider adding more late night services to satisfy the needs of those generally working early and those who are too tired to drive.

Aidan: Well I mean this solution, based on my memory, mostly derived from that survey done by Congressman Mark Takano right? Because we talk about this in Episode 2 that people cannot get to their home when they got from their work because there was no night bus. I mean like no night bus services means that people will be less incentivised to utilize the public transit system and that can be an issue. The Riverside Transit Agency should address this.

Anthony: I think it’s also like a safety concern too. So when people are feeling too tired to drive that’s basically what I’ve kind of heard the phrase that like tired driving and almost like drunk driving. So it’s like a kind of a safety thing as well so I think that that would be good in the long run to have late night bus services for the health of people in general.

Catherine: So for the third solution we propose to set up a dedicated bus lane directly to downtown in order to reduce delay. So during the rush hour only buses can use this lane which will considerably reduce the impact of traffic on the operation of the buses. Together with increased frequency they can alter the public perception of buses from a slow and unreliable form of transportation to being efficient. And so Cindy or Anthony would have to say about this?

Cindy: Well yeah it kind of makes sense right. If there is like a designated bike lane there should be that designated bus lanes and so it makes it easier for especially the bus drivers to know where they should be going on the streets and where to turn and things like that because it’s, uh, it’s already there.

Anthony: Yeah I agree. Like even just in Irvine there’s OCTA when they do bus stops they always take up a large part of the right lane. And so when cars come up behind them they always have to maneuver to the other lane. So I definitely think having a dedicated bus lane would help make the bus transportation more efficient as well not only for people getting on and off, but for drivers as well to decrease the congestion that having maybe slower modes of transportation like the bus wouldn’t possibly bring to the city.

Catherine: Yeah that makes sense. So the next solution deals with safety on buses. So we propose that periodic police patrol occur on buses to increase safety. Many people told us that they did not feel safe on a bus as there are people who had mental issues or behaved badly or even people who just look suspicious in general. So patrols would improve the situation as they provide a sense of safety.

Cindy: I mean as someone who personally commuted my bus like for a whole year last year I could definitely emphasize with that feeling of like, being unsafe because I would actually use to go home by 11:00 p.m. at night.So I would actually appreciate having like occasional like inspectors or like people from authority like just checking in once in a while. So it just improves that like spatial and environmental factor as I discussed in previous episodes.

Catherine: Yeah I agree with you because I’ve actually taken Metro as before and people just hop on without like a ticket because it’s an open environment. So you don’t you don’t really know who’s going to be sitting on the bus with you especially if nobody’s supervising whether you buy a ticket or not.

Aidan: I mean we can look this solution together with the second solution, which is adding night bus services right? Because for the night buses, people will be more concerned about the safety issues. They will be afraid about will there be any other bad people or there’ll be theft or other crimes happening. So altogether when we added night bus services we should also consider this solution to increase the safety of those public transit system.

Catherine: So our next solution is to utilize bike sharing more in business districts and bike sharing with low rates to be specific. So bike rentals can be a useful alternative to buses. It is cheap, convenient and it’s also mean to traffic jams. It is great for commuting between only a couple of city blocks or visiting nearby buildings. When working class comes out of their office or goes out for lunch, they therefore no longer need to drive because riding bikes will be more convenient and possibly faster as during lunchtime there are a lot of cars going to eat.

Aidan: So previously we talked about how we can find alternatives of buses as other means of public transportation, right? And in those downtown area sometimes there are those places to work and places to eat. They’re relatively close but not that close. And at this time, some people will they prefer to drive because this is it’s not a short distance to walk. But on the other hand they don’t want to take buses because they need to wait a long time. And it also takes them a long time to go there. My thought is that we can use that bike services to make their way to their lunch and their relaxing time more convenient.

Anthony: Yeah. I think that that’s also. But it’s also contingent on creating more bike friendly lanes and in busy business districts that might be a little bit difficult to accomplish because obviously in business districts it’s basically made for cars for car transportation. And so when you introduce more bike sharing you would have to also introduce more bike friendly lanes or bankable streets. So that’s also something that cities can really consider when they think about utilizing more of these bike sharing mobility assets.

Aidan: Right. And another takeaway here is the low cost right. So people will be more willing to ride the bike and incent cars because when I went to Long Beach with Cindy we know that there were a lot of rental bikes but that price was a kind of expensive for people sure. So actually not so much people used those bikes despite the fact that Long Beach was one of the top 25 best bike cities in the United States.

Catherine: Okay so moving on to our next solution we propose to encourage businesses and leisure places located near train stations, bus stations or metro stations to boom more. Reducing walking time between bus stops and people’s destinations can make share mobility more attractive to residents as they will offer more convenience Municipal governments and public transit agencies can achieve this through reducing the rent near stations, giving some dividends or offering some special kind of subsidies.

Cindy: Yeah I feel like this leads back to our comment in previous episodes. I like the economic aspects of this because we can’t just do this alone right. It’s not just the policy makers it’s not just the locals. We need the businesses too. So I feel like this is kind of what got us into relationship thing where we need to work on like what to locate certain places and how to form these certain streets to make this possible.

Aidan: Yeah so based on our research and our interview we found that a lot of people are not like they hated public transportation. It was just like OK if in order for them to take buses or metros they need to first go to the station, they take the transportation and they get off the bus or Metro and they need to walk to their place which can create a lot of hassles. By Making things closer to the public public transit system that will be more attractive to working class mostly so they can take public transit more.

Anthony: so like you said like encouraging businesses and leisure places. But could that also be extended to like housing. Because I know in a previous interview or and also in our research, when you build high density housing next to transit quarters that appears to have economic benefits for sustainability purposes. So would it be OK to extend this solution to affordable housing or just high density housing in general not just like businesses and leisure places.

Aidan: Yeah I totally agree. In fact That is like our next solution. We’ll address that. So even though apart from providing more housing near those public transportation hubs we can also, like, because right now there are already a lot of housing that are already built right? So for those communities we can provide more shuttles to the train station to the bus hub from theses large residential areas. So for example, Metrolink and Riverside and Metro in Long Beach they were used for people to go to L.A. right? People leave in those two cities. If we want to encourage them to take the Metro as more so we can we can provide free shuttles from those communities to the station so which will give them more convenience so they don’t need to drive or to even walk to the station. And that and that convenience will convince them to love the metros and buses more.

Anthony: Yeah well I think just playing devil’s advocate for a second. Like if you build more shuttles in residential areas would there be kind of the concern of like noise and possibly there being a lot of people and then people being paranoid about the amount of sound and the amount of people that are in their residential areas because usually people prefer residential areas that look like a cul-de-sacs and like low density places where they look aesthetically nice and would it impact the value of housing as well.

Aidan: First of all we can try to use electric cars and hybrid cars to reduce the noise because at UCI The hybrid version of Anteater express produces much less sound than the gas one right? And for other aspects those shuttles are only for like the working class and the students. So we can only provide the free shuttles during the rush hour, like in the morning and the afternoon but not in the middle of the day. That can also reduce the traffic concerns.

Anthony: OK I see your point.

Catherine: Build “Park’n Go” parking structures near transportation hubs. For those who do not have access to shuttle or prefer to drive themselves, governments and public transit companies can build parking structures near stations for people to park. This can increase the demand for train hugely as people will prefer to rest or do something they like in a train, rather than being stressed and tired behind the wheel. To expand upon the solution, I think that based off our interviews from Riverside. This is especially applicable because we interviewed some people and they said they preferred to just relax on a train rather than having to pay attention. And so I guess changing like the overall atmosphere or perspectives about public transportation that it’s a place for you to do your own thing or to even work before getting to work that is something that could you know incentivize people who start using public transportation right.

Cindy: Yeah I like that part where you mentioned that it’s either it gives them access to a shuttle or access to preferred driving themselves because it reminds me what Hyland told me is like people don’t like being told what to do. So I like it gives people that choice and the option to pick their mode of transportation. So it’s not like they knowingly are doing something sustainable but more like they’re indirectly doing it so it’s like it works both ways. So it’s not like they’re being forced to do it like they’re doing it because they want to.

Catherine: And then now we’re gonna talk more about shared mobility services such as Uber and. So we want to encourage wider applications of UberPool which is the cheaper option of Uber X. This allows people going to destinations with close distance to share a ride. It is widely used in the East Coast cities like New York, Washington DC and Boston as the rate is so low that sometimes it is even cheaper than the price of gas. And so by paying a lower fare people will be more inclined to use shared mobility than driving themselves.

Cindy: Yeah I think this is a great compromise because I remember Hyland talking about like assuming that everyone decides to use Uber instead of driving their own vehicles that could actually be worth for sustainability. So I like this compromise between being in that comfort like a private car but I’m putting as many people as in one vehicle as possible which is the concept of UberPool. So I find that really useful and that’s something maybe slowly cities can adopt.

Anthony: And I think in the future I mean this may be like very stretching into the future but when we introduced the concept of self-driving cars that might even make them whole privacy thing that Cindy was talking about even more relevant for sustainability.

Aidan: I mean this is helpful to both reducing traffic jam and reducing the pollution right because the less cars means less carbon emission means less cars on the road so that can be pretty helpful. Well maybe not only for Long Beach and Riverside, I will be very glad to see UberPool is kind of introduced to the Southern California, like in Irvine there’s no UberPool but I actually found the service very useful when I traveled to the east coast cities. So yeah. So UberPool will be very helpful.

Catherine: Yeah and to expand upon that I feel like Uber and Lyft are more targeted towards the younger generation who are more likely to use technology to get public transportation because you don’t often see young people going on Metrolinx or buses to get to places they’d rather Uber and Lyft because they’re just more accustomed to our tastes, I think, because we’re so used to being on our smartphones And so I think this is a very good solution.

Now continuing on. Another solution is in future urban planning, 2e need to avoid building a sprawl community but increasing density. Sprawl is essentially a reason why people cannot reach their destinations by bus or metro as the density is still high. In order for a better utilization of shared mobility. We had to locate business areas, entertainment areas and residential areas closer to each other so that a bus route can reach more places.

Aidan: Just like you said, sprawl is the essentual reason why there are many people prefer driving to the public transportation and why there are so many problems existed in the shared mobility and public transit system in Southern California.

Anthony: Yeah but I think it’s also important to consider that people’s typical preferences are for lower density areas. People like to sprawl, like they like to go to lower density because they don’t like being around people. So I think that one way to approach that is that basically people respond really well to incentives, so we should make incentives for people to live in more high density areas so definitely more affordable housing when that becomes apparent and also encouraging an atmosphere of giving each other privacy and that could be like something with culture change or something like that. But I think that human behavior has to change a little bit further to accommodate that suggestion.

Catherine: And so far our final solution we propose is that we should build more transportation hubs near major plazas, large residential communities and famous buildings. Governments and public transit agency should research on where people go most and build transportation hubs near these places. This will satisfy the needs of the majority as well. People could just get on a bus stop next to the exit of the plaza with minimal walking. Public transit can provide a more convenient option than driving as people need more time and energy to walk to the garage and find their cars.

Cindy: Yeah I feel like this point strongly alludes to the environment in Long Beach especially, as I mentioned, it’s a tourist place because of its landmarks right? It’s famous for his beach, for example, in this downtown plaza and it’s food plazas. So I feel like the more purpose we put the city, the more likely them residents are willing to take public transit to go to these places.

Aidan: Altogether, these solutions, we believe, will alleviate traffic congestion, improving air quality, and making public transportation more efficient in those two cities and in Southern California. However, as Matthew Barth et al. (2000) point out in their articles, shared vehicle systems “place an additional burden on users and system operators”. Therefore, in order to maximize the user-friendliness of these solutions and enable an efficient public transit system management, an Intelligent Transportation System should be implemented for local public transit  system.

Aidan: Moreover, Long Beach and Riverside can take after and learn from cities that have done well in encouraging people to use shared mobility more often. An example of such city is Hong Kong. The essence of Hong Kong’s public transit lies not in the fact that anywhere can be reached through bus and metro and subways, but rather that everything is already built along the transit. As businesses and plazas rely on the Mass Transit Railway, which is Hong Kong’s metro system, to provide customers with transportation, they share a proportion of profits with the metro companies. We suggest that this type of business/transportation model is one that authorities such as Long Beach Transit and Riverside Transit Agency can consider adopting as a means of increasing earnings to provide for better services and receive more incentives to expand their networks.  

Catherine: Yeah, as a group of Southern California residents, we truly hope that this series of podcasts has had some influence over policy-making processes that regard the building of more convenient and efficient transit systems. While having a car has its perks, we should be mindful of the amount of pollutants that are emitted by vehicles and how these pollutants can create unhealthy environments that are harmful to everyone. For our listeners who are commuters, it must be stressful and quite upsetting having to deal with terrible traffic jams and the constant honking of cars on the daily. However, while commuting may be a necessity and a somewhat embedded part of our culture, it is necessary to make changes that will not only allow us to breath fresher air but will also make our lives easier and make the future a more sustainable place.

Cindy: That’s right! That brings us to the end of this series. We hope you have learned a lot, just like we have in the process of creating this podcast. Change starts by bringing awareness of crucial issues to those around you, so please, if you find this podcast inspiring or educational, feel free to share it with your friends and family. Should you have any questions, please ask in the comment section on this website.

Aidan: On that note, we would like to thank everybody who has stuck with us for all five episodes of Shared Thoughts and Share Mobility. We sincerely hope we can make changes together towards a better shared mobility system and a more sustainable society in Southern California.

Everyone: Thanks everyone!