Final Assignment Group Ten Print

Improving Public Transport System in Los Angeles Metropolitan Area
Table of Contents
Table of Contents 1
Summary 3
1. Transport System in Los Angeles 4
4
1.2 The existing Planning System in Los Angeles 5
1.3 The urgency of Comparative Analysis: Why LA must learn from other cities 5
2. Inventory of potential successful donor cities for lesson drawing 5
2.1. An overview of general aspects in preliminary selection 5
2.2. Two potential Donor Cities 6
3. Selection Criteria regarding Public Transit Management 9
3.1 State of Research 9
3.2 Accessibility 9
3.3 Convenience 9
3.4 Safety 10
3.5 Selection of the donor city 10
4. Comparison between Recipient and Donor Cities 11
4.1 Introduction 11
4.2 Contextual Aspects (DESTEP) 12
4.2.1 Demographic factor 12
4.2.2 Economic factor 13
4.2.3 Socio-Cultural factor 13
4.2.4 Technological factor 13
4.2.5 Ecological factor 13
4.2.6 Political factor 14
4.3 Comparison of Planning Systems 14
4.3.1 Los Angeles 14
4.3.2 Seoul 15
4.4 Public transport regulation 16
4.4.1 Financing policy 16
Los Angeles 17
Seoul 17
4.4.2 Public transport regulations 18
LA mobility plan 2035 18
Seoul Traffic Vision 2030 18
5. Potential lesson drawing Seoul 19
5.1 Transferability between countries 19
Potential lesson 1: improvements in bus system 20
M. Alma, S. de Neve, J. Postema, R. Putra & M. Schwelkert 1

Potential lesson 2: improvements in metro system 22

Potential lesson 2: improvements in train system 22
Potential lesson 4: Integrating models of transport via electronic support 23
6. Implementation Plan 24
6.1 Long-term implementation 24
6.2 Mid-term implementation 25
6.3 Short-term implementation 25
6.3.1 Customizable PTS 25
6.3.2 Multi-modal connections 25
6.3.3 Scenario planning and Pilot Studies 26
6.4 Concluding remarks 26
References 27
Appendix 1: Table selection criteria 34
Appendix 2: Reaction on Peer reviews 35
7.1 Peer review group 6 35
7.1 Peer review group 8 35
Appendix 3: Self-reflection Peer Evaluation form 36

Summary
The top ten most congested cities in the world are mainly located in the USA. Los Angeles (LA) tops
the list. Although LA has made significant expansion in their public transit system (PTS), the ridership
still continues to decrease. Overall, LA is in desperate need to make a transition towards a more
sustainable urban transport design. In order to change this situation, a comparative study is needed
to gain inspiration and if possible to draw lessons from other successful cities. The UITP and CEBR
urban mobility index provide the ranking of cities based on public transport performance in the
world. Seoul came out to be the best donor city for a comparative study for LA. It has the highest
score on the public transit performance and most similarities in urban morphology, GDP, politics, and
planning system and therefore was seen as the most suitable donor city for the research.
To gain more insight into the differences and possibilities for lesson-drawing between LA and Seoul,
the DESTEP method is used to analyze the directions of the decision making processes regarding
improvements of accessibility, convenience and safety of the public transport system. To be able to
transfer the policy from LA to Seoul, the method of hybridization from Dolowitz and Marsh (1996) is
seen the most suitable.
Several lessons can be drawn from Seoul to LA and are divided into the several modes of public
transportation: bus system, train system, metro system and integrated models of transport via
electronic support. With the hybridization of these lessons an implementation plan was suggested
consisting of a long-term, a mid-term and a short-term plan. The short-term goal is to improve the
attractiveness of the PTS and the mid-term goal is to create a stable PTS institution, in order to
change the PTS use culture in LA in the long term.
The short-term plan consists of customized public transport system, multi-modal connection and
scenario planning and pilot studies. The mid-term plan consist of implementing public-private
ownerships between the government and transportation companies. The long term planning consist
of extending the metro lines, transforming the bus system by smartly combining the metro, bus and
future train system and implementing public-private partnerships for the metro system.

1. Transport System in Los Angeles

In this section the main research question is formulated, followed by an outline of the current
congestion problems of LA. Furthermore, the urge for conducting a comparative analysis is explained,
aiming to set a fundamental and scientific basis for this comparative research.
1.1 Cau
In 2014, Los Angeles (LA) had the third largest rail and bus transit system of the United States of
America (USA), despite the fact that in 2017 only 10 percent (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013) of the
population uses public transport on a daily basis (Panagiotopoulos, 2017). The metro lines already
expanded and the LA government is planning on investing even more in the expansion of the metro
system. This expansion will include five new metro lines and six extensions of current metro lines
(Nelson, 2016). Despite the already occurred expansion people are not increasingly using the public
transport for commuting (Ibid.). Therefore, the research question is:
Why are citizens not using public transportation in LA despite the high congestion, and how can the
use of public transport be increased?
In LA 77 percent of the population uses a car to commute to work (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013) which
results in large traffic congestion especially during rush hours. Drivers in LA spend on average over
100 hours trapped in traffic yearly (INRIX, 2016). This is so high that LA is even ranked the number
one city in terms of congestion in the world according to the INRIX Global Traffic Scorecard (INRIX,
2016). Knowing this, the question on why people are not using public transportation in LA becomes
even larger. Several reasons can be identified why people are not using public transport in LA.
There are several causes for a decrease in the use of buses in LA. The bus service is the most used
form of public transportation in LA (70%). Currently there are around 100 metro stations and 20,000
bus stops (Panagiotopoulos, 2017). There has been a large expansion of the metro system in LA,
however this resulted in a decreased number of bus stops and a decrease of frequency of buses.
Trains became overcrowded and did not replace all the eliminated bus stops. People now have to
wait 30 minutes to take a bus ride of 20 minutes, resulting in people favoring taking the car
(Panagiotopoulos, 2017). There has in fact been a small increase of use of metro, however a larger
decrease in the use of bus as a public transport means. Overall there has been a decrease in the total
use of public transportation from 10.9% in 2012 to 9.2% in 2016 (Census, 2016). Besides the decrease
in number of bus stops and frequency another reason could be found that there has been a decrease
in bus use. The fares for the bus tickets increased because of higher tax rates that are used for the
financing of the expansion of the metro system (Nelson, 2016). Also, fewer people are using public
transportation during a good economy the number of people that can afford a car goes up, because
more people can afford it (Panagiotopoulos, 2017).
Also, another reason for an increased use of cars is that there has been a decrease of the gas prices
in the recent years (U.S. EIA, 2017). This decreases the cost of transportation. Also, there are little toll
roads to be found in the city and suburbs of LA (Romero, 2017). Resulting in cheaper costs for using
the car. This combined increasing prices on bus fares and less buss services, a decreasing number of
bus stops and increasing bus prices, and the metro system that is still not to a full potential makes
using cars more attractive in LA than using public transportation.

1.2 The existing Planning System in Los Angeles

To understand better the public transportation problems in the context of LA, we have to take a look
into the existing planning system first. In 2014 the City of LA described the key issues and their
solutions on transportation and infrastructure in the Mobility Plan 2035 (Los Angeles Department of
City Planning, 2014). It comprised of a new framework. LA has been characterized by adherence to
car use and individual home-ownership (Leveugne et al., 2013), suburbanization, and a naive sense
that traffic congestion could still be avoided (Hawthorne, 2015). One of the major challenges for LA's
planning future concerning mobility and transport is its traditional dependence upon the car
(Leveugne et al., 2013). The new framework that we can observe in the Mobility Plan 2035 focuses
on relevant key elements such as infrastructure, access, informed choices, a clean environment, and
smart investments (Los Angeles Department of City Planning, 2014). Connections between different
means of transport are underdeveloped, as bus services do not match rail stations very well, making
it harder for people to use the latter (Panagiotopoulos, 2017). Changes are deemed urgent, as transit
investment proved to be a big winner in the 2016 elections (Ibid.). In particular, voters in LA
approved of significant measures. Among these investments that were approved was also rapid
transit (Slone, 2017).
1.3 The urgency of Comparative Analysis: Why LA must learn from other cities
Overall, LA is in desperate need to make a transition towards a more sustainable urban transport
design. Traffic congestion and changing demographics (will) have major impacts upon this
metropolitan area. Already the state of California, and LA in particular, required much state funding
for transit (ASCE, 2017), indicating that the city is willing to invest in improvements. It is of major
importance that LA learns from other cities that underwent this transition in the past. While LA is still
characterized by much traffic congestion, other cities such as Seoul and Berlin have already been in
LA's situation before and, by means of increased use of public transport, have greatly reduced the
issues that LA is still facing today. The local government seeks to rethink the way transportation
marks and shapes LA (Leveugne et al., 2013). In the next sections it will be illustrated why Seoul and
Berlin are particularly of use for LA, both because of their similarities to LA and their solutions to
issues relating to transport and mobility.
2. Inventory of potential successful donor cities for lesson drawing

A comparative study to analyse the possibility of policy transfer or lesson drawing begins with an
inventory of the list of donor candidate cities with a preliminary selection.
2.1. An overview of general aspects in preliminary selection
After comparing the ranking of the LA urban mobility index with other metropolitan areas, the
candidate of donors to LA are compared based on general characteristic aspects including:
a. Urban Morphology
The urban form has huge impact on a public transport system (PTS), for example a sprawled
city and a compact city; both have different consequences for managing the public transport
mode, network, and cost (Schwanen, 2002).
b. Demographics
The size of the urban population, population structure and population growth greatly affect
the demand for public transport (Cheba, 2016).
b. Economics
The economic productivity of the city greatly reflects the level of investment in the public
transport sector, the development of urban areas and the increasing accessibility and
connectivity needs (Tsiotas, 2017).

c. Politics and Planning System

Political systems and development planning are the basis for the management of the public
transport sector (Serna, 2017), therefore it is important to look at political characteristics and
planning for greater policy transfer opportunities.
d. Culture of Mobility
The choice of transportation mode reflects the value and culture of the citizens. In providing
public transport, it is important to understand the pattern of modal share and the public
transit ridership amount (Klinger, 2013).
e. Infrastructure
Comparing the condition of existing infrastructure is done to know the comparison of public
transport type and the track of metro operated in each metropolitan area (Costa, 2017).
2.2. Two potential Donor Cities

Referring to the ranking of urban mobility index UITP version 2014, LA is in the bottom of the average
group. The average group has the characteristic of mature cities with a high share of individual
transport in modal split, and contrasts with the top group that has a high share of public transport
(Little, 2014). Both groups have different achievements in transport management, so for the LA
context, it is more appropriate to propose donor countries from the average group.
Figure 2 describes the urban mobility ranking in the world, the color indicates the regional location.
LA Metropolitan Area ranks 18th. At the top ranks, Oslo, London, Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Paris,
and Tokyo are incomparable to LA because they already have advanced public transport network and
do not have problems with private car share in modal split. Zurich and Munich also incomparable to
LA due to its size. On the other hand, Berlin, and Seoul, both cities experienced the domination of
private car, the similar problem that is facing by LA now. Moreover, Berlin and Seoul are quite
successful in improving the performance of public transport especially railway based transport (Little,
2014). In addition, the two cities have a democratic political and planning system that support the
greater possibility to make policy transfer and lesson drawing.
Figure 1: Urban Mobility Index - UITP version (Source: Little, 2014)

Figure 2: Urban Mobility Index - CEBR version (Source: CEBR, 2017)
After analyzing the ranking of urban mobility, it can be argued that the most suitable cities to
become donors to LA are Berlin and Seoul due to the greatest similarity in the urban morphology,
culture of mobility, politics and planning systems, economic attractiveness and existing
infrastructure.
Table 1 shows an overview of the comparison between the recipient (LA) and the potential donors
(Berlin and Seoul). The colors indicate the suitability/similarity degree of Berlin and Seoul compared
to LA conditions (green: high similarity; orange: low similarity; red: significant difference).
Shortly, in this chapter an inventory of the potential donor for LA is investigated. First, based on
general comparative characteristics, Berlin and Seoul are chosen as potential donors for LA. Second,
a further selection is needed to choose the actual donor for LA.
CRITERIA FOR RECIPIENT POTENTIAL DONOR

COMPARISON
LOS ANGELES BERLIN SEOUL
Urban Mobility Index 2017 - Rank 18/35 Rank 8/35 Rank 10/35
Published by CEBR (2017)
Urban Mobility Index 2014 - Rank 67/84 Rank 18/84 Rank 13/84
Published by UITP
(Little, 2014)

URBAN MORPHOLOGY
Metropolitan Area 12,562 sq. km 30,546 sq. km 11,704 sq. km
Urban Form Sprawled Metropolitan Limited Sprawl Sprawled

Area increase Metropolitan Area
DEMOGRAPHY
Population Size (2014) 17,718,858 4,399,542 24,948,523
Population Density (2014) 1,410 people/ sq. km 144 people/ sq. km 2,131 people/ sq. km
Population Growth (2004-2014) 8.70% 1.24% 19.25%
ECONOMY
GDP Size (2012) US$ 891 billion US$ 165 billion US$ 730 billion
GDP per capita US$ 53,521 (2015) US$ 30,385 (2014) US$ 30,000 (2015)
GDP Growth (2002-2012) 10.62% 16.65% 42.10%
POLITICS & PLANNING SYSTEM
Political Support Strong, supervised by Strong, supported by Strong, part of

national government local public funding national interest and
policy
Public Pressure Strong, Protest the metro Medium, improve Low, people enjoy
fare increase green transport the public transport
Spatial Planning Approach Inclusive stakeholder Joint planning of inter- Citizen participation-
involvement local institutions type urban planning
CULTURE OF MOBILITY
Modal Share of Public 9% (2015) 26% (2013) 37% (Metro) (2013)

Transport
Daily Metro Ridership 362,000 (2016) 1,390,000 (2009) 9,800,000 (2013)
INFRASTRUCTURE
Types of Public Transport Metro, Light rail, Bus, Bus U-Bahn, S-Bahn, Tram, Metro, Bus, KTX,
rapid transit Bus, Ferry, Cableway Commuter Rail
Metro System Length Metro Rail: 170.0 km U-Bahn: 147.4 km Metro: 327.1 km
(2016) (2009) (2013)
Table 1: Overview of the Comparison with Regards to Los Angeles, Berlin and Seoul Metropolitan Area. Sources: Justia, 2009;
IKM, 2017; Ewing, 1997; Li Fan, 2008; Cho, 2005; OECD, 2017; FRED, 2017; E-country-index, 2017; Broadus, 2010; Berlin.de,
2017; The world bank, 2015; Nelson, 2014; Burdiam, 2012; Kasulis, 2017; Dunseith, 2017; Seoul Metropolitan Government,
2013; 2017; U. S. Census, 2016; Stahlberg, 2017; Panagiotopoulos, 2017; Mapa-Metro, 2017; Discover Los Angeles, 2015;
Visit Berlin, 2017; Urbanrail.net, 2017.

3. Selection Criteria regarding Public Transit Management

To tackle the question of why public transport is relatively little used in LA compared to other
megacities in comparable democratic systems, several criteria are taken into account. The following
section will briefly introduce the criteria influencing the behavior of individuals to choose pro or con
PTS (Table 2) that hitherto will be used for the decision of the donor city.
3.1 State of Research

Guo (2008) proves that the use of publi
transport service offered in relation to other modes of transport (Guo, 2008). Yet, cars offering the
-to- connection often favors the private vehicle to PTS (ibid.). To understand the path
behavior of travelers this paper defines three main criteria. The criteria that influence the choice for
public transport are: the accessibility of the PTS, the convenience a traveler experiences and finally
the safety during travel (Guo, 2008; Mouwen, 2015; Oort et al., 2015; Steg, 2003).
3.2 Accessibility
Fundamentally accessibility is the individual ease to reach desired destinations, which includes that
the accessibility of a destination is strongly affected by the infrastructural design (Geertman &
four components: land-use, transportation, temporal and individual component. Taking a closer look
at the accessibility of specifically PTS, this comparative research focuses on the transportation
between origin and destination of an
individual tra Geurs & van Wee, 2004).
Routes and networks and stops in a close proximity are the key features of public transport
accessibility (Yigitcanlar et. al., 2007). In addition, Levine and Garb (2002) consider the generalized
cost per destination as an accessibility aspect as well. To consider travel costs as an accessibility
aspect makes sense, because accessibility enables the exchange of people and goods and is therefore
often viewed as a precondition for economic development (Benenson et. al., 2011). Finally, the
accessibility of PTS for people with a disability is a criterion for the accessibility of PTS as well (Church
& Marston, 2003).
To compare the accessibility of the PTS of Berlin and Seoul four sub-criteria are measured: the
overall dispersal of PTS stops, the percentage of barrier-free stops, the average travel costs per ticket
and finally the metro grid extension (Benenson et. al., 2011; Church & Marston, 2003; Yigitcanlar et.
al., 2007).
3.3 Convenience
Convenience is the second element that influences PTS use. Meanwhile, convenience also
contributes to the overall comfort of the traveller and therefore catalyzes the acceptance op PTS in
general (Guo, 2008). Convenience consists of several sub-criteria, of which this research considers
three. Firstly upon the average travel time of the different modes of transport, the traveller
determines his choice (Guo, 2008). The convenience is also influenced by the passenger volume
during travel. This passenger volume changes during rush hours at different times of the day.
Obviously the more passengers in one vehicle, the less comfortable the travel is. In this research
volume is measured at total traveler number per day (Flash Eurobarometer, 2014; Mouwen, 2015;
Oort et al., 2015). Finally, the frequency of departure contributes to the convenience. In case of
missing a connection, the traveler wants to resume his travel as soon as possible (Mouwen, 2015;
Steg, 2003).

3.4 Safety
The third criteria adding to the overall quality of PTS is safety. If a traveler does not feel safe in a
mode of PTS, it is less likely he or she will use the PTS (Mouwen, 2015). Safety is measured by two
sub- perception of safety during the use of the PTS and
related facilities determines the willingness to travel by PTS (Ibid.). Secondly, the investments into
maintenance of the running service and infrastructure influence the actual PTS safety, adhering to
Criteria Sub-criteria Score per sub criteria
Berlin Seoul
Accessibility Dispersal of stops 1 3
Barrier-free stops 2 2
Average Travel Costs 2 3
Metro grid extension 1 3
Convenience Average travel time to destination 2 2
Passenger volume 1 3
Departure frequency 2 3
Safety Safety perception 2 3
Annual maintenance investments 3 1
Total score 16 23
Table 2: Results of analysis of PTS using criteria. The grading system used in the table is a low medium high scale,
correlating with the colors red yellow green. Gradation is made between the two potential donor cities only and follows
three rules:
1) When both cities have (about) the same score on a specific sub criteria, both cities are awarded with a medium grade and
both are rewarded with two points;
2) When a city has clearly the higher score on a specific sub criteria, the city is awarded with the high grade and rewarded
with three points;
3) When a city has clearly the lower score on a specific sub criteria, the city is awarded with the low grade and rewarded one
point.
Sources: Allen, 2013; Berliner S-Bahn, 2017; Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe, 2017; Center Nahverkehr Berlin (CNB) GbR, 2015;
2017; Federal State of Berlin, 2014; 2017; Lee et. Al., 2015; Pucher et. al., 2003; Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und
Umwelt, 2015; Senatsverwaltung für Umwelt Verkehr und Klimaschutz, 2015; 2017; Seoul Metropolitan Government, 2013;
Visit Korea, 2017.
3.5 Selection of the donor city

Calculating the total score of both cities, we find Seoul scoring more points than Berlin. Based on
table 2, Seoul emerges as the favorable donor city to compare with Los Angeles. There are more
factors that favors Seoul to Berlin as the donor city for the comparison (table 1).
The urban morphology of LA and Seoul are more alike than the ones of Berlin and LA. Seoul is
a mega city with a highly dense population, thereby having congestion and transportation
challenges similar to LA. Despite having almost double the population growth of LA, Seoul
manages to have a larger use of its PTS;

Economy-wise Seoul and LA are also more alike than Berlin and LA, both having a similar high
overall GDP;
The planning system of both LA and Seoul is strongly rooted on and steered from the
national level., Altogether, choosing Seoul as donor city makes the envisaged comparative
research viable and puts it into a more realistic frame.
Altogether, choosing Seoul as donor city makes the envisaged comparative research viable and puts
it into a more realistic frame.
4. Comparison between Recipient and Donor Cities

In this section, some comparative analysis about the contextual aspect are conducted in a DESTEP
analysis. After that, there is a zoom in on the planning systems and regulation between LA (Recipient)
and Seoul (Donor). Finally, a closer look is taken at the specific mobility plans of both LA and Seoul,
which results in a comparison of the two plans.
4.1 Introduction
Los Angeles and Seoul are two giant metropolitan areas that experience challenges in the transport
sector such as reducing the share of private transport and providing a reliable public transport. In
fact, LA has not been able to significantly increase public transport users in the modal split, while
Seoul is considered successful in reforming its PTS (Kasulis, 2017).
In 2014 LA had the third largest rail and bus transit system of the USA, despite the fact that in 2017
only 10 percent (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013) of the population uses public transport on a daily basis
(Panagiotopoulos, 2017). In LA 77 percent of the population uses a car to commute to work (U.S.
Census Bureau, 2013) which results in large traffic congestion. The bus service is the most used form
of public transportation in LA (70%). There has been a large expansion of the metro system in LA,
however this resulted in a decreased number of bus stops and a decrease of frequency of buses. The
fares for the bus tickets increased because of higher tax rates that are used for the financing of the
expansion of the metro system (Nelson, 2016). Trains became overcrowded and did not replace all
the eliminated bus stops. There has in fact been a small increase of the use of the metro, however a
larger decrease in the use of the bus as a public transport means. Overall there has been a decrease
in the total use of public transportation from 10.9% in 2012 to 9.2% in 2016 (Census, 2016).
On the other hand, Seoul also experienced serious transport-related problems before the big public
transport reform in 2004. The problems are private vehicles increased, heavy traffic, competition
among bus operators combined with the opening of urban rail network affected bus ridership
decreased. However, authorities' early actions were mainly ad-hoc measures that turned out
unsuccessful and further worsened the problems in the long run. It normally takes about 10 years to
construct one metro line, and the costs amount to approximately KRW 130 billion per kilometer.
Consequently, in 2002, the construction of additional metro lines was not considered a practical
solution. The Seoul Metropolitan Government, therefore, focused on the reorganization of its bus
system, while trying to enhance the convenience and efficiency of the pre-existing PTS including the
metros. The implementation of the 2004 transportation reform helped Seoul establish a human-
oriented transportation system as shown in the modal split of its public transport reaching 64.3%
(2010), stepping up t
successful transportation reform. (Ko, 2017).

4.2 Contextual Aspects (DESTEP)

In this comparative study, a preliminary analysis of Macro environments was needed to discuss
aspects affecting public transport governance within the LA and Seoul context. The DESTEP analysis
comprises significant external factors from the macro environment. It stands for demographic,
economic, social, technological, ecological and political factors. The table below summarizes the
similarities and differences of issues faced by LA and Seoul from various factors.
DESTEP LOS ANGELES AND SEOUL ISSUES
Demographic factor Similar Issue In Ageing Population
Economic factor Similar Issue In Economic Growth
Socio-cultural factor Different Issue In Transit Behaviour
Technological factor Similar Issue In Intelligent Transport System
Ecological factor Different Issue In Urban Density
Political factor Different Issue In Bureaucracy and Subsidy System

Table 3: The DESTEP Summary in context of LA and Seoul Metropolitan Area
4.2.1 Demographic factor

Recent trends of population growth in Seoul show a decline, while LA continues to grow based on
figure 3. In Seoul, the rate of population decline is increasing, as more Seoulites flee rising housing
costs for nearby suburbs in the Gyeonggi Province (Nak-Yeon, 2016). On the other hand, the city of
LA's 1.3 percent expansion was the largest among the Golden State's 10 biggest cities. This increase
in population is not due to immigration but due to job creation and the attractiveness of dense,
downtown-style accommodations (Romero, 2016).
Figure 3: Population Growth in LA and Seoul (world population review, 2017).
LA and Seoul metropolitan areas had experienced aging population that influences the policy of
public transport. In 2013, the median age of LA residents was 34.6 years (US Census Bureau, 2016).
The median age of Seoul residents was 38.1 years (Statistics Korea, 2016). An increasingly aging
population has an impact on the increasing need of convenient public transport that can be
inclusively accessed by city dwellers. This also has an impact on the increasing subsidies in the public
transportation sector.

4.2.2 Economic factor

Seoul grew rapidly after the Asian economic crisis of 1997, while Los Angeles bounced back to
positive economic growth after the American economic crisis of 2008 based on figure 4. Both
metropolitan areas have an economic growth with strong market fundamentals.
Figure 4: GDP Growth in LA and Seoul (OECD, 2017)
The economic growth give the opportunity to local governments to stimulate investments in the
public transportation sector. The provision of public transportation is a prerequisite for increasing
investor confidence and encouraging the productivity of the community (Tsiotas, 2017). Mass
transportation investment is one of the most effective ways to reduce urban congestion and energy
consumption.
4.2.3 Socio-Cultural factor
Los Angeles is an incredibly diverse city, home to people from many countries and ethnic
communities like Koreatown. Whilst, Seoul has a very homogeneous population, as the majority of
Seoulites are Korean. LA and Seoul also have different cultures of mobility. In Seoul, public
transportation is a way of life. Everything seems to be engineered meticulously (Kasulis, 2017). A
2016 report also suggests that on average a person in Seoul uses rail 0.67 times a day, compared to
0.54 in New York or 0.21 in Washington, D.C. Meanwhile, Seoul residents take the bus on average
0.44 times a day, while the average New Yorker's number is just 0.22, and LA is behind New York and
Washington, D.C. in context of the American public transport culture and performance (Kasulis,
2017). Some LA residents revealed that they chose to use private vehicles rather than public
transport for reasons of tariff, convenience and accessibility (Tinoco, 2016).
4.2.4 Technological factor
ent transportation systems (ITS), which many
of the metro trains in Seoul are outfitted with TVs and are climate controlled (Jungyun, 2012). Seoul's
first automated metro line is built by a Public-Private Partnership (PPP) consortium in 2008. In LA,
The Advanced Transit Vehicle Consortium (ATVC) was established in 1995 as a joint venture between
Metro and local governments. ATVC has invested over $10 million in research and development
projects in areas that show promise for improving transit services in the greater Los Angeles region
(LA Metro, 2017). Private sectors in both LA and Seoul have technical capacity to build and improve
the intelligent transportation system.
4.2.5 Ecological factor
LA and Seoul are both facing the urban sprawl problem as shown in figure 5, but with the same
metropolitan area size, Seoul has twice as much density as LA. Seoul's density makes it more
conducive to affordable, well-funded metro and bus systems. It's a city that thrives on tall apartment
buildings that houses people. Roughly 60% of Seoul residents live in an apartment building today,
compared to just 1% about 40 years ago. This means that many Koreans living in Seoul are likely to

access a metro or bus station with relative ease. In LA, due to the way cities are developed in the
U.S., including suburbs and an urban city center far from each other and people living in single,
detached housing, that all makes public transit inconvenient (Kasulis, 2017). LA needs to have more
density with some type of dense housing development around a public station for transportation to
apply sustainable smart growth concept.
Figure 5: Urban Sprawl in LA and Seoul 2014 (Atlas of Urban Expansion, 2016)
4.2.6 Political factor

In LA and the U.S. generally, there are too many government bodies that need to agree on a
construction plan including mass transport infrastructure, and that is the crux of the colossally slow
American building process. The Seoul government succeeded in reforming the administrative
management system for public transport, such as introducing the quasi-public bus system, inclusive
public-private collaboration, and a comprehensive task force of public transport development in
single agency. In addition, the difference between the Asian systems and the American system is that
some of the Asian systems can pay for themselves. But in the U.S., the cities may need a subsidy. For
the best-performing systems in America, it's less than 60% funded by fare (Kasulis, 2017). But in
Seoul, passenger fares cover about 75 percent of operating costs (Pucher et al., 2005). Therefore,
self-financing is also an important aspect in providing and maintaining a sustainable PTS.
4.3 Comparison of Planning Systems
To understand how public transport usage can be increased in LA, it is necessary to understand the
planning systems of both LA and the donor city Seoul. The integrated approach similar to Reimer and
Blotevogel (2012) is used. This systematic embraces both structures of planning systems as well as
the concrete planning practices.
4.3.1 Los Angeles

The planning system in LA is guided by the Federal Government in the USA. LA's planning practices
are governed and regulated by the state of California (Chen, 2009). On the urban scale, LA's planning
management is characterized by the central position of the mayor (Ibid.). The mayor appoints
government chiefs, which includes the Director of Planning who is responsible for the City Planning
Department (Ibid.). Figure 6a illustrates the planning structures between different layers of
government in the USA.
At the city level, the Planning Department is the body which has a number of responsibilities. They
have the responsibility of implementing planning projects. They prepare and maintain a general plan
that consists of purposes, policies and programs for the development of LA. When it comes to
regulations, the use of privately-owned property are regulated through the approval of zoning
regulations, ordinances, and subdivisions. The Planning Department investigates and reports on
applications to zoning regulations (Chen, 2009). The Department consists of three bureaus: policy
planning, project planning, and resource management. Each department deals with specific city

regions and administrative divisions (Department of City Planning, 2017). Besides a Planning
Department which regulates and makes administrative decisions, LA also has a Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission is the direct link to the public and organizes discussions and debates that
are open to the public (Ibid.).
Figure 6a: Levels of government in LA planning. Based on Chen (2009).
As figure 6b shows, the State of California requires every county and city to adopt a comprehensive
General Plan (Department of City Planning, 2017). Local governments may change certain elements
of the plan in order to accommodate for local priorities and planning goals (Ibid.).
Figure 6b:
4.3.2 Seoul
The planning system of Seoul starts at the level of the national government of South Korea (figure
7a). Like the other provinces and other metropolitan areas, Seoul is operating on the provincial level,
(Kim, 2017). Seoul is divided in autonomous regions, each having a
municipal government. The autonomous districts are divided in neighborhoods in which the mayor
coordinates together with two vice-mayors - three planning bureaus and offices. These offices
consist of the Urban Planning Bureau and the Transportation Headquarters, which have particular
relevance to infrastructure projects (Ibid.).
Seoul's urban planning design starts from a top down position. As illustrated in figure 7b, planning
starts by a Comprehensive National Territorial Plan made by the national government of South Korea
(Kim, 2017). The local government will review the Urban Master Plan and to what extent it is feasible
every five years and may revise and compensate for changes (Ibid.). In doing so it recognizes

potential pitfalls or new opportunities and shows that its planning system is characterized by a
mixture of both stability and flexibility. The Urban Management Plan tends to focus on individual
land and involves participatory governance (Shin & Lee, 2017). Despite the possibility of power
imbalances and different degrees of knowledge, public-private meetings and modification of initial
plans show that the planning system does have a certain degree of flexibility and consideration for
citizen concerns (Ibid.).
Figure 7a: Levels of government in South Korean planning. Based on Kim, 2017.
Figure 7b: Top down planning in South Korea. Based on: Kim, 2017.
4.4 Public transport regulation

The Public Transport regulation are the policies, laws and rules that apply on the PTS. Like with all
policies, the public transport regulation may differ among countries. In this section is explained how
the PTS of LA and Seoul are financed and what the current active policy plans of both cities look like.
The financing part is important, because without decent funding no plan nor potential lesson can be
conducted.
4.4.1 Financing policy
The financing policy of Seoul and LA on public transport differ significantly. In this section we take a
closer look at the funding policies of both cities. LA has a top down funding system where the local
government funds the PTS. In Seoul however is an integrated funding system where both
government and private parties combine their forces and fund the different aspects of the PTS. It is
important to understand the finance policies of both cities in order to implement the potential
lessons correctly.

Los Angeles
In LA funds are provided by the federal state and the local governments through taxing sources. In
-term funding
transportation infrastructure planning and investment s amended (Los Angeles County
Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 2017). This act provides $3050 mln from 2016 through 2020
for all sorts of transports, amongst which public transport. The general division of the finances for
the PTS (table 4) include $1.166 mln and $524,5 mln to be invested into bus respectively rail
operations. Further, expenses are appointed to regional activities, amongst which Measure R
mist,
2017).
Resources In Millions
Passenger Fares $323.4
TDA/STA $461.0
Prop A Cent Sales Tax $802.0
Prop C Cent Sales Tax $802.0
Measure R - Sales Tax $802.0
Federal and State Grants $989.6
Bond Proceeds $1,041.2
Other System-generated revenues $137.7
Total Resources $6,120.8

Table 4: Division of funds in LA. Source: METRO, 2017.
Seoul
In 2004 Seoul established a quasi-public PTS by launching the Passenger Transport Service Act. This
means a highly integrated cooperation between public transport companies and the Seoul
Metropolitan Government. Both parties take care of the travelers needs and also share the fare costs
and benefits. More in detail, the act enabled through public-private-partnerships that the
Metropolitan Government became responsible for route, schedule and fare decisions, while the
different operators became responsible for operating the system (Pucher et al., 2005; Runge &
Becker, 2007).
e & Becker,
2007; Seoul Solution, 2017). Furthermore, the act limited operation licenses, introducing a new
competition system where companies solely can bid to newly introduced routes to get a temporary
six-year operating license (Ibid.). As a critical note: in the first period after implementation, up to
2010, the quasi-public system failed in cutting overall costs. For example only 54 out of 384 bus
routes were profitable in 2010 (Seoul Solution, 2017). In defense of the quasi-public system:
passenger volume, PTS use and public satisfaction has increased (Seoul Metropolitan Government,

2013; Visit Korea, 2017). Because operating the PTS is unlikely to be profitable for the full 100%,
there is need to find the most optimal way of operating the PTS: optimizing the costs and benefits.
4.4.2 Public transport regulations

LA mobility plan 2035
In 2015 the City Council of Los Angeles has launched its latest plan regarding public transportation:
the Mobility Plan 2035. The city council outlines their vision regarding the mobility of the citizens.
greater plan to improve life in LA
current car culture and barely on PTS:
transit rid (LA Department of City Planning, 2014).
To a small extent, the city council pays attention on public transport by promoting
connections (LA City Council, 2014). To be exact, promoting public transportation stops which
this goal is not specified with concrete actions. The third characteristic of the Mobility Plan 2035 is
the use of data and technology to improve the traffic management in general (LA City Council, 2014).
This should lead to higher safety, public health, access, social and economic benefits. The fourth
characteristic is that the input of the community is asked for the implementation of the Mobility Plan
(Ibid.). This must lead to a more end-user focused policy. In conclusion: according to the current
vision, the LA city council seems convinced that the citizens want the council to focus on the car
system and in lesser extent to the PTS.
Subject in traffic vision LA Seoul
Mostly attentions for a car centered culture
Mostly attentions for a PTS shared culture
Creation of joint-ownership PTS environment
Use of big data to improve PTS quality
Radical restructuring PTS routes
Reforming PTS fare system
Introduction of bus-only lanes
Ensuring bus-centric road operation
Improving PTS for disabled travelers

Table 5. LA mobility plan 2035 versus Seoul Traffic Vision 2030, compared on different elements. Green means the element is
included in the plan, red means the element is not included in the plan. Sources: Holmes, 2015; Ko, 2017; LA City Council,
2014; Seoul Metropolitan Government, 2014; 2017.
Seoul Traffic Vision 2030

The Seoul Traffic vision 2030 is based on three focal points: a people-oriented traffic, an all-sharing
traffic and an Environmentally-friendly traffic (Seoul Metropolitan Government, 2017). By following
this line, the government focuses on the overall convenience of all travelers, the quality of the PTS

and a healthy city. To compare the visions of LA and Seoul related to their traffic management table
5 is created.
Unlike LA, Seoul focuses mostly on the promotion of PTS and not on car use. Seoul more specifically
name their goals on PTS improvements: train-centered, faster PTS and a sharing culture (Seoul
culture that should be strengthened. In their opinion, this leads to a safer, efficient city with less
congestion and more use of the public transport modes (Ibid.).
One of the biggest eye-
Government, 2017). At a first glance this target sounds contradictory, because of the other goals to
improve the PTS. The low mobility goal should therefore be interpreted as an aim to lower the
unnecessary movement of citizens. Seoul considers car movement in general as an unnecessary
movement, according to their aim to build high rise buildings with zero parking lots.
5. Potential lesson drawing Seoul

LA is facing the problem of high congestion and little use of public transportation even though the
city has the third largest metro system in the US (U.S Census Bureau, 2013). To increase the use of
public transportation in LA, lessons can be drawn from the donor city Seoul. In chapter 5 the
potential lessons are drawn. To understand the transferability of the potential lessons, first a closer
look is taken at both systems. After that, four potential lessons are set forth.
5.1 Transferability between countries
To transfer a policy from one country to another the countries need to be comparable (Spaans &
Louw, 2009). The planning system reflects fundamental values of a community and therefore need to
be examined (Nadin & Stead, 2008). A policy that might work in one country does not always work in
another country the exact same way. There are several levels of likelihood of transfer of policy
defined by Spaans and Louw (2009) this can be found in figure 8. The first level is possible in almost
every situation, it is gaining inspiration and experience from another country. In the second level
information is collected in the inspiration stage and is used to adapt the own policy system. The third
level is completely copying the policy to the own country (Ibid.). It is easier to transfer policies in
similar planning cultures, or even same countries (Ibid.). Depending on the differences in planning
systems, a decision should be made on which type of planning transfer is most suitable. Next to the
conceptual framework that classifies transfer of planning policies Dolowitz and Marsh (1996) also
identified five levels of policy transfer: copy, emulation, hybridization, synthesis and inspiration. Copy
is copying the policy from another country to your own country (ibid). In emulation the policy is
viewed and various elements of it are implemented in the policy of your own country (ibid). In
hybridization several elements of several policies are used and mixed together to create a new policy
for your own country (ibid). And finally inspiration is when mainly ideas are used from another
countries policies (ibid).
LA and Seoul vary in a number of aspects. First of all, the USA planning structure is characterized by
decentralization which has its influence on planning in LA. Plans in South Korea start at the national
level through comprehensive National Territorial Plans while plans in the USA start at a county level
(Kim, 2017). The planning structures of LA and Seoul are vertically similar though the US has fewer
layers and planning decisions are mostly shaped at the level of the State of California instead of the
country. South Korea also gives a special status to big cities and has more detailed planning
departments (Ibid.). The mayor plays in both cities a central decisive role (Chen, 2009; Kim, 2017).

Figure 8: Conceptual framework of likelihood of transfer of planning policy between countries (Spaans & Louw, 2009)
Seoul and LA are also comparable at some levels, as described in chapter 3 and 4. Because of the
differences and the similarities, the best policy transfer type would be the hybridization lesson
drawing method from Dolowitz and Marsh (1996). Using this method several elements from several
policies are combined together and mixed to create a new policy suitable for in this case LA (Ibid.).
The Seoul government launched an integrative approach on the policies of public transportation in
2014: Seoul Traffic Vision 2030 (Seoul Metropolitan Government, 2014). In this policy various policies
of public transportation are combined: the metro, train, bus and electronic support (Ibid.). All the
elements and corresponding policies will be looked at separately to gain inspiration to hybridization
Marsh, 1996; Spaans & Louw, 2009).

Potential lesson 1: improvements in bus system
The metropolitan government of Seoul has decided to make from 2004 onward significant reforms
supportive to the other modes of public transport (metro and train) and improve the accessibility
and convenience of the bus itself (Seoul Metropolitan Government, 2017). Concrete actions include
(Seoul Metropolitan Government, 2014; 2017):
Conversion of all the city buses into low floor buses to make them more accessible
for the elderly and disabled people;
Adjusting schemes to the demand during the day: different schedules for high
demand areas and hours;
Make a better distinctive between different bus routes by giving them different
labels and colors (red, blue, yellow, green and night bus);
Connecting more metro stations per bus route (from averagely 9.7 to 10.3
connections);
Creating median bus lanes: lanes in the middle of the road, used solely for buses;
Reforming the bus operating system from private to quasi-public operators. The
Seoul Metropolitan Government jointly managed operating profits and the route
decisions to the citizens.

All these improvements of the bus lane system, resulted in a reduction of 49% in traffic accidents and
ction with the bus system (Seoul Metropolitan Government,
2014). Possibly the most drastic change to the old situations is the change to a quasi-public system.
In figure 9 the five major outcomes of this change can be found. The conversion of public transport
from a privately operated system to an operated system with the government as a partner goes
against the trend of privatization of public services in the western world (Privatization barometer,
2017).
Figure 9: Differences between the privately operated bus systems in Seoul vs. the quasi-public operated bus system (Seoul
Metropolitan Government, 2014)
Policy Implementation Transferability
1. Connect metro Currently bus and metro are not well Medium - this is a lesson that can be
stations to bus connected in LA. By combining the applied in the future but will take
routes two transport modes destinations some time to adapt.
will be easier reachable and the PTS
will be used more often.
2. Adjust scheme The buses in LA do not have a High - this is something that can be
to demand during different time table during rush hour applied when there are enough
rush hour by increasing the amount of buses buses available to use during rush
during rush hour, buses will be less hour.
crowded and congestion will go
down. Because of the separate bus
lanes already implemented in the LA
mobility plan 2035, there will be not
a high increase in congestion.
3. Have a quasi- At present moment the bus system Low - this is a hard to apply policy
public bus system in LA is public. By implementing a because of the different government
quasi-public bus system new benefits structure. Also, the bus system in LA
can be found. In Seoul this is relatively good.
combination turned out to be a
synergetic cooperation in which the
travelers have the most benefits. e.g.
the electronic travel card
Table 6: Inspiration of planning policy of buses in Seoul for renewed LA public transport policy. Sources: ATC, 2017; Los
Angeles Department of City Planning, 2014; Panagiopoulos, 2017.

Potential lesson 2: improvements in metro system

One of the main elements of Seoul the Seoul Traffic Vision 2030 is that people do not need to drive
their car but can use public transport. In the last 30 years the city of Seoul expanded already to nine
metro lines. The three phases of the expansion of the Seoul metro system (Seoul Solution, 2014):
Not much later line 3 and 4 started to be constructed, complementing for the first two lines.
Private capital was used for this development, however the private capital performed poorly
and resulted in large delays. The lines were finished in 1985;
In 2001 the last metro line was developed (line 9), this line was constructed with the help of
private capital, with the insurance that the private operator would be allowed to operate the
line for at least 30 years after opening.
With the improvements of the metro system over the year, the city aims to have a metro system
where the residents need to walk a maximum of ten minutes to reach a metro station (Seoul
Solution, 2014). This would be achieved in adding light rail transit in the hard-to-service areas (Ibid.).
1. Improve full metro system The weighted size of metro line High - to enlarge the metro
per square km for Seoul is 20 system various elements are
times larger than LA (see table needed. To enlarge the metro
1 at p. 7-8). LA should further network is of large importance
enlarge the metro system they however, it will take a long
currently have to make the PTS time and money to be able to
more attractive. achieve it.
2. Implement private-public By constructing new metro Medium - because of the large

investment in improvements lines with the help of private differences between the two
of the metro system operators, the expansion of the countries private-public
metro system could increase investments might work better
the pace of development. In in Seoul, but lessons could be
addition, this leads to less learned that would help in LA
spending of tax revenues. to improve and enlarge the
metro system.
Table 7: Inspiration of planning policy on metro Seoul for renewed LA public transport policy. Sources: Seoul Metropolitan
Government (2014)
Potential lesson 2: improvements in train system

The third mode of transport which is improved, is the train railway system. The train railway system
of Seoul has the primary function of connecting different downtown areas and different
metropolitan cities (Seoul Metropolitan Government, 2017). Improvements of the train railway
system include:
the construction of new lines between the three different downtown areas;
Extension of the train railway lin -
Improving the connection between train railway system and other modes of public
transport.

According to the improvements, the train railway system keeps its main use to travel the longer
distances between the different areas and metropolitan. After reaching a city node, travelers should
be able to have easy access to the more local transportation modes of bus or metro. The train
railway system of Seoul should therefore be considered an assisting mode of public transport.
Because of the integrating approach of the Seoul Metropolitan government, the train railway system
is improved, however it is not one of the main modes.
1. Implement train railway Currently there are no train Medium- this might take long
lines to suburbs connections to the outskirts of time and planning to implement
LA. By improving the rail in the LA. However, this would
connection with the suburbs, result in increasing use of public
people can take a train to a transport.
connection with a metro line.
Table 8: Inspiration of planning policy on trains Seoul for renewed LA public transport policy. Sources: ATC, 2017; Metro.nu
(2017)
Potential lesson 4: Integrating models of transport via electronic support

In 2004, the Seoul Metropolitan Government implemented an all public transport charging system
for the whole metropolitan area, where people payed for the total distance traveled (Seoul
Metropolitan Government, 2014). Because of the implementation of this charging system public
transport became more accessible, and different uses of public transportation increased (Ibid.). Later
on the T-money card was introduced, with this card people can use public transport everywhere in
the country. The T-money card can be used for bus, metro and taxi (ibid.). With the implementation
of the T-money card, TRIPS (Travel Record based Integrated Public transport operation System) can
collect data on the transportation behavior of the people using the card (Little, 2014). Data is
collected on among other things, where they started, what line number, time of transfer, etc. This all
results in that the government is able to improve the public transportation systems (Audouin &
Razaghi, 2015). Besides that, it also saves money for the people taking the transport (on average
$530 per year) due to savings from transfers and better calculated fares for long distance trips (Ibid.).
In 2013, the T-money card was used for 97% of the payments in buses, making it the most common
public transportation (Ibid.).
Looking at the different lessons in this chapter and the transferability of these lessons policies can be
made and transferred to LA.
1. Decrease the cost of LA currently has a TAP card that High - LA currently already has a
changes in travel modes people can use on different card that could be used for
transport modes. However, public transport. When the
changes of modes is charged. By different public transportation
decreasing the costs when modes would work together this
changing the type of could be something that is
transportation the total costs of possible to apply in the short
transportation for the users will term
decrease as seen in Seoul.

2. Use data from cards to Currently data is mainly High - since there is already a
improve public collected on the usage of card that is used for public
transportation different services. When transport, and some data is
improving the collection of data already collected, the expansion
and to make combine the new of the data collection can be
knowledge, the different modes done easily.
of transportation can be better
adapted to the demand of the
users.
Table 9: Inspiration of planning policy on electronic support on transportation Seoul for renewed LA public transport policy.
Sources: Audouin and Razaghi, 2015; Los Angeles Department of City Planning, 2014; Metro.net, 2017.
6. Implementation Plan
The objective of this comparative research was to draw on lessons of Seoul in order to draw a new
transport planning for LA. This chapter subsequently will provide a proposition for implementing a
new plan to promote public transportation in LA. However, the first aspect important for a new
implementation plan drawing on the first try of Seoul to reform its policy is to not make ad hoc
decisions but to conceptualize it for long-term validity with enough flexibility at the core to adapt to
and tackle unpredictable situations and avoid pitfalls. This is why alike Seoul the proposal will (a)
draw on the division of the planning into short-, mid- and long-term visions (Loorbach, 2010) where
long-term is laid out for up to 30 years, mid-term for 5-15 years and short-term for 0-5 years; and (b)
the hybridization approach since LA offers many opportunities in carrying out a transition. In Seoul,
the Urban Master Plan was laid out for 20, the Urban Management Plan for 10 and the Living Area
Plan for two years. In light of doing this, the following questions are crucial:
1. What needs to be done?
2. In what way?
3. To whom are which responsibilities assigned?
4. What is the time frame for the implementation?
6.1 Long-term implementation

Under the umbrella of a long-term vision, clear linkages between national goals and local
implementation of metropolitan infrastructure projects need to be created (Loorbach, 2010). For LA,
this can alike in Seoul be provided in the form of an Urban Master Plan. The long term goal is to
change the transport culture of LA: from a car centered culture to a PTS centered culture. The LA
Urban Master Plan would consist of various things:
An overhaul of the bus system by transforming and by smartly combining the metro and bus
transport and future train services so that destinations will be easier reachable and the PTS
used more frequently - also from people of the suburbs.
An extension of metro lines to increase the ridership in the inner city and better connections.
Implement public-private partnerships for the metro system in which the state creates the
guidelines while the market executes the project and are able to split the profits of using the
system (quasi-public).

6.2 Mid-term implementation

Mid-term planning can mostly be associated to scenario-building. The goal in the mid-term is to
create a stable PTS institution:
Public-private partnerships between the government and the public transport companies in
order to achieve long-term objectives and have good communication and thus a good
information flow in place.
Mid-term planning could be provided by means of an LA urban management plan under the
supervision of metro and the City Planning Department joining forces with newly
implemented and independent bodies that give recommendations and can be consulted as
was the case in Seoul. Those entities need to implement and would carry out the tasks that
in Seoul were done by the Transport Improvement Task Force and the according research
task force (Seoul Solution, 2017).
6.3 Short-term implementation

Short-term planning mainly concerns practices and tools to enable mid-term and long-term visions.
The main goal of the short-term implementations is to increase the convenience of the traveler, in
order to increase the attractiveness of the PTS and to make it more accessible. We suggest three
effective projects from the Seoul case to be implemented in LA.
1. Customizable PTS schedules and routes by allowing for more flexibility through the collection
of big data
2. Multi-modal connection by decreasing costs and combining different modes
3. Scenario planning and pilot studies with starting small
6.3.1 Customizable PTS
moving pattern, but seem unable to customize PTS to consumer patterns. Presumably, the
communication between the data managing and gathering and the government are not working
together to improve the PTS. In LA, buses are right now following a standard pattern and instead
they should follow trends, allowing for fewer buses during night times and more during busy times.
Coupled with the separate bus lanes, that are already in the Mobility Plan 2035, this can also lead to
less congestion.
The government has a central role in achieving this policy as public transportation is a public affair in
LA. We suggest the government to employ companies which are responsible for the management of
data and upon that prepare changes of the PTS schedules in order to increase the efficiency. This not
only fits the culture of decentralization but also allows the government to focus elsewhere. Further,
adjusting the current data gathering processes to the TRIPS system of Seoul, which means integrating
it into the function of the TAP card could improve the accuracy of data gathering and subsequently
more efficiency in adjusting schedules.
6.3.2 Multi-modal connections
By decreasing the costs of making changes in travel modes during travel it will become more
attractive to make use of different systems. This will increase the ease to make use of the PTS. To
achieve this, we suggest adapting the function of the TAP card to those of the T-Money card like in
Seoul, on which prices are based on distances and not the transport facility. In Seoul this turned out
to be more cost-effective for travelers. The main responsibility for this policy lies with the
government, as well as companies.

6.3.3 Scenario planning and Pilot Studies

With the aid of scenario planning, particularly from the center of LA, local developments to improve
public transportation, can be stimulated by the government through facilitating market initiatives
(for instance, to increase the number of bus lanes in business areas). These small, very context-
specific projects can in turn stimulate projects elsewhere and connect with one another spatially, to
improve the overall public transportation network. We suggest an important role for the government
within this process, one of a mediator between different stakeholders and facilitator and coordinator
of meetings and brainstorm sessions with local businesses and civic groups. This approach would fit
the planning culture of the US as it is much decentralized and gives the impression that the state has
less power.
6.4 Concluding remarks
different levels of government led to a comprehensive and well-

steered top down. However, the prerequisites for such an integrative, neighborhood-focused
approach are at a good starting point to implementing a future-oriented and flexible plan. No matter
which path LA is choosing to take, a crucial condition for it is that the government takes a public
transport reform more seriously, which was the case in Seoul, and for which necessary bodies in a
consulting functions and for civic engagement were introduced to help speeding up the process
whilst drawing up short-, mid- and long-term plans.

References
Allen, H. (2013). Bus reform in Seoul, Republic of Korea Case study. Global Report on Human
Settlements 2013, UN Habitat.
ASCE (2017). 2017 Infrastructure Report Card. United States of America (USA): The American Society
of Civil Engineers (ASCE).
ATC (2017). ATC bus routes and time tables. Accessed on 11/10/2017 at
http://www.atcesercizio.it/index.php/en/.
Atlas of Urban Expansion (2016). Urban extent of Los Angeles. Accessed on 08/10/2017 at
http://www.atlasofurbanexpansion.org/cities/view/Los_Angeles.
Atlas of Urban Expansion (2016). Urban extent of Seoul. Accessed on 08/10/2017 at
http://www.atlasofurbanexpansion.org/cities/view/Seoul.
Audouin, M., Razaghi, M. (2015). How Seoul used the 'T-Money' smart transportation card to re-plan
the public transportation system of the city; implications for governance of innovation in urban public
transportation systems. Istanbul, Turkey: Conference 8th TransIST Symposium.
Benenson, I., Martens, K., Rofé, Y., Kwartler, A. (2011). Public transport versus private car GIS-based
estimation of accessibility applied to the Tel Aviv metropolitan area. The Annals of Regional Science,
47 (3), p. 499-515.
Berlin.de (2017). Berlin WelcomeCard. Accessed on 24/07/2017 at
https://www.berlin.de/en/tourism/1895467-2975548-berlin-welcomecard.en.html.
Berlin.de (2017). Urban development and housing. Accessed on 24/09/2017 at
http://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/planen/stadtmodelle/index_en.shtml.
Berliner S-Bahn (2017). Allgemeine Informationen. Accessed on 24-09-2017 at http://www.s-bahn-
berlin.de/aboundtickets/allgemein.html.
Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe (2017). Einzelfahrschein. Accessed on 24-09-2017 at
https://shop.bvg.de/index.php/product/234/show/0/0/0/0/buy. Berlin, Germany: Berliner
Verkehrsbetriebe.
Broadus, V. (2010). Will Los Angeles revolutionize U.S. urban transit funding? The City Fix. Accessed
on 24/09/2017 at http://thecityfix.com/blog/will-los-angeles-revolutionize-u-s-urban-transit-
funding/.
Census (2016). Commuting characteristics by gender. United States Census Bureau. Accessed on
25/09/2016 at
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_15_1YR_S0
801&prodType=table.
Center Nahverkehr Berlin (2015). Jahresbericht 2015 Qualität im Berliner ÖPNV U-Bahn ,
Straßenbahn , Bus und Fähre. Accessed on 24-09-2017 at http://www.cnb-online.de/wp-
content/uploads/2017/03/Qualitaet-im-Berliner-OPNV_2015_web.pdf.
Center Nahverkehr Berlin (2017). ÖPNV in Berlin 2013-2015. Accessed on 24-09-2017 at
https://www.berlin.de/senuvk/verkehr/politik_planung/oepnv/nahverkehrsplan/download/NVP_Mo
nitoringbericht_2015.pdf.
Cheba, K. (2016). Urban Mobility Identification, Measurement and Evaluation. Transportation
Research Procedia, 14, p. 1230 1239.
Chen, X. (2009). Urban planning management system in Los Angeles: An overview. U.S.: Virginia
Commonwealth University.

Church, R. L., Marston, J. R. (2003). Measuring accessibility for people with a disability. Geographical
Analysis, 35 (1), p. 83-96.
Cho, J. (2005). Urban Planning and Urban Sprawl in Korea. Urban Policy and Research, 23 (2), p. 203-
218.
Costa, P.B. (2017). Urban Mobility Indexes: a brief review of the literature. Transportation Research
Procedia, 25, p. 3645 3655.
CRBR (2017). Urban Mobility Index. London, United Kingdom: Centre for Economic and Business
Research.
Department of City Planning (2017). General Plan. Accessed on 12-10-2017 at
http://cityplanning.lacity.org/. Los Angeles, U.S.: Department of City Planning Los Angeles
Discover Los Angeles (2015). Los Angeles public transit. Accessed on 24/09/2017 at
https://www.discoverlosangeles.com/blog/los-angeles-public-transit.
Dolowitz, D., Marsh, D. (1996). Who learns what from whom?: A Review of the Policy Transfer
Literature. Political Studies, 44 (2), p. 343-357.
Dunseith, L. (2017). Can L.A. fix its broken planning system? Accessed on 24-09-2017 at
http://luskin.ucla.edu/2017/06/21/can-l-fix-broken-planning-system/. Los Angeles, U.S.: UCLA Luskin
School of Public Affairs.
The Economist (2017).
political barriers. Accessed on 26-10-2017 at https://www.economist.com/news/united-
states/21721387-moneys-there-so-are-political-barriers-paying-public-transport-los-angeles . The
Economist.
E-country index (2017). Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Accessed on 24-09-2017 at
http://www.index.go.kr/potal/main/EachDtlPageDetail.do?idx_cd=1008.
Ewing, R. (1997). Is Los Angeles-Style Sprawl Desirable? Journal of the American Planning Association,
63 (1), p. 107-126.
Federal State of Berlin (2014). Berlin A success story. Facts. Figures. Statistics. Accessed on 04-10-
2017 at
https://www.berlin.de/rbmskzl/_assets/aktuelles/2014/oktober/140911_berlin_erfolgsgeschichte_2
014_engl.pdf.
Federal State of Berlin (2017). Tickets, Fares and Route Maps. Accessed on 04-10-2017 at
https://www.berlin.de/en/public-transportation/1772016-2913840-tickets-fares-and-route-
maps.en.html. Berlin, Germany: BerlinOnline Stadtportal GmbH & Co. KG.
FRED (2017). Per Capita Personal Income in Los Angeles County, CA. Accessed on 24-09-2017 at
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PCPI06037.
European Commission (2014) . Accessed at 26-10-
2017 at http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/flash/fl_382b_en.pdf. Brussels,
Belgium: European Commission.
Geertman, S. C., Ritsema, J., Van Eck, R. (1995). GIS and models of accessibility potential: an
application in planning. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems, 9 (1), p. 67-80.
Geurs, K. T., van Wee, B. (2004). Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: review
and research directions. Journal of Transport geography, 12 (2), p. 127-140.
Guo, Z. (2008). . Accessed on 24-09-
2017 at http://web.mit.edu/uis/theses/Dissertation_Zhan_Guo_8_20_2008_10am.pdf.

Hawthorne, C. (2015). Mobility Plan 2035 may be the cornerstone of a new L.A. Accessed on 23-09-
2017 at http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/arts/la-ca-cm-hawthorne-notebook-20150920-
column.html. Los Angeles, USA: Los Angeles Times.
Holmes, N. S. (2015). . Accessed on 11-10-2017 via
https://medium.com/@nsholmes21/3-simple-thoughts-on-la-s-mobility-plan-2035-abc35c92f420.
INRIX (2016). INRIX Global Traffic Scorecard. Accessed on 24-09-2017 at http://inrix.com/scorecard/.
INRIX.
IKM (2017). Hauptstadtregion Berlin-Brandenburg. Accessed on 24-09-2017 at http://www.deutsche-
metropolregionen.org/mitglieder/berlin-brandenburg/. Potsdam, Germany: Gemeinsame
Landesplanungsabteilung Berlin-Brandenburg.
Justia (2009). Los Angeles Metro Area. Accessed on 24-09-2017 at
https://stats.justia.com/california/los-angeles-long-beach-santa-ana-ca-metro/.
Jungyun, K. (2012). Leading the way, Korea's IT transportation innovations. Accessed on 08-10-2017
at http://www.korea.net/NewsFocus/Sci-Tech/view?articleId=10061.
Kasulis, K. (2017). The future of transportation is in Seoul, South Korea. Americans should pay
attention. Mic. Accessed on 24-09-2017 at https://mic.com/articles/180164/transportation-in-seoul-
south-korea-shows-americans-exactly-what-were-missing#.wzZ71vVB1.
Kasulis, K. (2017). America's transportation problem is so huge even Elon Musk can't fix it. Accessed
on 08-10-2017 at https://mic.com/articles/176405/america-s-transportation-problem-is-so-huge-
even-elon-musk-can-t-fix-it#.dD0k6xoQu.
Kim, S.W. (2017). Urban Planning System of Seoul. Accessed on 08-10-2017 at
https://www.seoulsolution.kr/en/content/urban-planning-system-seoul.Seoul, South Korea: Seoul
Solution.
Klinger, T. (2013). Dimensions of urban mobility cultures a comparison of German cities. Journal of
Transport Geography, 31, p. 18 29.
Ko, J. (2017). Reforming Public Transportation in Seoul. Accessed on 08-10-2017 at
https://www.seoulsolution.kr/en/content/reforming-public-transportation-seoul. Seoul, South
Korea: Seoul Solution.
LA Department of City Planning (2014). Public-Private Partnership. Accessed on 12-10-2017 at
https://www.laedc.org/our-services/public-policy/public-private-partnerships. Los Angeles, U.S.: Los
Angeles Economic Development Corporation.
LA Metro (2017). Advanced Transit Vehicle Consortium (ATVC). Accessed on 08-10-2017 at
https://www.metro.net/projects/atvc/. Los Angeles, U.S.: LA Metro.
Lee, C., Vandycke, N. L., Sung, N. M., Choi, S. D., Yi, E. J. A., Lee, S. (2015). Leaping Forward in Green
Transport. Accessed on 26-10-2017 at https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/23230.
Lemos, M., Agrawal, A. (2006). Environmental Governance. Annual Reviews Environmental
Resources, 31, p. 297-325.
Leveugne, J., Toraille, N., Waquet, L. (2013). Transportation policy and mobility in Los Angeles - June
2013. Los Angeles, U.S.: Los Angeles Department of City Planning.
Levine, J., & Garb, Y. (2002). Congestion pricing's conditional promise: promotion of accessibility or
mobility?. Transport Policy, 9 (3), p. 179-188.
Li Fan (2008). Cautious Urban Redevelopment in Berlin. 44th ISOCARP Congress 2008.

Little, A. (2014). The Future of Urban Mobility 2.0. Brussels, Belgium: International Union of Public
Transport.
Loorbach, D. (2010). Transition Management for Sustainable Development: A Prescriptive,
Complexity-Based Governance Framework. Governance: An International Journal of Policy,
Administration, and Institutions, 23 (1), p. 161-183.
Los Angeles Department of City Planning (2014). Mobility Plan 2035. Los Angeles, U.S.: Los Angeles
Department of City Planning.
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2017). Metro Funding Source Guide.
Accessed at 26-10-2017 at
https://media.metro.net/about_us/finance/images/2017_funding_sources_guide.pdf. Los Angeles,
U.S.: Los Angeles COunty Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
Mapa-metro (2017). Metro of Berlin Europe Germany. Accessed on 24-09-2017 at http://mapa-
metro.com/en/Germany/Berlin/Berlin-U-Bahn-map.htm.
METRO (2017). Facts at a Glance. Agency Info. Accessed on 10-10-2017 at
https://www.metro.net/news/facts-glance/. Los Angeles, U.S.: Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority.
Metro.net (2017). Metro rail & busway. Accessed on 11/10/2017 at
https://media.metro.net/documents/8f0fe43e-da3b-4a10-bd8e-4cfd54e30eb3.pdf.
Metro.net (2017). How to load a TAP card. Accessed on 11/10/2017 at
https://www.metro.net/riding/fares/load-tap-card/.
Metro Magazine (2017). Outreach teams to offer services to homeless throughout L.A. Metro.
Accessed on 25-09-2017 at http://www.metro-magazine.com/news/photos/722716/outreach-
teams-to-offer-services-to-homeless-throughout-l-a-metro/57780.
Mouwen, A. (2015). Drivers of customer satisfaction with public transport services. Transportation
Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 78, p. 1 20.
Nadin, V. (2012). International Comparative Planning Methodology: Introduction to the Theme Issue.
Planning Practice & Research, 27 (1), p. 1-5.
Nadin, V., Stead, D. (2008). European Spatial Planning Systems, Social Models and Learning. disP -
The Planning Review, 44 (172), p. 35-47.
Nak-yeon, W. (2016). . Accessed on
08-10-2017 at http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/746525.html.Seoul, South
Korea: The Hankyoreh.
Nelson, L.J. (2014). Metro fares will increase despite protests of low-income riders. Accessed on 24-
09-2017 at http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-metro-fares-20140523-story.html. Los Angeles,
U.S.: Los Angeles Times.
Nelson, L. J. (2016). Metro to unveil mass transit blueprint that includes tunnel through Sepulveda
Pass. Accessed on 24-09-2017 at http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-ln-transit-projects-
20160311-story.html . Los Angeles, U.S.: LA Times.
OECD (2017). Metropolitan Areas. Accessed on 24-09-2017 at
https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=CITIES.
Oort, N. Van, Drost, M., Brands, T., Yap, M. (2015). CASPT 2015 Data-driven public transport ridership
prediction approach including comfort aspects 1 Introduction. Accessed on 24-09-2017 at
https://nielsvanoort.weblog.tudelft.nl/files/2015/05/Oort-et-al-Datadriven-PT-modelling-
CASPT2015FullPaperFinal.pdf.

Pahl-Weber, E., Henckel, D., Besecke, A., Rütenik, B. (2008). The Planning System and Planning Terms
in Germany. Studies in Spatial Development, 7, p. 1-288.
Panagiotopoulos, V. (2017). The Los Angeles metro is great Accessed
on 24-09-2017 at http://www.citymetric.com/transport/los-angeles-metro-great-so-why-aren-t-
people-using-it-2742. London, United Kingdom (UK): Citymetric.
Pucher, J., Park, H., Kim, M. , Song, J. (2003). Public transport in Seoul: Meeting the burgeoning travel
demands of a megacity. Public Transport International, 54 (3), p. 54-61.
Pucher, J., Park, H., Kim, M., Song, J. (2005). Public transport reforms in Seoul: innovations motivated
by funding crisis. Journal of Public Transportation, 8 (5), p. 41 62.
Privatizationbarometer (2017). The PB Report 2014/2015. Accessed on 09-10-2017 via
http://www.privatizationbarometer.com/PUB/NL/5/5/PB_AR2014-2015.pdf.
Reimer, M., Blotevogel, H. (2012). Comparing Spatial Planning Practice in Europe: A Plea for Cultural
Sensitization, Planning Practice and Research, 27 (1), p. 7-24.
Romero, D. (2017). L.A. has the worst traffic congestion in the world. Accessed on 24-09-2017 at
http://www.laweekly.com/news/la-has-the-worst-traffic-congestion-in-the-world-7953381. Los
Angeles, U.S.: LA Weekly.
Runge, D., Becker, H.-J. (2007). Financing Urban Mobility. Accessed on 08-10-2017 at:
https://www.ivp.tu-
berlin.de/fileadmin/fg93/Forschung/Projekte/Metropolis/Survey_Background_for_Seoul_final.pdf.
Schwanen, T. (2002). Urban form and commuting behaviour: a cross-European perspective. Journal
of Economic and Social Geography, 93, p. 335 343.
Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt (2015). Schriftliche Anfrage. Accessed on 24-09-
2017 at http://www.stiftung-naturschutz.de/fileadmin/img/pdf/Kleine_Anfragen/S17-16571.pdf.
Senatsverwaltung für Umwelt Verkehr und Klimaschutz (2015). ÖPNV-Gesamtbericht des ÖPNV-
Gesamtbericht des. Accessed on 24-09-2017 at
https://www.berlin.de/senuvk/verkehr/politik_planung/oepnv/download/BerlinerOePNV_Gesamtbe
richt2015.pdf.
Senatsverwaltung für Umwelt Verkehr und Klimaschutz (2017). ZAHLEN UND FAKTEN ZUM ÖPNV.
Accessed on 24-09-2017 at http://www.cnb-online.de/hintergruende/zahlen-und-fakten-zum-
oepnv/.
Seoul Metropolitan Government (2014). Seoul Public transportation. Accessed on 09-10-2017 via
http://citynet-ap.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Seoul-Public-Transportation-English.pdf. Seoul,
South Korea: Seoul Metropolitan Government.
Seoul Metropolitan Government (2014). Seoul Traffic Vision 2030. Accessed on 09-10-2017 via
http://english.seoul.go.kr/policy-information/traffic/seoul-traffic-vision-2030/. Seoul, South Korea:
Seoul Metropolitan Government.
Seoul Metropolitan Government (2017). Public transportation. Accessed on 24-09-2017 at
http://english.seoul.go.kr/life-information/transportation-information/public-transportation/1-bus/.
Seoul, South Korea: Seoul Metropolitan Government.
Seoul Metropolitan Government (2017). The 2030 Seoul plan is a plan of hope for the life and home
that one child can have until he/she becomes an adult. Accessed on 24-09-2017 at

http://english.seoul.go.kr/policy-information/urban-planning/urban-planning/1-2030-seoul-basic-
urban-plan/. Seoul, South Korea: Seoul Metropolitan Government.
Seoul Metropolitan Government (2017). Major Traffic statistics. Accessed on 24-09-2017 at
http://english.seoul.go.kr/policy-information/traffic/major-traffic-statistics/ . Seoul, South Korea:
Seoul Metropolitan Government.
Seoul Solution (2014). Construction of Seoul metro - the driver behind sustainable Urban growth &
change. Accessed on 10-10-2017 at https://www.seoulsolution.kr/en/content/metro-construction-
seoul-metro-%E2%80%93-driver-behind-sustainable-urban-growth-change. Seoul, South Korea:
Seoul Solution.
Seoul Solution (2017). Reforming Public Transportation in Seoul. Accessed on 10-10-2017 at
https://www.seoulsolution.kr/en/content/reforming-public-transportation-seoul. Seoul, South
Korea: Seoul Solution.
Serna, A. (2017). Sustainability analysis on Urban Mobility based on Social Media content.
Transportation Research Procedia, 24, 1 8.
Shin, H., Lee, K. (2017). Participatory governance and trans-sectoral mobilities: The new dynamics of
adaptive preferences in the case of transport planning in Seoul, South Korea. Cities, 65, p. 87-93.
Slone, S. (2017). Top 5 Issues for 2017: Transportation & Infrastructure Policy: Transportation
Reshaping Communities. Accessed on 24-09-2017 at
http://knowledgecenter.csg.org/kc/content/top-5-issues-2017-transportation-infrastructure-policy-
transportation-reshaping-communities. USA: The Council of State Governments (CSG)
Spaans, M., Louw, E. (2009). Crossing borders with planners and developers: the limits of lesson-
drawing. Madrid, Spain: Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Madrid.
Stahlberg, S.G. (2015). Lessons in urban transportation from Berlin. Accessed on 24-09-2017 at
http://www.saisperspectives.com/2015issue/2015/4/15/lessons-in-urban-transportation-from-
berlin. Washington D.C., U.S. & Bologna, Italy: SAIS Perspectives.
Statistics Korea (2016). Complete Enumeration Results of the 2015 Population and Housing Census.
Accessed on 08-10-2017 at
http://kostat.go.kr/portal/eng/pressReleases/8/7/index.board?bmode=read&aSeq=356507&pageNo
=&rowNum=10&amSeq=&sTarget=&sTxt.
Steg, L. (
Acceptability of
transport pricing strategies, p. 187-202. Oxford: Elsevier Science.
Tinoco, M. (2016). Why We Don't Take Public Transit: LAist Readers Respond. Accessed on 08-10-
2017 at http://laist.com/2016/03/25/laist_readers_react_why_we_dont_use.php.
Transloc (2017). -Mile/Last-Mile Problem. Accessed on 10-10-2017 at
http://transloc.com/eliminating-public-transits-first-milelast-mile-problem/. Durham, U.S.: Tranloc.
Tsiotas, K. (2017). Accessibility assessment of urban mobility: the case of Volos, Greece.
Transportation Research Procedia, 24, 499 506.
Urbanrail.net (2017). Los Angeles. Accessed on 24-09-2017 at http://www.urbanrail.net/am/lsan/los-
angeles.htm.
U.S Census Bureau (2013). American Community survey; commuting characteristics. Accessed on 24-
09-2017 at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1lPc45v0nBVpU-
jzw8zmO95xrMYrhgX5ojVgm9eXNemM/pubhtml. Washington D.C., U.S.: U.S. Census Bureau.

U.S. Census Bureau (2016). American Community Survey 1-year estimates. Accessed on 26-10-2017 at
https://censusreporter.org/profiles/16000US0644000-los-angeles-ca/. Washington D.C., U.S.: U.S.
Census Bureau.
U.S. EIA (2017). Petroleum & other liquids. Accessed on 21-09-2017 at
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=emm_epm0_pte_nus_dpg&f=m.Wa
shington D.C., U.S.: U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Visit Berlin (2017). Public transportation in Berlin. Accessed on 24-09-2017 at
https://www.visitberlin.de/en/public-transport-berlin. Berlin, Germany: Visit Berlin.
Visit Korea (2017). Public transportation in Seoul. Accessed on 24-09-2017 at
https://english.visitkorea.or.kr/enu/TRP/TP_ENG_8_1_1.jsp. South Korea: Korea Tourism
Organisation Headquarters.
-09-2017 at
http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/transport/brief/koreas-leap-forward-in-green-transport.
se and public transport
accessibility indexing model. Australian planner, 44 (3), p. 30-37.

Appendix 1: Table selection criteria
Criteria Sub-criteria Score per sub criteria
Berlin Seoul
Accessibility Dispersal of stops 0,2488 stops/km2 0,5434 stops/km2
Barrier-free stops 56% 52%
Average Travel Costs
Subway grid extension 0,0047 subway grid/km2 0,0279 subway grid/km2
Convenience Average travel time to Between 20 to 60 minutes Between 16 to 105 minutes

destination
Passenger volume 0,82 trips per inhabitant 1,27 trips per inhabitant
Departure frequency Every 5 to 15 minutes Every 3 to 10 minutes
Safety Safety perception Medium High
Annual maintenance
investments
Sources:
Allen, 2013; Center Nahverkehr Berlin (CNB) GbR, 2015; 2017; Federal State of Berlin, 2014; 2017;
Lee et. Al., 2015; Pucher et. al., 2003; Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt, 2015;
Senatsverwaltung für Umwelt Verkehr und Klimaschutz, 2015; 2017b; Seoul Metropolitan
Government, 2013; Visit Korea, 2017.

Appendix 2: Reaction on Peer reviews

7.1 Peer review group 6
In the introduction a change has been made for the reasons why people in LA are not using
transportation. The different reasons mentioned in the introduction are not different reasons but all
contribute in different ways to the user patterns of public transportation in LA. With changing it and
no longer identifying this as different reasons the introduction should become clearer. Besides that a
clearer explanation on why the comparison is needed is explained in the last paragraph of chapter 1.
The comment from group 6 that a clearer explanation needs to be given on why we did not choose to
donor cities from the top group was discussed in the meeting with the group. After giving them an
explanation they understood it better, this is also stated clearer in the text. The group also
mentioned that the modal use of public transportation is not relevant, since we want to change this
in LA. However according to us this is good to look at, since we wanted to know how the modal share
of public transportation in other cities is. If cities would have a lower share than LA currently has, the
city would not be a good option as a donor city. The comment on that we should compare cities not
with the current levels in the cities but with historical levels. However, we do not agree, because
when deciding on choosing a donor city you want to improve, when comparing historically this is not
visible that the country would have better results. Although it would have been an option to add
information of Seoul and Berlin before they implemented regulations to see the difference. This
however was not possible because of the word count and not having options to delete other
information without losing valuable elements.
In the third chapter a better explanation on safety has been added. In chapter 4 we made sure that
information from the first part of the assignment was not repeated again. Besides that the
numbering of the figures and the references to the figures in the text has been changed.
The peer reviewers found the financial section not clear, because it were to different stories. By
adding an introduction for this section we clarified this section and compared
We added something on the profitability of the quasi-public system, because operating the PTS is
unlikely to be100% profitable. Finally, the general comments on grammar and the sentence building
has been improved throughout the document. Also, the numbering of chapters has been improved.
7.1 Peer review group 8

Overall the peer review received by group 8 was rather positive. It was also a lot more positive than
the peer review from group 6. In the discussion with the group they also informed us that they
thought that overall our assignment looked good. The comment on introducing more on that Seoul
was chosen as the donor city is included in the abstract. In the previous version the abstract was
missing. In the discussion it came forward that the abstract would be a better place to introduce it. In
the comparison on donor cities we added some more information on why Seoul was chosen over
Berlin, this was missing according to the peer review.
The word count and lack of references in the second part has been resolved, references has been
added and word count has been decreased. This was something that we were aware of that still
needed some work. Also, the lesson drawing where the word count was under the level has been
expanded by adding the transferability of the policy to LA. Besides that more explanation is given on
the policy transfer types by Dolowitz and Marsh (1995) as well as a better explanation of the figure of
Spaans and Lauw (2009).
Finally, the comment on highlighting one policy in the implementation, has not been changed. There
was already a longer explanation of the three short term implementations, we did not think it was
needed to elaborate more on the implementation of only one part. Since this would result in
removing other parts of the implementation due to the word count.

Appendix 3: Self-reflection Peer Evaluation form

Final Assignment Group Ten Print

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Assignment Group Ten Print

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Improving Public Transport System in Los Angeles Metropolitan Area

M. Alma, S. de Neve, J. Postema, R. Putra & M. Schwelkert 1

Potential lesson 2: improvements in metro system 22

M. Alma, S. de Neve, J. Postema, R. Putra & M. Schwelkert 2

M. Alma, S. de Neve, J. Postema, R. Putra & M. Schwelkert 3

1. Transport System in Los Angeles

M. Alma, S. de Neve, J. Postema, R. Putra & M. Schwelkert 4

1.2 The existing Planning System in Los Angeles

2. Inventory of potential successful donor cities for lesson drawing

M. Alma, S. de Neve, J. Postema, R. Putra & M. Schwelkert 5

c. Politics and Planning System

2.2. Two potential Donor Cities

Figure 1: Urban Mobility Index - UITP version (Source: Little, 2014)

M. Alma, S. de Neve, J. Postema, R. Putra & M. Schwelkert 6

Figure 2: Urban Mobility Index - CEBR version (Source: CEBR, 2017)

CRITERIA FOR RECIPIENT POTENTIAL DONOR

M. Alma, S. de Neve, J. Postema, R. Putra & M. Schwelkert 7

Metropolitan Area 12,562 sq. km 30,546 sq. km 11,704 sq. km

Urban Form Sprawled Metropolitan Limited Sprawl Sprawled

Population Size (2014) 17,718,858 4,399,542 24,948,523

Population Growth (2004-2014) 8.70% 1.24% 19.25%

GDP Growth (2002-2012) 10.62% 16.65% 42.10%

POLITICS & PLANNING SYSTEM

Political Support Strong, supervised by Strong, supported by Strong, part of

Modal Share of Public 9% (2015) 26% (2013) 37% (Metro) (2013)

Daily Metro Ridership 362,000 (2016) 1,390,000 (2009) 9,800,000 (2013)

M. Alma, S. de Neve, J. Postema, R. Putra & M. Schwelkert 8

3. Selection Criteria regarding Public Transit Management

3.1 State of Research

M. Alma, S. de Neve, J. Postema, R. Putra & M. Schwelkert 9

Criteria Sub-criteria Score per sub criteria

Accessibility Dispersal of stops 1 3

Average Travel Costs 2 3

Metro grid extension 1 3

Convenience Average travel time to destination 2 2

Safety Safety perception 2 3

Annual maintenance investments 3 1

3.5 Selection of the donor city

M. Alma, S. de Neve, J. Postema, R. Putra & M. Schwelkert 10

4. Comparison between Recipient and Donor Cities

successful transportation reform. (Ko, 2017).

M. Alma, S. de Neve, J. Postema, R. Putra & M. Schwelkert 11

4.2 Contextual Aspects (DESTEP)

DESTEP LOS ANGELES AND SEOUL ISSUES

Demographic factor Similar Issue In Ageing Population

Economic factor Similar Issue In Economic Growth

Socio-cultural factor Different Issue In Transit Behaviour

Technological factor Similar Issue In Intelligent Transport System

Ecological factor Different Issue In Urban Density

Political factor Different Issue In Bureaucracy and Subsidy System

4.2.1 Demographic factor

Figure 3: Population Growth in LA and Seoul (world population review, 2017).

M. Alma, S. de Neve, J. Postema, R. Putra & M. Schwelkert 12

4.2.2 Economic factor

Figure 4: GDP Growth in LA and Seoul (OECD, 2017)

M. Alma, S. de Neve, J. Postema, R. Putra & M. Schwelkert 13

4.2.6 Political factor

4.3.1 Los Angeles

M. Alma, S. de Neve, J. Postema, R. Putra & M. Schwelkert 14

Figure 6a: Levels of government in LA planning. Based on Chen (2009).

M. Alma, S. de Neve, J. Postema, R. Putra & M. Schwelkert 15

4.4 Public transport regulation