The Bicycle sharing system in Los Angeles - Essay Example

 Justification of why the Bicycle Sharing System should be adopted in Los Angeles As the issue of pollution becomes continuously contentious, many scholars assert that significant pollution started taking place after the industrial Revolution of the 18th century. While this holds some truths, the ostensible fact that pollution has been a serious problem for human beings from earlier periods is horrendous. William H. Te Brake’s journal of Air Pollution and Fuel Crises in Preindustrial London, 1250-1650, mentions, “Air pollution was already a very serious nuisance in London by the middle of the 17th century.”1 Before the Industrial Revolution, there was serious pollution in London. This pollution has become exponentially worse. As technology developed significantly in the 20th century, the world population has exponentially increased than it was before. However, this also means that new problems have arisen. Recently, many countries and people are suffering from green gas, which is attributable to Carbon dioxide. These two reasons: man-made greenhouse and the growth of population, worsen the pollution. Many policies have been made in order to decrease the volume of the pollution such as the “electric car” or “transportation”, yet it is not significantly effective. Apparently, this paper shall candidly and comprehensively look at the new policy of the Bicycle Sharing System, in terms of what the system is, the reason why Los Angles needs the system, requirements for the system, how it should be practiced as well as the consequence of the system. The Bicycle Sharing System is designed to reduce the usage of personal vehicles, which will result in reduced emission of greenhouse gases, and safeguard the environment2. The citizens of Amsterdam in the Netherlands first introduced this system on July 28, 1965. The system was called “White Bicycle” as they were renting out the bicycles to people to ride to their destinations. However, the government failed in maintaining the system due to the theft and abuse, thus, they needed to stop the service after just a few days. However, the system became popular again, when the citizens of Copenhagen in Denmark introduced it in 1995. They used multiple systems such as coin-deposit, making a bike with the components that were not compatible with other bicycles in order to prevent the situation of theft and abuse that happened in the Netherland3. However, the problems of theft still persisted, and the government realized that it was because of the element that the administration was incapable of tracking down the people who were using the bicycles. This gave the government the idea of using technology. Serious technological improvements such as mobile phone access or onboard computers have been implemented in the system, and it has been successful.4 Consequently, the idea of sharing bicycles has been introduced in the world, and recently, many cities have adopted the system. Thus, Los Angeles should adopt the Bicycle Sharing System with a system that can prevent bicycle theft or abuse, to prevent the failures that were witnessed in regions that first introduced the project. Los Angeles should consider adopting the Bicycle Sharing System for 3 predominant reasons: pollution, traffic as well as public health issues5. Los Angeles is one of the most populated cities in the world and the development in technology has allowed more people to enter Los Angeles. Thus, the region is overcrowded with a lot of people. Ostensibly, Los Angeles’ population keeps growing every year and might soon reach appalling and uncontrollable figures.6 Due to its huge population composed of affluent individuals, usage of personal vehicles creates the serious problems in pollution. Driving personal vehicle does not only impact negatively on the environments, but also leads to noise pollution thus hampering individuals’ ability to hear. On the Costs of Air Pollution from Motor Vehicle, a journal by Kenneth A. Small and Camilla Kazimi, mentions, “The costs of air pollution, noise, and other environmental damage are not precisely measurable …”7 The vehicles consume diesel, and the substances from burning diesel will make elements that would contribute to form acid rain. Snags such as air contamination or acid rain are fatal, and it takes a long time for the environment to recover from these pollutions8. As the population keeps snowballing, the number of cars on the street would briskly increase. This means that these cars will make more components of acid rain, which will harm human the society in the near future. Thus, the adoption of the Bicycle Sharing System will bring the result of reduction in air pollution in the future. Secondly, the system will decrease the rate of traffic. The population keeps increasing, and this indicates that cars on the street will increase along the growth of population. According to the article, Los Angeles: Traffic and Smog, “From just over 4 million in 1950…10.47 million in 1990 … in 2000 10.91 million. By 2010… 15.7 million.”9 As the population increases, the growth of the number of cars significantly increases. This indicates that the government needs to expand or increase the number of roads. In other words, the government would be required to spend unfathomable amounts of money to reduce the traffic congestion. Thus, adopting Bicycle Sharing System will save the annual revenue for the government. Lastly, public health has been threatened due to the serious air pollution. The pollution has been critical and it is threatening people’s health. Although there are still numerous heavy industries in Los Angeles, cars are the most predominant sources of smoke that pollutes air in Los Angeles.10 As the number of cars increases along with the growth of population in Los Angeles, it will create more issues with acid rain and air pollution. In the end, it will harm people resulting in increased medical costs and a disabled population in extreme cases. Thus, Los Angeles needs a system that can provide people a great transportation while simultaneously safeguarding their health. The government in Los Angeles should meet various requirements to implement the Bicycle Sharing System. Although the citizens of Amsterdam in the Netherlands were able to come up with the idea of Bicycle Sharing System, they were not able to maintain it for a long time due to theft and abuse. During that epoch, technology had hardly developed. It made it difficult for them to retrieve the bicycles that were missing11. Learning from the abuse of the system from the Netherlands, Los Angeles should install the requirements such as securing bicycles or roads in order to execute it successfully. First of all, securing bicycles is one of the most important requirements. As the bicycles are open for public, it is possible for them to abuse or steal the bicycle. In order to prevent the consequence, it is important to implement a system like what Denmark did. As asserted by the article by Shu, Jia, et al., Denmark started using technology along Bicycle Sharing System, a factor that empowered them to use the system in more than 100 cities.12 Thus, the government should install systems that would allow the securing of bicycles from theft or abuse. Considering the sheer fact that we live in a tech-savvy society, this should be simple to implement, and the primitive acts of theft or abuse should not threaten the existence of Bicycle Sharing System. What’s more, the government should improve the infrastructure for cycling. Wretched pavements in various sides of the city hamper potential cyclists from cycling13. It is important that the environment and atmosphere should inspire people to ride a bicycle instead of their personal vehicles. Jennifer Dill and Theresa Carr’s article, Bicycle Commuting and Facilities in Major U.S. Cities: If You Build Them, Commuters Will Use Them, accentuates that obstacles such as poor pavement, bicycle theft, meager links on bridges, dense traffic, lack of secure bicycle parking, vehicle exhaust, and theft likely dismay bicycling commuting.”14 Although people want to ride bicycles to commute to their work or school, poor infrastructure undeniably torpedoes and limits their aptitude and capability to do so. The article further reiterates that 1.96% of workers commute by bicycles despite the fact that there are limited bicycle lanes or paths.15 Thus, appropriate infrastructure for bicycle should be installed in Los Angeles as this will ultimately motivate people to cycle to their work destinations. Two important factors, advertisements and adjustment in tax, should be placed in order to promote Bicycle Sharing System. Although the government should install the system near the place where many people are gathered, people tend to ignore the system due to lack of awareness about its importance or how it operates. From a corporate perspective, consumers rarely purchase products that have not been advertised as they are often unaware of the existence of the products16. In order to prevent such a problem, the government should actively promote the system to people. Gradually, people will be aware of the system, and they will be encouraged to use it. Raising public awareness is fundamental in the success of the Bicycle-sharing system and the government must devote the necessary attention and resources to advertisement. Secondly, the government should increase tax for personal vehicles in order to encourage people to use Bicycle Sharing System. Although people are aware that riding a bicycle makes them healthier, they are still going to choose their car over riding a bicycle out of convenience. Ideally, it is a great idea to increase the tax for usage of personal vehicles. As what one of the economists, Adam Smith, said, people respond to incentives.17 A similar practice has been carried out by china to dispirit cigarettes smoking. According to an article by Hu and Zhengzhong, “…1.44-2.16 million lives could be saved by a price increase of 10%, or a tax increase of 25%.”18 As an upsurge in tax discourages consumption, an increase in tax on the use of personal cars will discourage many Los Angeles from driving; their attention will be diverted to the most appropriate substitute, cycling. Likewise, there is a great potential to reduce the number of cars by increasing the tax by 25%. In other words, the number of cyclists would increase significantly. Thus, increasing tax will result in decrease in number of personal vehicles in Los Angeles. Apparently, adoption of the Bicycle Sharing System will result in improvement in public health. As many cars are on the street today, people in Los Angeles are suffering from serious air pollution. The phenomenon gets even worse depending on seasons, as people tend to use their personal vehicles more in the winter. One of serious problems that Los Angeles faces is that the rate of preterm births is significantly increasing. Scientists suggested causes of it, and they pointed that emission of greenhouse gases plays a major role in the cause. According to Ninez A Ponce’s article, the risk for preterm delivery increases as a pregnant woman I exposed to pollution.19 Through Bicycle Sharing System, the government can expect the rate of preterm delivery to be reduced from 12% to 9.4 %. This will be a great plus on prenatal and maternal health. Moreover, Los Angeles would be able to reduce the number of cars. This indicates that traffic would not be as heavy as it currently is. Los Angeles did not develop a good public transportation network. As a result, Los Angeles has the greatest number of vehicles per person in the world. The growth of population exponentially increases; thus, this would create more serious problems. The article, Los Angeles: Traffic and Smog, declares that, “If the population increases by 5 million…vehicle-miles traveled will rise 68 percent and 40 percent more trips will be taken.”20 This means that Los Angeles would suffer from traffic and pollution due to drastic growth of number of cars. However, this also means that if people in Los Angeles ride a bicycle, there would not be any problem with traffic as well as pollution. Thus, adopting the Bicycle Sharing System would bring a result of reduction in traffic as well as improvement in public health. In conclusion, the above explications candidly and comprehensively indicates that as the Los Angeles increases, the city will suffer serious health and traffic problems that will inherently jeopardize the government’s mission of providing a serene and amiable life to all the citizens. To avert these imminent problems, I perceive and recommend the Bicycle Sharing System as the best tool. The system been adopted in various cities and the results have proved satisfactory. Moreover, the cost of implementing the system is cheaper than expansion of the roads. Therefore, the Bicycle Sharing System is the most ideal way to reduce the problem with pollution and traffic in Los Angeles, thus aiding in achieving and maintaining a city where pollution and traffic levels are manageable rather than an ignominy to our fairly just society. Bibliography: Dill, Jennifer, and Theresa Carr. "Bicycle commuting and facilities in major US cities: if you build them, commuters will use them." Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1828 (2003): 116-123. Glaeser, Edward L. Psychology and the Market. No. w10203. National Bureau of Economic Research, 2004. Hu, T. W., and Zhengzhong Mao. "Effects of cigarette tax on cigarette consumption and the Chinese economy." Tobacco control 11.2 (2002): 105-108. Logan, John R., Wenquan Zhang, and Richard D. Alba. "Immigrant enclaves and ethnic communities in New York and Los Angeles." American sociological review (2002): 299-322. Los Angeles: Traffic and Smog. 36 Vol. , 1994. Ponce, Ninez A., et al. "Preterm birth: the interaction of traffic-related air pollution with economic hardship in Los Angeles neighborhoods." American journal of epidemiology 162.2 (2005): 140-148. Shu, Jia, et al. "Bicycle-sharing system: deployment, utilization and the value of re-distribution." National University of Singapore-NUS Business School, Singapore (2010). Small, Kenneth A., and Camilla Kazimi. "On the costs of air pollution from motor vehicles." Journal of Transport Economics and policy (1995): 7-32. Te Brake, William H. "Air pollution and fuel crises in preindustrial London, 1250-1650." Technology and Culture (1975): 337-359. Read More