Was there a time it was considered that “The City of Angeles,” had reached “Peak Car?”

I recently came across an article posted by the Metro Digital Resources Librarian on the Dorothy Peyton Gray Transportation Library and Archive web site run by Metro Los Angeles. The article talked about LA’s new obsession with the automobile and how it gained popularity, in the early 1920s.

Peak Car Era

Library researchers pointed out that notable resources concurred with this, including Scott L. Bottles’ Los Angeles and the Automobile: The Making of the Modern City, and Ashleigh Brilliant’s The Great Car Craze, How Southern California Collided with the Automobile in the 1920s.

The automobile was new and fresh, and also offered freedom to its owners, who realized that they could become more mobile and not rely solely on the massive LA street car network at the time.  The number of vehicle registrations in Los Angeles had quadrupled in just an eight-year period from 1914-1922.

“Automobile use exploded as the passenger vehicle transitioned from a hobbyist’s pursuit to a relatively affordable means of getting around the sprawling region and beyond.”

Metro Librarian found out what was happening on the public transit side of the story when they found an article published in Electric Railway Journal titled “California and Her Tractions, Part II.“

MetroDigital Resource Librarian:

As one of several features titled “A Series of Articles on Salient Phases of the Electric Railway Situation,” author Edward Hungerford details the then current state of public transit in the Los Angeles area.

Advertisement

And within that overview, he interviews Paul Shoup, Pacific Electric Railways president and vice-president of Southern Pacific Company.

Hungerford documents Pacific Electric’s earnings in a recent six-month period, and asks Shoup “for the real translation of these figures.”

Shoup responds by stating:

“They mean that the peak of the competition of the automobile, publicly or privately owned or operated, has been reached out here — and passed. Not only is the rapidly rising cost of cars and tires and gasoline and oil beginning to deter the overenthusiastic motorists, but I think that the novelty of excessive motor riding also is rather wearing off. The hazards of driving on crowded highways are becoming more apparent and parking spaces in towns and cities more a question of doubt.

In addition to our great numbers of motor stage routes in every direction, we now have some 500,000 automobiles in California licensed for pleasure purposes, to which should be added the cars owned and operated by the 100,000 Easterners who come out here every winter. The competitive effect of all these cars has been, and still is, vast indeed. But we already can see in it a declining curve.“

Yes, you read that right, Shoup declared that personal vehicle usage had peaked and that it was on the decline.

Shoup explains that Los Angeles Railway profits were consistent with those of Pacific Electric, but acknowledges that “increases in both operating cost and taxes had gone ahead a little more than proportionately.” But he intimates that the rising cost of automobile operation (gas, tires) means that cars will cease their encroachment into transit’s share of mobility.

MetroDigital Resource Librarian:

Advertisement

This statement was part of an interview published in a national journal. Was he telling industry professionals what they wanted to hear? Did he want to assuage fears of rail employees that their jobs were going to disappear as more people purchased and used automobiles? Was he hoping that his perspective would turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy so he could remain atop Pacific Electric and Southern Pacific?

You can read the full article here: https://metroprimaryresources.info/when-los-angeles-was-declared-to-have-hit-peak-car-in-1920/15665/

https://stmdailynews.com/blog

https://stmdailynews.com/category/stm-blog/blog/

Erin Coughlan de Perez, Tufts University

These days, it’s hard to escape news stories discussing how climate change is contributing to extreme weather disasters, including the recent U.S. hurricanes. Aid agencies are increasingly worried about the widespread damage.

A growing question as these disasters worsen in a warming world is how to pay for recoveries, particularly in poorer countries that have contributed the least to climate change.

I am a climate scientist who researches disasters, and I work with disaster managers on solutions to deal with the increasing risk of extreme events. The usual sources of disaster aid funding haven’t come close to meeting the need in hard-hit countries in recent years. So, groups are developing new ways to meet the need more effectively. In some cases, they are getting aid to countries before the damage occurs.

Disaster aid funds aren’t meeting growing need

Countries have a few ways that they typically send money and aid to other countries that need help when disasters hit. They can send direct government-to-government aid, contribute to aid coordinated by the United Nations, or support disaster response efforts by groups like the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement.

However, the support from these systems is almost never enough.

In 2023, the amount of humanitarian funding through the U.N. was about US$22 billion. The U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs estimated that countries hit hard by disasters actually needed about $57 billion in U.N. humanitarian aid. This does not even include the costs borne directly by disaster-affected people and their governments.

https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/LO7Uw/1

Advertisement

To help address damages specifically from climate change, the global community agreed at the U.N. climate conference in 2022 to create a new method – a Loss and Damage Fund. Loss and damage is generally defined as consequences of climate change that go beyond what people are able to adapt to.

The goal of the fund is for countries that historically have done the most to cause climate change to provide funding to other countries that did little to cause it yet are experiencing increasing climate-related disasters.

https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/S1jUD/1

So far, however, the Loss and Damage Fund is tiny compared to the cost of climate-related disasters. As of late September 2024, total pledges to the Loss and Damage Fund were about US$700 million. According to one estimate, the costs directly attributable to climate change, including loss of life, are over $100 billion per year.

One goal of the 2024 U.N. climate conference, underway Nov. 11-22 in Azerbaijan, is to increase those contributions.

Sending aid before the disasters hit

In response to these growing needs, the disaster management community is getting creative about how it helps countries finance disaster risk reduction and response.

Traditionally, humanitarian funding arrives after a disaster happens, when photos and videos of the horrible event encourage governments to contribute financial support and a needs assessment has been completed.

Advertisement

However, with today’s technology, it’s possible to forecast many climate-related disasters before they happen, and there is no reason for the humanitarian system to wait to respond until after the disaster happens.

A global network of aid groups and researchers I work with has been developing anticipatory action systems designed to make funding available to countries when an extreme event is forecast but before the disaster hits.

This can allow countries to provide cash for people to use for evacuation when a flood is forecast, open extra medical services when a heat wave is expected, or distribute drought-tolerant seeds when a drought is forecast, for example.

Insurance that pays out early to avoid harm

Groups are also developing novel forms of insurance that can provide predictable finance for these changing catastrophes.

Traditional insurance can be expensive and slow to assess individual claims. One solution is “index insurance” that pays out based on drought information without needing to wait to assess the actual losses.

African nations created an anticipatory drought insurance product that can pay out when the drought starts happening, without waiting for the end of the season to come and the crops to fail. This could, in theory, allow farmers to replant with a drought-resilient crop in time to avoid a failed harvest.

Without insurance, disaster-affected people usually bear the costs of disaster. Therefore, experts recommend insurance as a critical part of an overall strategy for climate change adaptation.

Boosting social protection systems

Another promising area of innovation is the design of social services that can scale up when needed for extreme weather events.

These are called climate-smart social protection systems. For example, existing programs that provide food for low-income families can be scaled up during and after a drought to ensure that people have sufficient and nutritious food during the climate shock.

Advertisement

This requires government coordination among the variety of social services offered, and it offers promise to support vulnerable communities in the face of the rising number of extreme weather events.

Future of the Loss and Damage Fund

To complement these innovative disaster risk finance mechanisms, aid from other countries is crucial, and the Loss and Damage Fund is a key part of that.

There are still many areas of debate around the U.N.’s Loss and Damage Fund and what counts as true financial support. There have been discussions over whether investing in a country’s resilience to future disasters counts, whether existing financial systems should be used to channel finance to countries in need, and what damages are truly beyond the limits to adaptation and qualify.

The new Loss and Damage Fund is only of a part of a mosaic of initiatives that is seeking to address climate disasters.

These novel mechanisms to finance disaster risk are exciting, but they ultimately need to be created in conjunction with investments in adaptation and resilience so that extreme weather events cause less damage when they happen. Communities will need to plant different crops, build flood drainage systems and live in adaptive buildings. Managing climate risk requires a variety of innovative solutions before, during and after disaster events.

Erin Coughlan de Perez, Professor of Climate Risk Management, Tufts University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Advertisement

The Bridge is a section of the STM Daily News Blog meant for diversity, offering real news stories about bona fide community efforts to perpetuate a greater good. The purpose of The Bridge is to connect the divides that separate us, fostering understanding and empathy among different groups. By highlighting positive initiatives and inspirational actions, The Bridge aims to create a sense of unity and shared purpose. This section brings to light stories of individuals and organizations working tirelessly to promote inclusivity, equality, and mutual respect. Through these narratives, readers are encouraged to appreciate the richness of diverse perspectives and to participate actively in building stronger, more cohesive communities.

https://stmdailynews.com/the-bridge

Charles J. Russo, University of Dayton

Do the Ten Commandments have a valid place in U.S. classrooms? Louisiana’s Legislature and governor insist the answer is “yes.” But on Nov. 12, 2024, a federal judge said “no.”

U.S. District Judge John W. deGravelles blocked the state’s controversial House Bill 71, which Gov. Jeff Landry had signed into law on June 19, 2024. The measure would have required all schools that receive public funding to post a specific version of the commandments, similar to the King James translation of the Bible used in many, but not all, Protestant churches. It is not the same version used by Catholics or Jews.

Officials were also supposed to post a context statement highlighting the role of the Ten Commandments in American history and could display the Pilgrims’ Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, a federal enactment to settle the frontier – and the earliest congressional document encouraging the creation of schools.

The law’s defenders argued that its purpose was not only religious, but historical. Judge deGravelles, though, firmly rejected that argument, striking down HB 71 as “unconstitutional on its face and in all applications.” The law had an “overtly religious” purpose, he wrote, in violation of the First Amendment, according to which “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Regardless of the Ten Commandments’ impact on civil law, there was a clear religious intent behind Louisiana’s law. During debate over its passage, for example, the bill’s author, state Rep. Dodie Horton said, “I’m not concerned with an atheist. I’m not concerned with a Muslim. I’m concerned with our children looking and seeing what God’s law is.”

Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill has said she intends to appeal the judge’s ruling.

As someone who teaches and researches law around religion and education, with an eye toward defending religious freedom, I believe this is an important test case at a time when the Supreme Court’s thinking on religion and public education is becoming more religion-friendly – perhaps the most it has ever been.

Advertisement

How SCOTUS has ruled before

Litigation over the Ten Commandments is not new. More than 40 years ago, in Stone v. Graham, the Supreme Court rejected a Kentucky statute that mandated displays of the Ten Commandments in classrooms.

The court reasoned that the underlying law violated the First Amendment’s establishment clause – “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” – because the mandate lacked a secular purpose.

The justices were not persuaded by a small notation on posters that described the Ten Commandments as the “fundamental legal code of Western Civilization and the Common Law of the United States.”

Twenty-five years later, the Supreme Court again took up cases challenging public displays of the Ten Commandments, although not in schools. This time, the justices reached mixed results.

The first arose in Kentucky where officials had erected a county courthouse display of texts including the Ten Commandments, the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence and a biblical citation. In a 2005 ruling in McCreary County, Kentucky v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky the five-member majority agreed that the display of the Ten Commandments violated the establishment clause, largely because it lacked a secular legislative purpose.

On the same day, though, the Supreme Court reached the opposite result in Van Orden v. Perry, a case from Texas. The court upheld the constitutionality of a display of the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the state capitol as one of 17 monuments and 21 historical markers commemorating Texas’ history.

Unlike the fairly new display in Kentucky, the one in Texas, which had existed since the early 1960s, was erected using private funds. The court permitted the Ten Commandments to remain because, despite their religious significance, the Texas monument was a more passive display, not posted on the courthouse door.

Advertisement

Louisiana’s law

Louisiana’s law would have required public school officials to display framed copies of the Ten Commandments in all public school classrooms. Posters were supposed to be at least 11-by-14 inches and printed with a large, easily readable font. The legislation would have allowed, but did not require, officials to use state funds to purchase these posters. Displays could also be received as donations or purchased with gifted funds.

The bill’s author, Horton, previously sponsored Louisiana’s law mandating that “In God We Trust” be posted in public school classrooms.

In defending the Ten Commandments proposal, Horton said it honors the country’s origins.

“The Ten Commandments are the basis of all laws in Louisiana,” she told fellow lawmakers, “and given all the junk our children are exposed to in classrooms today, it’s imperative that we put the Ten Commandments back in a prominent position.”

Justifying the bill, Horton pointed to Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, a 2022 Supreme Court decision. Here, the justices held that educational officials could not prevent a football coach from praying on the field at the end of games because he engaged in personal religious observance protected by the First Amendment.

“The landscape has changed,” she said.

New frontier

Indeed it has.

For decades, the Supreme Court used a three-part measure called the Lemon v. Kurtzman test to assess whether a government action violated the establishment clause. Under this test, when a government action or policy intersects with religion, it had to meet three criteria. A policy had to have a secular legislative purpose; its principal or primary effect could neither advance nor inhibit religion; and it could not result in excessive entanglement between state and religious officials.

Advertisement

Another test the Supreme Court sometimes applied, stemming from Lynch v. Donnelly in 1984, invalidated governmental actions appearing to endorse religion.

The majority of the current court, though, abandoned both the Lemon and endorsement tests in Kennedy v. Bremerton. Writing for the court, Justice Neil Gorsuch ruled that “the Establishment Clause must be interpreted by ‘reference to historical practices and understandings.’” He added that the court “long ago abandoned Lemon and its endorsement test offshoot.”

What that new historical practices and understandings standard means remains to be seen.

More than 80 years ago, in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette the Supreme Court decided in a 6-3 opinion that students cannot be compelled to salute the American flag, which includes reciting the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, if doing so goes against their religious beliefs. While H.B. 71 does not require students to recite the Ten Commandments, they would be constantly exposed to its presence in their classrooms, reducing them to what the judge described as a “captive audience” – violating their parents’ rights to the free exercise of religion.

In 1962’s Engel v. Vitale, the Supreme Court’s first case on prayer in public schools, the majority observed that “the Founders of our Constitution [recognized] that religion is too personal, too sacred, too holy,” to permit civil authorities to impose particular beliefs. I see no reason to abandon that view.

This is an updated version of an article originally published on June 4, 2024.

Charles J. Russo, Joseph Panzer Chair in Education and Research Professor of Law, University of Dayton

Advertisement

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

STM Daily News is a vibrant news blog dedicated to sharing the brighter side of human experiences. Emphasizing positive, uplifting stories, the site delivers inspiring, informative, and well-researched content. With a commitment to accurate, fair, and responsible journalism, STM Daily News aims to foster a community of readers passionate about positive change and engaged in meaningful conversations. Join the movement and explore stories that celebrate the positive impacts shaping our world.

https://stmdailynews.com/