> A simple example of this is the ridiculous concentration of tech and aerospace companies inside of a zone that requires almost everyone to use the 405 freeway

> A simple example of this is the ridiculous concentration of tech and aerospace companies inside of a zone that requires almost everyone to use the 405 freeway. That's a reason why mass transit in LA doesn't work now, not how it came to be that way. You seemed to have stopped reading before I literally said the current problem was zoning and building (aka urban planning). I lived in LA myself and have felt the length of a trip taking the expo line all the way in/out and how it isn't a viable commute. The sprawl of LA renders the bus system nearly useless as well. > Sorry, this is false. Los Angeles simply didn't evolve to favor public transportation in the way a lot of European cities have. > So, no, car companies have nothing whatsoever to do with it. It's about urban planning and design. Urban planning doesn't exist in isolation, it is shaped by those in power at the time, in every city. The motor industry absolutely was a power player that had a vested interest in pushing urban planning towards a vision of a city that meant cars coming in from suburbs instead of dense urban areas where public transit would actually be effective. LA is not alone in this within the US. Of course they weren't the only factor, a good example being white flight hitting cities pretty hard as well. But to say the car industry was not involved is 100% false. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp... > Between 1938 and 1950, National City Lines and its subsidiaries, American City Lines and Pacific City Lines—with investment from GM, Firestone Tire, Standard Oil of California (through a subsidiary), Federal Engineering, Phillips Petroleum, and Mack Trucks—gained control of additional transit systems in about 25 cities.[3] Systems included St. Louis, Baltimore, Los Angeles, and Oakland.