Introduction
In Southern California, cars are more than just a means of transportation; they are symbols of membership and identity. While the region’s deeply rooted car culture is central to the California lifestyle, it also comes with major drawbacks. Los Angeles (LA) consistently ranks among the top ten most congested cities in the U.S. and is home to two of the nation’s ten most traffic-clogged roads. This car dependency also degrades the environment significantly by increasing air pollution and smog. In light of these issues, many city officials are trying to encourage residents to move away from private vehicle use and embrace public transportation. However, with the upcoming 2028 Summer Olympics being hosted in LA, this attempt to promote public transportation presents a multitude of unique challenges—especially considering the city’s goal to have 100 percent of Olympic spectators travel to venues via public transit.
LA’s Olympic Transit Plan
City leaders view the upcoming Olympic Games as an opportunity to promote its transportation system. The last time LA hosted the Olympics, in 1984, the city’s public transportation system was minimal. This time, however, the expectation for adequate transportation is much higher. Hosting the Games offers a unique opportunity to reimagine how LA residents and visitors alike can move through the city. For example, city officials plan to prohibit visitor parking at or near venues, restricting entrance to only public buses and shuttles. However, many questions remain regarding the success of this transit plan; the citywide hesitance to accept public transportation may impede the ambitious plan.
Challenges to Implementation
One of the many challenges associated with the “no cars” initiative comes from the popularity of ride-hailing services like Uber and Lyft. With Uber being the largest corporate sponsor of the 2028 Games, its promotions may appeal to those in LA more than public transport options, undermining the “no cars” transit plan. Experts warn that reliance on ride-hailing services will only worsen congestion and environmental harm. Additionally, the creation of a supplemental shuttle system could pose a financial burden, costing an extra $1 billion on top of the over $10 billion cost of hosting the Olympics.
There is also concern that the proposed transit system will not have the capacity to accommodate the amount of people coming to the Olympics. The Games are expected to bring in daily spectators equivalent to seven Super Bowl crowds, meaning that hundreds of thousands of people must be moved by LA’s metro system. While urban planners argue that the infrastructure construction could be a catalyst for economic growth through job creation, the difficulty of implementing such work could actually have the opposite effect. Many employers are staggering work hours and allowing employees to work remotely to reduce local traffic, which could suppress local economic activity and offset potential tourism-related revenue—placing LA at risk of financial loss rather than benefit.
Citywide reluctance to use public transportation may also pose an issue. Public bus ridership in LA has dropped by 25 percent throughout the past decade, with residents citing issues such as unreliable schedules, poor cleanliness, and traffic delays. There are also significant safety concerns amongst locals, as violent crimes on buses, trains, and within stations increased by 55 percent between 2022 and 2023. Ultimately, these issues highlight the need for a major investment in the quality and reliability of the LA transit system before any additional infrastructural work can be done; it is unlikely that the city will reach its transit goals without first cultivating a shift in public perception.
Previous Host Cities: How Were They Different?
Paris, the host of the 2024 Games, has a metro system that is over a century old and serves more than 4 million people daily. Conversely, the LA metro is used by a mere 300,000 people per day. With trains that have a capacity of only 1,500 people, experts anticipate long wait times for public transport if it is not expanded; this would be especially problematic in the context of the Olympic Games, where attendees may need to use transportation at the same time as events commence and conclude.
One of the largest successes of a host city comes from the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, Georgia. While normal ridership of their public transit system, MARTA, was around 475,000 people per weekday, it managed to transport over 800,000 attendees daily during the Games—making it widely recognized as one of the best cities to have hosted the Olympics. One of the city’s pivotal strategies was its nationwide borrowing of 2,000 buses and ban on private vehicle access to venues.
Conclusion
Despite these exemplary cases, LA faces significant challenges. The city is already grappling with a $1 billion budget deficit and has only received 5.2 percent of the $3.3 billion it requested in federal funding. Without significant additional funding, achieving the city’s Olympic “no cars” initiative appears almost impossible and largely detrimental to the environment and pre-existing traffic problems.
Ultimately, LA’s most pressing issue isn’t just financial or logistical—it’s cultural. While city leaders continue to brainstorm ways in which public transportation can be used and improved, citizens reject it mainly because the city’s large urban sprawl mimics a car-dependent suburban lifestyle. Unless LA can shift such a deeply ingrained mindset, its infrastructure will remain ill-equipped to support a successful, sustainable Olympic Games in 2028.
On February 3, 2026, Congress approved the LA Metro’s $94.3 million dollar budget to invest in advancing the Games Enhanced Transit Systems. These projects include improving pedestrian access design, station experience, light rail improvements and mobility hubs near the Games venues. According to the January 2026 Memorandum of Understanding, the Metro’s “Games Security Plan” is due by December 31, 2027.