The Brief

Ah, 1923 in Los Angeles. What a different time.

It was the debut year of iconic L.A. monuments like the Hollywood sign, the Biltmore Hotel, and the Memorial Coliseum.

You had to be there, but that year was also a big deal for local public transit. L.A.’s first bus took off along Western Avenue on Aug. 18, 1923. That’s just over 100 years ago, if you’re counting.

Nowadays, Metro operates some 2,000 buses around Los Angeles. Looking back, what can we learn from the early days of public transit in L.A.? And what is the history behind the city's first bus line?

I took these questions to our transit experts: India Mandelkern, Metro’s blog editor, and Matthew Barrett, who heads Metro's research library and archive.

The bus line along Western Ave. debuted in 1923.

(

Courtesy LA Metro

)

Setting the scene

Q: India, you write in your piece about the first bus line that local traffic congestion was really bad back in August 1923. What climate was L.A.’s first bus entering into? 

IM: Well, L.A. already had a very robust streetcar network, but Western Avenue, where the first bus line got started, didn't actually have streetcars. For that reason, it was a really great choice for a bus line. The intersection of Wilshire and Western was the busiest intersection in pre-freeway Los Angeles. Also, traffic lights and signals, all those things were really new back then. Driving the streets was a little bit more like the Wild West. If you look at the early photos, it almost looks like a free-for-all.

MB: And there was no freeway system. The amount of time it took to get to Santa Monica in the 1920s is pretty much the same as it is today with the freeways, because of huge growth in population and congestion!

A vintage public bus from the 1920s.

(

Courtesy LA Metro

)

Q: Like you said, the first bus route was down Western Avenue, between Los Feliz Boulevard and Slauson Avenue. Why was that location chosen?

IM: It was very, very, congested, and it didn't already have streetcar tracks. So the bus was pretty much the only game in town if you wanted to move a large quantity of people in one vehicle.

MB: And this was a joint effort between two major transit providers in L.A. — the Pacific Electric Red Car system, the long-distance Metrolink of its day, and the Yellow Cars of L.A., the local streetcar system. The two of them got together and formed this bus company (called Los Angeles Motor Bus Co.) in order to make connections between their systems. The buses were thought of as a feeder system to the rail systems. And Western just never had any streetcars on it.

When buses were a novel concept

Q: Buses were an entirely new thing back then. What was public perception like, were people resistant or receptive? 

IM: It was really considered a novel, innovative thing to do. In this time, buses were considered more car-like than your streetcar. Early advertisements for buses tout things like, they had leather seats and really spacious aisles and you could board on the curb and you didn't have to go into the middle of the road like many streetcar stops. The public was very enthusiastic about them and within a couple months, another bus line got started and they were carrying about 10,000 passengers every day.

MB: A bus back then was as car-like as you could get if you couldn’t afford a car. It was looked at as a step up from rail.

The interior of an old public bus serving Los Angeles in the 1920s.

(

Courtesy LA Metro

)

Buses v. streetcars

Q: How did the new bus system interact with the streetcar system? 

IM: As Matthew pointed out, it was a joint venture between two streetcar companies that formed the first bus company. And as early as 1925, 1926, some of the less used streetcar tracks were already being converted into bus lines. There’s this perception that buses ran streetcars out of business, but that isn’t really true. Buses continued into areas where streetcar tracks weren’t going. Streetcar track was expensive to build, and buses were touted as trackless transportation. The idea that they could just go off route, make a detour — that was very innovative at the time.

Q: What were safety precautions like on those early buses? 

MB: Back in the streetcar era, buses were patrolled by special agents that were part of the staff of the L.A. Railway and Pacific Electric and L.A. Motor Coach. (Los Angeles Motor Bus Co. was later renamed Los Angeles Motor Coach Lines). You have to remember they were private companies and fare box revenue was the only revenue they had, so fare evasion was a big deal. The special agents that were employed by the company coordinated with LAPD if there were any issues that required arrests.

They also used to make exact change on buses and trains. In 1968, they went to exact change (fares), because it was too much of a temptation for some passengers to commit robberies of the operator's change belts. So, that indicates to me that things were pretty safe all the way up until maybe the late ‘60s.

Wilshire Boulevard in 1932

(

Courtesy LA Metro

)

A long history of alternative fuels

Q: I understand L.A. has long experimented with alternative fuel. To what extent was the bus system involved in that? 

MB: We had gas electric buses in the ‘20s. We had 60 propane-powered buses in the ‘50s. We went to propane buses for the mini-bus system, which is today's DASH system, in the ‘70s. The Rapid Transit District (RTD) even built its own in-house air quality lab to try and figure out how to reduce the particulates in diesel with particulate traps, and then they went to methanol and ethanol, and then finally CNG. In the ‘40s-’60s, L.A. had two electric trolley bus lines, and now we're moving back toward electrified buses again. So, for a city that was well-renowned for its oil wealth in the ‘20s and ‘30s, even with all of that cultural pressure and focusing on the petroleum industry, the transit system was still experimenting with alternative fuels during this entire time.

A case for buses as innovation, then and now

Q: Any closing thoughts on the role buses played back then, and now? 

IM: Before we had the resources to build rail, and after the demise of the streetcars, buses were rapid transit. That was the only way that people were able to get around. Buses came out of a moment where crippling automobile congestion was preventing people from getting around, and they reflect this way we’ve responded to situations at hand and found innovative solutions.

For more information about LA’s first bus, you can read India Mandelkern’s piece in Metro’s ‘The Source.’

News that Warner Bros. Discovery is up for sale has Hollywood buzzing. The legendary film studio, which has grown to include streaming services and cable channels, is currently accepting non-binding bids until Thursday. According to company spokesperson Robert Gibbs, they expect to have a decision about the sale by Christmas.

It's become something of a Hollywood parlor game to guess who will ultimately take over the business, which was founded in 1923 by four brothers: Harry, Albert, Sam and Jack Warner. They owned a movie theater in Pennsylvania before coming to Hollywood to make movies.

Warner Brothers Pictures found one of its first silent picture stars in a German shepherd named Rin Tin Tin. By 1927, the studio made history with its feature-length "talkie" picture: The Jazz Singer, starring Al Jolson.

Over the years, Warner Brothers has made or distributed countless iconic films including: Casablanca, The Big Sleep and The Maltese Falcon in the 1940's. The list goes on, with titles like A Clockwork Orange, Goodfellas, Barbie, as well as Bugs Bunny and all the Looney Tunes cartoons.

Warners Brothers has had multiple owners over the decades. Three years ago, Warner Media, as it was called, merged with Discovery. And in June, the company announced it would split in two, with film, TV and streaming studios in one camp, and in the other, mostly legacy cable channels, including CNN.

The planned split has not yet happened, and a new buyer might get the entirety of Warner Bros. Discovery and its film and TV libraries.

As the film industry continues to consolidate, there's speculation that Warner Brothers' old rival Paramount could take over. Having just merged as Paramount Skydance, CEO David Ellison has already made several overtures.

The idea of streaming giant Netflix buying the company has raised antitrust concerns on Capitol Hill. In an earnings call last month, Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos told investors, "We've been very clear in the past that we have no interest in owning legacy media networks. There is no change there."

Industry watchers suggest other suitors could be Comcast, Amazon, or an investor who's not already in the entertainment business.

Regardless of whoever does end up buying the company, theater owners say they hope making movies for cinemas will be a priority.

"As long as we have more movies," says Daniel Loria, senior vice president at The Boxoffice Company, which analyzes data from studios and theaters. "That doesn't mean the same amount, doesn't mean less, but more movies. I think you're going to find folks in the movie theater industry support any business decision that gets us there."

Loria recalls that after Disney purchased Fox and Fox Searchlight, their combined studios significantly reduced the number of films they released in the theaters. Crunching the numbers, Loria says in 2016, a year before the merger announcement, Disney and Fox released a total of 38 theatrical films. This year, the consolidated studios released 18.

That's a problem for theater owners who've been struggling to bring audiences back to cinemas after the COVID-19 pandemic shut them down; they're competing with movie-watching on TVs, computers and phones.

Some theater owners and cinephiles also fear studio conglomerates will only greenlight a few big-budget blockbusters, leaving the lower budget indies behind.

"The concern is you're going to see less of that risk taking, less of that experimentation and less of that embracing new directors, new filmmakers in the future," says Max Friend, the CEO of Filmbot, the ticketing platform for independent cinemas in the U.S. "It's really important that there are studios that are funding and supporting, cultivating that kind of work."

He points out that this year, Warner Brothers made a string of critical hits, including Ryan Coogler's Sinners, the horror film Weapons and Paul Thomas Anderson's One Battle After Another.

Friend wonders if the next owner will take similar risks with future original, creative films.

Warner Bros. Discovery is a financial supporter of NPR.

Copyright 2025 NPR

A downtown hearing kicked off Wednesday, during which a federal judge will consider holding the city of Los Angeles in contempt of court. The hearing is the latest step in a long-running legal saga regarding the city's response to the region’s homelessness crisis.

The hearing was ordered by U.S. District Judge David O. Carter, who has been overseeing a settlement in a lawsuit brought against the city by the L.A. Alliance for Human Rights, a group of downtown business and property owners. L.A. Alliance sued the city, and county, in 2020 for failing to adequately address homelessness.

Several witnesses are expected to testify during the contempt-of-court hearing, including Gita O’Neill, the new head of the region’s top homeless services agency, and Matt Szabo, the L.A. city administrative officer.

L.A. County Supervisor Kathryn Barger watched at least part of Wednesday’s hearing in the courtroom.

Why now?

Carter said in court documents that he’s concerned “the city has demonstrated a continuous pattern of delay” in meeting its obligations under court orders. During a hearing last week, the judge pointed to several delays, including recently reported issues related to data and interviewing city employees.

The judge noted that similar concerns have come up at previous hearings. Carter told attorneys for the city in March 2024 that he “indicated to the mayor that I’ve already reached the decision that the plaintiffs were misled” and “this is bad faith,” according to court transcripts.

The judge said in a Nov. 14 order that he’s concerned the “delay continues to this day.”

The contempt hearing is expected to cover whether the city has complied with court orders and provided regular updates to the court under the settlement agreement.

Reducing delays

Attorneys for the city have pushed back against the hearing, filing objections with the judge and making an unsuccessful emergency request with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to block it from happening.

City authorities also asked the appeals court to press pause on the judge’s order to appoint a monitor in the case to make sure the city stays on track with the settlement. The city argued that Carter handed the monitor “a blank check to interfere with the democratic process,” according to court documents.

The appeals court partly denied the city’s request. It allowed Wednesday’s hearing to move forward, but it agreed to pause the appointment of Daniel Garrie as monitor.

In light of that response, attorneys for the city have argued that looking at the city’s cooperation with Garrie “would be inappropriate” during the hearing and that L.A. “cannot be held in contempt for either the substance or the manner of its compliance with the order,” according to court documents.

Previous hearings related to the settlement have elicited tense questioning of witnesses and harsh words from the judge, who has been vocal about reducing delays and moving the case forward.

In an opening statement Wednesday, Theane Evangelis — one of the attorneys representing the city — urged the judge to “turn down the heat” on the closely watched case. Evangelis said the “city is constantly under fire” in court while L.A. has made “enormous strides” in getting people off the streets.

Elizabeth Mitchell, lead attorney for L.A. Alliance, said the city treats transparency as a burden.

She said Wednesday that the “city still fights oversight harder than it fights homelessness” and that the court should address L.A. 's “consistent” delays throughout the case.

What’s next?

The hearing will resume Dec. 2, when more witnesses can appear in person.

City authorities told the court they believed a one-day hearing wouldn't be enough time to go over all the evidence.

If the judge does find the city of L.A. in contempt of court and that it "isn't doing what it promised to do," the consequences could range from nothing all the way up to serious sanctions, according to Matthew Umhofer, an attorney for L.A. Alliance.

Umhofer told LAist after the hearing that sanctions could include the court ordering more intensive monitoring of the city’s performance, imposing new requirements on the city, monetary penalties or possibly a receivership.

Carter previously stopped short of seizing control of the city’s hundreds of millions of dollars in homelessness spending and handing it to a court-appointed receiver, deciding against that option in a June ruling.

L.A. Alliance is considering asking for an extension to the settlement agreement, Umhofer said.

“The city has gotten away with not complying for a very long time,” he said. “So extending the agreement can be among the things that we might ask for ... given the pattern of delay and obstruction."

Evangelis and Bradley Hamburger, another attorney representing the city, declined LAist’s request for comment after the hearing.