The Next Challenge
The Next Challenge
More than any other nation, Americans continue to love their cars!
In contrast to some construction trends, Americans are not fond of public transportation. This is true even in the northeastern states where such transportation systems are centuries old. Not only do Americans not like mass transit, they have constructed dysfunctional networks which they continually try to improve by adding costly new technologies. The flashpoint is always a fight between the time savings and convenience of the automobile and the energy efficiency of a multiple people carrier. As we continue to realize the dangers posed by fossil fuels, our willingness to make changes should accelerate. Instead, we are fighting harder to keep driving. Transportation advocates are engaged in a movement to encourage more people to abandon their cars as a first option. It is a national challenge to improve mass transit by making it more affordable, more reliable, more nimble, and faster from point to point.
In contrast to some construction trends, Americans are not fond of public transportation. This is true even in the northeastern states where such transportation systems are centuries old. Not only do Americans not like mass transit, they have constructed dysfunctional networks which they continually try to improve by adding costly new technologies. The flashpoint is always a fight between the time savings and convenience of the automobile and the energy efficiency of a multiple people carrier. As we continue to realize the dangers posed by fossil fuels, our willingness to make changes should accelerate. Instead, we are fighting harder to keep driving. Transportation advocates are engaged in a movement to encourage more people to abandon their cars as a first option. It is a national challenge to improve mass transit by making it more affordable, more reliable, more nimble, and faster from point to point.
However, is it a losing battle? In 2017 there was a national downturn in public ridership. It signaled the appearance of a trend. Only cities with strong bus networks were able to counter commuters who chose cars over public transportation. Studies also indicated that immigrants, a group that had long relied on public transportation, were moving out of cities and purchasing automobiles. Members of this group that commuted to cities shunned public transportation and overwhelmingly elected to drive to work. A growing national stigma against buses emerged, with only the poorest Americans relying on them for their main form of transportation. By 2019, among the major cities, only New York City's MTA, New Jersey Transit, and Washington, D.C.'s Metro revealed increases in public transportation ridership. In contrast, decreases were noted in Boston, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco and Seattle.
Consider the following: most mass transit systems are largely developed as rush hour networks featuring one-way modes of conveyance between suburbs and cities. Or to put it another way, modes of transportation favoring movement between less highly developed areas to highly developed areas in the morning and going in the other direction in the evenings. In many cases, mass transit does not work for those traveling during the middle of the day or those who are engaged in a reverse commute. And if time is of the essence, if the car provides the shorter trip, most travelers will select a car over mass transit. Automobiles provide a greater sense of comfort, safety, and reliability.
Consider the following: most mass transit systems are largely developed as rush hour networks featuring one-way modes of conveyance between suburbs and cities. Or to put it another way, modes of transportation favoring movement between less highly developed areas to highly developed areas in the morning and going in the other direction in the evenings. In many cases, mass transit does not work for those traveling during the middle of the day or those who are engaged in a reverse commute. And if time is of the essence, if the car provides the shorter trip, most travelers will select a car over mass transit. Automobiles provide a greater sense of comfort, safety, and reliability.
Less than 100 American cities are well served by public transportation, and in most cases these networks are incomplete. A case in point is New York City. There are large sections of the outer boroughs that are not well served by public transportation. During the majority of the 20th century, private enterprises both bus and taxi companies filled the voids operating in the less inhabited sections of the Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens. Staten Island, the most ignored part of the city, remains ill-served by public and private companies.
The next challenge for major cities like New York is to provide quality mass transit for the people living in the outskirts of the city and good transportation for those living in the inner suburbs who need to commute into the city or to the outer suburbs. A successful transportation system has to be a network that serves the needs of all travelers in a manner that reduces a reliance on cars. This also includes car hiring services like Lyft and Uber.
Commuters must be encouraged to transition to public transportation because it offers better alternatives to driving. For example, 1) it is more affordable than driving, 2) it is safer than driving, 3) it is faster than driving, 4) it is more relaxing than driving, and 5) it is better for the environment than driving. Drivers should not be taxed by congestion pricing schemes to abandon their vehicles but rather convinced that mass transit better serves their needs and can accommodate them at reasonable hours of the day.
In the coming months I plan to focus on aspects of this challenge by highlighting what is working and what is or has failed. Although most of the essays will concentrate on Metropolitan New York, I will include successful examples from other parts of the nation and the world.
In introducing the challenge, I need to provide some background information. Throughout the majority of the 20th century, the east coast was the forerunner of American transportation and transportation innovation. New York City emerged as the national leader, and New Yorkers believed that a network of subways, trolley/streetcars, and buses could meet their expectations. By late 1950s that belief began to falter. The trolleys were removed and a majority of the elevated subway lines disappeared. In response there were proposals for bus lanes, express buses, express subways, and more subway lines. The city's 1970's financial crisis ultimately killed many of those ideas. Increasing fares did not improve service, and the pace of improvements and modernization could not keep pace with the city's growth. New York never recovered. The slow pace in building and completing new systems, like the expansion of the Flushing line and the construction of the Second Avenue subway, are perfect illustrations of this type of decline.
Newer national trends never materialized in New York. Starting in the 1970s, the era of light rail, for example, evaded New York's developers. Initiated by San Diego's Trolley, light rail systems have appeared in numerous cities (including Newark, Portland, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Houston, Seattle, Buffalo and Dallas) across the nation. Cheaper than building underground, utilizing one, two or three car trains, light rail systems travel above ground at street to highway traffic speeds. Light rail became popular in the west, found some interest in the midwest and south, but did not gain a following in the northeast. Instead, by the turn of the century, the streetcar, a modified form of the light rail car, became popular in western and northeastern (including Portland, Seattle, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Cincinnati, Washington, D.C., and Charlotte) cities. Revitalized from the trolley cars found in 1950s America (like Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Boston, San Francisco and New Orleans), the new streetcar featured ground level cars with easy access for all riders.
Though believed convenient and thought to be a driver of local economies, several studies have posited that streetcars offer far less than promised. In 2014, City Lab's Eric Jaffe found that many streetcars lines travel along straight paths and at very slow speeds (no faster than buses with whom they often share the roads). Similarly, some critics argued that passengers could walk faster than the streetcars. Transportation expert Yonah Freemark noted that they run less frequently than expected and fall short of customer demand. Observers of the Washington, D. C. streetcar suggested that it was not designed for the city's streets leading to massive infrastructure projects to accommodate its placement. Following its introduction, the D.C. line often created traffic jams and sometimes accidents. A 2016 study, Streetcar Planning as Spatial Planning: A Shift in Transport Planning in the United States offers another conclusion. This report, undertaken by Professor David King of Columbia University, reveals that: "Though seemingly mobility investments, the intended impacts of these streetcar projects reach beyond transportation and represent a strong turn toward strategic spatial planning through transportation infrastructure. Proponents of modern streetcars argue that they are tools of place making as much as if not more than improvements for transit services. Unlike transit investments of a century ago, when privately operated streetcars were a decentralizing force that helped disperse overcrowded central city cores and open new land for real estate development, current streetcar projects in the United States are expected to concentrate activity and economic development in select corridors. The majority of these new systems rely on transit technologies that are significantly improved over the carriages of old, with modern features, smooth rides and quiet operations. Yet for all the improvements to the vehicles and services, new streetcar investments no longer primarily improve transit accessibility. Rather, modern streetcars are part of strategic amenity packages cities use to achieve real estate and economic development goals." Professor King notes that only with federal funding did streetcar development expand throughout the nation.
So the challenge of improving our transportation networks seems to rest on several factors. Americans are interested and quickly fall in love with technology. However, technology is only part of the answer. It is obvious that technology might make mass transit more attractive, but might be less functional. Transportation experts point out that vehicles like monorails, light rail, people movers and streetcars are glamorous and romantic but have glaring limitations. Perhaps, they do more for community development than moving people. Additionally, in the larger scheme of things, planning is critical to any network. The network has to be adaptable to change. What happens when commuting traffic flows in different directions? How can experts design a system that is flexible enough to meet the needs of the next generation? And ultimately, we must ask what makes mass transit work in cities in Asia, Africa and Europe but not in America? How can mass transit work in African and Asian cities that are twice as large as the largest American cities? What does is mean to have satisfied commuters?
I will explore those topics and more in the weeks to come.
The next challenge for major cities like New York is to provide quality mass transit for the people living in the outskirts of the city and good transportation for those living in the inner suburbs who need to commute into the city or to the outer suburbs. A successful transportation system has to be a network that serves the needs of all travelers in a manner that reduces a reliance on cars. This also includes car hiring services like Lyft and Uber.
Commuters must be encouraged to transition to public transportation because it offers better alternatives to driving. For example, 1) it is more affordable than driving, 2) it is safer than driving, 3) it is faster than driving, 4) it is more relaxing than driving, and 5) it is better for the environment than driving. Drivers should not be taxed by congestion pricing schemes to abandon their vehicles but rather convinced that mass transit better serves their needs and can accommodate them at reasonable hours of the day.
In the coming months I plan to focus on aspects of this challenge by highlighting what is working and what is or has failed. Although most of the essays will concentrate on Metropolitan New York, I will include successful examples from other parts of the nation and the world.
In introducing the challenge, I need to provide some background information. Throughout the majority of the 20th century, the east coast was the forerunner of American transportation and transportation innovation. New York City emerged as the national leader, and New Yorkers believed that a network of subways, trolley/streetcars, and buses could meet their expectations. By late 1950s that belief began to falter. The trolleys were removed and a majority of the elevated subway lines disappeared. In response there were proposals for bus lanes, express buses, express subways, and more subway lines. The city's 1970's financial crisis ultimately killed many of those ideas. Increasing fares did not improve service, and the pace of improvements and modernization could not keep pace with the city's growth. New York never recovered. The slow pace in building and completing new systems, like the expansion of the Flushing line and the construction of the Second Avenue subway, are perfect illustrations of this type of decline.
Newer national trends never materialized in New York. Starting in the 1970s, the era of light rail, for example, evaded New York's developers. Initiated by San Diego's Trolley, light rail systems have appeared in numerous cities (including Newark, Portland, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Houston, Seattle, Buffalo and Dallas) across the nation. Cheaper than building underground, utilizing one, two or three car trains, light rail systems travel above ground at street to highway traffic speeds. Light rail became popular in the west, found some interest in the midwest and south, but did not gain a following in the northeast. Instead, by the turn of the century, the streetcar, a modified form of the light rail car, became popular in western and northeastern (including Portland, Seattle, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Cincinnati, Washington, D.C., and Charlotte) cities. Revitalized from the trolley cars found in 1950s America (like Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Boston, San Francisco and New Orleans), the new streetcar featured ground level cars with easy access for all riders.
Though believed convenient and thought to be a driver of local economies, several studies have posited that streetcars offer far less than promised. In 2014, City Lab's Eric Jaffe found that many streetcars lines travel along straight paths and at very slow speeds (no faster than buses with whom they often share the roads). Similarly, some critics argued that passengers could walk faster than the streetcars. Transportation expert Yonah Freemark noted that they run less frequently than expected and fall short of customer demand. Observers of the Washington, D. C. streetcar suggested that it was not designed for the city's streets leading to massive infrastructure projects to accommodate its placement. Following its introduction, the D.C. line often created traffic jams and sometimes accidents. A 2016 study, Streetcar Planning as Spatial Planning: A Shift in Transport Planning in the United States offers another conclusion. This report, undertaken by Professor David King of Columbia University, reveals that: "Though seemingly mobility investments, the intended impacts of these streetcar projects reach beyond transportation and represent a strong turn toward strategic spatial planning through transportation infrastructure. Proponents of modern streetcars argue that they are tools of place making as much as if not more than improvements for transit services. Unlike transit investments of a century ago, when privately operated streetcars were a decentralizing force that helped disperse overcrowded central city cores and open new land for real estate development, current streetcar projects in the United States are expected to concentrate activity and economic development in select corridors. The majority of these new systems rely on transit technologies that are significantly improved over the carriages of old, with modern features, smooth rides and quiet operations. Yet for all the improvements to the vehicles and services, new streetcar investments no longer primarily improve transit accessibility. Rather, modern streetcars are part of strategic amenity packages cities use to achieve real estate and economic development goals." Professor King notes that only with federal funding did streetcar development expand throughout the nation.
So the challenge of improving our transportation networks seems to rest on several factors. Americans are interested and quickly fall in love with technology. However, technology is only part of the answer. It is obvious that technology might make mass transit more attractive, but might be less functional. Transportation experts point out that vehicles like monorails, light rail, people movers and streetcars are glamorous and romantic but have glaring limitations. Perhaps, they do more for community development than moving people. Additionally, in the larger scheme of things, planning is critical to any network. The network has to be adaptable to change. What happens when commuting traffic flows in different directions? How can experts design a system that is flexible enough to meet the needs of the next generation? And ultimately, we must ask what makes mass transit work in cities in Asia, Africa and Europe but not in America? How can mass transit work in African and Asian cities that are twice as large as the largest American cities? What does is mean to have satisfied commuters?
I will explore those topics and more in the weeks to come.
Comments