"Why don't you have a driver's license?" I get asked this question A LOT. It seems like not having the ability to drive in the States is pretty much unthinkable/incomprehensible for any grown adult here in the States. Especially here in Southern CA, "can't drive" is pretty much equivalent to "can't get anywhere"...
Or is it?
A few days ago, I went up to LA from San Diego to run some errands, and doing the public transportation way was just fine. Bus down to San Diego Greyhound station, a 18-dollar one-way ticket to LA by Greyhound, and bus to my destination directly from the Greyhound station in LA...the whole trip cost like 22 bucks one way.
Yeah, of course, you have to wait for your bus, and not making your connections for the next bus is big hassle (especially the bus in San Diego I was taking was one per hour), but really, when you think about it, only because people believe in the private car as the better alternative do they exaggerate the "hassle" of the wait (which cannot last more than a few hours at most)
Think about it this way: people wait for hours and hours, sometimes days for planes (I met this guy in an airport in Fairbanks, AK. His flight was scheduled to depart literally two days from the moment I met him). They are patient enough to do that precisely because they don't have the alternative in private jet.
So, the logical next step would be to ask: can we popularize public transportation by making the private car option less feasible?
At least for fairly dense concentration of population, I believe it is possible through certain degrees of urban planning. Probably the most important thing to help out the cause of public transportation is NOT having an inner city highway network (like the network of freeways in the middle of LA)
Perfect example is Manhattan. Lack of freeways makes rapid movement by car almost impossible on the island, forcing people to use the subway as the first choice of transport.
But considering Manhattan is built way before the advent of the private automobile, wouldn't newer cities have inner city highways as a standard feature (like LA)? Not necessarily. The government of Vancouver, Canada, for example, actually passed ordinances preventing the entry of highways into the city center. Now, if the Canadians, who are generally more dependent on cars (because of more remote areas with less population density) can do that, why not Americans?
The result of Vancouver's ordinance is the success of the Skytrain, despite its extremely limited coverage (in a city of about a million people, it gets about half a million rides a day...and when I was there, I did see that all sorts of people were riding it, quite impressive)
Similarly, in America, systems of similar coverage serving cities with extensive highway systems (LA and Atlanta, for example) pales in comparison to those serving cities with less dependence on inner city highways (San Francisco and Boston, for example).
Of course I am not asking certain cities to destroy their inner city highways, but rather to update the public transportation systems to mimic private cars as much as possible while offering other perks that private cars may not have.
The top priority should be increase in frequency and speed of public transportation. As I stated before, people with cars are averse to waiting, and the waiting time should be reduced as much as possible.
Many argue that this will just reduce the profitability of system as greater services does not mean increased passengers. Yet, these people forget that people's lifestyle can change along with the change in transport options. In the prevailing attitude of "America's addiction on foreign oil," people would like to do what they can to help reduce the dependence.
If these people can get to their destinations just as fast or faster than they do with cars, why would they not choose public transportation both for convenience and for ethical reasons (protecting the environment, etc)
Then, people will argue that Americans will never use public transportation as the Japanese do because Americans value privacy more (racist stereotype) and refused to be jam packed in a train. Let me remind these people that being jam packed in a subway car practically happens in New York City everyday during rush hour, and I just don't see why that is possible for New Yorkers but not for, say, Californians.
Also, it is should clear that in exchange for that bit of privacy, people sacrifice a lot of speed. Remember, a jam packed train still moves at the same speed and get you to destination in time, while a jam packed highway causes a car to, uh, just sit there...the choice should be clear.
And for the economics of energy use as oil runs out, wouldn't it be more feasible to use electrically powered trains and trolleybuses (I know they exist in San Francisco and Seattle) rather than going for the unstable electric vehicle technology? Scientifically, we are much more ahead in terms of generating electricity in a renewable fashion compared to creating a renewable gasoline-alternative.
So, people, next time you jump into your car and hit the road, think twice about the possibility of alternative transportation methods (and the alternative lifestyle that comes with it). Contrary to popular belief, America actually has a decent public transportation system (except Alaska, the only reliable thing is the Railroad and thats expensive as hell).
Sure, most of it is just for poor people without cars nowdays, but if people from more diverse backgrounds start to use them more often, then that wouldn't be the case anymore (as in NYC). Public transportation becomes better when more people use them, which in turn draws more people to use them (positive feedback), while for private car usage, more people can only mean more congestion and more hassle.
Or is it?
A few days ago, I went up to LA from San Diego to run some errands, and doing the public transportation way was just fine. Bus down to San Diego Greyhound station, a 18-dollar one-way ticket to LA by Greyhound, and bus to my destination directly from the Greyhound station in LA...the whole trip cost like 22 bucks one way.
Yeah, of course, you have to wait for your bus, and not making your connections for the next bus is big hassle (especially the bus in San Diego I was taking was one per hour), but really, when you think about it, only because people believe in the private car as the better alternative do they exaggerate the "hassle" of the wait (which cannot last more than a few hours at most)
Think about it this way: people wait for hours and hours, sometimes days for planes (I met this guy in an airport in Fairbanks, AK. His flight was scheduled to depart literally two days from the moment I met him). They are patient enough to do that precisely because they don't have the alternative in private jet.
So, the logical next step would be to ask: can we popularize public transportation by making the private car option less feasible?
At least for fairly dense concentration of population, I believe it is possible through certain degrees of urban planning. Probably the most important thing to help out the cause of public transportation is NOT having an inner city highway network (like the network of freeways in the middle of LA)
Perfect example is Manhattan. Lack of freeways makes rapid movement by car almost impossible on the island, forcing people to use the subway as the first choice of transport.
But considering Manhattan is built way before the advent of the private automobile, wouldn't newer cities have inner city highways as a standard feature (like LA)? Not necessarily. The government of Vancouver, Canada, for example, actually passed ordinances preventing the entry of highways into the city center. Now, if the Canadians, who are generally more dependent on cars (because of more remote areas with less population density) can do that, why not Americans?
The result of Vancouver's ordinance is the success of the Skytrain, despite its extremely limited coverage (in a city of about a million people, it gets about half a million rides a day...and when I was there, I did see that all sorts of people were riding it, quite impressive)
Similarly, in America, systems of similar coverage serving cities with extensive highway systems (LA and Atlanta, for example) pales in comparison to those serving cities with less dependence on inner city highways (San Francisco and Boston, for example).
Of course I am not asking certain cities to destroy their inner city highways, but rather to update the public transportation systems to mimic private cars as much as possible while offering other perks that private cars may not have.
The top priority should be increase in frequency and speed of public transportation. As I stated before, people with cars are averse to waiting, and the waiting time should be reduced as much as possible.
Many argue that this will just reduce the profitability of system as greater services does not mean increased passengers. Yet, these people forget that people's lifestyle can change along with the change in transport options. In the prevailing attitude of "America's addiction on foreign oil," people would like to do what they can to help reduce the dependence.
If these people can get to their destinations just as fast or faster than they do with cars, why would they not choose public transportation both for convenience and for ethical reasons (protecting the environment, etc)
Then, people will argue that Americans will never use public transportation as the Japanese do because Americans value privacy more (racist stereotype) and refused to be jam packed in a train. Let me remind these people that being jam packed in a subway car practically happens in New York City everyday during rush hour, and I just don't see why that is possible for New Yorkers but not for, say, Californians.
Also, it is should clear that in exchange for that bit of privacy, people sacrifice a lot of speed. Remember, a jam packed train still moves at the same speed and get you to destination in time, while a jam packed highway causes a car to, uh, just sit there...the choice should be clear.
And for the economics of energy use as oil runs out, wouldn't it be more feasible to use electrically powered trains and trolleybuses (I know they exist in San Francisco and Seattle) rather than going for the unstable electric vehicle technology? Scientifically, we are much more ahead in terms of generating electricity in a renewable fashion compared to creating a renewable gasoline-alternative.
So, people, next time you jump into your car and hit the road, think twice about the possibility of alternative transportation methods (and the alternative lifestyle that comes with it). Contrary to popular belief, America actually has a decent public transportation system (except Alaska, the only reliable thing is the Railroad and thats expensive as hell).
Sure, most of it is just for poor people without cars nowdays, but if people from more diverse backgrounds start to use them more often, then that wouldn't be the case anymore (as in NYC). Public transportation becomes better when more people use them, which in turn draws more people to use them (positive feedback), while for private car usage, more people can only mean more congestion and more hassle.
Comments
Post a Comment