The Failure of Public Transportation in Autocentric Metropolises
Urban mobility to serve the ever-growing, economically-diverse population is becoming a major challenge for many industrializing nations as streamlining traffic to support both private and public transportation becomes more difficult. Here in the United States, we have constructed sprawling auto-centric suburbs that just can’t be easily served by public transportation. However, this lack of accessible mass transit does not hold true for many other nations that support suburban transit, like Canada, who have constructed brilliantly designed public transportation systems that are heavily praised by and utilized by their citizens. Whereas the American public stigma of mass transit is that it is undesirable and burdensome, in Toronto, public transit is considered a norm and the preferred way of traveling. America’s high emphasis on private mobility and individuality has contributed to its negative attitude towards mass transit to the extent that public transportation is now considered a somewhat “welfare system” that only serves the poor, the old, or the marginalized. This negative stigma associated with public transportation is further heightened as American society associates inferior racial status and limited financial resources with those who utilize public transportation. As a result, the limited transit service available in suburban areas means that demand, and thus a more efficient transit system, will never materialize — not without some fundamental changes, starting with greater public awareness and familiarity with the infrastructure, followed by a dissociation between public transportation and financial capabilities and racial stigma.
The lack of organized transit in suburban America can be attributed to the so-desired “American Dream” of owning a large and spacious single-family home in a quaint, suburban community, and being able to drive one’s own — if not multiple — car(s). The prevalence of single-family detached houses in Nassau County, NY has created a low overall population density which inhibits public transportation’s potential to be practical, accessible, or viable, further encouraging more people to travel via cars and only cars. As of 2016, car ownership in Nassau County rose to 0.766 vehicles per person, while the rate per household increased to 1.968, according to a report done by Newsday (Fiscina). However, this increased car ownership did not automatically translate to bettering the lives of all its residents. Unfortunately, those who still depend on public transportation in these areas — either because they don’t own a car, are not eligible to drive, or simply prefer relying on mass transit — become the victims of an automobile emphasizing communities.
The lack of efficient public transportation in Nassau County can largely be attributed to its two-tiered transit system that prioritizes the improvement of the exorbitant, rather “exclusive” Long Island Railroad (LIRR) at the expense of the local Nassau Inter-County Express bus service (NICE or NICE Bus). In what Alon Levy calls “transit apartheid” in his StreetsblogNYC article, Levy uncovers how the LIRR currently runs its trains to connect the suburbs of Nassau County with NYC, but assumes that its passengers are affluent car owners who only take the train to get to their 9-to-5 jobs, as demonstrated through its hefty $18.50 round trip ticket price and rigid “peak/rush hour” operating schedules (Levy). For working-class Long Islanders going about their daily lives locally, the transit on offer is different. The beleaguered bus system, the Nassau Inter-County Express (NICE) bus operates on a completely separate fare, schedule (or rather lack of), and market than the LIRR. For example, a trip to my closest shopping mall 8 miles away via this local, the public bus would cost only a mere $2.75, but would take 1 hour and 3 different bus transfers. Here, economic accessibility is the primary determinant that enables residents to commute via the expensive, but efficient private railroad, or the affordable, but inefficient public bus system. This “segments the market: low-income riders take NICE, and middle- and high-income riders take the LIRR,” emphasizing the role that economic inequality and fare prices play in driving people away from local, public transportation and how upscale suburbs have come to stigmatize this service as unnecessary and burdensome (Levy). In other words, those with higher incomes tend to have more financial accessibility to private transportation or ridesharing services and as a result, tend to view public transportation as a “humiliating” alternative to traveling. While I support Levy’s claim that the socioeconomic stigma associated with mass transit in suburban communities has contributed to its decreased ridership, I further argue that the inefficient public transportation system in suburban communities is attributable to a social fear of scrutiny from peers and to solve this requires greater public awareness and understanding of the service.
When discussing wealth disparities as underlying causation of this lack of public transportation, there is also an underlying racial component that further decreases its appeal. A 2017 National Equity Analysis revealed that black households are more than three times more likely to have no access to a vehicle as white households (“Car Access”). This is reflected in the demographics of public transportation users: “Among urban residents, 34% of blacks and 27% of Hispanics report taking public transit daily or weekly, compared with only 14% of whites” (Anderson). To dissolve this racial inequality in mass transit requires greater redistribution of funds by local governments — something that is likewise achievable through greater public awareness and advocacy for public transportation.
In an article addressing the faults with public transit, author Caitlin Troutman from the Hilltop Monitor reflects on how the public transportation system in the United States has failed. To her point, she cites that most of the American government, and public, approaches public transportation as more of an alternative for individuals who are too poor to drive, an attitude that then deters communities of greater affluence from utilizing this service (Troutman). As a result, an ugly cycle is created: the low demand for mass transit results in fewer operating hours and fewer covered areas, which in turn leads to even lower demand. Though I agree with Troutman’s argument, she fails to propose a practical solution to dissolving this negative public perception. Here, Aditi Shrikant offers a simple rebuttal and tangible solution in his 2018 Vox opinion article, “Why US public transportation is so bad — and why Americans don’t care.” He states that “customers mistakenly prioritize reach over frequency,” but the way to get more ridership is to get people to understand how the services work and why they are investing in it (Shrikant). Though I concede with Troutman’s initial argument, to some extent, that many automobile owners view public transit as a welfare system for those who can’t afford to drive, Shrikant’s proposal to increase public awareness and understanding of mass transit is the more practical approach to addressing the lack of efficient public transportation. Increasing awareness of the transportation services that are currently provided by local governments would “increase mobility by informing individuals … about the fixed route and demand response services that are available to them and making the services easier to understand and use” according to a technical report, Access to Transportation on Long Island (TransSystems, 2007, p. 152). I agree that by increasing the visibility and understanding of public transportation services within local communities, ridership would increase as well. This would encourage funding support to alleviate the lack of public transportation in suburban areas around the nation to demonstrate that driving — and by extension, car ownership, can be a choice and not a “virtual necessity.”
Providing good public transportation, even in places that are typically deemed “not transit-supportive” is achievable, as demonstrated by America’s nearby neighbor: Toronto, Ontario. As in most American cities, Toronto’s suburbs grew rapidly in the 1905’s postwar years. However, the true distinction that enabled Toronto to develop its efficient public transportation system was a metro government created by the province of Ontario that was charged with overseeing many services for both its city and its suburbs, including transit (English). There, Torontonians demanded equal service to the prewar neighborhoods, which ultimately made transit a viable mode everywhere within the city by creating a strong suburban bus network that fed directly into the older subway system. In Toronto, public transportation is regarded as a basic mobility service, contrary to the “welfare system” reputation that it holds here in the United States. This positive public perception of transit resulted in increased public awareness and familiarity with the service, which further resulted in greater funding and implementation of rail and bus lines. In fact, the National Canadian Statistics Office recorded that “85% of [Canadian] commuters in 2010 said they were satisfied or very satisfied with the amount of time it took to get to work” via public transportation (Statistics Canada). By adopting similar practices to Toronto’s, proponents of public transportation can urge their local governments to provide efficient transit services in suburban communities, indicating that these spread-out and car-centric spaces are not fundamentally irreconcilable with public transportation.
Looking at the October 2019 mass protests in Santiago, Chile, one can see how collective public action contributed to governmental reform of transit systems. Sparked by a 4 percent fare hike in the Metro system, Chilean protests forced the government to address the relationship between income inequality and urban transportation (Johanson). As a result of public awareness and transit popularity, Chileans were able to get their governments to recognize the necessity of public transportation. Further supporting this movement, researcher Juanizio Correa estimated transport expenditures for an average Chilean family and compared it with family income. As depicted in the graph, he found that for a low-income household, transport costs represent 28% of the average Santiago family’s income compared to a high-income household’s mere 2% (Correa). This analysis exemplifies how public transit does serve as the primary source of transportation for those who lack sufficient financial resources, and how public perception of this infrastructure can influence its funding. While Correa’s analysis has merit, he fails to propose a greater global implication of these local protests. To reduce inequalities in where people live and how they move around, policymakers should target transit subsidies to help low-income and marginalized families, rather than lowering fares for all users. As Dario Hidalgo accurately acknowledges in his WRI journal What Chile’s Protests Reveal About the Country’s Transport Inequalities, “a lower fare for all requires higher subsidies, does little to address root problems, and could lead to poorer service quality,” which in turn could contribute to even less funding for public transportation (World Resources Institute). As such, local residents must take time to understand the necessity of public transportation and urge their local policymakers to improve transit efficiency by implementing greater funding and financial assistance to those that rely on the infrastructure.
Admittedly, the creation of an efficient transport system does require significant investments: development and maintenance of roads and rail infrastructure, allocation of funds to finance these large projects, and adequate physical land, to name a few. However, as Knupfer accurately proposes, “authorities’ focus on and commitment to development and implementation of a clear transport strategy can significantly influence the [final economic] outcome” (“Urban Transportation Systems in 24 Global Cities”). In other words, with attentive planning and greater public usage of transit, the economic benefits of an efficient public transportation system far outweigh its financial costs. In Evaluating Public Transit Benefits and Costs by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute, an in-depth study revealed that the average car costs $0.14 less to operate than a diesel bus per passenger-mile (Litman, 2003). Though this number may not sound significant at first, it has an enormous impact on the financial burden of a nation when taken into consideration with its millions of residents’ daily car usage — not to mention the operational costs of building, maintaining, and staffing these infrastructures. This demonstrates how local attentiveness to the necessity of public transportation does reap enormous benefits — both socially and economically — and why this should be a consideration for all citizens, driving or not.
Needless to say, dissolving the negative racial and economic stigma associated with public transportation takes significant time and is not guaranteeable. There are, however, other practical methods of improving public perception of transit. We need to promote multimodal transportation networks in our cities, integrating walking and driving into the existing mobility services that many marginalized populations rely on, into one interconnected system. By doing so, public transportation will be accessible by all and not just be tailored to serve one specific economic or racial group. In “Understanding How To Motivate Communities To Support and Ride Public Transportation,” author Mindy Rhindress argues that to use public transport without the fear of being victimized — either physically or socially — can substantially increase the attractiveness and thus the use of public transit. Rhindress’ argument has merit: with increased public awareness and familiarity with how and why public transportation operates, those who have the opportunity to drive can reap the same benefits of mass transit without having to solely rely on private transportation. It is critical to remove the social stigma associated with public transportation before carrying out any further governmental funding and implementation.
Ultimately, improving local, public transit has greater global implications. Efficient public transportation serves as a basic mobility service that provides access to employment, community resources, medical care, and recreational opportunities to people without access to a car. In providing this accessible resource to its citizens, cities all around the world reap its benefits — global warming prevention, environmental conservation, economic growth, etc. Furthermore, by improving access to opportunities for these underserved populations via public transportation, cities solve problems of economic competitiveness and social dislocation. As governments exist to promote the well-being of its citizens, the argument for efficient public transportation to serve its marginalized populations becomes ever more apparent. When all is said and done, the improvements of any public service begins with individual citizens’ familiarity with the infrastructure, as is the case for understanding the global necessity for public transportation.
. . .
Works Cited
Abrams-Cherwony & Associates. TranSystems, 2007, pp. 152–154, Access to Transportation on Long Island.
Anderson, Monica. “Who Relies on Public Transit in the U.S.” Pew Research Center, Pew Research Center, 30 May 2020, www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/07/who-relies-on-public-transit-in-the-u-s/.
“Car Access: National Equity Atlas.” Car Access | National Equity Atlas, 2017, nationalequityatlas.org/indicators/Car_access.
English, Jonathan. “Why Is American Mass Transit So Bad? It’s a Long Story.” Bloomberg.com, Bloomberg, 31 Aug. 2018, www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-08-31/why-is-american-mass-transit-so-bad-it-s-a-long-story.
Fiscina, Amanda. “Fiscina: No Choice but to Drive on LI.” Newsday, Newsday, 11 Jan. 2016, www.newsday.com/opinion/columnists/amanda-fiscina/millennials-have-no-choice-but-to-drive-on-long-island-1.11306667.
Hidalgo, Dario. “What Chile’s Protests Reveal About the Country’s Transport Inequalities.” World Resources Institute, 1 Nov. 2019, www.wri.org/blog/2019/11/what-chile-s-protests-reveal-about-country-s-transport-inequalities.
Johanson, Mark. “How a $0.04 Metro Fare Price Hike Sparked Massive Unrest in Chile.” Vox, Vox, 29 Oct. 2019, www.vox.com/world/2019/10/29/20938402/santiago-chile-protests-2019-riots-metro-fare-pinera.
Levy, Alon, and Larry Penner. “On Long Island, Transit Operates as Two Separate and Unequal Systems.” Streetsblog New York City, 26 May 2017, nyc.streetsblog.org/2017/05/25/on-long-island-transit-operates-as-two-separate-and-unequal-systems/.
“MTA’s Hakim: Long Island economy tied to transit.” Long Island Business News, 15 Sept. 2017. Gale OneFile: Business, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A505575214/GPS?u=usocal_main&sid=GPS&xid=c0589d17. Accessed 18 Oct. 2020
Rhindress, Mindy. Understanding How to Motivate Communities to Support and Ride Public Transportation . Transportation Research Board, 2008.
Shrikant, Aditi. “Why US Public Transportation Is so Bad — and Why Americans Don’t Care.” Vox, Vox, 26 Sept. 2018, www.vox.com/the-goods/2018/9/26/17903146/mass-transit-public-transit-rail-subway-bus-car.
Troutman, Caitlin. “The Failure of Public Transportation in the United States and Kansas City.” The Hilltop Monitor, 4 Mar. 2016, hilltopmonitor.jewell.edu/the-failure-of-public-transportation-in-the-united-states-and-kansas-city/.
