It’s a common sentiment: public transportation can be frustrating. Many people express desires for personal vehicles as a solution to commuting woes. However, focusing solely on individual car ownership overlooks a crucial aspect of urban living: the immense value of efficient public transportation. The truth is, robust public transit systems are not just beneficial for the environment, but are essential for creating thriving, accessible, and equitable cities for everyone. Ironically, even those who might believe they are above public transport, including the wealthy, would find their lives enriched by well-integrated public transportation options.
Having witnessed firsthand the challenges of inadequate public transportation in my hometown of Hanoi, Vietnam, I understand the appeal of personal vehicles. Hanoi, grappling with a massive influx of motorcycles, highlights the difficulties of navigating a city when public transit is underdeveloped. While bus services exist, their inefficiency is evident in low ridership and the near-necessity of owning a motorcycle to ensure timely commutes and general mobility.
My personal experience further solidified this understanding. Growing up in a walkable, well-connected part of Hanoi, I enjoyed independent mobility through walking, cycling, and occasional bus rides. However, moving to a more suburban-style area drastically changed my experience. Simple errands became lengthy expeditions, and spontaneous social interactions required extensive pre-planning due to parental drop-offs. This isolation only eased when I acquired a motorcycle, granting me access to the city once more. This experience underscored a critical point: urban design profoundly impacts our transportation needs and overall quality of life. Imagine if that suburban area had prioritized people over cars, with accessible public transport, pedestrian-friendly paths, and bicycle lanes. A motorcycle, and perhaps even a car, would have been unnecessary, and the independent mobility I enjoyed as a child could have continued seamlessly.
Fortunately, cities like Amsterdam and Singapore offer tangible examples of this people-centric urban vision. They have prioritized infrastructure that supports car-free lifestyles, featuring extensive two-lane bike paths in Amsterdam and the comprehensive Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) system in Singapore. These initiatives demonstrate that limiting car dependence in city centers while ensuring excellent accessibility for all residents is not just a dream, but a achievable reality.
In stark contrast, many cities, particularly in the US, have developed around car culture. Similar to Hanoi’s motorcycle dominance, these cities suffer from car dependence. Astonishingly, parking alone consumes about one-third of urban land in the US, according to Fast Company. Furthermore, the US ranks poorly in global comparisons of transit use and walkability. Suburban sprawl often lacks basic pedestrian infrastructure like sidewalks, increasing the risk of vehicle-pedestrian accidents. In such environments, car ownership feels not just convenient, but essential. This car-centric approach is deeply ingrained in both urban planning and cultural norms, where cars are often symbols of freedom, independence, and success, as noted by Scientific American.
However, the successes of cities like Amsterdam, Singapore, Hong Kong, Seoul, London, and New York prove that car dependence is not inevitable. These cities prioritize people, not just vehicles, in their urban design.
Consider the sheer inefficiency of relying on personal vehicles. Every day, millions of commuters use tons of steel and gallons of fuel just to move one person from place to place. When multiplied across a vast population, like the 130 million Americans commuting by car daily, the inefficiency of this system becomes staggering. Passenger rail, for instance, is significantly more energy-efficient than car travel, even in the US where rail ridership is lower. In countries with robust rail networks, this efficiency gap is even wider. Surprisingly, with typical car occupancy rates in the US, the energy consumption of car travel approaches that of air travel per passenger mile. Despite these inefficiencies, investments in car-centric infrastructure like highways continue to dominate urban planning in many places, leading to a cycle of more lanes simply attracting more cars.
Beyond efficiency, car-dependent cities often suffer in overall liveability. Pedestrian and cyclist unfriendliness is just the beginning. Air and noise pollution, reduced green spaces, inefficient land use, longer commute times, and chronic traffic congestion are all hallmarks of car-centric urban design. Even the concept of “freedom” is skewed in this context. While cars are often associated with freedom, in car-dominated cities, the freedom to choose cycling, walking, or public transit is actually diminished.
This is not an anti-car argument. Cars serve valuable purposes, especially for long-distance travel and shared journeys. In fact, car enthusiasts might even enjoy driving more if roads were less congested, a direct benefit of fewer people being forced to drive for everyday transportation.
The common refrain that car-centric infrastructure is unchangeable is also demonstrably false. Amsterdam, now a global bicycle haven, was once also car-dependent. This transformation proves that cities can fundamentally shift their transportation priorities.
The key to change lies in public demand and political will. While the influence of the automobile industry is a factor, advocating for urban reform and demonstrating the public desire for better public transportation is crucial. Even small improvements, like making bus stops more accessible and comfortable, can significantly enhance public transit usability and encourage ridership.
This discussion has primarily focused on the personal and urban benefits of public transportation. However, the environmental advantages are equally compelling, encompassing reduced carbon emissions, less resource-intensive manufacturing, and decreased waste. Furthermore, pedestrian-friendly cities with robust public transit systems experience fewer traffic fatalities and accidents. Finally, accessible public transportation is essential for inclusivity, ensuring mobility for those unable to drive due to age, disability, or economic constraints.
To delve deeper into urban planning and public transportation, resources like the YouTube channel Not Just Bikes, the Agora Journal, and the Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning at the University of Michigan offer valuable insights. Staying informed about local initiatives, such as Ann Arbor’s transportation and carbon neutrality plans, and advocating for pedestrian, cycling, and public transit improvements in your own city are crucial steps towards creating more liveable and sustainable urban environments.
