Urban Planning and the Importance of Public Transit

The topic of city design is an interesting one. It is something we seldom think about, yet it is one of the most important facets of our day to day lives. A city’s composition has a huge impact on how people interact with their surrounding environment. As such, I feel it is important to highlight a detrimental flaw in the design of a majority of American cities. Car dependent infrastructure across the United States has plagued our communities and has created a litany of issues. In 2020, 91.55% of American households reported having access to at least one vehicle, and the total number of registered vehicles in the US in 2020 was 275M (Timmons).  Car dependency has uprooted many of our communities, made many places unnavigable without a car, and created communities which are designed more for the convenience of cars than for actual people. This being the case, it is crucial that we as Americans explore alternatives to car-dependent infrastructure, such as public transit and walkable neighborhoods, especially if we want to attack the looming issue of climate change. It has been proven time and time again, especially in countries outside of the United States, that creating dependable and practical alternatives to driving creates more livable communities and gives freedom to everyone who wants to travel by their own means.

As the United States moves into the future, it is important to consider the ramifications of how we have designed our cities, and the negative consequences which they may hold. One of the major ramifications to be considered is environmental impacts. In recent years, there has been a growing level of concern given towards the environment and climate change as a whole. As such, many lawmakers and policymakers have aimed to make decisions which they deem to be more “eco-conscious” with the hope of subverting some of the effects of climate change. One such example includes many automakers shifting their focus to electric vehicle production, and many state governments prohibiting the sale of gasoline-powered vehicles by a certain date. This automobile-centric approach to solving climate change unfortunately omits one clear and obvious solution, which would be public transit.  Associate professor Camille Kamga, in his article “Achieving environmental sustainability beyond technological improvements: Potential role of high-speed rail in the United States of America,” serves to convey the flaws of America’s approach to climate change, while also providing a potential solution. Kamga’s article was published as part of Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, a journal which discusses the environmental impacts of transportation. His primary argument in this article is that transportation is a huge contributor to fossil fuel usage and greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. He says that efforts to resolve problems pertaining to transportation are more aimed at improving how efficient planes and cars are, rather than addressing the root of the issue and rethinking our system from the ground up. This would make sense, seeing as the United States, at its core, is designed around the car, and to a somewhat smaller extent, the plane. The car in particular is the primary means of transportation for a vast majority of Americans, and car-dependent infrastructure across the US has resulted in an inability to explore other options that would likely prove effective if implemented well. “Given the very high oil dependency of transportation, achieving sustainability—ensuring ‘that we have, and will continue to have, the water, materials, and resources to protect human health and our environment’ (Environmental Protection Agency, 2013c) requires a systematic paradigm shift away from cars and planes to intermodal systems that allow travelers to make a shift to less carbon-intensive modes that improve the sustainability of the system as a whole” (Kamga). This quote from Kamga’s article is crucial, because it highlights how car-dependent infrastructure has fundamentally shaped how the United States is designed, and the ways in which we interact with our environment. 

If we want to make an actual significant change for the future, we need to drastically reconsider how we have designed our country. Kamga suggests high-speed rail as an effective alternative, citing Japan and France as being countries which have benefitted from the widespread adaptation of high-speed rail networks, which run on electricity and thus reduce fossil-fuel reliance. Furthermore, he also makes sure to highlight how on certain trip lengths, high-speed rail has been shown to be effective at taking passengers off of flights, thus showing how creating competent rail networks incentivizes the public to explore alternatives to environmentally-intensive transportation options. All of this is to say that car dependent infrastructure in the US is a problem because it creates an over-reliance on a method of transport that is carbon-intensive, and if we invest in meaningful systemic changes, we can simultaneously make our cities more pleasant to live in, while also averting the incoming climate crisis – which cannot be ignored for much longer.

Another crucial facet of the shift away from car dependency is the focus on spatial conditions–more specifically, how they can impact car-dependency in post-growth cities. This topic is explored by “Adapting spatial conditions to reduce car dependency in mid-sized ‘post growth’ European city regions: The case of South Limburg, Netherlands,” which is an article by Jake Wiersma, L. Bertolini, and T. Straatemeier. According to the aforementioned text, car-dependency can be defined as “a lack of travel options to daily destinations” (Wiersma, Bertolini, Straatemeier Abstract).  This demonstrates how in many communities, there are a limited number of ways in which one can conduct daily tasks assuming they do not have a car. Obviously, this focus on cars and car-related infrastructure creates an overreliance upon them, which then results in spatial conditions which are therefore shaped around the automobile. For instance, the article makes mention of the fact that ongoing development of economic centers along highways results in a greater disparity between the rail system of a region and that region’s “spatial economic infrastructure.” For the sake of this article, the authors tested different policy scenarios to see their impact on spatial conditions. They found that introducing inter-city rail services “makes more jobs accessible outside the current daily urban system,” and that creating more bus rapid transit “intensifies relations within the region” (Wiersma, Bertolini, Straatemeier Abstract). All of this is to say that there is not a singular approach to reducing car-dependency in places like the United States, but rather that different approaches have their particular benefits. As such, a combination of different strategies would ideally be combined in order to result in an overall reduction in the reliance on cars within post-growth cities.

 Despite some differing sentiment, Wiersma, Bertolini, and Straatemeier’s work echoes much of the same thinking as Kamga’s work does. Both of the aforementioned articles serve to convey the importance of creating viable and practical alternatives to driving by introducing public transit into a region. While the first article seemingly places a larger emphasis on the environmental facet of public transit, and the second article places more of an impact on the city planning facet, the overlap between the two sources is still present, and at the core of the two works is still the same desire to further the prevalence of public transit with the hopes of reducing reliance on the car. Overall, the arguments and information provided in both articles serve to demonstrate a clear flaw with the way in which American cities are designed, and they also serve to highlight how creating dependable public transit alternatives can both create more options for people who want to travel and reduce our environmental impact moving into the future. 

The problems with car dependency that have been mentioned thus far only represent part of the reason why the United State should explore alternatives to the car. So far, we have discussed the general problems pertaining to car dependency, which is to say that these issues might not have a tangible, personal impact on somebody. However, there are issues which pertain to car dependency which are far more tangible to the average person. For instance, the cost associated with car ownership is something to which a lot of people can relate. More specifically, according to Strong Towns, a nonprofit media advocacy organization centered around postwar North American development, the average annual cost for owning a car falls between $6,957 and $11,039 (calculated in 2014). This highlights a fundamental flaw of the way in which American cities are designed, as making cars a necessity means forcing the population to incur the costs of car ownership even if they don’t particularly want to. While nobody is arguing against the right of people to own cars, and while it is understandable still why some might want to own a car for their own reasons, the point is simple. Owning a car, especially in a dense urban environment, should be an option – there is no reason for it to be a necessity. Forcing car ownership upon those who might not be in the financial position to afford one is simply a burden. 

Another tangible consequence of American city planning and car dependency is the isolation which it causes. For instance, Vox’s Muizz Akhtar, in their article titled “Too many Americans live in places built for cars — not for human connection” mentions how “Wide roads and parking lots spread everything out and make walking extremely difficult, if a neighborhood even has sidewalks to begin with. Today, because a majority of Americans, including an increasing number of children and the elderly, live in car-centric areas like suburbs, our ability to form connections and community is limited.” Essentially, they are communicating that designing cities around the car, as opposed to the people that live in it, forces isolation between its inhabitants, by often physically dividing the population. Akhtar’s mention of how children and the elderly are especially impacted by this is also hugely important, as it offers an alternative perspective to the problem which few people might consider. If a city is designed to be driven around, how are people intended to travel if they literally can’t drive? Even omitting the prohibitive costs of car ownership which have already been mentioned, it is worth keeping in mind those in the population who cannot drive, because they are the ones who are the most disadvantaged by car-dependent infrastructure. These people are forced to rely on others in order to get around. It is for these reasons that car-dependency has wreaked havoc on North American city design, and the obvious alternative is public transit. With viable public transit options, whether it be buses or trains, we can have cities which are designed around its inhabitants, and we can ensure equitable opportunity to all members of the population – not just those who have the money to afford cars or those who are able-bodied to drive. 

We have already seen that creating alternatives to car usage generally results in communities which are more livable for its inhabitants and gives people a wider variety of options when it comes to transportation. Ultimately, as we move into a future which is only becoming more climate-conscious, it is more important than ever that we focus on and highlight the choices we make when we discuss transportation, because we can no longer afford to keep making incremental steps. Seeing as transportation is such a big part of so many of our lives, and seeing as our transit options are such a big part of how we interact with our local community and environment, it is worth considering how we can improve our relationship with our surroundings, not only to develop communities which are more sustainable long term, but also generally more pleasant to live in. We can accomplish this by reducing reliance on the automobile, and focusing on creating viable public transit options. Obviously the undertaking of implementing public transit would be massive, but there are steps which the government, both local and federal, can take to make it a reality. A good starting place would be taking transit seriously, and to realize the importance / significance of meaningful public transit. Another step would be to divert funds from highway expansion projects, which seldom alleviate congestion, and instead put those resources towards public transit. The first step towards building better public transit comes with taking transit seriously, and reflecting on the conscious policy decisions which shape the landscape of American urban design. At the end of the day, we have seen that countries such as China, Japan, and continents like Europe have developed their public transit systems, especially over the past few decades, and at the heart of those advancements is policy. Creating reliable transit will create sustainable economic development and breathe life into our communities.

 

The graph above, provided by the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, showcases that nearly 60% of all vehicle trips in the United States are of a distance fewer than six miles. Therefore, it should not be a question that the United States ought to explore alternatives to the car, as meaningful public transit options can likely eliminate the need almost entirely for these sub-six mile trips.

 

The graph above demonstrates how a vast majority of the American population uses cars in order to commute. This overreliance on the automobile can be alleviated by making other options more practical, and thus giving the people a wider range of transportation options.

 

WORKS CITED

Akhtar, Muizz. “Too Many Americans Live in Places Built for Cars – Not for Human Connection.” Vox, Vox, 25 Aug. 2022, https://www.vox.com/features/23191527/urban-planning-friendship-houston-cars-loneliness. 

“FOTW #1042, August 13, 2018: In 2017 Nearly 60% of All Vehicle Trips Were Less than Six Miles.” Energy.gov, https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1042-august-13-2018-2017-nearly-60-all-vehicle-trips-were-less-six. 

Kamga, Camille. “Achieving Environmental Sustainability beyond Technological Improvements: Potential Role of High-Speed Rail in the United States of America.” Shibboleth Authentication Request, https://www-sciencedirect-com.ccny-proxy1.libr.ccny.cuny.edu/science/article/pii/S1361920914000765. 

Price, Andrew. “The Negative Consequences of Car Dependency.” Strong Towns, Strong Towns, 23 July 2019, https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2015/1/20/the-negative-consequences-of-car-dependency#:~:text=Living%20in%20a%20car%20dependent,)%20and%20indirect%20(taxes.). 

 

Richter, Felix. “Infographic: Cars Still Dominate the American Commute.” Statista Infographics, 12 May 2022, https://www.statista.com/chart/18208/means-of-transportation-used-by-us-commuters/. 

Timmons, Matt. Car Ownership Statistics in the U.S. – Valuepenguin, www.valuepenguin.com/auto-insurance/car-ownership-statistics. Accessed 15 May 2023. 

Wiersma, Jake, et al. Adapting Spatial Conditions to Reduce Car Dependency in Mid-Sized ‘Post Growth’ European City Regions: The Case of South Limburg, Netherlands, https://www-sciencedirect-com.ccny-proxy1.libr.ccny.cuny.edu/science/article/pii/S0967070X16301275.