So apparently some academics in Australia think that they've solved the problem of how to offer effective and efficient public transit to the suburbs. The common understanding among planners is that transit won't really thrive in outer suburbs because the densities are too low, thus making large, clunky buses and rail lines generally ineffective. These two blokes think such reasoning is rubbish. They're brilliant plan:
"The keys to increasing public transport use in outer suburbs are more frequent buses, running at least every 10-15 minutes, and not just in peak hour; better co-ordination with rail services; more convenient transfers; and fares that allow free transfers between modes."
http://www.theage.come.au/victoria/transport-study-derails-thinking-on-outer-suburbs-20110104-19f3c.html
Genius! With this masterful opus of innovative transportation policy, we can finally put aside the old debate and do what we like doing best in English culture: have our cake and eat it too. We can live in large houses on large lots in maze-like suburban pods out in the middle of nowhere and still keep the world from running out of oil by taking efficient and easy mass transit right from our neighborhoods to anywhere we want in our sprawling regions. Sounds almost too good to be true, but if they say so...
Oh, wait! There are a couple of catches to this grand vision. First, there's the problem that communities built for cars (and only cars), such as pretty much all outer suburbs are, how many residents are likely to take public transit when it is just so much easier and faster (yes, still faster, despite the more frequent buses) to drive? I'm going to step out on a limb and say: very few. One big reason for this: many people who live in suburbia wouldn't be caught dead on a bus or railcar. I don't mean to stereotype, but there are a lot of truths in stereotypes, and the truth here is this: if you love your suburbia, you probably also love your car to the point that taking even the most convenient public transit would be unthinkable.
Even if gas prices went through the roof (which they will sooner or later), this still wouldn't work. No matter how pricey gas will become, it will still not be worth it for people to spend 15-20 minutes on a bus to go 3 or 4 miles. Insanely high gas prices will do one of two things: make people move inward, where transit is more efficient and accepable; or the car companies will scramble to mass produce affordable electric cars, which will kill all efforts at expanding transit to outer suburbs for at least another 50 to 100 years.
Then there's the problem that we seem to be running into a lot lately: how in the world do you pay for extremely frequent, interconnected, and "free" (there's that word again!) transit service to miles and miles of cookiecutter-ness, with minimum lot sizes of 1/2 acre or more, without either raising taxes to levels that suburbanites don't want to pay or increasing fares to levels that no one, regardless of affinity toward transit, can afford. The obvious answer is: you can't. If this were possible, it would be happening somewhere outside of places like Toronto and New York, where people aren't so tax-averse. I can't help but assume that these two professors didn't think about cost or politics when they formed their elegant theory.
Sorry, chums, but I don't buy it! You can't make anything, let alone transit, to operate efficiently in the suburbs, the universe's pinnacle achievement of inefficiency, just like you can't fit a square peg in a round hole. Sure, you can sand down the edges and pretend it belongs in there, but it still doesn't really fit. Outer suburbs and efficient public transit don't mix. Period.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Well my boy, let me tell you this. I'd much rather pay an additional one or two cent sales tax for more frequent suburb transit, to get the public to work downtown and home again, and get their cars off of the highways, than pay the thousands of dollars every year that it will cost us personally, not to mention the hundreds of millions every year that it will cost the states, to supply everyone with government health insurence. Alot of that money would be going to people who would be getting it for FREE, many of them illegals, even though the government says not. On top of that, many many employees will have to give up their company sponsored health insurance by 2014 or soon after, and accept what the government mandates and PAY what the government dictates, that is if the bill goes through.
We have looked into govnt. insurance for pre-existing conditions and it is not cheap. Here in Az. for one person it is going to cost $566.00 per month. It also has a very high deductable and out of pocket cost when used. Yes, it's about half the cost of COBRA, but if you need to use your insurance a lot' then COBRA would probably be worth the price.
You may think that this is off track by a mile, but, when you're talking about wasting tax dollars and hair-brained ideas, well, I guess the U.S. public spoke loudly.
Yes, I know very well that public transit is not a money making proposition, it never has been and never will be. But, if run and planned properly, which often doesn't happen because polititions get in the way, then I, as a 30 year transit worker, feel that suburban transit,shutteling people to and from and downtown locations, and inter-suburbia, is very viable. I don't believe in FREE transfers, unless it is balance by a higher original charge. I also disagree that most people will still use their cars, even though the gas prices go through the roof. In Phoenix, we saw ridership go up exponentially when gas prices went above $3.00 per gallon. I fully believe that if it went up to $4.00 there wouldn't be enough buses or bus drivers to keep up with the demand.
Actually, I'm quite surprised at the content of your blog, as public transit, inner city or suburbia to city, is a very important mode of transportation for the low income and middle to low income people who can't afford to own a car or who have lost their jobs and can no longer afford to drive their cars to their part-time work or to realatives homes for special occasions, or for any reason. Public transit has become their life line to the community or for showing up for a job interview, or to be on-time for a job that they have. In summing up, the more often the bus runs and the more suburban and city areas it covers, the better off the public is and the more the bus would be ridden.
Can anyone just immagine if 300 million people all lived downtown in every major city? Talk about gridlock!!!!
Your BIG DADDY
Thanks for your comments Big Daddy. I'll respond quickly to your comment.
I'm sure you, a former transit worker, would be willing to pay the transit tax, but don't count on very many other people voting for it... especially in Arizona's current political climate. And I'm not convinced that there would be sustained ridership, even at $4 per gallon. If you look at the past 30 to 40 years of transit ridership next to a graph of gas prices, what you see is a large gain in ridership once the higher prices hit, but then it drops off over time. This is the same phenomenon that makes people now claim that $2.90 per gallon gas is "cheap." It's called relativity, and OPEC knows that we are suckers for it.
You are right that transit is very important for low-income people, but so is health care. If people have a problem with a "hand out" in health care, as you astutely point out, they will likely have the same problem with one in transportation. "If they can't provide it for themselves, why should I be on the hook to provide it for them?"
Post a Comment