We need more space for people and less people in cars
How America can switch towards clean public transit
By Stefan Cohn
Guest Writer
I was unsure how living without a car would be when I moved to GW. I grew up in the suburbs of the metropolitan Atlanta, Georgia area. Most people had a car. Walking everywhere simply wasn’t possible. Public transport in the area was limited and inefficient, making it an inferior option to driving most of the time.
The move to GW proved my uncertainty wrong. Thanks to the great public transit system of D.C., I am able to move around smoothly around the DMV without a car. I love the change. This is what got me interested in transportation infrastructure.
Why is car reliance bad? Why is public transit and walkability better? What are the solutions?
Car dependence is unsustainable and unsafe because of car crashes, environmental impact, and encouragement of harmful lifestyle behaviors, all of which cause over 5 million deaths a year.
Cars kill around 1 million people through direct crashes and over 4 million through indirect causes, such as pollution.
Meanwhile, passenger vehicles and trucks are responsible for around 20% of all greenhouse emission in the U.S. Car manufacturing itself, especially in electric cars, emits a sizable amount of greenhouse emissions.
Lastly, cars encourage sedentary lifestyles. Less moving means higher risks for many types of life-threatening diseases.
The car industry itself is unsustainable, both when they are produced and when they are used. Therefore, car reliance is shown to be bad for the environment and for people.
The pros of walkable infrastructure outweigh the cons of cars.
First off, walkable infrastructure is considerably cheaper than owning a car. It promotes a much more active lifestyle. It’s also safer. Your chance of getting run over is considerably lower than getting into a car crash. Travel times are consistent as well. It’s rare that traffic or delays will interfere with public transit. Lastly, it reduces carbon footprints, leading to a more sustainable future for all.
The issues of contemporary U.S. car reliance and its solutions are best exemplified by highways. The growth of America’s suburbs brought more commuters, which meant more highway congestion.
Ironically, these highway expansions resulted in more traffic. The reason? Supply and demand. A higher supply of roads causes more people to use them, as they are enticed by the decreased congestion new road expansions may temporarily bring. The increase in supply leads to an increase in demand. Over time, the increased demand congests roads, creating more traffic.
The root of the highway congestion issue, supply and demand, reveals how the U.S. can curb car reliance. We must integrate other methods of transportation. There must be an increase in supply for other methods of transportation to decrease demand for car-related transportation.
However, this is easier said than done. Countries like Switzerland are able to implement grand rail systems because of the country’s relatively small size. The U.S., on the other hand, must contend with long distances and metropolitan infrastructure, which can lend itself to car use.
Implementing methods of transportation like biking and walking mean that American cities will have to start allowing for multi-use zoning. This means putting people’s homes closer to their destinations.
However, this requires a long-term overhaul of American infrastructure. What we have now is a single-use zoning system that places homes, work, and commercial areas in separate, distant areas. It would take a considerable amount of time to reform infrastructure design.
A more feasible solution is to expand public transit. More expansive and efficient rail and bus systems encourage people to take other forms of transportation, rather than driving. This would decrease congestion and overall car reliance.
For example, the DC Metro system’s new silver line adds six new stops, including at the Dulles Airport. The six new stops also place 420,000 more people five miles from the nearest station. These 420,000 people now have the option to travel on inexpensive, traffic-free metro. This will reduce cars on the road.
The extension gives residents of Ashburn, Virginia direct access to D.C. public transportation — 30 miles away. This furthers the reach of an already-extensive D.C. public transit network which spans from Virginia to Maryland.
The D.C. Metro covers a lot of the DMV, and it’s efficient. 94% of their trains arrive on time. D.C. is evidence that local governments in the U.S. have the ability to create, support, and sustain efficient, vast, expansive rail networks.
Another option is decreasing the supply and the demand for roads. Decreasing supply would mean getting rid of standard roads and replacing them with simple roads which have more space for walking, biking, and buses, such as what Boston did in 1990.
Research has shown interstate roads which cut through cities decrease downtown populations. Therefore, deconstructing interstate roads may have the opposite effect, bringing more people to downtown areas, which can allow for walkable living. City areas, unlike suburbs, put people close to their destinations and give people access to public transit. Cities also disincentivize cars because of their tight roads, limited parking, and nonoptimal gas usage.
Disincentivizing car use is another way to decrease car reliance and compel people to use other methods of transport. For example, parking expenses in city areas decrease car use, according to a study in the Public Works Management & Policy Journal. Fees and taxes disincentivize car use, and push people to carpool or take other modes of transportation.
The move towards walkability does not mean getting rid of cars entirely. It is unrealistic to expect places like rural towns to become car-free, especially considering America’s size.
Furthering other transit options means less people in cars and more space for people.
In the short term, this means diversifying transportation options, mainly mass transit, and cutting down on interstate highways.
In the long term, decreasing car use means reorienting American infrastructure away from car-heavy suburbia and towards more walkable cities and towns connected by public transit.
The shortcomings of public transit systems in the U.S. has to do with the lack of funding. Highways receive 41% of federal U.S. Transportation and Infrastructure funding, while public transit receives 19%. The clear discrepancy between the two promotes car reliance. Public transit has been historically underfunded, while roads have been overfunded.
Hopefully, as the unsustainability of car reliance becomes clear, the benefits of public transportation will become clear too. That way, federal, state, and local governments of any party affiliation can progress towards a less car-oriented America.
Stefan Cohn is a freshman majoring in Political Science.
