SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
An article over at Motherboard covers the growing inequities in the US resulting from the cultivation of individualized transport options.
Carsharing, ridesharing, ride-hailing, public transit, and cycling—"all of those things are needed to replace personal cars," said [Robin Chase, co-founder of Zipcar].
It's a nice idea, but to actually kill car ownership, we're first going to need to have some very uncomfortable conversations about class and equity in the United States. Public transit used to be the great equalizer, but affordable private rides have become the new favorite of the middle class. When richer people give their money to private ride-hailing or carsharing companies, public transit loses money—and that's not good for cities, societies, or the environment.
[...] This dependence on ride-hailing is having the adverse effect of increasing traffic congestion, which in turn makes bus service slower and more frustrating. Besides, until cities change dramatically—i.e. more parks, fewer parking lots, less sprawl, better accommodations for active and public transit—decreased rates of car ownership likely won't benefit the environment if we're still travelling the same distances in cars.
Those living in countries that still have good or remnants of good mass transit will have different insights. It is unlikely that without good, reliable, vast public transit networks, there will be social and economic equity, assuming that is a goal. While public transit can suck, especially in the US, it is sometimes necessary to take one for the team and vote with your wallet. Unfortunately the situation is often framed as a false dilemma, that there can only be private cars or only mass transit, but not both coexisting and used for different ends at different times by the same people.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday February 14 2018, @09:42AM
Ride-hailing services have shaded in the gaps between mass transit and traditional taxis. Mass transit works great for set paths, but not as well for ad hoc travel between two random points. Traditional taxis have relied on government-granted monopolies to charge excessive rents for those ad hoc trips. Now that everyone has a smartphone, it's possible to find other options for those. Contrary to what the article asserts, those additional options have created greater equity in our transportation system because they are cheaper and provide transportation convenience to many more than could afford taxi fares before.
Furthermore, ride-hailing services and bike rental systems have allowed cities to expand the carrying capacity of their transportation systems for far less than it costs to build another subway line or carve out another bus route. It's faster, too. It took NYC 50 years to start adding another subway line on the Upper East Side that has been desperately needed all that time.
In NYC on that transit system ridership has gone up double digits every year for the last 15 years, with only the scant aforementioned additional capacity being added to it. Yet while more and more people have crowded onto the same number of buses and trains, the fares have not gone down, as one might expect with many more people sharing the cost of maintaining the system, but have skyrocketed. Why? The transit unions keep wringing more and more money out of the government at a rate that outpaces inflation to do the same jobs that have not changed or become more demanding for decades. (Oh, also, since it's New York there's the cost of graft, too)
In other words, there are numerable inefficiencies that have grown up around established transportation options that have extracted more income from citizens than necessary.
That said, I do also find the tone of TFA maudlin. If city dwellers really wanted to get around cheaply, they'd buy themselves folding bikes. For a couple hundred dollars (less if they buy them used) they can get around quite well. For a few dollars more they can get a carrying bag, arrive at their destination, pop the bike in, sling it over their shoulder, and not have to even worry about theft or vandalism or parking. With all the traffic on the roads, and congestion in subway systems, the chances are they'll get to the meeting before anyone else does and get some great exercise in the meantime.
And why not? It works perfectly well for the Dutch and the Danes. They even do it in colder, rainier climates than what most Americans face. But, no, it's necessary to curl up in fetal positions and whine about how the world doesn't give us enough money.
While we're at it, let's nip the typical reflexive protest in the bud, that 'America is a big country, unlike the small states of Europe.' That may be so, but the vast majority of that big country is land nobody lives in. The average American commute to work is 23 miles. That's a very bikeable distance, and will often take less time to cycle than it will to sit in traffic & find parking, or drive to the light rail station, ride in, then switch to the subway or bus or walk to get to work.
In short, a very large part of the answer to transportation is to change our mindsets and be practical, not shell out more cash or whine infinitely on social media.
Washington DC delenda est.