Treehugger, a very popular online magazine, has an article written by Lloyd Alter about a $2500 car that notes the impact of such an introduction into India.
In one of the most populated countries in the world and likely to become the number one country in terms of population very soon (currently behind China a little), Alter points out in his article that the $2500 car (aka. Tata’s new car, named after India’s Tata Group) addresses very few safety and environmental concerns. I guess the impact can be huge considering the number of these cars that could be on the roads of India. It is literally the ultimate bare bones car. If you could even think of something that would be unnecessary to drive, it’d probably be missing from the car. It’s not only India that has to contend with issues surrounding automobiles–China appears to have similar problems but on a different scale due to the insanely rapid urban development (That said, correct me if I am wrong).
The article about the $2500 car didn’t actually make me want to post about the article, but it caused me to think about how we live here in North America, and more specifically for me, the city of Toronto in Canada. On a personal note, I drive a 2001 Pontiac Sunfire, not the most environmentally friendly of cars but I am looking towards purchasing something a little more fuel efficient and air friendly. I don’t however, drive into the downtown core–at least I try to avoid anything south of Eglinton (for those of you not from Toronto, that’s a street that runs east-west across the mid-north part of the city).
Many organizations, governments and individuals promote public transit as the alternative to the traffic congestions in the city, yet people continue to drive. From my opinion, it’s all about incentive. It can be cheaper, it can be more environmentally friendly, but if it isn’t just as comfortable as sitting in your car (or more so), then I don’t see how people will be inclined to leave their cars at home and ride the public transit. In fact, people will pay more money to drive their car around because they can’t stand it in the public transit.
Pros: environmentally beneficial, less expensive, takes potentially less time to get from A to B
Cons: poor behaviour by other people, crammed into a small and limited space, poor air quality, very little opportunity to sit down, can take longer time to get from C to E than a car
Despite arguments by fellow citizens, action groups, activists, public officials and individuals for public transit, I have yet to see them pose solutions to the drawbacks of public transit.
From my perspective, to truly reduce the number of people driving within the metropolitan core of a city, we need to give fewer reasons for them to do so. I believe in public transit but I cannot stand it–I feel as if I can’t breathe majority of the time on the subway, bus drivers turn up the thermostat in the winter as if we all step on to the bus wearing a t-shirt and shorts, and it takes me 4 hours total commuting time. I can drive to a city one hour away from Toronto in less time than it takes for me to arrive at work downtown. That’s pretty sad isn’t it?
So for public transportation to win over car drivers, we need to address the issue of comfort and personal space. Some may point out that in other countries, people just live with it. In places like Japan, New York, London, and Hong Kong people are all crammed into buses and subway trains–but why does it have to be that way?
When the image of public transportation becomes a picture with one person’s arm reaching over my head while another person’s arm reaching across the couple of inches of space in front my nose, I don’t blame those who choose to continue to drive to work. Nor would I blame them for avoiding public transit after being elbowed and shoved by people who seem to believe getting a seat on the train is worth more than another person’s safety.
The underlying flaw in public transportation is that we don’t consider citizens as individuals. A citizen takes the public transit and contributes to society, whereas individuals look at everything from a “me first” perspective. I don’t mean that in any negative or positive way, but rather I am emphasizing the fact that public transportation should be taking into account how people behave.
Photograph by SF Buckaroo
It is similar to a simple design on a user interface. No one likes a cluttered screen with many buttons, our eyes need space to be able to breathe and see each individual button. Note: I am not stating that individuals are buttons! I was merely using design as a way to explain my idea.
The argument that focusing only on economics and finance is the way to really have a well-funded public transit system doesn’t mesh well enough with me. Despite the fact that I can’t stand the public transit, I continue to take it because I cannot afford any other method so economically I am stuck in my current state, just as many other individuals (aka. citizens). However, just because something works and has worked for however long, does not translate to it being the best plausible solution. I believe that if public transit were just as comfortable as an average car in North America, we would be able to in conjunction with a few other traffic limiting measures, encourage majority of the population to take public transit.
There are many factors to public transportation and we need to look at more than just funding or urban planning. The previous post where James Howard Kunstler talks about people in cities living closer together, in smaller spaces, and sharing space is valid and important, but that can only work if we acknowledge that there is still a need for personal space.
If not, I guess there’s always the idea of having the business community stagger when people go to work and home… ?
