Is Public Transit A Fantasy?

27 July 2006 - 5:00am

A recent opinion piece questions the wisdom of regional plans that promote public transit over accommodating more cars.

"According to the politicians and the urban planners, public transit is the answer to all our woes. Everyone knows cars are responsible for everything from gridlock to pollution and obesity. Pry people from their cars, and the world will be a better place.

[Yet] transit advocates ignore the overwhelming evidence from around the world: People still prefer their cars.

...The idea that people will use public transit to get to work ignores the fact that most people don't want to live near their work. And because people are so mobile, they no longer have to. On top of that, people use their cars for much more than commuting. According to one study, 20 per cent of all trips by auto are for work, 20 per cent for shopping, and 60 per cent for things that are 'social.' The idea that public transit can replace the car in people's busy lives is a fantasy."

Full Story: The war against the car will never succeed

Source: The Globe and Mail, July 22, 2006

Login or register to post comments
Email this page

My Opinion

Submitted by NAUTF on Mon, 07/31/2006 - 23:43.

This article is ludacris and typical of a suburbanite who hates change and is car dependent or they feel they can't function.

NAUTF | North American Urban Transit Forum

Margaret Wente: an introduction

Submitted by allderblob on Mon, 07/31/2006 - 08:13.

Who or what is Margaret Wente, and why is she quoting an 8-year-old interview that someone else conducted, and presenting it as if it's her own independent research? Is it plagiarism or just sloppy editing?

Many readers of Planetizen may be wondering why the thoroughly discredited Peter Gordon (Reason Magazine: "How are you received in the planning community? Are you on the fringe?" Peter Gordon: "I am at the edge of the fringe") is being introduced to Canadian audiences as someone worth listening to on matters of urban design.

The Allderblob has some thoughts, at: http://allderdice.ca/?p=146 .

The ALLDERBLOB because it's past time to ban automobile advertising

silly at every level

Submitted by Michael Lewyn on Mon, 07/31/2006 - 07:08.

"But it's next to impossible to get to my class by bus, so I drove."

Doesn't this mean that the author might have taken the bus if it WAS possible to get to the class by bus? And doesn't that fact disprove the entire point of her article?

"But transit advocates ignore the overwhelming evidence from around the world: People still prefer their cars."

Does "around the world" include New York City where the majority of people use public transit to get to work? Or is New York City another planet?

"The idea that people will use public transit to get to work ignores the fact that most people don't want to live near their work."

Then how come land values near downtowns are so high? I'll tell you why, because demand is high - that is, because more people WANT to live downtown than can actually afford to live downtown.

" According to one study, 20 per cent of all trips by auto are for work, 20 per cent for shopping, and 60 per cent for things that are "social." The idea that public transit can replace the car in people's busy lives is a fantasy."

The author has a point. I don't think public transit can REPLACE the car 100% for everyone. For even for people who own cars, public transit can SUPPLEMENT the car for some trips.

"As for lower-income people -- supposedly the main beneficiaries of public transit -- they have an alternative, too. It's called used cars."

Used cars typically cost thousands of dollars. Not everyone can afford that kind of lump sum expenditure. Plus, used cars require ample investments in repair and insurance. Public transit means no big one time expenditure- at most, the cost of a monthly pass.

"And yet, nowhere in all the hype about the province's new growth plan is there a mention of the words "roads" or "highways." This omission reminds me of the Duke of Wellington's comment about railways, whose construction he opposed because they "only encourage the common people to move about needlessly."

Well, most American cities have tried your way. It doesn't seem to have worked.

"Public transit systems are certainly no bargain. "Transit subsidies are hugely greater than any subsidies to the automobile," says Peter Gordon, a California professor of planning and economics. And some people say the cleaner, greener virtues of public transit are vastly overstated. "Most new autos generate little or no more pollution per passenger vehicle mile than the average bus," says Robert Bruegmann, author of Sprawl: A Compact History. He argues it would require a massive increase in the use of public transportation and improvements in transit vehicles to bring about any meaningful reduction in energy use or pollution."

Dishonest. There are plenty of authorities she could cite for the other side of these arguments.

Mr. Bruegmann's comments about urban planners' war against sprawl are an apt description of the mindset behind Ontario's new master plan. "Very few people believe that they themselves live in sprawl. Sprawl is where other people live, particularly people with less taste and good sense than themselves. Much anti-sprawl activism is based on a desire to reform these other people's lives."

This is what is called an ad hominem argument: Wente must think she can't win the substantive argument, so she stoops to attacking the motives of people who make it.