Could the United States Have Built More Public Transit-Centric Cities?

For decades, the car centrism ingrained within American society has made it challenging for many downtown areas to thrive without cars. However, public transport was not always an afterthought. In the past, cities like those on the East Coast were more transit-oriented. This article delves into the understated potential of public transit in American cities.

Car Centrism vs. Public Transport

It is perplexing to consider how less than half of the US population currently resides in cities where public transit is feasible. With an overall population density ranking at the lower end of the developed world, the necessity for car centrism is further amplified. Over five decades, I have worked in four separate states, and in none of these places was public transit even faintly feasible.

The central federal government’s role in transportation is minimal, often leaving it to municipal or combined governmental agencies to manage. This decentralized approach has allowed for a system where cars and fuel are not heavily taxed, fostering a culture where car ownership is seen not only as a necessity but also a status symbol.

The question remains: Could the US have avoided subsidizing cars and seen different results? The impact of such subsidies can be seen in cities like Kansas City, where the construction of interstates led to the demolition of neighborhoods, cutting off downtown from surrounding areas. This necessitated the widespread use of cars to compensate for the lack of interconnectedness.

Historical Context and Urban Planning

Historically, the US did have cities that were more transit-oriented, especially those on the East Coast. However, as time passed, public transport infrastructure aged, and accommodating car-centric urban planning became the priority.

Consider the movie “Who Framed Roger Rabbit”, which showcases the extensive use of streetcars in places. In Chicago, the rail system could even hit speeds of 200 miles per hour on straightaways. This heritage was destroyed in the 1960s when General Motors (GM) played a significant role in leveraging its influence to remove public railways and streetcars, so they could sell more automobiles.

The removal of these infrastructure systems had a profound impact on traffic patterns. For instance, the day the Milwaukee train stopped running, traffic congestion on the Edens Expressway significantly increased. This raises the question: Was the removal of public transport purely a commercial strategy, or was there a deeper political motive at play?

Implications and Future Directions

Looking forward, it is crucial to assess the long-term impacts of car centrism and explore ways to integrate more public transport into urban planning. Cities like Kansas City demonstrate that the dismantling of public transport infrastructure can have unintended consequences, notably a spike in traffic congestion and a decrease in walkability and livability.

Are we destined to live in car-centric cities, or could we learn from past examples to create more balanced urban environments? The answers lie in a combination of political will, funding, and innovative zoning policies that prioritize public transit.

It is not too late to change course. By addressing the historical and ongoing challenges with public transport, we can create cities that are more accessible, sustainable, and equitable for all.