An Unwitting Accomplice
Volumes of books and newspaper articles have vilified the automobile as the culprit in the destruction of American cities. It would be more accurate to say that the construction of highways led to the destruction of American cities. Without highways, far fewer people would be using automobiles.
Though it is rarely blamed and sometimes supported by urban advocates, the diesel bus, alongside the automobile, contributed to the dispersion and decimation of cities. When transportation systems began to be converted from rail to “modern, economical and efficient” buses, invisible edges that once limited how far cities could spread disappeared.
While many residents moved to the suburbs once they had a car to bring them back to the city, the bus allowed others without cars to move as well. Before the bus, those who relied on public transportation had to live within walking distance of a streetcar line. This kept the city compact and insured that many amenities would also be within walking distance. Stores could depend on customers waiting for or deboarding the streetcars. Residences were also thus within walking distance of retail stores, and employers a trolley ride away.
Not restricted to travel on a guideway, the diesel bus was able to follow the automobile into suburbia and even within the city was able to cover more ground, decreasing the necessity for everything to be within walking distance.
It wasn’t public transportation as such that held the city together, but the guideway, consisting of tracks and overhead wires, which limited development to a 20 minute walk from any given point.
When automobiles allowed some city residents to move to new suburbs, the diesel bus allowed those remaining to spread out within the city, decreasing density and strangling businesses dependent on street traffic created by streetcar stops and close neighbors.
A fixed guideway system is important because it encourages dense development that is conducive to walking. When more people can walk, more people will use transit, justifying the need to build more transit.
When automakers began buying up streetcar lines, dismantling them and running buses instead, they understood that a bus would allow the city to disperse in the same manner as an automobile. A bus has the same effect as a car because it is able to follow development caused by highways rather than causing development to be built around it. buses were a transition stage to a complete automobile culture.
Detroit couldn’t sell that many cars unless people in urban America bought them. So, a consortium led by General Motors, and including companies like Firestone, began to buy up streetcar systems to replace them with “modern” buses.
A quick look at cities across North America will demonstrate that buses and streetcars are not the same. In places where there are still streetcars, or where new light-rail systems have become established, residential neighborhoods are healthy. New Orleans, San Francisco and Toronto are just a few.
The restored streetcars that run on tracks up and down Market Street in San Francisco
are there because of a dedicated group of “Market Street
Railway” volunteers who find, restore and maintain the cars. San
Francisco may become associated with streetcars, as it is with cable
cars, simply because the volunteers have been there to keep them running. The streetcars not only bring more tourists to Market Street, but they stop frequently, channeling shoppers to stores around the stops and
increasing foot traffic all along Market Street from the Financial
District to the Castro, a residential area.
Some other cities have taken notice of the value of fixed-transit and
not only have built light-rail systems but have begun replacing
rebuilding streetcar lines. Memphis, Cincinnatti and San Diego have all
either reinstalled street-car lines or are looking into the possibility.
Still, a greater number of cities continue to be sold on the alleged economic value and practicality of buses. In 1999, Pittsburgh, a dense city that could be served well by streetcars, discontinued its last trolley in 1999, replacing it with a mini-bus. But worse, despite clamoring from eastern suburbs for a light-rail line, the Port Authority in Pittsburgh insisted on building a busway there instead, to the detriment of the surrounding commercial and residential environment.
Despite the “fixed” nature of the busway, the bus still eventually leaves the busway. It then travels a wide area and creates no need for residences and businesses to be clustered in a walkable pedestrian-oriented environment. A light-rail vehicle, on the other hand, would meet buses at connecting points, making property near the stops more valuable because a commuter could walk home from the station, as well as to neighborhood stores and restaurants.
Even if buses were “fixed” to a busway, properties nearby would never be of greater value, because of the noise and pollution caused by the buses. Many studies have shown that residential property increases in value when it’s near a light-rail line, but decreases in value if it’s near a highway. Aesthetically and environmentally, a busway is more like a highway than a light-rail line.
A city that provides for fixed guideway transit will be a healthy, safe and practical place to live. The advantage of living in a city is the walkable proximity to stores, work, restaurants and entertainment. Only a fixed guideway transit system can insure that these things will be close to each other.
Eric Miller is editor of The New Colonist.
Go to A Word from Richard Risemberg
