[sustran] Re: a bias against drivers? -- equity considerations?

[Wendell Cox]

Your point is well taken. Let's get the numbers. In the non-Asian cities, at
least, the auto will generally exclude fewer than public transport does at
this point (that is my assumption). And, of course, we should provide for
those who are excluded... that's why I raised the issue of dial a ride
systems.

Also, not sure that there is a "shrinking majority" of people able to drive.
But this would all  be an interesting inquiry.....



DEMOGRAPHIA & THE PUBLIC PURPOSE (Wendell Cox Consultancy)
http://www.demographia.com (Demographics & Land Use)
http://www.publicpurpose.com (Public Policy & Transport))
Telephone: +1.618.632.8507 - Facsimile: +1.810.821.8134
PO Box 841 - Belleville, IL 62222 USA
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Cervero <robertc at uclink.berkeley.edu>
To: <sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org>
Sent: Thursday, 05 July, 2001 18:14
Subject: [sustran] a bias against drivers? -- equity considerations?


>
> >Actually, public transport excludes a much larger percentage of the
people.
>
> Isn't this argument circular?  That is, isn't a big reason US cities
> average such poor
> transit accessibility levels due to the fact that auto-centric development
> patterns (fueled
> in part by hidden subsidies to auto-motoring) lead to abysmal-quality
> transit services -- e.g.,
> fixed-route buses that come by every 30 minutes for 10 hours a day, hardly
> a respectable mobility
> option for most car-owning folks.  Thus the post-war history of transit in
> the US -- declining ridership
> begets more service cuts which begets declining ridership and so on.
>
>
> >Let us take the average American urbanized area of 1 million for example.
> >Generally, the 95 percent or so of people with access to cars can get to
100
> >percent of the jobs
>
> Shouldn't this be a bit more inclusive, weighing accessibility not just
for
> workers but for everyone?  The 2000 census revealed that around 25% of
> Americans were below 17 years of age (thus too young to drive) and another
> 6% were 75 years of age or more (a goodly share pressing their abilities
to
> drive).  Among American in the 5-64 year age group that presumably
> represents prime driving ages, 17.3% had severe disabilities
> (sight/hearing/walking impaired).  Auto-accessibility is great for the
> shrinking majority of Americans who are able to drive, but for the
teenager
> stuck in the burbs without a car, the blind, and the many others we tend
to
> overlook, it's pretty non-existent.  Yes, a parent or friend can chauffeur
> such folks around, but surely there are costs (quality-of-life? "time
> pollution"?) associated with this form of auto-mobility.  I buy into
> certain principles of "sustainable auto-mobility" (cleaner fuels, hybrid
> engines, etc.), however there's nothing we can do to tinker with vehicle
> designs and re-engineer the car to redress the inherent injustices and
> social inequities associated with car-dependent cityscapes.
>