Green Urbanism and EcoCities 10/14

It seems that there are two recurring themes echoed in the reading, which explain why cities in Europe are able to create “high-mobility-transit cities”. In European cities like Zurich, Dublin and Berlin there is public sentiment that supports public transportation as a necessary public good and essential aspect of promoting social welfare. In general residents in these cities are willing to entertain the notion of a car free society because improving the conditions of their communities is importance and, public transportation as a means of creating that improvement is thus important as well. In addition to public support of public transportation, local and municipal governments in European cities tend to set public transit as a high priority on the public agenda, which in turn has forced officials to be creative about ensuring that these priorities are met. Certainly, European cities face many of the same limitations that American cities face when it comes to the question of public transit. BUT, unlike American cities, European political officials are making commitments to improving their neighborhoods by using public transit. Instead, of abandoning progressive ideas of car free neighborhoods, these European city governments are stepping outside of the box and creating innovative solutions to land use problems. By making public transit “attractive and comfortable” as well as convenient and easy to use, cities such as Zurich are ensuring that its residents truly enjoy using public transportation. As native New Yorker I can speak from experience about what it’s it like to ride the Subway system. Like Zurich and Freiburg, the New York City transit system is fully integrated. Every subway station is connected to a bus route, which makes almost every corner of the city accessible. Because of this almost everyone rides the subway. New York, though, because of the high volume of residents, has packed subways and packed expressways. Thousands of people ride the subway but it still doesn’t free up the roadways. I digress: the reason that I mention New York and its subway system is that I want to draw attention to the lack of attention that the MTA pays to making public transit aesthetically pleasing. In New York there is a very visible bias related to the conditions of the subway stations. Subway stations located in poorer neighborhoods and consequently neighborhoods that are dominated by minority residents are in horrible conditions. There is no regular maintenance, so the stations usually look awful and smell even worse. As you move farther downtown on the subway to the more ritzy parts of the city the condition of the subway drastically improves. The stations are just short of immaculate. Its an interesting dynamic in that the city residents who use public transit out of necessity and have no other options cant enjoy their public transit experience, that is until they head downtown to work often times in the homes and offices of the more affluent. On the other hand, wealthier transit riders, who make the choice to ride the subway as a matter of convenience can sit back and enjoy their rides to work even further downtown. The problem with transit in New York City, among other things, is that many parts of the city are racially divided and services as well as conditions also vary along similar racial lines. The reading does not address equality of service or equality of access I assume that is because race is not as prevalent an issue as it is in the states, particularly New York. It would be extremely interesting to consider minority communities and how well they are serviced in these European cities. Is there equity in access and is there equity in services. If so, once again Europe would be surpassing America in the race to create sustainable communities committed to addressing the social welfare of residents. Furthermore, in comparing the New York transit system, which unlike other transit systems in the US is actually high utilized but still needs serious improvements, it also false to adequately accommodate elderly riders. Although buses are equipped to accommodate the elderly as well as the disabled, rapid transit systems in New York, such as the underground subway system does not at all accommodate the elderly or the disabled. It also definitely neglects the needs of parents with young children. I have seen many baby carriages get stuck in the doors of the subways cars as conducted attempt to speed to their next stop. I have also witnessed single parents struggle up or down a flight of stairs carrying their child and carriage in their arms as busy New Yorker wiz by. One extraordinary aspect of the tram system that many European cities are making use of is that it accommodates parents with small children, the elderly and the disabled. Timothy Beatley shares his observations in Green Cities in which he watch these disadvantaged riders easily make their way from point A to point B. Having a fully integrated above ground system really allows residents to have a comfortable, scenic, and convenient metro experience.

This week’s reading is extremely applicable. It can help us to re envision Ithaca and develop a sustainable 10 year plan for public transit in Ithaca. Ithaca as well as the surrounding cities and towns are extremely scenic. There is so much to see in Ithaca and so many places that could potentially serve as transit hubs. An above ground transit system that is fully integrated and non intrusive could be designed to fit the character of Ithaca and surrounding areas. It could connect Ithaca to surrounding hubs and make Ithaca a much more desirable place to be. As a college student I love the idea of incorporating a more developed transit system. I think that it would be extremely exciting to experience not only Ithaca but surrounding communities as well.