One of the really neat things about successful European cities (where success is measured by the scale and nature of living) and a few American metropolises (shouldn't this be metropolii?) is the ease of getting about within them. My view holds that public mobility is the fundamental reason for a city's viability, and is at the heart of economic progress and civil harmony. In this, I agree with most Europeans.
Buses, trams, underground metros, light rail, economical taxi networks and other people-movers, are then good for people. On the other hand, you can blame automobiles, at least partially, for virtually every urban economic and social pestilence you can mention: economic deprivation, pollution, squandering of natural resources, social estrangement, political and corporate corruption, and the general decline of public worth and health. It is one of the most inefficient, impractical and expensive gadgets you can own. But then, what do I know. I own two of them. Obviously, the car serves a purpose; we are just not certain whether it is to promote transport or ego.
It's not that Brussels doesn't have cars on the street; it has far too many. Streets are narrow and parking is sparse outside commercial parking garages. But if there is a plus to Brussels' account, the cars are by necessity mostly small, fairly economical when compared to their American cousins, and they operate in parallel with not one but four large and interconnected public transport networks. As well, automobiles here contribute in some measure to balancing their social costs through large annual assessments (especially for luxury cars) and petrol taxes. A thorough, mandatory annual inspection of all vehicles from cars to public buses ensures some degree of public safety and conformance to pollution abatement. For the most part, these measures work, as cars remain small on the average with economical but efficient engines, and fuel consumption is necessarily low. (30 miles per gallon is not unusual for in-town driving, with petrol at about $6.50 per gallon.)
But if you live anywhere in Brussels—anywhere in Belgium—you have an inexpensive and readily-available public transport system near your door. Each of the four systems—tram, metro underground, light rail and bus—connect at various points, and fares are cheap and structured so that you can start with one system and use the others where necessary to reach your destination, as long as you're going one direction. Until the tram was extended in our neighborhood, for example, we would take the bus downtown; now we would have the choice of the bus, or a combination of tram and metro. We took the bus even though we had a car; it cost more to park the automobile than to ride the bus.
An important reason Brussels works is because you can get around so easily and cheaply. I believe there is no better investment for a city than to provide citizens with an affordable, clean, reliable and pervasive public transport. Virtually all European cities (and those U.S. cities that still support viable centers) point this out: public mobility is essential to a thriving and workable core.
J-Ville complains a lot about the decline of its downtown. Its solution is to provide 300 parking spaces. I think that central to its problem is the inadequacy of the city's public transport, ergo, the failure of government to so provide. When I last checked, they couldn't even arrange for bus shelters.
There's no doubt public transport is expensive to operate, and private enterprise is ill-suited to underwrite the costs and subsidies required, a big negative in America. (Why involve a profit-making company when the public assumes responsibility for capital and risk and tops-off operating expenses.) But if a city thinks of itself as a city, and not an amalgamation of neighborhoods and shopping centers, clean, secure and reliable public transport is the first consideration it should make.
No comments:
Post a Comment