The road towards vision zero: Public Transit
Bird's eye view of the U.S road fatalities and transit problems
Why US cannot afford few more (safer) cars ?
In the United States, the possession of car is equated with an idea of personal freedom . Therefore, people are encouraged to procure a car and be independent with locomotion. Therefore, the transportation and housing infrastructures are designed over the idea of automobile-oriented neighborhoods. Currently, US residents own 275,924,442 cars. Furthermore, a high car possession means a greater traffic congestion and an inflated risk of lives. And over the years, the idea of more cars has been taxing lives on American roads. Nevertheless, several strategies are devised from reducing the speed limits to building safer cars.
A comparison of road fatalities in US & Canada (2000-2020)
Despite prodigious improvements in both car and road safety over the past two decades, the trend of road fatalities has been picking up in North America, particularly in the United States. Around 40,000 people are killed on American roads anually, with a median death count of 37,448 from 2000-2020. Early this year, the United States Department of Transportation (US DoT) released a National Roadway Safety Strategy envisioning zero road deaths. Once again US DoT aims at incentivizing "safer cars" and " complete roads ." Leaving out, one of the feasible options to achieve the vision - Public Transit. Moreover, Public transit could be a way toward "vision zero'" for two reasons - a. Reduction in crash risk per mile about 90% versus a car, b. An alternative method to tackle high risk drivers (drivers with fatigue, distraction and so forth).
Why does public transit matter?
Because it is safer, reliable and sustainable for the urban areas
The map illustrates the status of road fatalities across the US and Canada.
It is evident that Canadian cities register a lower fatality rate than many states in the US.
A few contributing reasons for lower fatality in Canada is a low population density.
Better roads, traffic design, and interconnectedness in the public transit system. Road fatalities are considered an avoidable segment of fatalities.
According to federal data, an estimated 42,915 people died in motor vehicle traffic crashes in 2021, a 10.5% increase from 2020 and the highest rate since 2005.
Therefore, public transit is a viable and eco-friendly alternative apart from the story's focal point - "Safety or Safe travel."
At this juncture, cities cannot accommodate their complete population driving around.
Therefore, a comparative study between the US city - Chicago, Illinois, and the Canadian city - Toronto, Ontario, is performed to understand the best practices and how a transit-oriented development could be a model for sustainable cities and a plausible solution toward vision zero.
Comparison between urban population centers and fatalities Chicago and Toronto.
More Cars, More Problem?
Overall, passenger transportation incidents account for about one out of seven preventable injury-related deaths. But the risk of death for passengers on a per-mile basis varies greatly by transportation mode. However, one might assume that the public transit shift is about climate change; rather, it offers the highest safety per mileage.
Though vehicle miles traveled decreased by 11% in the United States in 2020, traffic fatalities rose 6.8%, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Travel by bus or train is at least 30 times safer than travel by car. From the below data - road fatalities and average household car ownership, there is presence of weak positive correlation suggesting a lesser number of cars could result fewer road deaths. Moreover, urban fatalities account for 56% of the deaths. And in several major urban centers there is an existing transit system.
Challenge: Bigger cities & more cars?
In 2020, Illinois registered road fatalities were 1,194, with 68% of deaths in urban areas. Most of these deaths are between the age group of 13-19.
Moreover, Illinois has a registered vehicle count of 10,587,725, as of 2020. The average household car ownership in Chicago, IL, is 1.65.
However, the case of fewer cars on roads resulting in fewer accidents is not the scenario here. The state of Illinois displays a higher fatality rate of 9.3
On the other hand, Ontario(ON) province has a registered vehicle count of 12,812,39 as of 2019. The average household vehicle ownership is 2.5 cars.
Moreover, the fatalities rates of the province are as low as 3.6 per 100,000 population. Interestingly, Ontario has vehicle ownership of 35.8% of total cars.
However, there are numerous reasons for the low fatality. And one of the contributing reasons is adaptation of public transit. The most vulnerable age groups are 25-34 and 65+ years .
Comparison: Chicago & Toronto
Though transit appears to be comprehensive, the Chicago transit system does not provide interconnectedness of movement.
As per the Vox News documentary, the American transit system is designed to move people from outside of the city into downtown.
Serving a specific type of commute that forces the residents of the suburbs to own a car.
For instance, the Chicago rail has lines intersecting in the suburbs and fanning outside.
This model commute would not serve the demanded commute, which is suburb-to-suburb.
One of the critical reasons for the lack of ridership is the deficit of vertical connectivity among the rail transit stations and the redundant modeling.
Therefore both the transit rail system and bus route system though possess a greater coverage, lacks ridership.
In contrast, the Toronto Transit System (TTC) is relatively half the size of the Chicago transit system.
But attracts a significant ridership and is regarded as North America's third-largest urban transit.
One critical reason for the transit system's success is that it is a multi-modal system.
This light rail supports all the commute in the coastal region and connects to the metro transit.
Secondly, TTC provides the anticipated suburb-to-suburb connectivity through effective maintenance of frequency and routing.
The gridded pattern allows serving considerable coverage with a focus on connectivity between the suburbs.
Federal Funding or Fare Recovery?
Farebox recovery ratio - Chicago vs Toronto
The federal government, state, and local governments operate the transit not-for-profit.
However, every transit authority needs to keep a tab on the "Farebox Recovery Ratio" (FRR). In most cases, the operating costs are covered by the fares. And FRR is referred to as the fraction of investment that could be earned back from the transit model.
The workable solution would be redesigning the public transit systems.
In order to design, there would be requirements of capital investments, alignment of policy and cooperation between local & state governments.
No funding allocation for several due to low population density.
The state of Illinois was funded with a reduction for Transit Oriented Development (TOD) in 2020.
In most cases, transit relies heavily on state and local governments. As federal funding is not reliable
The lower the ridership, the lesser the would be FRR, resulting in a lesser allocation of federal funding.
Solution: What could be done?
Suburban Sprawl: The redesign of the existing road network allows a better sprawl.
It is reported that people tend to walk more , if there is a better allowance for sprawl.
Road diet : The workable alternative would be redesigning the road to follow a road diet.
Instead of a four-lane road, a three-lane bi-directional road would be created that would have lesser conflict points than a conventional freeway system.
Lastly, transit-oriented development (TOD) could lead the way. However, there are key drawbacks to TOD, as there are accommodation issues with respect to population density, ridership, and adaptability of public transit.
Moreover, the story aims to build an abstractness to the thought that public transit is only meant to be environmentally eco-friendly.
