An outer suburban dweller who chooses to catch a bus instead of driving will probably have a much longer and slower journey, not commensurate with distance traveled. The culture of the cities has shaped our public transportation systems so much and the public transport systems we live with continue to shape the city and suburbs. Rail and light rail are far superior to buses in my opinion. Buses are smelly and seem to collide with pedestrians and cyclists way more often than vehicles that just stay on tracks.
Bus stations are ugly and intrusive. But I can see pros and cons with all modes. Recently, a new service has come on to the market in Melbourne.
There is no stigma with these, as they are luxurious and expensive and comfortable, and everybody on the bus is going to their full time city job. This service is not accessible to random users at all and so the service is exclusive rather than public.
It seems to me that stigma in these cities is associated more with the routes of travel circuitous or direct and time length of journey than the transport mode, and this leads to association between stigma and the mode used in a particular place.
Better public transport makes places more desirable as it shortens commute time. Long commutes have stigma as they reduce a person's leisure time and productive time. What is interesting to me is how the dislike of busses extends to both liberals and conservatives. Conservatives because of their dislike of public transportation in general, and liberals because trains are somehow more exciting?
I have seen so many plans to build huge, expensive train networks servicing few areas, when that same money could quadruple the bus service. I would like to add that the positive association with trains also might come from the fact that they are usually larger, provide more space and seats for passengers, are more steady when they move, their routes take fewer turns, they are less noisy inside and they don't leave you in a cloud of smelly fumes when they pass by you.
One point about the UK - the buses there are privatized. Privatization tends to lower wages, and thus makes it small buses that run frequently relatively more cost-effective. A small bus that runs frequently will be faster than a large bus that runs less often, and shorter travel times will get people on buses.
Also in the UK pensioners get free bus travel, which effectively is a massive subsidy to buses again, allowing for more frequent buses and nicer ones. Middle-class pensioners also change the social status of buses. Plus the urban geography of the UK is very different from that of the US. Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. Sociological Images encourages people to exercise and develop their sociological imaginations with discussions of compelling visuals that span the breadth of sociological inquiry.
Read more…. Toggle navigation. Look closely. Which would you rather ride? She is the author of American Hookup , a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender ; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology.
You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram. Chumbawumba — March 10, Andrew — March 11, Some modern rapid-bus systems are among the most efficient and cost-effective mass transit networks in the world, and the ones I've taken have been no less comfortable or convenient than trains. AML — March 11, I find it fascinating that there should be shame associated with bus-riding.
Feb 9, , am EST. Feb 4, , am EST. Jan 26, , am EST. Oct 29, , pm EDT. Oct 27, , pm EDT. Oct 13, , pm EDT. Edit Story. Mar 6, , pm EST. From Chicago, I write about climate change, green technology, energy. Follow me on Twitter or LinkedIn. Jeffrey Ostler: Disease has never been just disease for Native Americans. Hard-hit cities such as Milan that have reopened their transit systems have not seen subsequent infection spikes. Something that Japanese and many other Asian cities have in common is a long-standing culture of wearing face coverings in public.
Scientists have not yet determined precisely how effective masks are at reducing virus transmission—and how safe transit would be if everyone wore them—but even imperfect face coverings appear to confer benefits when most people wear them.
Buses and trains where masked riders silently browse their phones may prove less risky than other settings where patrons are talking loudly and singing. This message, which bewildered transit agencies scrambling to recover, fails to recognize the transportation realities of millions of Americans for whom owning and maintaining a car is simply unaffordable and impractical.
The CDC guidance also fails as a matter of transportation and environmental policy: Shifting transit commuters to single-occupancy vehicles would asphyxiate cities with congestion and pollution, and reinforce the deadly outcomes of a century of car-focused urban planning that cities have been trying to escape. Every year, 1. Before the pandemic, cities were acting locally to fight climate change, make their streets safer, and achieve greater equity among neighborhoods.
Residents would be rightly furious if their leaders restored cities to maximum traffic and increased car dependency—bringing back the same issues of congestion, pollution, inequity, and lack of access as before the crisis, but providing even fewer transportation options to confront them with.
But revitalized transit systems may not need hospital-level sanitization to operate safely and to win back riders. They must also look and feel safe, and agencies must create a new transit culture that reinforces public hygiene and promotes washing hands before and after trips. Expanding contactless payment and protecting transit workers can help reduce touch points and get cities working again until a vaccine and effective treatment are available.
Scott Wiener and Anthony Iton: A backlash against cities would be dangerous.
0コメント