Addressing Transport Poverty Through The Trusty Tram
Even as we push for more electric cars on our roads, we run the risk of further alienating the vast population that is either not interested in driving or cannot afford the increasing cost of owning their own personal mobility device. I was in NYC a few weeks ago and it is ridiculous to imagine that the bulk of the population that relies on the train network in a city like New York would eventually all switch (or should switch) to electric cars. Electric cars are less about climate change than they are about selling more cars to people. What we need in our cities, especially smaller but growing cities that are starting to experience crushing traffic jams, are a mode of transport that has been tried and tested for as long as we’ve had images depicting the advent of mass mobility; trams.
I live in a suburb of Austin TX and I drive into the city every day to drop my kids at school. While I cannot be said to be ‘transport poor’, I do desire a reduction in the amount of carbon I personally emit into the atmosphere every day. Along with this, I would like my kids to be able to experience the city from inside more than just an SUV. It was such a delight to see the kids getting on the public transport systems or walking to get to their schools while I was last in NYC. I could feel the grit and resilience building in those kids, some the same age as mine, as they navigated the transport and walking options in NYC. Because of the accessibility of places (of work, food, education, etc.) NYC transportation system vastly reduces the transport poverty that residents of smaller cities that are more car-centric currently experience.
For all it has in terms of a great train system, the City of London perpetuates transport poverty. There are some lessons to be learned here and the policy recommendations that the authors provide would suggest that even London would do well to develop an above-ground tram system. In their Nature (02/06/23) published paper ‘Policy prescriptions to address energy and transport poverty in the United Kingdom’, Benjamin Sovacool et al offer some recommendations on how a city like London can address the increasing issue of transport (and energy) poverty. The paper examines energy and transport poverty in the UK, based on focus groups and expert interviews. It finds high levels of energy vulnerability, especially for low-income households, and that transport poverty affects up to 90% of UK households. Factors contributing to transport poverty mentioned in the paper include lack of access to affordable public transport options, reliance on unaffordable private cars (especially as a result of high energy costs), living in isolated/rural areas with limited mobility services and being on a low income and unable to afford transport costs. While this research was carried out on UK residents, those factors above all point to similar conditions for the vast population of low and middle-class residents in places like the suburbs of Austin (for example).
While Austin has something akin to a ‘tramline’, there are some factors to consider to increase the availability of a true tram-like option for the cast majority of Austin/Greater Austin who has to transport themselves to work, health, food, school, etc options across the city. Some recommendations include
a commitment to spend the necessary money on infrastructure. The days of wishing fewer people would move to Austin are in the past, the real goal is to make the city livable (and transport option-rich) for those who are already here at all income levels.
Release funding for capital expenditure to enable the building of trams. Electric trams to boot. The resources, capital, and manpower, required to build trams, tracks, and power infrastructure would create economic activity that would lift the income levels in the city vastly.
Improved urban planning approaches that will spur connected access to major residential, leisure, and commercial areas of the city/greater city area and ensure ridership levels are high enough to maintain the economic viability of the new transport system.
Multi-functional trams propose a dynamic urban vision: transport mediums by day transformed into mobile markets or cultural exhibits by night, and keeping Austin’s streets lively round the clock.
While there is talk of train options to transport residents from Austin to Dallas/Houston, and that is fine, it would cost less and increase economic activity more in Austin if we were to just go ahead and build this tram system.
A final unintended consequence will come of building these electric tram transport systems in places like Austin; it is tough for anyone to ride public transportation and at some point not start to feel they belong to part of a more social fabric of society. The energy we would all transfer as we transport ourselves in these vehicles is sure to ease the frayed social networks prevalent in our cities and towns right now. I daresay that achieving this increase in social cohesion would be worth all the money that would be required to get tram systems up and running in most of our cities. We should absolutely do this. San Diego had 5 trolley lines covering 53 miles as of 2020, emphasizing the relevance of trams in modern urban transport.