Public transportation infrastructure and racial equity in American cities

American cities are failing to live up to their global counterparts, failing to retain their vibrancy and character, and especially failing to maintain a public infrastructure designed in the best interests of residents and visitors alike. One of the most glaring problems in American urban planning and design is public transportation. Public transportation systems are useful and user-friendly in only a handful of American cities. Urban sprawl and suburbia have ruined quality of life in America, too, damaging the aesthetics in metropolitan areas, killing creative and independent businesses to make room for bland chains, and locking in Americans to unhealthy and unsustainable lifestyles. Good public transportation systems serve the interests of users, are safe, maintained regularly for cleanliness, and also upgraded to accommodate for population changes or new patterns of population mobility. However, most American cities are plagued with outdated, dirty, inconvenient, and unsafe public transportation systems. The primary users of these systems in many cities also happen to be low-income residents, disproportionately people of color and new immigrants (Blumenberg and Shiki 1; Glaeser, Kahn and Rappaport 1; South and Deane 147). The neglect of public transportation in American cities can therefore be viewed as a discriminatory policy. Neglecting public transportation in urban planning and development budgets is also insensible, diverting taxpayer funding away from the needs of those who need infrastructure improvements the most. The problem with American public transportation infrastructure can be resolved via a multi-pronged approach that begins with effective public awareness marketing.
Cities in America have developed racial segregation patterns and racialized population distributions over the past several decades. “Discriminatory practices,” and the inability to “translate human capital into desirable locational amenities” are some of the main reasons why many urban areas remain economically depressed and cut off from access to upward mobility options (South and Deane 147). Rather than promote a desire for inner city residents to move to the suburbs, where bland housing developments and strip malls dominate the landscape, urban planners need to invest more funding into their city centers. As it is, urban planners in the United States are failing to keep up with their global counterparts. The “Smart City” concept has evolved internationally as “a means to enhance the life quality of citizen has been gaining increasing importance in the agendas of policy makers,” but the Smart City model has yet to take root in the United States (Neirotti, De Marco, Cagliano, et al., 1). Because of the shortcomings in public planning and design in American cities, public transportation infrastructure has declined. The faces of the people aboard busses are lined with fear and depression, when they could be filled with hope and civic pride.
Improving public transportation infrastructure in American cities can and should be viewed as a primary means of reducing income inequity and improving quality of life. By some accounts, “the primary reason for central city poverty is public transportation,” (Glaeser, Kahn and Rappaport 3). It is not that public transportation causes poverty. On the contrary, improving public transportation can help alleviate poverty by offering more people the opportunity to live, work, and play in uplifting and desirable environments. Each individual riding the bus or taking the train has a unique story to tell, a unique vision to share, and a unique contribution to make to their community. When public transportation is designed to fulfill the needs of residents, linking them to high-paying jobs, colleges and universities, and opportunities to start their own businesses, then cities in America might be able to experience revivals. “Underserving the poor is poor public policy,” (Taylor and Morris 347). In fact, suburban residents also deserve better access to an improved public transportation network so that they are less dependent on the personal car, contributing less to environmental degradation and climate change, and living healthier lives. According to the American Public Transportation Association, “45% of Americans have no access to public transportation.” This needs to change via a total transformation of how transportation systems are designed, which first requires a shift in public opinion.
Research shows that consumer behavior related to transportation choices is influenced by normative, identity, and cultural factors, as well as to values, attitudes, and demographics. Even among first-generation immigrants from similar socioeconomic class backgrounds, for example, public transportation use will vary. Blumenberg and Shiki show “ factors in addition to income and residential location—such as cultural differences—affect commute mode choice,” (1). Based on these findings, policymakers need to start with sensible, informed marketing strategies that attract new users to the public transportation system via targeted messages. The goal will be to change social norms related to public transportation, which will also require making investments to existing public transportation systems. Making the systems cleaner and safer is a start, but they also need to be attractive, convenient, and user-friendly. “Strong public and political support for mass transit in the U.S. is based on lofty goals, including congestion reduction, economic development, aesthetics, sustainability, and much more,” (Taylor and Morris 347). Market segmentation in public awareness campaigns will help to showcase the specific features and benefits of public transportation of note to each population cohort.
A combination of public and private sector effort is required to remedy the problem American cities face. Upgrading public transportation systems will involve massive amounts of funding, which can come from both public and private sector. No funding sources will come without the support of the public. The attitudes, values, and norms related to transportation choices need to reflect the knowledge that using a safe, convenient, and well-maintained system will improve the overall quality of life for all residents in the city.

Works Cited American Public Transportation Association. “Public Transportation Benefits.” https://www.apta.com/mediacenter/ptbenefits/Pages/default.aspx Blumenberg, Evelyn and Shiki, Kimiko. “”Transportation Assimilation: Immigrants, Race and Ethnicity, and Mode Choice.” The National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine. Transportation Research Board. 2007. https://trid.trb.org/view/802238 Glaeser, Edward L., Kahn, Matthew E. and Rappaport, Jordan. “Why do the poor live in cities? The role of public transportation.” Journal of Urban Ecoomics, Vol. 63, No. 1, pp. 1-24. Neirotti, P., De Marco, A., Cagliano, A. C., Mangano, G., & Scorrano, F. (2014). Current trends in Smart City initiatives: Some stylised facts. Cities, 38, 25–36. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2013.12.010 South, Scott J. and Glenn D. Deane. “Race and Residential Mobility: Individual Determinants and Structural Constraints.” Social Forces. Vol. 72, No. 1, Sept 1993, pp. 147-167. Taylor, Brian D. and Morris, Eric A. “Public transportation objectives and rider demographics: are transit’s priorities poor public policy?” Transportation, Vol. 42, No. 2, pp. 347-367.