Cities can promote public transportation in many ways. However, many cities fail to do so. They make the postulation that people will utilize public transportation only if they optate to, and it does not require to be promoted. This is far from the truth. Many people may not ken about transportation options in their city, and they may not realize how benign these options can be (Barletta, et al, 2008). There is a postulation by many people that public transportation is dirty and smelly, or that only lower income people utilize it (Achs, 1991). In the prodigious majority of cities, all kinds of people use public transportation (Newman & Kenworthy, 1999). In fact, in a number of major American cities, quite a few people do not even own cars. They do not require them, because they can get anywhere they require to go utilizing the public transportation options available.
This can make their lives more facile and less intricate, and can additionally avail them eliminate the expenses that would come with having a car (Newman & Kenworthy, 1999). For cities that want to promote their public transportation a marketing campaign may genuinely be needed, but the city must be sure to utilize that campaign in the opportune way. If this is not done correctly, a great deal of money will be spent on something that will not genuinely work and provide the desired outcome. In short, a city that wants to promote the utilization of public transportation has to do so in such a way that people who would customarily drive their cars feel that utilizing public transit is going to benefit them in some way.
Consequentiality of the Quandary
The quandary of people not utilizing public transportation is very consequential. An immensely colossal number of vehicles are clogging up the roadways in the United States and in many other countries, as well (Newman & Kenworthy, 1999). This is not only an issue when it comes to commute times, but it withal puts people at a more astronomically immense risk of a contingency that could result in earnest injury or even death (Newman & Kenworthy, 1999). Because that is a concern for numerous people, public transportation could be the answer to the quandary (Achs, 1991). Another consequential issue when considering public transportation and the quandary of getting more people to utilize it emanates from the pollution that is affecting the planet (Barletta, et al, 2008). The number of cars and trucks on the roads each day could be greatly reduced if a more immensely colossal number of people took buses and commuter trains to work, school, and other activities (Newman & Kenworthy, 1999). By doing this, the carbon emissions going into the air, especially in astronomically immense cities, could be greatly reduced and the people in those cities would get more salubrious air to breathe.
Recommendations to Solve the Quandary
Solving this quandary does not have to be perplexed, but it will take some work. Cities that want to convince people to utilize public transportation have to make that utilization seem alluring. People need to ken why they should transmute their habits and do something differently, and the reasons to do so have to be compelling to them or they are not going to make any transmutations to their current routine (Barletta, et al, 2008; Newman & Kenworthy, 1999). That is something to punctiliously consider for any city that is working to come up with a way to inspirit people to utilize public transportation in lieu of driving their own vehicles. First of all, public transportation has to be facilely accessible (Newman & Kenworthy, 1999). If it is arduous to get to or does not take them to where they optate to go in the city, there is minute to no persuasive relevancy in utilizing it. People will expeditiously get frustrated at that point, and will just resume driving their car to get where they optate to go.
The bus or train that people are being emboldened to utilize additionally has to be immaculate and safe (Achs, 1991). If those two things are not provided, many people will opt out of utilizing public transportation because they feel as though they might get sick or because they feel like they could be the victim of malefaction. While it is true that malefaction can transpire anywhere, some people are more liable to be targeted than others. That is withal true for areas of the city and times of the day. For example, it would be a deplorable cull for an adolescent woman peregrinating alone to get off the bus tardy at night in a component of town that is not considered very good. While those kinds of scenarios sometimes cannot be eschewed, it is generally possible for the majority of people to eschew these types of issues. Cities that authentically want people to utilize public transportation must be meticulous of their drop off times and locations.
If they are not meticulous, they could culminate up with a deplorable reputation because of peril or illness, and that could cause more people to evade them, even if those same people had been considering public transportation up until that point in time. Haplessly, this is a double edged sword in many cases. Public transportation needs to be very safe, but at the same time it withal needs to peregrinate to where people want to go, when they optate to go there. Sometimes, it is very arduous to reconcile those two things in such a way that works for everyone involved. The main goal should be safety, though, even if it signifies that public transportation will lose a few customers who would have otherwise peregrinated on it. This is something the city must weigh conscientiously afore making a decision.
Another recommendation when it comes to getting people to utilize public transportation is to appeal to their sense of savings (Barletta, et al, 2008). In other words, most people relish to preserve money. They can often do that with public transportation versus having a car of their own. Persuading people to give up their cars can be arduous, though, so the city authentically needs to focus more on why it is worth the cost to utilize public transportation in integration to still keeping a car. By providing passes for buses and trains at discounted rates, the city will be able to show people that it does not cost that much to utilize public transit. It is only when people optically discern that this option is going to preserve them money, and that it is immaculate, safe, and convenient, that they will consider switching. If the city is efficacious in exhibiting those things to consumers, there will be a much more astronomically immense likelihood of optically discerning public transportation utilization increase.
This topic is a highly paramount one for cities, for several reasons. The value to the planet cannot be overstated. Cars and trucks cause so much pollution, especially in sizably voluminous cities. Many sizably voluminous cities have an aeonian haze of smog in their air, because of all the pollution. While it does not all emanate from the vehicles on the road, an astronomically immense percentage of it does. That can be reduced when people take public transportation, which would avail the planet (and the people who live on it) breathe more facilely. It would take time, but pollution levels would drop and this could even lower the potential for ecumenical warming. Many scientists believe emissions from vehicles are a sizably voluminous part of the quandary, but public transportation could avail be a component of the solution.
It would withal be possible to visually perceive the numbers of traffic deaths come down as a replication to public transportation. The fewer people who are driving on the roads, the fewer people (theoretically) who will be killed or solemnly injured in car accidents. If people who want to verbalize on their cell phones, text, or drink, would take public transportation in lieu of getting abaft the wheel of their own vehicle, many lives could be preserved. The public transportation system in many cities is far from impeccable, but changes would come if more people utilized the system. That would sanction cities to optically discern where the quandaries genuinely were, and give them incentive to make changes and amend the ride for everyone.
- Achs, N. (1991). Roadblocks to public transit: for reasons ranging from prejudice to pragmatism, many suburbanites are fighting tooth and nail to keep mass transit out of their neighborhoods. American City & County, 106(1): 28–32.
- Barletta, B., Dabdub, D., Blake, D.R., Sherwood, R.F., Nissenson, P., & Meinardi, S. (2008). Influence of the public transportation system on the air quality of a major urban center. A case study: Milan, Italy. Atmospheric Environment, 42(34): 7915–7923.
- Newman, P. & Kenworthy, J.R. (1999). Sustainability and cities: Overcoming automobile dependence. NY: Island Press.