The Disproportionate Effects of Single-Occupancy Vehicle Planning on Marginalized Populations

1

The Disproportionate Impacts of Single-Occupancy Vehicle Planning on Marginalized Populations

Emily T.C. Fitzsimmons University of Oklahoma RCPL 4970 002 Dr. Aujean Lee May 7, 2020

2

The shape of cities today is inherently founded on systemic oppression. Urban form has incredible influence on the everyday lives of all residents, including their health, safety, food availability, mobility, social freedom, as well as educational and career opportunities. For this reason, those withholding the most power, both through tangible and intangible privileges from jobs, race, gender, and other factors, actively select which communities receive extravagant upgrades at the expense of others’ basic needs. One of the most infamous examples of this is urban renewal, a public policy that actively sought to eliminate neighborhoods of color, particularly those made up of African American people. Beginning in the mid-20th century, urban governments not only bulldozed what they dubbed blighted neighborhoods to make way for reconstruction but also withheld services from these areas, instructed the residents not to make any improvements to their properties, and provided almost no monetary compensation (Highsmith, 2009). As a result of urban renewal, highway proliferation, white flight, and similar events, most cities in the United States suffer from urban sprawl, an urban planning issue that not only is based on discrimination and segregation but also maintains it. Notably, however, urban sprawl is not just a simple issue of mistreatment toward one group; rather, city design that is heavily dependent on single-occupancy vehicle (SOV) use affects various groups in different ways, sometimes even to their advantage.

To many people, the advantages to SOV use is clear. For one, people do not have to travel to a pick-up point or wait for public transportation; they can leave directly from their house and go directly to their destination whenever and however they like. By using an SOV, one can avoid crowds, sit comfortably alone, listen to music, make stops along the way, and carry more objects. Even more important, the SOV system provides a strong sense of security

3 and privacy that many lack in alternative transportation, and a personal vehicles can often times be more accessible. City infrastructure designed around the car makes its use even easier and more convenient by ensuring plenty of wide, high-speed lanes and vast parking lots. In these ways, urban sprawl does benefit people. In particular, the aspect of safety in a personal car is extremely important for those who are often targeted and assaulted in public, including women and members of the LGBTQ+ community. Likewise, the accessibility that is lacking in sidewalks, trains, and buses is necessary for those with physical disabilities. Furthermore, the urban sprawl highway system makes the “drive until qualify� concept possible so that people can afford bigger houses and yards with less money. The benefits of SOVs, however, only help those who can afford it, and catering only to that group of people in the form of urban sprawl infrastructure inflicts severe costs on other groups.

In general, the people negatively affected by urban sprawl consist of low-income residents who find it difficult to afford a car or even gas. Coupled with this, cities that follow the SOV-dependent design often have extremely poor alternative transportation options, such as non-ADA compliant sidewalks, disconnected bike lanes, and inconvenient public transportation.

As a result, low-income people are severely restricted in mobility, which also limits their job and education opportunities. Likewise, places with urban sprawl like Los Angeles have many food deserts, so people without means of transportation not only have little or no access to nutritional food but also must waste more money and time for many small trips to far away grocery stores.

However, identity intersectionality means that low-income people also belong to other groups, who experience unique impacts of urban sprawl.

For instance, as exemplified by cases of urban renewal, urban sprawl has historically and disproportionally affected communities of color. Due to de jure and de facto segregation, people

4 of color – African Americans, in particular – have been forced to live in industrial and commercial areas with factories and highways even today. Such environmental injustice has caused and maintained generational poverty, chronic illnesses, death, and community diaspora (Rothstein, 2014). City planners not only sacrificed communities of color for the highways necessary for SOV infrastructure but also specifically selected communities of color for this sacrifice.

Additionally, those who are physically disabled, such as the elderly and people with chronic illnesses and physical challenges, are often restricted by urban sprawl unless they have driving ability or someone else to consistently drive for them. Cities with urban sprawl find it difficult to establish and maintain alternative forms of transportation because of the sheer amount of resources needed to serve across a large area, unlike dense cities. Therefore, if a city even provides public transportation or alternative mobility infrastructure, corners are often cut to save money at the expense of those who are physically challenged. For example, many subways or elevated trains are inaccessible due to the lack of elevators, and buses are difficult to board and to find a place in. Likewise, a ridiculous number of sidewalks are narrow, disconnected, uneven, and simply non-ADA compliant.

The first step in repairing this issue is compensation. Many people have suffered longlasting impacts of policies that support urban sprawl over the course of decades. Not only did these actions affect residents at that time but they have also sustained generational disadvantages in opportunity, health, income, housing, and community. Therefore, monetary compensation should be given directly to those who either lived in neighborhoods destroyed by urban renewal and similar policies or to their descendants. Additionally, more municipal funds should be consistently provided to neighborhoods affected by those policies for community infrastructure,

5 services, and housing.

Subsequently, cities must shift their plans toward a new urbanist view that emphasizes density, livability, and mobility. This would specifically involve urban growth boundaries and rezoning to multifamily and multiuse ordinances in order to promote density and upward growth.

This will not only stop the damaging reach of urban sprawl on the environment but also allow the city to invest more resources into a smaller, better quality transportation system with regular, safe, and accessible infrastructure. Narrow streets and small blocks will also encourage alternative transportation like walking and biking, which is more fiscally accessible to lowincome residents and could be more physically accessible to those who are mobility-challenged, assuming the infrastructure is ADA-compliant.

On that note, public transportation would need new safety and accessibility standards that are strictly enforced so that women, members of the LGBTQ+ community, and other targeted populations can still experience the same security that SOVs provide, and those with disabilities can always expect to be able to travel around the city. Such measures would include commonplace ramps and elevators as well as wide sidewalks throughout the city for full access.

Design solutions for enhancing security would also include plenty of lighting and open space as well as signage that encourages harassment intervention and prevention. Other possibilities include security officers at stops and on public transit cars as well as citizen task forces to help report and intervene assault. Additionally, programming for riders and training for employees in harassment prevention and intervention could reduce incidents. Another option that is still up for debate is women-only cars, which has been implemented with varying results in Japan, China, and India (Wee & Marchi, 2018; Women, 2019; Chatterjee, 2016; Holder, 2019). These do not fix the problem of systemic sexism; however, they do provide a public space designated for the

6 safety and comfort of women, which is still extremely important, particularly in places where so many assaults occur (United States, n.d.). Other debated solutions include banning those with a track record of assaults from public transportation or increasing the punishment of crimes in public transit spaces (Holder, 2019).

Lastly, cities will need to reverse the physical design of urban sprawl in order to effectively transition to a new urbanist setting that prevents the injuries made by SOV. This would largely consist of decommissioning some streets and parking for alternative public uses, including but not limited to parks, gardens, pedestrian-only areas, and outdoor community gathering spaces. Moreover, these spaces could be converted into areas for popup and mobile markets like food trucks or reconstructed entirely for permanent structures for housing and businesses.

Overall, the groups most affected by urban sprawl share intersectionality as low-income people even though they also are members of other various groups, which each face unique challenges due to SOV-centered city design. There are undoubtedly advantages to SOVs, including safety, privacy, and convenience; however, all residents suffer from urban sprawl, though many do not realize it. Certain communities are disproportionally affected, but the disconnection, pollution, and waste of municipal resources impact everyone. For these reasons, cities should attempt to atone for the impacts of urban sprawl through compensation to those historically affected, through city redesign based on new urbanist values, and through a firm prioritization of all people.

7 References Chatterjee, R. (2016). Why I love riding on the women-only car on Dehli’s metro. NPR. https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2016/04/04/472997605/why-i-love-riding-onthe-women-only-car-on-delhis-metro.

Highsmith, A.R. (2009). Demolition means progress: Urban renewal, local politics, and statesanctioned ghetto formation in Flint, Michigan. Journal of Urban History, 35(3), 348368. PDF. Holder, S. (2019). What makes subways safe? Harasser bans? Women-only cars? NYC is asking.

CityLab. https://www.citylab.com/equity/2019/04/new-york-subway-harassment-sexoffender-ban-women-only/587392/.

Rothstein, R. (2014). The making of Ferguson: Public policies at the root of its troubles.

Economic Policy Institute, 1-41. PDF. United States Department of Transportation. (n.d.). Reports of violent crime, property crime, and arrests by transit mode. Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Retrieved May 6, 2020, from https://www.bts.gov/content/reports-violent-crime-property-crime-and-arrests-transitmode.

Wee, S. & Marchi, G. (2018, March 4). China’s women-only subway cars, where men rush in.

The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/04/business/china-women-onlysubway-cars.html.

Women only cars on trains. (2018, January 19). Japan Experience. Retrieved May 4, 2020. https://www.japan-experience.com/to-know/visiting-japan/women-only-cars-on-trains