Myth #1: Only Big Cities Need Transit
In his otherwise excellent book "Transportation for
livable cities", Vukan R. Vuchic states that "In small cities….most travel
can be accomplished by private car while preserving the livability of the town or
city.", citing Lancaster, PA as an example. Vuchic has obviously not been to
Lancaster lately.
Lancaster once had a network of electric trolley lines, serving
the entire city and many of the surrounding towns and rural areas. The last of these
closed in 1947, and now the city has a bus-only transit system which serves a small number
of destinations, and is provided primarily as a social service to the city’s poorest
residents. Although Amtrak is in the process of improving their line serving Lancaster,
the service is currently sparse compared to what was provided 50, or even 20 years ago.
The Pennsylvania Turnpike passes close to Lancaster, and numerous state highways
criss-cross the area. As a result, the tremendous growth seen in recent years has taken a
distinctly suburban form.
Since 1960, the metropolitan area has almost quadrupled in
population, and now stands close to half a million. This population is spread thinly over
a huge area that merges into the suburbs of Reading, Harrisburg and Philadelphia, and is
almost entirely car-dependant. The area’s extensive highway network is congested at
all hours of day. The American Lung Association has rated the Lancaster Metropolitan area
20th in the nation for ozone pollution, ahead of other much larger cities.
Lancaster county has some of the most fertile land in the nation, yet much of it has been
taken out of agricultural use permanently, and if present trends continue, it will only be
a few years until none is left. The natural beauty that attracts tourists and residents to
the area is being destroyed, and the Amish population is being displaced to other parts of
Pennsylvania and Ohio. In 1999, Lancaster county was added to the National Trust for
Historic Preservation’s list of 11 most endangered places.
While the metropolitan area has grown, Lancaster itself has not.
The city has lost 15% of its population in the last 40 years, and has just over 50,000
residents. The downtown area still manages to attract tourists, but has only a few shops
marketed towards the local population. While some parts of the city have managed to retain
their middle class residents, others have not. A friend of mine who lives in the area told
me "I would never go to South Lancaster. It’s a ghetto." Whether this
epithet is justified, I do not know, but that perception is held by many other people in
the area.
In short, the story of Lancaster reads much like that of most
other US cities, regardless of size. If, when Lancaster was still a small town, it had
taken the cue from many European cities and decided to build a competitive transit system,
it would have preserved, or even enhanced its livability, and the region would not now be
facing the problems of urban decay, pollution, and loss of farmland. It is my belief that
everyone should have access to transit, regardless of whether they live in a town of 5
thousand or a city of 5 million.
