Thoughts on Transport

Dearest Rachel –

So, for the first time in what seems like a very long while, the girls were over last night. Well, two out of three of them were, anyway, but that’s better than we’ve managed, lo these many weekends. We’ve got to take these moments as victories when we get them, even if they’re not complete ones. I found myself eating a third meal – and late in the evening, too – this isn’t going to do my weight-loss plans any favors, but it’s all part of getting together (and it wasn’t as if I didn’t enjoy it, as Logan makes a very good macaroni and cheese, from scratch, no less).

Somehow, however, the topic turned… well, I wouldn’t say political, as it wasn’t pertaining to any one party’s stance on this matter or that, but it did basically come down to “the way things ‘should’ be,” which often leads to the idea that, in order for things to get to that point, the government ought to step in, as the private sector hasn’t accomplished “what ‘should’ be.” It’s a topic that has come up before, although I can’t recall if it was much of a discussion back when you were still around; that of the “fifteen-minute city,” and how everything anyone needs ought to be either within walking distance or accessible via public transportation – and, of course, bemoaning the fact that things aren’t.

There’s a part of me that wants to side with the idea, especially as a traveler; I’m the sort that prefers to wander through the heart of the city (as opposed to those that make up the “beach or mountains?” debate when it comes to vacation destinations), and if everything were available to me, as one without personal transport, that would be much appreciated. At the same time, there’s something about the position that rubs me the wrong way, even as I have difficulty putting into words – and also as I realize that attempting to argue against the concept would be pointless, since it would persuade no one and alienate both of them.

It was odd to see the lines of discussion being drawn along gender lines, too. Granted, ours is a vary small sample size, but I can’t help but wonder if there’s some sort of feminine antipathy toward the automobile. You weren’t particularly fond of driving, either – and were more than happy to leave that duty to me whenever possible – but I don’t recall you making any suggestions about preferring to walk, bike or take public transportation everywhere. Well, you did enjoy biking once upon a time, but there was that accident with the car pulling out on you back in… wow, was it twenty-five years ago already? If anyone had a reason to be against autos, it would be you, but I don’t recall it being to this extent.

And to be fair, theirs wasn’t so much a case of trying to get rid of automobiles – at least, not for now. The argument was that there are people who can’t drive, either due to age, disability or inability to afford a car, but who need to get from place to place, and because they exist, they shouldn’t have to rely on automotive transport to get from place to place. When couched in these terms, this sounds reasonable, positively benevolent even. And again, as a visitor to such-and-such a city, I would be eager for such a system to be in place.

But there’s something about the whole idea that doesn’t sit right with me, and I can’t quite put my finger on it. Sure, it seems to work fantastically well in some of the cities I’ve visited, especially if you’re willing to take the time and plan out your route beforehand as to the things you want to go to and do. At the same time, there’s this nagging sense that this limits one’s options, if one is confined to those few blocks within range of each station, for instance – not to mention having to be ruled by a timetable, whether by bus or train or whatever. I consider the American psyche as one that wants to go where one wants, when one wants, and the best, easiest and most efficient way to do that – at least, at this remove from the denseness of the city proper – is by car.

I don’t argue that the average American couldn’t stand to get off their, let’s just say overweight, backside and walk to this place or that, and that the suburbs in particular are not particularly conducive to that (since we don’t live nearly as cheek-by-jowl as they do in the city, where there’s a financial incentive for businesses such as groceries and the like to be within a reasonable walking distance from each other because of the substantial clientele in such a condensed radius; they have more customers to compete over), but these are the trade-offs that we make in deciding to live in such a place. It’s not dense enough for that to be feasible, and what is available has a timetable that is inconveniently spread out. If one wants that kind of convenience, one really has to live in the city proper (and even then, there is the understanding that it’s not safe on certain public transportation; why should adding more of it make it less unsafe?).

I realize I’m meandering a bit, honey, but it’s been bothering me ever since the topic came up – again! – and like I said, I can’t quite put my objections into words (although you’d probably look at the last few paragraphs and claim I have no problem coming up with plenty of words to say relatively little on the subject). When I talk about infeasibility, it’s promptly met with “well it shouldn’t be,” or words to that effect. And I don’t know why it works in Tokyo, say, and not so well in Chicago. Then again, I recall the long drive (yes, we had to take a coach bus from the port) into Chiba prefecture to get to Narita, and seeing so much that we were driving past that probably wasn’t near to any metro station, despite there likely being one at the airport itself. Maybe certain places are equally inconvenient worldwide; it just seems less so when you’re only exposed to the few places you’re being taken to; if I was trying to get to a certain person’s house at a certain time, I might have the same issues in, say, Bali, as I would back here.

And then, there’s the question of who should be the one filling in the gaps that the free market either can’t or won’t (because there’s no percentage in it). The obvious solution is to have the government do it; they’re the ones to take care of every problem for which there isn’t a profitable solution, and lose money in the bargain so no one person or company has to take that loss. Again, this doesn’t seem to be in keeping with the American psyche, as our country was literally born out of a distrust of government – and I can’t say it’s been covering itself in glory in the intervening years since. Yes, it can win wars (well, it used to be able to), and it’s reasonably good at crime prevention (in some places), but getting people from place to place? Yes, there are people who can’t drive, but what percent of the population are they? Do we all need to confine ourselves to such modes of transportation because they can’t use this one?

Finally, there’s something hiding in the ostensibly noble thought that “people shouldn’t have to drive cars” to get where they want to go. As reasonable as that statement might be, there’s a nagging sensation in the back of my mind that, if we were to fully agree on it, it might just be only a matter of time before the phrase “have to” is removed from that statement, which leads to a whole other situation. To be able to choose not to drive is one thing; indeed, I’m sure it comes from pure motives for many, and it’s one of many options available to us in the modern world. But to have a choice – a restriction – imposed on those of us who would choose otherwise, even with those supposedly noble motives behind it, is anathema to the whole idea of our way of life. Yes, it would work in other places, but I don’t see it working here, and to impose it would just cause problems. If one wants a fifteen-minute city, there are such places one can live, but it just can’t be done on a global – or even a national (at least, not this nation) – scale, nor should it. Let people choose to do as they wish; it’s the American way, isn’t it?

Anyway, I’ve probably built Annapurna from an anthill, honey, but I felt the need to get this on paper. I still dream of taking trains from Sapporo to Kagoshima (with so many stops en route) someday, but I don’t think that what JR has could be duplicated here in the States, and we probably shouldn’t even try. If nothing else, we’d probably bollix it up with red tape and regulations. But thanks for listening to me as I vent.

Keep an eye on me, honey and wish me luck. I’m going to need it.