PBS ran a special on suburban sprawl last week entitled “Blueprint America: Road to the Future.” The special profiled three U.S. cities—Denver, Portland and New York City—taking three very different approaches to metropolitan transit.
The special began with Denver and local political battles over a nearly complete highway enclosing the region. Opponents of the highway suggested that it contributes to sprawl and is decimating the environment, while proponents made the groundbreaking observation “Our population is increasing, and they have to live somewhere!” Basically, metro-Denver residents are dependent on their cars due to greedy real estate developers, federal subsidies for suburban development, and a general American “car culture.” And this dependency has had dramatic effects on the area’s quality of life and air quality. Thirty-minute rush hour commutes now take upwards of two hours, meaning more carbon emissions and more pollution.
Portland was profiled next as a region bucking the trend of suburban sprawl. When the city was offered federal dollars for highway construction in the 1970s, city officials instead invested in light rails and other public transit systems. White, middle class families were followed with cameras as they rode their bikes to the local grocery store and then to a neighborhood playground. Under Mayor Bloomberg, New York City—already very “green” by emissions standards—is following Portland and also making environmental sustainability a civic priority.
The common thread throughout the entire special was twofold: Sprawl has dramatically negative effects the environment, and better transit is necessary if we want to be a “green,” eco-friendly nation. White, middle-class families in Portland were quoted in the special gleefully recounting how they can ride their bikes to work, instead of driving. But what about folks that don’t even have cars? What about folks who live in neighborhoods spatially disconnected from job opportunities? These controversies over public transportation are uncomfortably whitewashed, and the only people we hear from are middle class individuals with the privilege to choose environmentally friendly lifestyles. Here we are, debating the best way to commute to work, when black male unemployment is 17.2%.
This discussion brings up the idea of framing—how we talk about social issues. The Obama Administration’s head of The Department of Transportation was quoted in the PBS special saying, “We’re thinking about transit more than ever before.” But how are they thinking about it? Are they thinking about it as a political move, a way to garner support from “green loving” liberals? Or is the conversation more altruistic—a way to help the country recover from the economic crisis? Or—and here’s where things get interesting—can it be positioned as a social justice, a social need for already marginalized urban communities?
In Lone Pursuit, Sandra Susan Smith—a brilliant sociologist at UC-Berkeley—discusses black joblessness in southeast Michigan, carefully analyzing job referral reluctance among poor African Americans. A cycle of distrust proliferates among the black poor in “Southeast County,” Michigan, thwarting the dissemination of job information through informal networks. She posits that a weak job referral structure at the individual level in Southeast County helps explain low employment levels for blacks at the group level.
Throughout the book, however, her respondents also noted the trials and tribulations associated with mass transit. Indeed, this is a hot topic in Southeast Michigan. Currently, state officials are split on plans to build a commuter rail from “Southeast County” (Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti) to either Detroit or Grand Rapids. Representatives from Grand Rapids are seeking to make their city the “center” of the state, whereas Detroit representatives are simply trying to keep their city alive. And, of course, poor folks just want a job, and a way to get there.
This is also a nationwide problem; social scientists term it “spatial mismatch.” The idea is that the place of employment is divorced from a group or individual’s place of residence. In metropolitan America, work has “disappeared” to the suburbs via de-centralization, while poor, predominantly black city residents remain constrained to residence within city limits. See, this is what’s missing from conversations about transportation policy, environmental sustainability and suburban sprawl. Poor people, particularly in marginalized communities of color, need jobs and a reliable way to get to them. Lofty goals of “going green” are well and good, but we also need better public transit for the employment opportunities of the public.
In the aftermath of the financial crisis, a plethora of media outlets have profiled newly unemployed whites from corporate America. Coupled with the conversations of environmentalism and mass transit, it appears that the public conception of the economy has been effectively whitewashed. The effects of sprawl are more than simply environmental, and the need for mass transit is bigger than the quality of life for middle-class whites in Portland. We can’t allow our privilege to get in the way of seeing who really needs public transit, and why they need it.
The special began with Denver and local political battles over a nearly complete highway enclosing the region. Opponents of the highway suggested that it contributes to sprawl and is decimating the environment, while proponents made the groundbreaking observation “Our population is increasing, and they have to live somewhere!” Basically, metro-Denver residents are dependent on their cars due to greedy real estate developers, federal subsidies for suburban development, and a general American “car culture.” And this dependency has had dramatic effects on the area’s quality of life and air quality. Thirty-minute rush hour commutes now take upwards of two hours, meaning more carbon emissions and more pollution.
Portland was profiled next as a region bucking the trend of suburban sprawl. When the city was offered federal dollars for highway construction in the 1970s, city officials instead invested in light rails and other public transit systems. White, middle class families were followed with cameras as they rode their bikes to the local grocery store and then to a neighborhood playground. Under Mayor Bloomberg, New York City—already very “green” by emissions standards—is following Portland and also making environmental sustainability a civic priority.
The common thread throughout the entire special was twofold: Sprawl has dramatically negative effects the environment, and better transit is necessary if we want to be a “green,” eco-friendly nation. White, middle-class families in Portland were quoted in the special gleefully recounting how they can ride their bikes to work, instead of driving. But what about folks that don’t even have cars? What about folks who live in neighborhoods spatially disconnected from job opportunities? These controversies over public transportation are uncomfortably whitewashed, and the only people we hear from are middle class individuals with the privilege to choose environmentally friendly lifestyles. Here we are, debating the best way to commute to work, when black male unemployment is 17.2%.
This discussion brings up the idea of framing—how we talk about social issues. The Obama Administration’s head of The Department of Transportation was quoted in the PBS special saying, “We’re thinking about transit more than ever before.” But how are they thinking about it? Are they thinking about it as a political move, a way to garner support from “green loving” liberals? Or is the conversation more altruistic—a way to help the country recover from the economic crisis? Or—and here’s where things get interesting—can it be positioned as a social justice, a social need for already marginalized urban communities?
In Lone Pursuit, Sandra Susan Smith—a brilliant sociologist at UC-Berkeley—discusses black joblessness in southeast Michigan, carefully analyzing job referral reluctance among poor African Americans. A cycle of distrust proliferates among the black poor in “Southeast County,” Michigan, thwarting the dissemination of job information through informal networks. She posits that a weak job referral structure at the individual level in Southeast County helps explain low employment levels for blacks at the group level.
Throughout the book, however, her respondents also noted the trials and tribulations associated with mass transit. Indeed, this is a hot topic in Southeast Michigan. Currently, state officials are split on plans to build a commuter rail from “Southeast County” (Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti) to either Detroit or Grand Rapids. Representatives from Grand Rapids are seeking to make their city the “center” of the state, whereas Detroit representatives are simply trying to keep their city alive. And, of course, poor folks just want a job, and a way to get there.
This is also a nationwide problem; social scientists term it “spatial mismatch.” The idea is that the place of employment is divorced from a group or individual’s place of residence. In metropolitan America, work has “disappeared” to the suburbs via de-centralization, while poor, predominantly black city residents remain constrained to residence within city limits. See, this is what’s missing from conversations about transportation policy, environmental sustainability and suburban sprawl. Poor people, particularly in marginalized communities of color, need jobs and a reliable way to get to them. Lofty goals of “going green” are well and good, but we also need better public transit for the employment opportunities of the public.
In the aftermath of the financial crisis, a plethora of media outlets have profiled newly unemployed whites from corporate America. Coupled with the conversations of environmentalism and mass transit, it appears that the public conception of the economy has been effectively whitewashed. The effects of sprawl are more than simply environmental, and the need for mass transit is bigger than the quality of life for middle-class whites in Portland. We can’t allow our privilege to get in the way of seeing who really needs public transit, and why they need it.
Posts
Have to disagree.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, building mass transit is of course very much so to the benefit of those living within urban areas. Seems to me you're just peeved because people aren't talking mass transit for the right reasons or something. But dismissing environmentalism as some kind of boutique concern for people who have the time to think about it is immature and myopic.
Why do you write like mass transit and greater employment opportunities are somehow working at cross-purposes? Clearly they go hand in hand. Seems to me like you watched some special, didn't see any black people, and decided it was an example of white privilege. This post doesn't really make any points, just complains that people don't want mass transit for the right reasons or something.
I guess what I'm saying is, why can't it be both?
I completely agree that building mass transit is "very much so to the benefit of those living within urban areas." However, if that's not how we're framing the issue/if that's not the priority/if that's not the fundamental concern, then how will we hold political leaders accountable for using mass transit for this goal? "Mass transit" isn't simply some idea...it's actual railways and actual cars in actual neighborhoods. You need to ask yourself: If providing access to employment isn't the fundamental purpose of mass trasnit (and "environmentalism" is instead), where do you think these railways will be built? In which neighborhoods? And which neighborhoods will they connect?
ReplyDeleteSeems to me you assume "greater mass transit"--whatever that means--is automatically associated with opening up economic opportunity. Not necessarily the case, particularly if the issue is framed as an "eco-friendly" measure, rather than a social need.
Environmentalism, as its played out in many urban communities, is most definitely a privilege that ignores countless other pressing concerns. I can speak firsthand for "movements" in Detroit and Boston; look, community gardens are great, but people need jobs. It's problematic if we don't frame the expansion ofpublic transit in that manner. Moreover, "going green" has become a battle cry for many white liberals who then pat themselves on their collective backs for a job well done after they make a few environmentally-conscious moves in their neighborhoods. Spare me. It becomes another way to avoid tackling many other structural issues plauging these communities, namely, access to employment. And the ability to avoid these issues--these racialized issues--is an example of privilege. Just another way to say "We've done good," while simultaneously ignoring the structure of urban America.
And that, "Riise," is the point of the post. I appreciate your comments, but, uh, I'd also appreciate it if you engaged this blog without calling my points (or, apparent lackthereof) "immature." Thanks.
I appreciate Jeremy's remarks. I feel that a society should be judged by how it supports its most vulnerable citizens.
ReplyDeleteI think that local and state governments must have clear policies concerning any public project that include: 1) Ensuring that representatives from vulnerable communities are included on any planning committees or panels and 2) Gives first priority based on need. So, in a case like transit to Detroit or Grand Rapids first, the question is simple: which community has more transportation options already?
I find it interesting that in all of these nationwide studies of public transit, nobody talks about the failure that is the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA). It's definitely a case where the people who need public transportation (low income minorities) are unable to obtain it. MARTA has very little coverage outside of the city of Atlanta because upper income whites a) don't want to pay the extra taxes to support it and b) don't want blacks and Latinos in their neighborhood.
ReplyDeleteHowever, Atlanta is experiencing the opposite. Employment opportunities are located in the city of Atlanta, or just north, in counties with no MARTA coverage. However, gentrification is making it increasingly more difficult for low income minorities to be able to live in the city.
Completely off topic, but:
ReplyDelete1.) I'm now even more upset that Berkeley cancelled a class on Race, Equity and the Environment, and 2.) Sandra Smith is teaching my Soc 1 class in the fall.