More People Walk To Work In Denser Parts Of United States
The wealthy are more likely to own cars, and to drive to work. For much of history, this has been so. But, in 2006, when Brookings Institute decided to study the commuting patterns in the United States, they found this was an oversimplification. Whether people drive to work, walk, or take mass transit has more to do with the neighbourhoods in which they live than with their income levels. The data from the US government supports this claim. According to the US census data, 40 per cent of the commuters near the New Midtown area walk or cycle to work. But they do not do this because of economic constraints, like most Indians do.
The US census data shows that people who live in dense, mixed-use neighborhoods are far more likely to walk, bike or use mass transit or bus to work. In India, most people either walk or cycle to work. Even in Delhi, where car ownership is the highest in the country, only about a tenth of the population own cars. So, many urban planners fear that roads will be too congested, and too polluted when car ownership here becomes as high as it is in the US.
There are good reasons why such fears are misguided. To begin with, the cars in US have become incomparably more energy-efficient in the past four to five decades. Pollution from cars today is much lower than in the 1970s, though car ownership has risen over this period. Besides, we may find better ways to handle this when car ownership rises. For example, we may charge people for driving through roads and parking. We are already building more roads. More people will live in suburbs and the periphery, lowering the congestion and pollution on roads. It is quite probable that we may have cars that do not pollute. It is probable that self-driving cars will become common which will encourage greater car-sharing, and allow cities to become twice as large. Self-driving cars also have a lower reaction time. So, cars can travel through roads close to each other, and this may allow more cars to occupy roads without being congested.
But there is another reason why the notion that car ownership will destroy Indian cities is misguided. It is hardly necessary that everybody travels in cars when income levels rise. According to 2013 census, 85.8 per cent of the people drive to work, and 76.4 per cent of them do not have co-passengers. But, dense or high-income regions of the US like the Bay Area, Boston, and many parts of New York City, rose in the past decade. Among the wealthy, bicycle commuting doubled between 2006 and 2013. The trend is more pronounced among the young. The US census department thinks that millennials are changing the rush hour. The truth is that people may genuinely prefer to walk, cycle or use mass transport in dense, mixed-use neighbourhoods because that is more convenient.
Economists like Edward Glaeser claim that cities are greener because people are less likely to use cars in the densest metropolitan areas. The evidence is mixed here, largely because cars are becoming more energy-efficient. In the US, whether cars use more energy depends on the city. In the Indian context, however, it may be true because cars on Indian roads are less energy-efficient. Public transport vehicles in India are more crowded, too, leading to lower emissions per person. However, we need not blindly accept the view that mass transit is greener because this will change when cars become more efficient. The Delhi Metro cuts down emissions significantly every year, but it is not clear how reliable such figures are.
The major lesson Indian cities can learn from the United States experience is that we need more mixed-use neighbourhoods. This is true of cities like Delhi, Mumbai and Bengaluru, especially around mass-transit corridors. This will cut down the commuting time for urban Indians.
For regular updates on real estate, click here