If you look at its design,

如果你看它的設計。

it's not hard to figure out what it was built to do.

不難看出，它是為了什麼而生的。

All its different lines intersect here, in Chicago's downtown,

所有不同的線路在這裡交匯，在芝加哥的市中心。

and then fan outward.

然後向外扇動。

This is a system that's really good at moving people

這是一個真正善於調動人的系統

between the suburbs, or the outer rings of the city,

郊區之間，或城市外環之間。

and downtown.

和市區。

But that's not really useful to my friend Nina.

但這對我的朋友尼娜來說並沒有什麼用。

I'm a Chicago resident and I live in Avondale.

我是芝加哥人，住在阿文代爾。

I drive to work every day.

我每天開車去上班。

I drive 25 minutes to Elmwood Park,

我開車25分鐘就能到榆林公園。

which is a suburb right on the border of the city.

這是一個就在城市邊界的郊區。

Nina actually lives right by a bus stop and a train stop.

尼娜其實就住在一個公車站和一個火車站旁邊。

But if she commuted that way...

但如果她用這種方式通勤... ...

I could take the bus down Addison,

我可以坐公車去艾迪生。

but the bus route stops at the border of the city.

但公交線路在城市邊界停靠。

So it would be a pretty long walk. Like a 45-minute walk maybe.

所以，這將是一個相當長的步行。也許要走45分鐘

Or maybe I could take the train down to the Loop,

或者我可以坐火車去環城路。

and then I would have to get on the Metra,

然後我就得去坐地鐵了。

which is the train that goes to the suburbs.

這是去郊區的火車。

Nina said she would commute on public transit if it made sense.

妮娜說，如果有意義的話，她會坐公車上下班。

But for her, it doesn't.

但對她來說，並不是這樣。

Transit systems across the US

美國的過境系統

were built to serve a very specific type of commute:

是為了服務於一種非常特殊的通勤方式而建造的。

From outside the center of the city, to inside it.

從城市中心外，到城市中心內。

But studies show that today,

但研究表明，如今。

the most common American commute is actually from suburb to suburb;

美國人最常見的通勤方式其實是從郊區到郊區。

routes that public transit in the US usually doesn't serve.

美國公共交通通常不服務的路線。

It's one reason that the overwhelming majority of Americans

這也是絕大多數美國人的原因之一

get to work by driving alone.

獨自開車去上班。

And there are a few reasons that isn't ideal:

而有幾個原因，並不理想。

First, it means the overwhelming majority of Americans

首先，這意味著絕大多數的美國人。

are also required to own a car in order to work.

還需要擁有一輛車才能工作。

And that's expensive — the second biggest household expense for Americans.

而這是昂貴的--美國人的第二大家庭開支。

All that driving also means that transportation

所有的駕駛也意味著交通

is the single biggest way Americans emit greenhouse gases.

是美國人排放溫室氣體的最大途徑。

And because most Americans don't rely on public transit,

而且因為大多數美國人不依賴公共交通。

making it better is rarely a top political priority,

讓它變得更好很少是政治上的首要任務。

which makes things even harder

雪上加霜

for the people who do rely on neglected transit systems.

為那些確實依賴被忽視的交通系統的人。

So what would it take to shrink this part of the chart --

那麼，要怎樣才能縮小這部分圖表--。

to get more Americans to use public transit?

讓更多的美國人使用公共交通？

What would that look like?

那會是什麼樣子？

And who has the power to make that happen?

而誰有能力實現這一點呢？

This is Cincinnati in 1955.

這是1955年的辛辛那提。

It's what a lot of American cities used to look like.

這就是很多美國城市過去的樣子。

There were some highways, but most of the city was on a grid,

雖然有一些高速公路，但大部分城市都是網狀的。

which made it easy to get around either on foot,

這使得無論是步行還是步行都很方便。

or on public transit, like streetcars.

或在公共交通工具上，如街車。

But around the same time,

但大約在同一時間。

a huge government infrastructure project changed the US dramatically.

一個巨大的政府基礎設施項目極大地改變了美國。

New interstate highways were built from coast to coast,

新的州際公路從海岸到海岸都在修建。

many of them running right through the downtowns of many cities.

其中很多都貫穿了許多城市的市中心。

Today, Cincinnati looks like this.

今天，辛辛那提看起來是這樣的。

Instead of a grid, there's a tangle of highways.

與其說是電網，不如說是高速公路的糾纏。

It makes some neighborhoods almost impossible to get to on foot.

這使得一些街區幾乎無法步行到達。

And if you don't drive, it's hard to get around the city at all.

而如果你不開車，在城市裡根本就很難走得動。

The same thing happened in countless other cities, too,

同樣的事情也發生在其他無數城市。

like Detroit and Kansas City.

比如底特律和堪薩斯城。

And, as cities expanded outward along those highways,

而且，隨著城市沿著這些公路向外擴張。

one kind of American neighborhood flourished:

有一種美國街區的繁榮。

Entirely residential, filled with single-family homes.

完全是住宅區，到處都是單戶住宅。

And because they were spread out instead of dense,

而且因為它們是分散的而不是密集的。

they also changed how Americans got around.

他們還改變了美國人的出行方式。

Living there required you to travel a lot farther for just about anything.

在那裡生活，你需要走得更遠，才能得到任何東西。

By 2020, a study found

一項研究發現，到2020年

that the average workday distance traveled for Americans was 7 miles.

美國人工作日的平均出行距離為7英里。

Now, if you're a driver, that doesn't sound long at all.

如果你是個司機，這聽起來一點也不長。

In fact, in your head, you might be thinking, that only takes 10 minutes.

其實，在你的腦海裡，你可能會想，這隻需要10分鐘。

Adie Tomer co-authored that study.

Adie Tomer是該研究的共同作者。

It's a biking distance that is both strenuous and potentially unsafe,

這段騎車的距離，既辛苦又有潛在的不安全。

and for pedestrians it's a nearly impossible distance to traverse

而對於行人來說，這幾乎是一個不可能穿越的距離。

in any kind of reasonable time.

在任何種類的合理時間內。

By seeing these kind of travel distances,

通過看到這種旅行距離。

we understand the consequences of what we've built:

我們明白我們所做的一切的後果。

Automobile-oriented neighborhoods.

汽車為主的街區。

A later approach to neighborhood planning

後來的街區規劃方法

has created places that look more like this:

已經創造了更像這樣的地方。

Neighborhoods designed to put you closer to what you need,

社區的設計讓您更接近您所需要的東西。

that center around a transit hub,

以交通樞紐為中心。

with buildings that contain not just housing,

與建築，不僅包含住房。

but office space and businesses too.

但辦公場所和企業也。

This is called transit-oriented development.

這就是所謂的交通導向發展。

And the people who live in these places

而住在這些地方的人

are less likely than the national average to drive,

比全國平均水平要低，開車的可能性。

and more likely to walk, bike, or take transit.

並更有可能步行、騎自行車或乘坐公車。

But developing new neighborhoods like this is an extremely long-term project.

但開發這樣的新小區是一項極其長期的工程。

If we're going to address these issues,

如果我們要解決這些問題。

we have to accept the world that we live in now,

我們必須接受我們現在生活的世界。

and make transit work in that world,

並讓公車在那個世界裡發揮作用。

rather than dream of a new world.

而不是夢想一個新的世界。

Jonathan English is an urban planner in Toronto.

Jonathan English是多倫多的一名城市規劃師。

And he thinks getting more Americans to use public transit

而他認為讓更多的美國人使用公車

doesn't have to be so hard.

不一定要這麼難。

In a research project, Jonathan created these maps of American cities

在一個研究項目中，喬納森繪製了這些美國城市地圖。

and drew lines on them wherever there was a reliable public transit route.

並在有可靠公交線路的地方畫線。

Which he defined as this:

他將其定義為：

A bus that comes every 30 minutes, 'till midnight, seven days a week.

每隔30分鐘就會有一輛公車，一直到午夜，一週七天。

The absolute bare minimum of a transit route that you can count on.

絕對是最起碼的可以依靠的轉運路線。

These were the results in Denver, Portland, Charlotte, and Washington, DC.

這些是丹佛、波特蘭、夏洛特和華盛頓特區的結果。

You can see a familiar design in them: Service oriented around a downtown,

從他們身上你可以看到熟悉的設計。以市中心為中心的服務。

but that doesn't really connect neighborhood to neighborhood.

但這並不能真正將鄰里之間的關係聯繫起來。

And this was the result in Toronto.

而這是多倫多的結果。

When you go to a Toronto suburb, it's not very unfamiliar to any American.

到多倫多郊區，對於美國人來說，都不會很陌生。

You see houses with big driveways, two-car garages, winding suburban streets…

你會看到有大車道的房子，兩輛車的車庫，蜿蜒的郊區街道... ...

The difference is that the bus goes past those single-family homes every five minutes,

不同的是，公車每隔5分鐘就會經過那些獨門獨戶的房子。

and it runs 24 hours a day.

而且一天24小時都在運行。

And that difference changes everything.

而這種差異改變了一切。

Even car owners in Toronto ride the bus.

在多倫多，連車主都坐公車。

And Jonathan says the lesson for American cities is obvious.

而喬納森說，美國城市的教訓很明顯。

That shows that it is possible, that if we invest in basic operations,

這說明是可以的，如果我們在基礎業務上投入。

and improving basic local service, that the riders will come.

並改善當地的基本服務，那騎手就會來。

Something that we can do in a matter of weeks.

我們可以在幾周內完成的事情。

In other words, it's mostly a matter of whether we choose to fund that.

換句話說，這主要是我們是否選擇資助的問題。

This chart shows how public transit gets funded in the US:

這張圖顯示了美國公共交通的資金來源。

Mostly by local and state governments, and by the fares people pay to ride—

主要是由地方和州政府，以及人們支付的車費來乘車。

which makes state and local elections super important for public transit.

這使得州和地方選舉對於公共交通來說超級重要。

Right now, the federal government contributes the smallest part.

現在，聯邦政府的貢獻是最小的一部分。

And even that part is limited in what it can pay for.

而即便是這部分，它能支付的費用也是有限的。

Very little federal transit funding helps pay for day-to-day operations,

很少有聯邦運輸資金幫助支付日常營運。

even though that's often where transit systems need the most help.

儘管這往往是交通系統最需要幫助的地方。

Instead, most federal money gets directed

相反，大部分的聯邦資金都被用於

to what are called "capital investments":

到所謂的 "資本投資"。

flashy new physical infrastructure projects

華而不實的新物質基礎設施項目

that often get a lot of media attention.

往往會得到很多媒體的關注。

So you end up with a billion-dollar rapid transit project, or light rail,

所以你最終會有一個價值十億美元的快速交通項目，或者輕軌。

or bus rapid transit project, where the vehicles don't actually run all that frequently.

或快速公交項目，其實車輛運行頻率並不高。

Joe Biden's campaign has a proposal to invest in public transportation,

喬-拜登的競選活動有一個投資公共交通的建議。

and the Trump administration has shown interest in increasing infrastructure spending.

而特朗普政府已經表現出對增加基礎設施支出的興趣。

But where all that money goes is really decided by Congress.

但這些錢的去向其實是由國會決定的。

And debate over that often splits along partisan lines:

而關於這一點的辯論，往往是按照黨派的路線分裂的。

with Democrats, who often represent more urban districts, in favor of more transit funding;

與通常代表更多城市地區的民主黨人，支持更多的運輸資金。

and Republicans in favor of more funding for highways and roads.

和共和黨人贊成為高速公路和公路提供更多資金。

“My Democrat colleagues want to put big cities first,

"我的民主黨員同事要把大城市放在第一位。

and ignore our rural communities.”

而忽略了我們的農村社區。"

In July 2020, the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives

2020年7月，民主黨控制的眾議院。

passed a 1.5 trillion-dollar infrastructure bill

通過了一項1.5萬億美元的基礎設施法案。

that re-allocated funds from roads to trains and transit.

該計劃將資金從公路重新分配給火車和公交。

“The first 21st-century transportation bill.”

"第一個21世紀的交通法案"。

But to take effect, it would also have to pass the Senate,

但要生效，還得通過參議院。

which is currently controlled by Republicans, whose leader, Mitch McConnell,

目前由共和黨人控制，其領導人米奇-麥康奈爾。

called the bill “nonsense,” “absurd,” and “pure fantasy.”

稱該法案為 "無稽之談"、"荒謬"、"純屬幻想"。

If the Democrats do in fact take back the Senate, and hold onto the House,

如果民主黨真的奪回了參議院，並保住了眾議院。

irrespective of what happens with the presidency,

無論總統職位如何。

we can actually expect to see significantly more interest

事實上，我們可以期待看到更多的興趣

in investment in public transportation, and interestingly,

在公共交通投資方面，有趣的是。

a different approach to that investment,

對該投資採取不同的方法。

where it may not just be more capital projects,

其中，可能不僅僅是更多的基本建設項目。

but different kinds of investment.

但不同的投資種類。

I still really value being on a train line,

我還真的很珍惜在一條火車線上。

and I would never live anywhere that wasn't, like, a 15-minute walk from the train,

我永遠不會住在任何地方 這是不一樣，15分鐘的步行 從火車。

because I think that's so much a part of my experience as a Chicago resident,

因為我認為這是我作為芝加哥居民的經驗的一部分。

being able to access it if I need it.

在我需要的時候能夠訪問它。

But it's pretty poorly designed.

但它的設計相當糟糕。

Most Americans live in places that were built for cars.

大多數美國人生活的地方，都是為汽車而建的。

If we want to change that in the long term,

如果我們想長期改變這種狀況。

we'll have to build communities that look differently.

我們必須建立起與眾不同的社區。

Right now, Americans drive because it's the most convenient option.

現在，美國人開車是因為這是最方便的選擇。

But that also means that you don't actually need to transform a whole country

但這也意味著，你其實並不需要改造整個國家。

to get more people to ride public transit.

讓更多的人乘坐公共交通。

You just need to make it convenient enough that they want to.

你只需要讓他們足夠方便，讓他們願意。