Change for Livable City

Summary 

From the BBC article - Travelling by private car produces
more CO2 than travelling by bus or coach.
(Credit: BEIS Conversion factors 2019/Javier Hirschfeld)

According to "How our daily travel harms the planet," the private transportation sector emits the most CO2. The articles, therefore, offer several solutions.
Firstly, walking more on short journeys is an immediate action we can do. Cycling is also a popular alternative option. Nonetheless, the government should promote these journeys, such as make streets more pleasant or invest in cycling infrastructures. The other way is to use public transport. However, taxis and ride-hailing emit more CO2 than a private car because of the extra passenger-free driving, but the pooling drive can be more helpful. And for someone, that car is essential, such as the elders or people living in rural areas, should consider a smaller car which is more carbon-efficient. Finally, we should change our attitude and make changes at an individual and community level for our better environment.

From the BBC article - ride-hailing emits more CO2
because of "deadheading," or extra passenger-free driving.
(Credit: Union of Concerned Scientists)

____________________________________ 

Response 

I think everyone, even elementary students, knows that using cars hurts the environment. And I am not surprised by that. And the ways to reduce car using, some did surprise me, but not most of them. But what I would like to know from this article is the situation of environmental conservation in other parts of the world. Do people, in this case, Europeans, have a sense of preserving the environment? Do people and the governments of European nations take any action for reducing CO2 in their daily lives? This is what I would like to know and why I chose this article. So, in my response writing, I would like to compare the situation of lessening private transport in the UK and Thailand, and also to urge our society that what we should concern and take action on our environmental problem.

First and the most important things are citizen participation and people’s attitude towards environmental problems. The article mentioned many people’s involvement in reducing car usage in the UK. For instance, a charity called “Living Streets” aims to encourage people to walk in short journeys by campaigning “National Walking Month” in May. Besides, there is a group of parents advocates walking to school instead of car use on the school run. Residents in West London, similarly, push local council on installing electric vehicle chargers in their community. So, we can see some enthusiasm of people in the UK to their carbon issue.

Now, let’s move to the situation in our country. Recently, all the teachers in my school were asked to design new elective courses for students. I, accompanied by my science teacher colleague, desire to open a new class named “Living in the Environment.” Many of my friends told me that it is (f-word) boring! But I kindly replied to them with my course name, “Well, but you are now living in the environment.” My point is many people in Thailand now barely concern about environmental issues. But it is absolutely close to our lives. So, we should, firstly, changed our mindset that we all have a responsibility for our living world. 

Have you ever heard or known about “carbon footprint”? I bet that more than 90% of Thais do not know about this. Also, products in Thailand usually ignore a carbon footprint label. I even learned about this when I was in the last year of university. I think the two directly responsible sectors that shape people’s attitudes are education and mass communication sectors. I believe environment teaching today should be more active such as doing scientific experiments or asking students to work with community environmental projects. Moreover, students should learn and realize the tangible impact of environmental problems closing to our lives first before going through international issues, treaties, or organization things. And for the mass communication sector, I found that there are very few news or articles concerning environmental matters in Thai newspaper columns or broadcasters, while there are many on sites like BBC or New York Times. So, the mass media should take more action on urging society to realize more about environmental problems. 

Let’s move on and discuss the popular alternative option of reducing car usage, cycling. As we might already know, cycling is now more popular transportation in some countries, such as countries mentioned in the article, including the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany. Even in China today, bicycles are used in many large cities. Now, looking back to Thailand, the cycling trend was growing about four or five years ago. But now it is descending, and the cycling market is closing down gradually. The reason is people bike for health, not for transportation, and today, the exercise trend is moving to fitness centers and running.

Why is cycling not popular in Thailand? Everyone may think of the same reason; it is not safe because there is no segregated bike lane in Thailand. For countries that cycling is accessible, the government usually invests in cycling infrastructure. Copenhagen, for instance, there are cycling highways with an average of 15 km length, and its citizens are more riding electric bikes for farther distances. In the case of Bangkok, some Bangkokian might see bike lanes in the old-city district. But these are a total failure because car users ignore them, and these bike lanes now mostly are on-street parking. There is also the bicycle share program by Bangkok Metropolitan in the city’s central areas, but it is quite not popular because of inadequate maintenance and lack of bike lanes. In my opinion, cycling infrastructure should be more improved. Also, car users should be more conscious of traffic law, and the law should be enforced more strictly in order to make the cycling project in Bangkok more successful.

Pedestrian-friendly features along Singapore's Orchard Road
(Credit: Centre for Liveable Cities Singapore)

Another interesting idea mentioned in the article is structural changes by local authorities and policymakers. People will not change their behaviors unless there are more favorable options. The article gave an example of making the streets more pleasant for walking. Singapore exemplifies the pedestrian-friendly streets. The country’s flagship street, Orchard Road, is developed based on the idea of “pedestrian first” and physical enhancing to promote walkability. For example, the street is covered by large trees to provide ample shade, and there are outdoor refreshment areas for pedestrians. Also, the government collaborating with the private sector invested in buildings of pedestrian links. For example, there is a walkway that runs through three buildings and connects with the underground and bus station. Moreover, the street usually hosts many festivals and closes for “pedestrian night.” These developments aim to attract more people to walk. (Centre for Liveable Cities Singapore, 2016)

In the case of Bangkok, some may have seen the picture in social media that photoshop Bangkok’s wobbly paving slabs with minesweeper. It is a sarcastic joke that reflects the quality of the city’s pavements. Not only loose paving but in some areas, even in the city’s central districts, garbage dumps can be problematic too. These cause the street unpleasant to walk, and the local government should concern more about these problems. However, there are some attempts of private sectors to develop the city’s walkability. The BTS skywalks epitomize these attempts, and it is totally successful. I hope there will be more developments like this in this metropolis.

Another matter that the local authority should be attentive is public transport. Using public transportation is the obvious way to reduce carbon emissions. I think Bangkok is now moving in the right direction, but still not enough. We have new blue buses running in Bangkok today, but also old buses with black smoke too. The extension of subways and Skytrain is absolutely appropriate. But the problem is the steep fare which is not affordable by many low-income earners. Though I agree with the government’s policy that helps social welfare cardholders to use public transport for free, still the fare should be economical for most people in society. And public transport should be improved for air and life qualities for all.

Finally, I totally agree with the conclusion in the article that reducing carbon emission should be started at an individual level. Cutting one or two journeys can make it different. A little tip from the article is trying to reduce just one short car journey a day and try to walk more in daily routines. Once we start to make a change for a week, for a month, and this behavior will sustain over time. And lastly, keep in mind that everyone’s small step can lead to significant changes for our future.

 

____________________________________ 

Question

What do you think the government should do to reduce private transport?

____________________________________ 

Reference

• Centre for Liveable Cities Singapore. (2016). Walkable and Bikeable Cities: Lessons from Seoul and Singapore. https://www.clc.gov.sg/docs/default-source/books/walkable-and-bikeable-cities.pdf
• Timperley, J. (2020, March, 18). How our daily travel harms the planet. BBC Future. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200317-climate-change-cut-carbon-emissions-from-your-commute