All Aboard?

It’s a July night in Oklahoma. The skies are dark, the wind is sharp, and the air smells of rain. I’d just got back from a two week trip to New Mexico. Dry air, sun, and stifling heat. I’d lived out of my car for all but one night of my trip, and I was tired of the steel, plastic, leather, and glass. I parked it for the night and joined my friends for a drink or six. Now here we were, barreling down Symmes on electric rent-to-ride scooters, mildly drunk and in search of mushrooms.

Dry lightning flashed blue across the clouds and the wind bent the treetops. We were running out of time. Any minute now, the sky would open up and we’d be soaked to the bone in cool summer rain. But with the scooters, we were moving pretty fast. We made our connection and managed to get home just as the downpour started. My car sat idle in the driveway, exhausted from two weeks on the road, and the trio of scooters sat silent on the sidewalk.

Everyone I know has a car, in every condition. From high-end modern luxury cruisers to semi-derelict antiques, all of my friends drive. To take a trip to the more remote regions of the U.S. and sleep in your backseat or out under the stars definitely requires an automobile of some kind.  But for getting around town or just going a few miles up the road, is a car necessary?

The aforementioned rent-to-ride scooter is a popular option among bargoers and people without personal transport. Just unlock the scooter with your phone, prepay a small amount of money, and ride away to whatever destination lies beyond. The scooters I’ve ridden handle fairly well and, so long as they’re in good condition, they’re pretty speedy. To get to and from the bar or the corner store, the scooter is a great option- until you consider cost and risk.

Just unlocking the scooter is anywhere between one and three dollars, then every minute you spend on it could be anywhere from ten cents to thirty five. This means waiting at a crosswalk, taking a longer route, or being subject to a “low speed zone” is charged just the same. The average ride is usually no more than eight dollars, but depending on how often you use the scooters, the rides add up.

Still, it’s cheaper than paying for the gas, insurance, and remaining loan on a car; but the injuries are just as dangerous. I’ve met people who have broken arms, cracked ribs, and wiped out. I myself have fallen off at least once. Such injuries may require a visit to the hospital in some cases, which is also costly, but injuries such as brain trauma or vehicle-involved accidents can be fatal. So why are scooters so attractive?

One reason is availability. In denser parts of most cities, scooters are nearly everywhere, just a block or two away from any given rider. They’re immediate, taking no more than a minute to locate and unlock, and the rider is still in control, selecting the preferred route, which is often quickest, and controlling the speed at which they go.

Another reason is cost. Rides are cheap compared to owning and operating a vehicle. Unlocking a scooter is just a few dollars, buying a used car is $2-3,000 at the least. That’s not to mention the cost of maintenance and fuel demand that comes with an older, higher-mileage car: In a three month period, I pay for one oil change ($30 for five quarts, $5 for an oil filter) fifteen tanks of gas (~$55 per fill-up, totaling to $825,) and occasional routine maintenance such as brakes, tires, and suspension components, coming to a grand total of about $1,000-$1,500 for a three month period, depending on how many issues need addressed.

Compare this number to the maximum cost of $150 that would cover the same period of time had I rode the bus. It’s the ideal mode of transportation for those hoping to save money, so why don’t more people take it?

Let’s say I need to get home from the nearest bar, which is five blocks, nearly half a mile away. Walking would be free and takes no more than eight minutes. Driving my own car home would only be a minute, but the risk of running someone over, crashing, or getting a DUI could mean exorbitant fines or jail time. A scooter would maybe take a few minutes of walking to locate, but after that it’s a breeze to get home, traveling three times the speed it would take when walking, and for less than five dollars. Riding the bus home means waiting up to an hour for the bus to arrive, then riding for another ten minutes on the predetermined route, then getting dropped off five blocks away in the other direction, making the bus the least efficient option. It would be possible to ride to and from bus stops on a scooter, assuming one would be nearby, but with how long the bus ride would take I may as well pay the extra few bucks and ride home. The scooter seems to win out in such a scenario because it’s relatively low risk, low cost, and quick.

It’s no secret: the bus is disfavored, and it shows: With bus capacities maxing out at 55 people per ride, only an average of 5 or 6 passengers hop on in Oklahoma City. The same city has 62 fixed-route busses for a population of roughly 694,800 people, covering 621 square miles. 11,206.5 people per bus, one bus per ten square miles. There’s no shortage of people to fill seats, a single trip costs $1.75, and there’s plenty of routes that cover most of the metro, so why do so many remain empty?

Time. 

Let’s say I see a Thunder game and want to have a drink at Guyutes before going home. It would take me 55 minutes to walk there, 15 minutes to scooter, 10 minutes to drive (with no traffic,) and 34 minutes to take the bus. First, I’d have to walk six blocks to the bus stop, which according to EMBARK, Oklahoma City’s public transportation group, would be a 13 minute walk. The ride itself would be 19 minutes, then another two minutes of walking from the bus stop to the bar. Riding the bus would take three times as long as using a car, and twice as long as using a scooter. With a total walking time of fifteen minutes, nearly half of the whole trip is on your feet! Plus, this is in a scenario where I don’t have to wait at the bus stop. Thunder games typically end at 9:30, I leave the game at 9:45. I get to the bus stop at 9:58, and wait for the bus to arrive at 10:06. An eight minute wait isn’t that bad. But let’s say I miss the bus; the next one doesn’t come for another hour. I may as well walk to the bar, seeing as it’ll take less time than waiting.

What about leaving the arena at 9:45 in the morning? Would anything change? Yes, actually: the ride would be 2 minutes shorter. I’d have to wait on the bus for ten minutes, but I’d be picked up from a stop right in front of the arena. The ride to the transit center would be 4 minutes, plus a minute to board the next bus, which would make a 7 minute drive to a bus stop four blocks away from the bar, a 7 minute walk. This trip comes at a cost of $4 because I’d have to board a “RAPID” transit, a bus with extended hours and greater frequency.

In the scenario above, RAPID isn’t much of an improvement on a regular bus. That is, at first glance. RAPID is what could change the equation of public transit in OKC. From 6:30am to 7pm, a RAPID bus comes by every 12 minutes. From 7 to midnight, it comes by every thirty. Compare this to the 30 minute frequency of the regular bus on weekdays, and the hourlong frequency on weekends. Unless you’re traveling from one end of the city to the other, waiting for the regular bus takes more time than riding. Why is time so important?

Time is the ultimate commodity. Once you spend it, you can’t get it back. And you only have so much of it in one lifetime. So it’s not surprising at all that the majority of people don’t want to waste time waiting around in freezing rain or blistering heat for the bus. A majority of employers won’t compensate you for your commute time, nor will they factor your commute into your shift. You will be required to spend eight hours a day, five days a week at your job regardless of your commute time and method. If it takes me an hour to get home from work while riding the bus, that’s an hour taken away from chores, or an afternoon of unwinding, or sleep. The same is true for the morning if I have to wake up earlier to get to the bus stop on time. A car becomes the most convenient option. A scooter can get you to your destination, but it’s filling a gap left by public transit. With increased frequency and extended routes, the bus could be a more alluring option. But should an interest in public transit be necessary to facilitate these changes?

No. To make public transit attractive is on public transit alone, and a robust system will generate interest. There’s many major cities that have had successful public transit systems in place for centuries. It’s unlikely that commuters would give up their personal vehicles in favor of the current state of public transit in a smaller metro like OKC. When riding the bus is disfavored, people use cars. Cars clog up the streets and make busses run even slower, compounding the issue and making public transit look even worse.

One solution is to designate bus-only lanes, but we could eradicate the need for such lanes if there were less cars on the road. This isn’t to say that every car should be scrapped in favor of busses, otherwise a two-week trip out to the places busses don’t go would be impossible. But perhaps your wheels could stay in the driveway during the workweek. A commute to work, or the store, or across town could be just as fast as and a fraction of the cost of a car. But until busses arrive at stops every five minutes, and there’s less cars on the road to crowd them out, America will continue to pollute the streets with oversized SUVs, cars, and trucks.