Ren Thomas

Apparently, all those hours you spend on the subway have provided psychologists with a wealth of insight. Those of us who have lived in cities with rapid transit have read the Craigslist postings about hilarious transit experiences and transit etiquette; we’ve seen the “missed connections” section in the Georgia Straight and other newspapers. A casual ride downtown on a Saturday night can provide endless comedic fodder for your next dinner party. So it’s not surprising that subways have long been places for sociologists and psychologists to study human behaviour.

As Tom Vanderbilt recently reported for Slate, researchers have long considered subways ideal places to observe social interaction, as places where people of all classes, ethnicities, and religions must confront each other. In the early 1900s, mass transit offered a new and unique sensation, as people were suddenly forced to look at others for minutes or even hours at a time without speaking to them. “Subway psychology” seeks to understand what keeps the subtle social rules of the subway in place: rules such as giving up a seat for an elderly person or breaking eye contact after a few seconds. To explore these rules and their boundaries, several experiments have taken place over the years.

One experiment, the “Good Samaritanism: An Underground Phenomenon?” from the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (1969), had a Columbia University student stagger and collapse on a subway train, “looking supine at the ceiling.” In some trials, the subject acted drunk; in others, ill. People were more likely to help in the latter situation, and surprisingly the more bystanders that were present the more likely it was that someone would offer help. Social psychologist Stanley Milgram conducted several experiments on subways. One had students ask passengers for their seat on a crowded subway, and found that 68% of passengers gave up their seats without a problem while the rest offered reasons why they couldn’t (they were reading a book, etc.) Other experiments had a researcher ask a passenger to mail a letter (sometimes stamped, sometimes not) for them, and the number of letters mailed provided the success rate.

Several researchers have tried to determine the effects of eye contact: one 1974 study had a researcher stare at a passenger for several seconds, then ask for help. They found the passenger more likely to help if the person hadn’t been staring at them. A 1978 study found that people were more likely to avoid eye contact in the city than the suburbs, which doesn’t seem that surprising.

I’ve certainly noticed a few differences in transit psychology among the cities I’ve lived in. Avoiding eye contact is a must in Toronto, but not Vancouver, where people seem more friendly and will even smile at strangers who glance their way. Vancouver bus riders often yell out, “Thank you,” to the driver as they get off the bus. Toronto subway riders are a savvy lot, knowing exactly where to stand on the subway platform for the opening doors and which side the door opens at each station. Vancouverites don’t have that option: the Skytrain is not always the same length; cars are added or taken away, so it’s impossible to know exactly where the doors will open. There are some obvious demographic observations: during the day you will see a range of young and old, white and non-white, women and men; at night you’ll find yourself mainly travelling with high school and university students and on some routes, more visible minorities. This in itself creates a different social atmosphere during the day (family-oriented, polite, businesslike) compared to night (more casual, more complaining about transit service, and occasionally more of a party atmosphere).

Perhaps one of the most understudied areas in transportation is how it facilitates and constrains social relationships, including romantic ones. Many of my friends have met boyfriends, girlfriends and even spouses on public transit: a few years ago a Calgary couple were married on the Calgary Transit bus where they had first met. The shared ride to work each morning or home each evening, in our world of hurried meetings and endless work stress, contributes valuable social time to our busy schedules. In a study of “missed connections” on the Paris Metro, officials stated that the Metro “is without doubt the foremost producer of urban tales about falling in love.” Public transit is also an often-used reason to start or break off a relationship: TV characters on Friends and Seinfeld routinely vetoed or ended relationships because of a complicated or lengthy subway commute. Elaine once said when breaking up with a boyfriend, “I’m gonna be brutally honest with you now… it’s a bitch to get here. It’s two subways. I have to transfer at Forty-second Street to take the double-R.”

The next time you hop on a local bus, streetcar, or subway, take a look and listen…you’ll be surprised what you learn about human behaviour and relationships.

General Motors, the world’s largest car manufacturer from 1931 to 2008, filed for bankruptcy today. In consequence of its receiving more than $20 billion US in federal aid, 60% of the company will now be owned by the US Treasury. It is truly the end of an era. As Michael Moore writes, “It is with sad irony that the company which invented “planned obsolescence” — the decision to build cars that would fall apart after a few years so that the customer would then have to buy a new one — has now made itself obsolete.”

While most seem to credit GM’s lack of innovation during the 1980s as the beginning of the end, the company’s stubborn commitment to gas guzzlers was probably the culprit. Soon after gas prices reached new highs in 2007, GM was “surprised by auto buyers’ dramatic shift toward the smaller, more fuel-efficient cars and away from the pickups and sport utility vehicles that had served as its mainstay,” to quote the NY Times article cited above. Yet GM had a chance to develop cleaner-burning cars over a decade ago. Chris Paine, the writer and director of Who Killed the Electric Car? (2006) documented the creation, limited commercialization, and subsequent destruction of the battery electric car in the US, in particular the GM EV1 in the 1990s. The film is particularly vicious in its portrayal of the bizarre plot by GM to convince California, the only state that had passed zero emissions regulations, that there was no demand for their product. The company’s subsequent decision to take back every single Ev1 and destroy it, as the cars were available only by lease, seems suicidal in hindsight. Just a couple of weeks ago, Katherine Mieszkowski reported on electric cars for Salon.com (“Electric cars are coming!”), saying, “We’re sorry to be buzz kills. But we’ve heard this one before. Like in 1990. And 1910. Do the automakers have the juice this time?”

Trying desperately to save its skin after two years of sharp declines in sales by the fall of 2008, GM asked for federal funding to make the switch to more efficient cars. Too little, too late. Just a few weeks ago, GM announced it would close over 2600 of its dealerships in the US, 40% of the total. In order to survive, US taxpayers would have to invest an additional $30 billion in the company; this leaves the government as “reluctant shareholders” in this little drama. Moore understandably shies away from propping the company up with taxpayer dollars: “The only way to save GM is to kill GM.”

While most are sensible of the tens of thousands of jobs lost, the fall of GM (and Chrysler a month ago) has raised hopes for alternative transportation supporters, many of whom were enraged by the US government bailouts of the Big Three Automakers in November, one of George W. Bush’s last actions in office. Moore writes, “we must immediately convert our auto factories to factories that build mass transit vehicles and alternative energy devices.” He envisions a future similar to AASHTO’s recommended plan, with high-speed rail and local LRT connecting US cities, noting that the demise of the car giant was predictable…twenty years ago, in fact. In Roger & Me (1989) Moore chronicled the negative economic impacts of GM plant closures on his hometown of Flint, Michigan, the birthplace of GM. His exposure of GM CEO Roger Smith’s actions was an early look at corporate downsizing and outsourcing to other countries (in this case, Mexico), which proved to be prescient. Smart Growth, transit-oriented development, and complete communities advocates have always said that more efficient cars are only part of the solution, which includes changing travel behaviour: increased walking, cycling, and public transit use. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) has released a new report calling for a national rail policy in the US covering both passenger and freight rail and the creation of an intercity passenger rail account, funded at $35 billion over six years. The Federal Government plans to distribute $8 billion in economic recovery grant funds for intercity passenger rail, and AASHTO Board of Directors wasted no time in presenting its policy recommendations, which include high-speed rail corridors, regional corridors, and long-distance rail service. Even developers are excited, as they see prime sites opening up with the closure of GM and Chrysler dealerships.

In addition to the federal economic recovery grant, the US may well see their first national regulation on greenhouse gases. If the proposed regulation passes, cars would have to be 40% more fuel efficient than they are now. As Mieszkowski reports, Ford recently declared it would spend hundreds of millions of dollars to convert an SUV plant near Detroit to churn out the Ford Focus. By 2011, the plant would be producing battery-electric versions of the diminutive car. Nissan recently claimed that 10 percent of its new cars will be electric by 2016. Mitsubishi plans to unleash its i-MiEV in Japan this year and bring it to the U.S. in 2012. Toyota, which has dominated the hybrid market with its Prius, plans to launch an electric Prius by 2012. And Chevrolet has launched the Volt, which promises to go 40 miles on its electric battery before switching to gas. The Mini Cooper’s Mini E has been released to 450 test drivers in three states. Mieskowski’s sources tell her that the only reason car companies are going electric is to get at those federal subsidies; at any rate, companies will be forced to kill off their gas-guzzling models and improve fuel efficiency on all their combustion engines while supporting electric technology.

All told, the death of GM is probably the best thing for America. Let’s watch those VMT plummet while walking, cycling, and transit become as attractive as they once were before the onset of the Oil and Gas Era. And hopefully, let’s see the thousands of newly-unemployed auto workers and retailers back at work in alternative transportation production and infrastructure development.