Public Transportation

Link to the text (it’s a PDF):
www.apta.com/research/info/online/documents/shapiro.pdf

“Conserving Energy and Preserving the Environment: The Role of Public Transportation” is a paper written by Robert J. Shapiro and Kevin A. Hassett, who belong to think tanks, and Frank S. Arnold, president of Applied Microeconomics, Inc., in 2002. Among other things discussed in the paper, Shapiro, Hassett, and Arnold examine the consequences of using public transportation on the environment. The enthymeme is, “Using public transportation in large cities is the pragmatic and patriotic thing to do...because using public transportation reduces emissions.” The implicit assumption here is that reducing emissions is patriotic and pragmatic.

The three authors make the argument that by making public transit a key element of the United States’ long-term transportation, energy, and environmental policies, the country can be environmentally strengthened. Their audience is likely a group of political movers and shakers––policy makers in Washington, D.C. This paper was published through the American Public Transportation Association, and could have been written in an attempt to lobby for more public transportation.

The writers’ goal is to get the United States to use more public transportation. For most of the argument, this is accomplished by logos, specifically through the results of tests and mathematical equations––several pages’ worth. The logical argument ends with an assertion that using public transit is the “pragmatic” thing to do. There is also an element of ethos; the writers are experts in their fields, and the beginning of the paper details their credentials in lengthy paragraphs. Lastly, there is pathos––the appeal that reducing emissions is a “patriotic” thing to do. This would especially play to their audience of lawmakers.

The argument, at least the ethos side, works and is sufficient. They form a powerful argument with the statistics they have compiled, and one finishes the paper thinking that given the facts, using public transit in a large city would be a logical thing to do. It feels accurate. The conclusion is where the pathos comes into play (far too late; it's almost like it was tacked on), and the appeal to the audience that using public transportation is patriotic seems misplaced and leaves the reader feeling like the writers are trying to manipulate them. There is not enough discussion about patriotism earlier to warrant the logical leap the writers are asking the audience to take, and that argument––that taking public transportation is patriotic––does not work, and thus does not feel entirely accurate. It is a timely argument; though the paper was written in 2002, it still holds today, and is perhaps even more relevant, though it would be interesting to see today’s statistics and find out if they have improved or worsened.