Poll: Prop A transit tax passed, now what?
Last week voters in St. Louis County approved a half cent sales tax for transit:
In November 2008 the same measure was narrowly defeated by a narrow margin (48.45% to 51.55%). Now what?
“The sales tax increase will generate about $80 million a year for Metro. The measure also triggers a previously passed 0.25 percent tax increase in the city of St. Louis.
By the end of the year, the bus and light-rail agency will restore all the routes and service it had to cut last year, said Metro President and Chief Executive Bob Baer. Metro will also be able to maintain and add jobs, he said. “Instead of a loss of 600 jobs, we’ll be adding 125,” he said.” (full story: Voters approve Metro tax – St. Louis Business Journal)
So the poll question this week is what would you like to see in the way of changes & improvements to the system. Obviously the prior level of service will return but I think we should expect more. Some of you have said you’d like route maps and schedules posted at bus stops. I’d like to see Metro add GPS to buses and display at bus stops how long until the next bus arrives. For the poll in the right column I’ve listed a few items but feel free to add to the list. As always, share your thoughts in the comments below.
– Steve Patterson
As a bit of a transit wonk, I have many ideas and desires, but they all boil down to making Metro more attractive to the non-transit-dependent rider. The one big challenge I see facing Metro is that if people here have other options, most people usually choose them, leaving only riders that don't have other choices using public transit. It's that whole “for 'other' people” perception, and changing that will help both Metro and urban living on multiple levels.
One, one size does not fit all. Local service works great if you're going short distances, but it sucks if you want to go across town or commute more than a couple of miles. Two, a transit system needs to have good connections, with timed transfers and free transfers. No one can design a system that will give more than 10% of their riders single-seat rides, and the frustration level grows exponentially with every transfer and with just waiting for the next bus or train. Three, rework the system to KISS – straight lines are a lot easier to understand than routes that wander around (http://www.metrostlouis.org/MetroBus/Maps/Route…). Four, eliminate half the existing bus stops, You simply don't need to have one every 500', as occurs too often now. Five, on Metrolink, resist the pressutre to put stops too close together. Light rail needs to focus on moving larger numbers of riders greater distances at faster speeds, and stops like Sunnen just slow things down and serve few riders. Six, use the right tool for the task, be it a big bus, little bus, streetcar or light rail vehicle. And seven, embrace new technology warily, be on the leading edge, not the bleeding edge. You wouldn't need GPS next bus notification if the bus just came more frequently – if you knew it would be there every 7 or 10 minutes, you don't really care what the schedule is, but when it's every 30 or 60 minutes, it's a much bigger issue . . .
Running buses every 7-10 minutes would be very expensive. GPS is less useful, but at least it's affordable.
Expensive? Yes, it would definitely cost more. But what is our goal? If it is to ATTRACT new riders, as opposed to serving the small universe of existing riders, we can't keep doing things the same way. For at least a decade now, Boulder, Colorado has subsidized frequent bus service (http://www3.rtd-denver.com/schedules/getSchedul…) The result is a transit system that works for more people, as opposed to expecting most riders to conform their schedules to a bus that runs every 30 or 60 minutes.
At peak times, even in Metro's current reduced-service mode, our busiest route, the 70 Grand, runs every 12 minutes. Is it frequent because it's busy? Or, is it busy because it's frequent? There are limits to what technology can do. Most of us live busy lives. If we “just missed” that bus, having to wait a half hour for the next one is going to be a much bigger disincentive than not having some GPS-based iphone app that keeps us updated, plus, most properties have had little success in actually delivering on the promise. (See Metro's limited use on Metrolink, as in “The next train will be arriving in, pause, 30 seconds”. That provides little useful information, yet it's the best they can do. 2 minutes, 5 minutes AND 10 minutes would be MUCH more useful.)
It all gets back to meeting the needs of non-transit-dependent riders. If you can do that, then, guess what? You'll be making life easier and better for every transit-dependent rider, as well. But to expect to do it on the cheap will only continue to produce results similar to what we have now.
JZ71, I agree with your post that it is better to know that a bus is coming every 5 minutes than to have a gps announcement that the next bus is in 30 minutes.
However, just want to quibble with your words in the final paragraph. You say that meeting the needs of non-transit dependent riders also makes life easier for the transit dependent. What if we all stopped talking about transit dependent riders and changed the paradigm to talking about the car dependent? We would say that meeting the needs of the ” non car dependent” also makes life easier for the “car dependent.” After all, anyone who does not have transit available to get to work is “car dependent” and the public must build facillities of all kinds (parking lots, more highway lanes, etc.) to enable the “car dependent” population to get to work, shopping, etc.
I like talking about the “car dependent” because there is a negative connotation to being “dependent” on anything. Why put this negative connotation on the transit riders? It would change the conversation if we talked about car-free commuters vs car-dependent commuters. After all, the public has a much bigger cost to support each car-dependent commuter than to support the transit rider.
One, “transit-dependent” is one of those industry-speak terms, used to classify rider groups. And, two, I agree with your observations on the majority of us being car-dependent. Whether changing the terminology, on either side of the discussion, will have much impact, is hard to predict, but is certainly worth exploring. Personally, I'd rather focus on making transit more attractive to everyone.
And FYI, my experience is that there are three groups of riders, the transit-dependent, those who choose to use transit, primarily for commuting, and the occasional, primarily entertainment-oriented, rider. Transit-dependent is pretty self-explanatory. You use transit because you don't drive, sometimes out of choice, but mostly because you're too poor, too young, too old or too disabled to own and operate your own motor vehicle. Choice riders choose transit because it saves them time and/or money. In other cities, they have a quicker trip than if they drove, and they don't have to pay (as much?) to park. Here, Metrolink may help some Illinois commuters save time; I'm not aware of a lot of time savings for Missouri commuters. Finally, there are the occasional riders, who only use transit to go to things like sporting events, like opening day today. They don't want complexity, they just want a direct rie to and from the event. They're also a critical part of the larger funding equation, since they're the voters who can make or break any tax increase, since they have the least to lose from any cuts in service.
Each group of riders has distinct needs, wants and expectations. One size does not fit all. Understandably, Metro has focused recently on keeping as much service as possible for the first group. But to really change perceptions in St. Louis, Metro is going to have to do a much better job of addressing the needs of the other two groups . . .
Large Metrolink expansion, more frequent bus service, and easy to read full system maps of both buses and trains.
An example:
http://www.transitchicago.com/travel_informatio…
I want more than one of these!
Optimistically Metro should expand the Metrolink, take a look into an express bus system to tie together local buses and the Metrolink, and look to work with municipalities to generate more Transit Oriented Development.
The need for more frequent service might just be a result of a lack of information. I voted C, because maps and schedules are a must–seemingly a no-brainer. Knowing when the buses come to each and every stop would do wonders to alleviate the perception that service is infrequent and inconsistent. We should only run buses and trains enough so that they are close to capacity.
For the GPS idea, are you suggesting that each stop be equipped with some sort of map feature similar to the iPhone application that tracks your location, but in this case the “app” would track the bus you're waiting on? This sounds great, but seems expensive and not cost-effective. The problem here, too, is that routes often change. Presumably, any installation could be transported to another location though, again, the costs might outweigh the benefits of bus tracking. Or perhaps you're thinking of something that might alert riders (automated voice and a small light maybe) that the next bus is arriving in 1,3,5,etc. based on the bus triggering a sensor at certain locations along the route. I like the latter and I think it's definitely feasible.
Unless there is an obvious demand for old routes, blindly reinstating all the old routes is just a bad idea.
“We should only run buses and trains enough so that they are close to capacity.” How do you propose to do that? One, demand varies from hour to hour and between locations, and two, if the trains and buses are nearly full, won't potential riders be turned off or fear being unable to get on? Plus the biggest cost in transit is the operator's salary, and they get paid whether they're moving or standing still.
We do agree that “blindly reinstating all the old routes is just a bad idea.” Once any route is established, it creates a constituency that will resist any changes they perceive to be negative. While the easiest and quickest answer for Metro is to do just this, now is also a rare opportunity to put in a route structure that better-reflects current demand patterns.
Finally, while both you and I don't mind, or even appreciate, the challenge of figuring out maps and schedules, many, many people in the “real” world don't want to or “can't”! But the real disincentive for many potential riders, including me, is simply the added time (3X, 4X, even longer) that one needs to sacrifice to use Metro to get from point A to point B. If I can drive in 15 or 20 minutes, and using transit, under the best scenario, will take 45 minutes or an hour, or longer, what's the incentive? Yes, I'll save money and be nicer to the environment, but having an extra hour or two, potentially every day, not being stuck “in transit” also has a huge value. It is all about trade-offs, and until Metro does a better job of giving people like me better options, it's going to continue to be perceived as something just for “those other people”.
Buses should be staggered according to times of high and low ridership. Every 10-15 minutes during peak hours and every 20-30 in off-peak hours in order to maximize efficiency and reduce costs.
You say, “if the trains and buses are nearly full, won't potential riders be turned off or fear being unable to get on?” I'd argue the exact opposite. A full train or bus tells me that the system is working for a lot of people. It tells me that it is offering something beneficial to each and every person in there. When you walk by a restaurant that you've never eaten in and see that nobody is sitting inside, what do you think? 'Wow, what timing!' Probably not. You might think, 'I wonder why nobody is in there,' or 'must not be any good.' I think the same holds true for perceptions of transit.
I couldn't agree more that “the real disincentive for many potential riders…is simply the added time,” but the duration of that time is a consequence of the built environment shaped in the era of the automobile and mass suburbanization. I like to think that the automobile era is coming to an end. Don't get me wrong, the car will always be a part of the transportation solution and suburbs are here to stay, but it is wrong to resign to the fact that it is quicker to drive now and, therefore, will always be quicker to drive. We built a society around the car, so why can't we rebuild it around transit? Why can't we retrofit suburbia so that it provides what we need our built environment to provide? But I digress.
You can reduce your transit time by living closer to where you work, where your kids go to school, where you shop for household needs, etc.. Idealistic? Certainly. Realistic? Absolutely. I won't argue that this is a small decision, not in the least. Deciding where to live is based on all sorts of factors. My point is that we as individuals need to start taking some initiative in our own lives instead of waiting for the ideal transit system to be built around our current lifestyles. We have to be willing to bend a little. I sold my car in 2006 and in 2007 I moved to San Diego to attend graduate school. I surveyed neighborhoods based on my needs and wants: what I could afford, crime rates, proximity to a grocery store, coffee shop, and a decent pub. I also looked at the area's proximity to transit and that transit's connection to campus, where I spend most of my time. I either ride my bike or take the bus each and everyday. Certainly, my situation differs from many because I am only one person. The larger the household, the more complicated this process becomes. Complicated, however, is not impossible.
These types of conversations/debates always lead me to the fundamental precepts of New Urbanism (Steve has a link on the page to the Congress of New Urbanism), which assert that development should be comprehensive and based on the core ways that society functions on a daily basis: home, work, school, store. In the short term, transit should connect areas with high residential populations to areas where there are a high number of jobs. In the long term, we need to rethink our rigid system of land use zoning and begin retrofitting suburbia along New Urbanist concepts.
I basically agree, but the whole discussion boils down to “which comes first, the chicken or the egg?” Metro St. Louis has invested, heavily in freeways. The core city has shrunk as the suburbs grew. Jobs are now much more decentralized and density is substantially lower than they were 50 or 75 years ago. Which means that while we have our rush hours, they're nothing compared to many other cities', and congestion is one big thing that can convince commuters to try and use transit. So while the CNU has many laudable goals, what's really needed around here is a COU, a Congress of Old Urbanism. Instead of rebuilding the suburbs in the style of much of the city, why not just make city living attractive again?!
Yes, as a single person, you have more options about living close to work/school. Neither my wife nor I work downtown, and our suburban jobs are the best ones we could find in this crazy economy, yet they're, no surprise/Murphy's Law, in opposite directions from where we live. We did buy our home with transit use in mind, but the cuts over the past few years have only made the few options available even less attractive. We're a microcosm of the bigger challenge Metro faces – instead of a hub and spokes, they need a route map that looks more like a complex web. Add in the reality, especially around here, that land use patterns change at a glacial pace, and making transit fit the world as it is will probably be more effective, especially short term, than waiting for one or a dozen local municipalities to “get it” and trade density for shopping centers, office parks and surface parking lots.
Idealism is a good thing, it helps point us in the right direction. But statements like “we as individuals need to start taking some initiative in our own lives instead of waiting for the ideal transit system to be built around our current lifestyles” cuts both ways. You've chosen to go car free. The vast majority, however, have chosen the exact opposite. They've turned their backs on public transit and embraced all the positives SOV's offer.
Finally, going car free in San Diego is easier than going car free in St. Louis. I'd argue that San Diego has more transit options, and they/you certainly have better cycling weather. Bottom line, at least for the immediate future, we have to work with what we have in the built environment. Construction is at its lowest levels in many many years, and all governmental bodies are struggling with shrinking tax revenues. Rewriting comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances are going to have to wait for better times.
I got the impression from past Metro talks that they would be enhancing bus stops for Bus Rapid Transit routes, but not (yet) for regular buses.