A recent
report caused me to ponder the role of transit in small towns, including Petaluma
where I live. And to reject one of the lesser
strategies offered by the authors.
The report
was prepared under the aegis of SPUR, a
San Francisco organization with a long urbanist tradition incorporating both definitions
of urbanism, the study of alternative patterns of human settlement and the
advocacy for the best solutions.
Originally
founded in 1910 as the San Francisco Housing Association with the goal of addressing
lingering housing issues from the 1906 earthquake and fire, the organization
went through numerous transitions over the next century. It eventually became the San Francisco Planning
and Urban Renewal Association, now shortened to SPUR.
I’ve long
admired the work of SPUR. I’m not a
member, but that’s only because I can’t possibly join all of the urbanist
organizations that I admire. If I ever decide
to increase the number of organizations to which I pay dues, SPUR would be on the
short list of organizations that I’d consider.
The transit report
released under the imprimatur of SPUR was Seamless Transit, a call for improved connectivity
between the many transit agencies that serve the Bay Area. The extensive list of coordination items,
including greater fare consistency, better located transfer points, more
attention to schedule coordination, and a stronger focus on making the use of multiple
transit systems transparent to riders, is well-conceived and comprehensively executed.
For those interested
in the future of transit in the Bay Area, I recommend the report. Its details can seem overwhelming, but the
subject matter requires the level of attention provided.
When I first
learned of the report, I wasn’t as positive.
I’d been told that the report called for consolidation of the transit agencies
in the region, a subject on which I had misgivings. However, upon reading the report, I found
that the authors acknowledge the possibility that limited consolidations could
provide benefits, while also suggesting that it would be harmful if the
conversation became too focused on mergers.
Overall,
they argue that cultural changes are more important that rearranging
organizational charts, a point with which I concur.
My concern
with consolidation pertains to the different roles that the transit agencies
can fill. The SPUR report focuses on the
services that transit can provide for commuters or other travelers such as
tourists who make extended trips within the Bay Area, using multiple transit
systems.
I
acknowledge that long-distance riders are important. Personally, I remain frustrated that I don’t
have a reasonable option to use transit for traveling from Petaluma to the Cal
campus in Berkeley for a basketball game.
(And no, I don’t consider BART to San Francisco and a late night ride home
on Golden Gate Transit to be a reasonable option.)
But not
every transit agency is focused on long-distance riders. Some agencies have service goals that are more
local and are equally important.
Petaluma is
served by Petaluma Transit, a division of the City of Petaluma. (Acknowledgement: One of my community roles is
a seat on the City committee that advises Petaluma Transit on long-range
strategy, policy decisions, contractual issues, and land-use matters. However, I’ll acknowledge that virtually all
of the successes of Petaluma Transit, which have been considerable in recent
years with greatly increased ridership, are due to the work of the staff and
the contractors. The Transit Advisory
Committee’s only role is to spurt the occasional drop of oil into a well-tuned
machine.)
At present,
Petaluma Transit serves relatively few long-distance, multi-transit system
riders. The primary reason is free
parking. Commuters who wish to use
Golden Gate Transit or Sonoma County Transit can drive private cars to the
vicinity of bus stops where they can park without charge. Free parking will always affect consumer
decision-making in this way.
Instead of
those riders, Petaluma Transit largely serves youths who rely on city buses
rather than private cars to reach school and other members of the community who
don’t drive, but need access to stores and jobs.
Petaluma
Transit does a fine job of serving those folks.
Within the context of the available funding and a land-use pattern that
doesn’t facilitate effective transit, the community is well-served.
It’s hard to
imagine that a more regional transit agency could do a better job of serving
the current local ridership than the current staff and contractors who live and
work in the community. Consolidation in the
case of Petaluma Transit and other municipal transit agencies that serve
communities with well-defined boundaries and a large load of local riders is a
poor idea which should be quickly rejected.
(I had the
chance to run this thinking past Portland Jarrett Walker at the recent CNU
23. Walker, who is respected nationally
for his acumen on the philosophy of transit, concurred with my position.)
But that
doesn’t mean that Petaluma Transit can ignore the Seamless Transit report. The report still sets forth multiple
strategies of which Petaluma Transit should remain aware. As the land-use patterns of Petaluma become denser,
and as more people choose to leave their cars in the garage when they commute
or perhaps not to own a car at all, Seamless Transit will provide guidelines
for serving those people effectively.
The coming
of the SMART train, especially when the system opens with only a single Petaluma
station of limited parking, will also make the strategies in Seamless Transit important.
For those
reasons, the Transit Advisory Committee met with a representative of SMART at
its May meeting and will discuss the Seamless Transit report at our June
meeting. As a committee member, I understand
the need for the policies that SPUR sets forth.
Even if I think consolidation would be bad idea.
Next time, I’ll
cover several Petaluma subjects, including the long-promised Fairgrounds update. But all readers are encouraged to check
in. Perhaps the urbanists in Petaluma are
implementing ideas that can be exported.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
No comments:
Post a Comment