Petaluma Transit bus |
The powers
that control the ebb, flow, and cross-currents of urbanism have apparently
decreed that this is my week to ponder the integration of transit systems.
Later today,
I’ll participate in a subcommittee meeting of the Petaluma Transit Advisory
Committee. It‘ll be our final work
session before an August public vetting and anticipated approval of the updated
Short-Range Transit Plan for Petaluma Transit.
Although the
SRTP, mandated by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, would have been
required this year regardless of other transit issues, this particular update
has been dominated by the desire to integrate Petaluma Transit with the SMART
rail system that will begin running in months.
Having
spotted opportunities for route adjustments to better connect train riders to
Petaluma originations and destinations, Transit staff has spent months honing
the routes and schedules, along with managing the concerns of citizens, some
angry about the possibility of buses running through their neighborhoods and an
equal number distressed about not having service. The Transit Committee has been providing advice
on the process, offering ideas and feedback toward the impossible goal of
making everyone happy.
Today’s
meeting follows a meeting yesterday with the Transit Manager to review the
proposed content for the subcommittee meeting.
And then
tomorrow, completing the trifecta, I’ve been asked to participate in a meeting between
the Friends of SMART, the citizens committee that worked for years to bring SMART to reality and continues
to provide unofficial oversight of SMART’s efforts, and the Marketing Director
for SMART. It was a request that was likely
tied to my role with Petaluma Transit.
My
particular issue tomorrow will be travel training. Both Petaluma Transit and SMART have programs
to educate first-time riders about the transit experience. My concern will be how to combine those two efforts
to ensure that prospective riders learn how to ride Petaluma Transit to the
SMART station and then ride the train to destinations from San Rafael to Santa
Rosa.
Given the
flood of transit integration efforts, it seemed time to return to a 2015 discussion
of the subject.
The story
began with the issuance in April 2015 of "Seamless Transit" by SPUR, a highly
regarded Bay Area planning organization, calling for improved integration
between the impossibly large number of Bay Area transit organizations.
Although
consolidation was one of many tools the SPUR authors noted, it was low on the
list, with greater emphasis placed on fares, payment systems, schedules,
graphics, and transit center design. The
goal wasn’t reduced administration, but a focus on the ridership experience that
encouraged transit riders to move willingly between systems.
Greenwich as viewed from the observatory |
(I’m
reminded of when I took transit to Greenwich, down the Thames River from London
and the source of Greenwich Mean Time. I
took the Tube to a transfer point halfway to Greenwich, crossed the platform to
a train with a different name on it, rode to my destination, and exited with
the same ticket I’d used to enter the Tube station where I began. It was soon seamless that I didn’t realize
until later that I’d changed systems.)
Although
SPUR downplayed consolidation, some reviewers gave it greater play, including the
San Francisco Business Journal.
The SPUR report
came to my attention about that time.
Concerned about consolidation suggestions being made about Petaluma
Transit and feeling intuitively that consolidation would be a mistake, I checked
with experts in the field, received confirmation of my intuition, and wrote on the
how integration needn’t be consolidation.
The question
was also put on an agenda for the Petaluma Transit Committee about the same
time, with the committee unanimously concurring that the Petaluma community would
be best served by Petaluma Transit remaining independent.
Having struck
a blow for liberty, I went back to plowing other urbanist fields, which was a
mistake because the best was yet to come.
In August,
the New York Times took note of “Seamless
Transit”, covering much the same ground as earlier San Francisco Business
Journal article, but without once mentioning consolidation.
About the same
time, Jarrett Walker, one of the experts with whom I spoken months earlier,
weighed in with the best analysis yet and the one link that is a
truly essential read.
Walker
started by noting how a region named not after its principal city but after the
body of water that divides the region is virtually guaranteed to have a
fractured transit system. He then continued
onward to note how smaller systems tend to be more highly regarded by citizens
and to describe what interfaces best facilitate integration between different
systems, Walker’s article is an erudite, enlightening, and educational look at
transit. I’ve now read it three times
and each time come away with something different, including a need to read Walker’s book.
Lastly,
several of my fellow authors at Vibrant Bay considered the question of how the
Bay Area transit system might look if it could be designed from scratch to service the current
commuting patterns. It’s an obviously
theoretical exercise, but still provides observations that can be helpful in
understanding the future of Bay Area transit.
If there is
one overall lesson with which I can take away from this renewed look at
regional transit, it’s that when Jarrett Walker talks, I need to be listening.
My next post
will be the weekly summing up of upcoming opportunities to be an urbanism
advocate.
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