Daylight at the End of the Transit Tunnel…
As a few of you might have read in a previous post on the matter, I outlined several opinions regarding initiatives- from small and low cost to large and capital demanding- to improve public transit in Memphis. This encouraged several comments from readers with their own excellent suggestions and contributions on the topic. At least a few hopeful transit advocates saw this discussion and others occurring at the dawn of what would be an awakening for MATA- a new day that would see an efficient system that provides a level of service that supports the entire community’s needs for access to employment, retail options and recreation. This service would appeal to and benefit not only those who are transit dependent but also those who would make transit a choice in their daily lives. As younger generations continue to rise, their preference for cities with efficient public transit options should not be taken lightly during MATA’s planning process.
…or an Approaching Train?
Instead we have been presented with a questionnaire under the very descriptive title “Preference or Trade-Off Survey” . I would encourage all readers to please take the time to respond to this survey even if your experience with MATA has been limited to passing a bus as it lumbers along Union. I for one took the survey and was discouraged by the obvious path being defined by Nelson/Nygaard as directed by MATA. To first understand the impact of this survey we must agree on a basic point: life in a city relies directly on one’s ability to move through and across a community. The survey is about choice in as much as a gravely injured patient might be forced to choose between the amputation of their right leg or their left leg. Regardless, an individual will face a serious handicap for the remainder of their life. Similarly, if this survey is in any way indicative of the outcome of this Short Range Transit Planning process, then the ability for public transit to provide efficient mobility to the entire city will be seriously compromised.
Seeing as I am not the consultant I cannot with absolute authority predict what options MATA- and thus the public- will be presented with as an outcome of this survey and study. However, this survey definitely suggests we are essentially faced with 2 options or their variable hybrids:
1) Shrink the service area covered by MATA in an effort to provide greater frequencies as well as more hours of service each day including weekends.
2) Preserve- or even increase- the service area by limiting the number of stops, reducing frequencies and scaling back the number of hours MATA provides service throughout the week and weekend.
Abandoning Routes means Abandoning Neighborhoods
Not to be overly dramatic, but these options would place a significant (perhaps insurmountable) obstacle in the path toward creating a more livable urban community and its ability to compete on the national economic scene. As discussed at SCM in previous posts, this community and region are plagued by entrenched and significant levels of poverty. One approach to addressing this issue is providing access to opportunities for those that are defined in part by poverty. How exactly can we expect an individual to ever improve their ability to provide for themselves and their families if they are unable to access employment opportunities? Even that crosses a bridge too far and too early. How can we expect the same individual to qualify for said employment if they cannot further their education due to the restrictive nature of distance from a college or university? Market forces continue to restrict and centralize retail and services in communities across the country by eliminating those that are most marginal because they serve those living closest to the margin, resulting in entire neighborhoods loosing local access to basic necessities. We propose they live in a neighborhood lacking basic services such as a grocery store, school supplies, child care and clothing shops and then remove access to those neighborhoods with such services. For those at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder, it restricts the one service that provides a symbolic and literal “way out”. Without mobility, tyranny of distance results in stagnation and decay.
This of course does nothing to appeal to a generation of creative and educated individuals who are doing more to drive national economic growth every day and show a preference for cities with robust transit options. If we cannot provide efficient transit for those who choose to ride a bus or train, then we enter the economic development and recruitment fray with one arm already bound behind our collective back.
The Best Defense is a Good Offense
While the survey portrays a transit system on the defense- falling back on declining ridership and aging equipment- nowhere is there mention or suggestion of MATA leading an offensive within the community. This narrow focus relies on the perception that MATA is not a valuable resource, one that if nurtured could yield very positive returns. MATA as an asset could lead to increased land values and investment along dedicated routes in the existing urban area which has been the case in nearly every city to implement or improve their transit system. Where is the “preference” for MATA to increase both frequency and service area? Where is the option to both increase and decrease the number of stops by way of parallel express and local service along heavily traveled corridors? Where is the option to increase local circulator routes in areas of shared employment focus such as the Medical District and the Airport area? Let’s experiment with a “free fare zone” downtown, a concept which has enjoyed much success and encouraged ridership in other cities. Let’s implement true park-n-ride service along with express routes where busses are allowed use of the inside or outside shoulders of the freeways as done in New Jersey. Increase the frequency along certain routes to once every 10 to 15 minutes during rush hour. Expedite the implementation of multiple transfer points across the city by utilizing bus turnouts and simple shelters in place of the costly and time consuming process of building transit centers. Work with employers to incorporate cost sharing or discount voucher programs for those who utilize MATA. Coordinate with the city’s evolving bike lane program to support the ability for individuals to ride their bikes in conjunction with utilizing MATA by ensuring all busses are equipped with bike racks and by locating rentable bike lockers at transfer points and locations where bike lanes intersect bus routes.
MATA must allow the current planning process to include an option that provides the level of service necessary to support healthy, stable and sustainable neighborhoods. MATA, the challenge is this: produce such a plan and then sell it to the public. Sell the role a well planned and integrated transit system will play in the economic health and stability of the entire metropolitan area. Sell the system to those who would utilize MATA on a daily basis should it reinvent itself as an attractive transportation option. Sell the fact that such a system will produce benefits to be enjoyed by even those who do not find themselves riding a bus, trolley or train as part of their everyday mobility. Don’t assume that the only option is continued retrenchment with fewer routes while serving a smaller section of the urbanized area. Prove that MATA is not simply a crutch for those with no other option but is a tool that, when properly wielded, can be relied upon by the entire community to get to where they need to go.
86 MATA plus. Use smaller buses on light routes, free more drivers for more frequent runs.
This may not be the right survey tool, or forum for this comment, but if the community needs or desires transit, where the busses flow is the least of the problem. We do not have the residential density, retail clustering or employment concentrations needed to support much. Park & ride would be nice, if it weren’t so easy to just drive the extra mile or two on into town.
Yes, the trolleys should function a 1,000 xs better and it would be nice if more busses went more places but I think most of MATA’s problems are zoning, development, infrastructure issues that they have no control over. We should focus future development along the existing fixed rail route and set bus routes. We should have been doing this for 15 years. MATA cannot operate inn isolation. Successful transit integrates all City departments and private investments for success.
Until we man-up and start building to transit densities with predictable destinations, vote for MATA to concentratate as much service in the densest areas and provide true top notch trasit for some people instead of half-assed transit for everybody.
“concentratate as much service in the densest areas and provide true top notch trasit for some people instead of half-assed transit for everybody.”
Well put!
The fare-free downtown shuttle in Chattanooga is supported by parking garages on each end of the route.
At each covered bus stop there should be a large map of the entire system superimposed on a city map with a red you-are-here dot so that users can figure out how to get where they need to go.
EVERY bus stop should have a schedule on the pole of the buses that stop there.
It can be done because I’ve seen it done in Berlin.
Finally, get into the 21st century http://www.wired.com/autopia/2011/04/how-smartphones-can-improve-public-transit/
John,
I think that’s really what we are looking at here. As your well stated comment pointed out, years of poor land use management in combination with the city’s focus on distribution employment has created a very difficult landscape in which to operate a public transit system. If we were to be forced to choose between the 2 options, I agree that excellent service within the densely populated areas of the city is preferable to less efficient transit spread over a larger area. However, there are serious drawbacks to this option. We must realize that in “concentrating as much service to the densest areas” we isolate those individual from potential employment and access to amenities outside the areas of service. It would be a far different issue if those areas of densest development were self sufficient in both categories.
How does a resident in New Chelsea who is dependent on transit apply for and maintain employment with an organization in the Sycamore View office cluster if MATA no longer serves such a low density area? Essentially, that resident’s potential job market no longer includes the entire city, but is restricted to the area served by MATA. Their already limited employment options dwindle further.
Midtowner,
I agree per the downtown shuttle as Chattanooga was one of the cities I had in mind when I mentioned the initiative. Other cities with free shuttles in their downtowns or entertainment districts:
Oakland, Norfolk, Portland, Pittsburgh, San Jose, Cleveland, Seattle, Oklahoma City, Phoenix, Miami, and many others…
Per integrating technology and public transit locally, MATA is supposedly in the process of building its ITS (Intelligent Transportation System) and integrating it into the current fleet. Questions to MATA have received vague replies concerning the status of the project. According to the project’s website, one of the many benefits of the integrated system will be the ability for passengers to receive estimated times for bus arrival and departure information for each stop as well as real time bus locations across the system. We will need to continue to wait and hope that MATA makes thorough use of the technology available.
JF, you are right. This is a tough issue to wrestle with.
On one hand, there is a definate population that desperately needs (and deserves) service.
On the other hand, if service doesn’t improve (at least in some dense parts of the city) most people who are able will never choose transit.
This is a long row to hoe. I just want to make sure we do not remove the fundementals of good transit (or any type of service industry) and that is to pack as many customers as close as you can to it.
This should be a city problem… not just a MATA problem.
John,
Well said.