advertisement

COMMENTARY: Columbia residents want improvements in public transit

Monday, August 22, 2011 | 4:16 p.m. CDT; updated 4:28 p.m. CDT, Monday, August 22, 2011

First, the good news. 

This month, the Federal Transit Administration and the Missouri Public Transit Association presented Columbia Transit with an award of excellence for achieving the largest percent increase in ridership among urban transit providers throughout the state. 

The agency has received these honors every year since 2007.

As a Columbia resident who frequently travels by bus, often with my bike, I can attest to Columbia Transit’s outstanding service. 

The buses are clean and on-time, drivers are helpful and courteous, and the routes and schedules are extremely well-designed to provide the best possible service within a very limited budget.  As Second Ward Councilman Jason Thornhill said, “Every penny we’ve found to put into transit has paid off.”

However, in spite of these successes, devastating service cuts and significant price hikes are threatened. 

According to the City of Columbia’s proposed budget for the 2012 fiscal year — which begins Oct. 1 — evening service will be eliminated. Saturday service and several predominantly student routes will be reduced.

At the same time, the full fare will be increased from $1 to $1.50, half fare from 50 cents to 75 cents and eligibility for half fare will be cut back to the minimum required by federal law.

Overall, $2.7 million will be cut from Columbia Transit’s combined bus replacement and operating budget this year — an enormous proportion of the city’s overall budget reduction with the entire burden being placed squarely on the shoulders of residents least able afford it. 

Everyone understands these are tough economic times, but such an inequitable approach goes beyond decency. This proposal also goes beyond reason because it will exacerbate the very problem that has, in large part, put the city in this budget crunch.

The transit cuts are deemed necessary in order to pay for additional street repairs, whose budget will increase 60 percent to $1.6 million. 

Now there’s no question Columbia’s streets are in terrible shape — as a cyclist I am well aware of the potholes. But let’s pause for a minute to think through the reasons the streets are in such poor shape.

Consider that most journeys are accomplished by private automobile, usually with only one or two passengers.

City buses carry 20 or 30 passengers and weigh the same as just two or three typical SUVs.  Since buses only account for 1 percent to 2 percent of all journeys while private automobiles account for 90 percent, it is clear that, as a community, we are not using our transportation resources efficiently.

Instead of cutting service, the city should be developing a long-term plan for transit expansion. By providing a more extensive and frequent service including evenings and weekends, ridership would increase substantially. People who currently drive would choose to ride the bus, reducing inefficient automobile journeys and ensuring the road surfaces last longer and save the city money.

Columbia residents have very clearly signaled their desire to see an expansion of bus service — both through the annual increases in ridership every year since 2007 and the city's 2011 DirectionFinder Survey

While city officials have cited the survey to justify the reallocation of funds from transit to street repairs, a more complete and objective analysis leads to the opposite conclusion. 

It is true that transit expansion ranked eighth out of 14 possible priorities for the city among respondents, with street and infrastructure maintenance coming first, but the options that scored higher than transit expansion consisted of issues that directly affect everyone, including street maintenance, public safety and economic development, and goals that are also achieved by transit expansion, including reduced congestion and environmental protections.

It is unfair to put "transit expansion" on the same list as “maintaining streets” and "public safety" when very few people currently use transit — and then use the fact that transit expansion only came eighth out of 14 as a reason to cut transit.

Considering that fewer than 10 percent of Columbia citizens currently ride the bus, coming in eighth out of 14 with a whopping 24 percent of citizens placing a "very high priority" on transit expansion is an extremely important result. 

It shows that the Columbians for Modern, Efficient Transit (CoMET) campaign is achieving its goal of convincing people who do not currently ride the bus to support transit expansion. It would be a reasonable option for them to ride the bus and contribute to a more healthy, environmentally sustainable and economical transportation system.

This result is further reinforced on page 20 of the survey, where "Availability of public transportation” was voted the most important transportation service for the city to provide. Clearly, Columbia residents want to see improvements in transit services.

Ian Thomas is the executive director of the PedNet Coalition.


Like what you see here? Become a member.


Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Comments

Ray Shapiro August 22, 2011 | 5:28 p.m.

Any good city maintains an affordable balance of viable transportation modes based on the needs of its citizenry.
To vilify private automobiles for Columbia potholes in order to raise bicycles and buses to some kind of greater value, however, is not the best way to convince commuters to join the bicycle/bus brigade.
Potholes can be attributed to extreme weather conditions, shoddy road work or heavy truck and bus traffic just as easily and probably more accurately than blaming Columbia car owners.
If the city can't afford a bus system to your liking, Ian, than perhaps a PLAN to fund a better system is in order.
Why not propose a funding plan like shifting some of that PedNet money to public transportation. Perhaps you could fund free bus rides for people who bring their bikes on the bus. Another idea could be to issue "I own a bicycle" bus pass to bicycle owners and PedNet can reward these biycle owners with underwritten passage on buses during the cold winter months.
As for me, I'd rather see the city become more car-friendly and less eager to cater to the public transportation/bicycle lobbyists. Punitive taxing of car owners to fund public transportation and bicycle logo tattoos just doesn't seem right.
However, if you need some bus money, why not shift funds from the school bus program and have high school and junior high school students ride on the city buses.
When I went to high school, we didn't ride a school bus. We either walked, biked, got a ride from a parent/friend or neighbor or took public transportation.

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.

advertisements