Back in July, the Climate Action Plan implementation subcommittee considered a number of strategies on transportation. One of them, TL21, called for a "commute trip reduction program."
 |
| Considered at the July 11th meeting |
During this glorious stretch of early fall weather, as local partner Cherriots has been promoting the "Get There Oregon Challenge," an example of a "commute trip reduction program."
 |
| via Twitter |
Is the City participating? Who knows! They haven't said a word about it, and are not engaging in any promotion for it.
In and of itself this is not something that is going to yield a meaningful absolute reduction in emissions. But as an index for the way the City is approaching the Climate Action Plan, it is notable silence and further evidence for a lack of seriousness about implementing the Plan.
The Challenge was a gimme, low-hanging fruit, right there for the taking. It was an easy opportunity for leadership by example, promoting it internally to City staff and externally to Salemites generally.
But instead we have Plannerpalooza.
4 comments:
I have been using the bus for the last couple of weeks. Most passengers that I have seen have been young, old, or disabled (admittedly the sample size was small). They either ride for free or at reduced rates. It costs $3.50 for a normal day pass. A bus driver told me that the high cost discourages broader use.
I support non auto travel but it seems clear that, at best, meaningful improvements to the system would take a long time to establish. Of course, work in that direction should continue and be expanded.
Therefore, I will once again encourage the establishment of a free system. I understand that that would be a difficult goal to obtain, but if the political will existed, I believe that it could be realized.
As more and more people cannot afford to drive (legally), there will be an increasing pool of potential riders that would use the service and that would be good for everyone.
When Cherriots surveyed riders, 33% said more frequent buses was important vs. 16% for free or reduced fares.
When Cherriots surveyed the general public, the ranking of results was similar, though the relative weights were a little different: 22% more frequent buses vs. 11% for free or reduced fares. (See "Cherriots Surveys on Frequency vs Coverage.")
This is consistent nationwide: People value frequent service more than free service. For low-income riders who lack cars, the support for frequency is even stronger.
Think of it this way: A free bus that doesn't get you where you want to go or when you need to be there isn't helpful at all.
(See "Should Transit Be Free?" and "Should Transit Be Free? Part Two" from the NY based Transit Center.)
Additionally, if we quit subsidizing drive-alone trips with things like free parking, bus fares would be more competitive.
A good number of those who complain that bus fares discourage broader use are those who enjoy free parking and could afford bus fares. They mind the inconvenience of fares rather than the objective burden of fares.
We need to create a more level playing field by bringing externalized costs into the actual cost of driving; then bus fares will be more attractive and people wouldn't complain so much about modest or even underpriced fares.
For those who truly can't afford fares, we could do things like make transit free for any Oregon Trail card holder, or do other more targeted fareless programs or rebate programs.
Before I retired from the State I rode the bus for years with a free bus pass provided by the State. They stopped this during one of the recessions when revenues were way down. That's not the case now. Why don't they resume this?
Thank you for the info. Fares are certainly not the only determinant and the gains might not be worth the effort, especially if free and reduced fare opportunities are fully utilized. I would like to see fares reduced for low wage earners and (self advocacy alert) our revered seniors should ride for free.
It seems clear to me that people will continue to move here and roadway capacity cannot be significantly increased, even if there was the will to do so. Also, at least for the foreseeable future, economic challenges will increasingly drive people to use buses and that increase in demand will have to be accommodated.
So we will have to act.
Providing convenience and reliability seems to be what riders want. Dedicated travel lanes would require huge changes and investments but would be a game changer for the entire system. Additional travel centers and express buses would have positive effects on the number or users. More frequent buses and more hours of operation would increase overall ridership.
There may be a point of diminishing returns if more frequent buses are provided for primary routes like Commercial and Lancaster. They already run every 15 minutes during weekday, daytime hours. Also, it makes no sense to be running more that a minimum of buses on routes that attract few customers.
We can only do what we can do. Developing downtown and immediate easing of building height regulations should help concentrate a portion of the population. It seems clear that reducing demand by localizing services and goods is the way to go and efforts to do just that are underway and should be encouraged.
It is time for the city to make transportation decisions based on overall need and to cut back on accommodating the preferences of developers. We just cannot afford to do that anymore. Salem will be an increasingly attractive place to build, live, and do business. That fact should motivate our local government to go back, to a certain extent, to the days when developers and the city had somewhat of an adversarial relationship instead of a partnership.
Post a Comment