[Speed Gibson,
Tuesday August 5, 2008 at 12:14am]
Fairness Doctrine in Transit
As has been noted more than once, the money spent on building the Hiawatha Line could have bought every rider a car and the gas to go with it. The same will be true of the Central Corridor. It's an accurate perspective, but hardly a realistic alternative.
One that is, however, is simply better bus service: better buses running better routes on better schedules. It would cost far less, be much more flexible, plus be quieter and more comfortable. Most commuters would prefer that even if it did take 5-10 minutes longer than LRT.
But how do you sell that as an alternative? The Metropolitan Council has access to our tax money to develop campaigns, literature, even fancy computer simulations, inside and out. We could make a pretty good case, too, but we don't get a similar grant to develop it. Where's the equal time, i.e., equal money to refute or propose an alternative for Light Rail? The process is backwards. The decision is made (by politicians, not transportation engineers), then the graphic artists go to work.
Imagine a law that says that for any project over $100 million, one percent has to be made available to alternative proposals. Who allocates that? Those members of the group that voted against the winning proposal. Don't sweat the details here, I'm illustrating a point.
For Central Corridor, that would produce about $15 million that could be spent on research and presentations. In fact, we could buy a couple of upscale buses like those serving Eden Prairie and Carver County and start running them as a parallel line, call it Route 160. We charge a dollar more per ride or so, to match the limited supply with the demand, but everybody who currently uses the 16 bus can try it once or twice to get the feel of it.
Imagine a quiet ride with tinted windows, air conditioning and heat that works, comfortable seats with leg room, and drivers who must pass through a charm school to get such an assignment and the pay raise that goes with it.
Imagine a line with many if not most stops altered so that the buses can pull over without holding up traffic. Major stops have schedules and computer displays showing what's coming when.
Imagine the route planners freed from having to genuflect before the downtown centric model, taking people to places they really want to go without the time and hassle of coming all the way downtown.
Why not try that, a prototype like businesses often employ to try quietly test a new strategy? It takes a little money, but $15 million won't be missed in a $1.5 billion project.
One that is, however, is simply better bus service: better buses running better routes on better schedules. It would cost far less, be much more flexible, plus be quieter and more comfortable. Most commuters would prefer that even if it did take 5-10 minutes longer than LRT.
But how do you sell that as an alternative? The Metropolitan Council has access to our tax money to develop campaigns, literature, even fancy computer simulations, inside and out. We could make a pretty good case, too, but we don't get a similar grant to develop it. Where's the equal time, i.e., equal money to refute or propose an alternative for Light Rail? The process is backwards. The decision is made (by politicians, not transportation engineers), then the graphic artists go to work.
Imagine a law that says that for any project over $100 million, one percent has to be made available to alternative proposals. Who allocates that? Those members of the group that voted against the winning proposal. Don't sweat the details here, I'm illustrating a point.
For Central Corridor, that would produce about $15 million that could be spent on research and presentations. In fact, we could buy a couple of upscale buses like those serving Eden Prairie and Carver County and start running them as a parallel line, call it Route 160. We charge a dollar more per ride or so, to match the limited supply with the demand, but everybody who currently uses the 16 bus can try it once or twice to get the feel of it.
Imagine a quiet ride with tinted windows, air conditioning and heat that works, comfortable seats with leg room, and drivers who must pass through a charm school to get such an assignment and the pay raise that goes with it.
Imagine a line with many if not most stops altered so that the buses can pull over without holding up traffic. Major stops have schedules and computer displays showing what's coming when.
Imagine the route planners freed from having to genuflect before the downtown centric model, taking people to places they really want to go without the time and hassle of coming all the way downtown.
Why not try that, a prototype like businesses often employ to try quietly test a new strategy? It takes a little money, but $15 million won't be missed in a $1.5 billion project.
A great irony is that with Minneapolis putting so many restrictions on traffic downtown (mostly cars now, but eventually buses too--they want bikes and pedestrians)they'll have to decentralize the transit system if they want it to grow and not just pick up when the price of gas gets high.