|
 y persistent criticisms of the 2020 Regional Transportation
Plan (RTP) have led people to wonder "what do I want."
I recently commented to San Diego Association of Governments
(SANDAG) staff that I bet they "hate me" now for writing
such detailed and extensive comments that they had to respond
to. No, they replied, but they did wonder what I wanted. It evidently
wasn't clear to them from my 40+ pages of comments what I wanted.
This is likely to some great degree because it's not clear to
me what I want. Some have accused me of being "vague."
 All of
this is funny to me because I don't have a list. I'm not "gunning"
for or against any particular projects -- though I have an extremely
low opinion of some. I don't have all the answers as to how to
solve the obviously tremendous and expensive transportation growth
problems of the region.
What I
do have is a decent understanding of both the benefits and the
limitations of computer models and forecasting, and a lifetime's
experience living in Southern California attempting to get around
-- both with and without a car. I don't have is a vested interest
in any particular project or approach -- except that of an environmentalist
and taxpayer wanting a system that works better.
Many times
I have tried to wrap my brain around the idea that the 2020 RTP
recently approved by SANDAG -- without even having to provide
a final copy to the public or their Board -- IS the best that
we can do. But I cannot bring myself to believe it. I have fundamental
respect for SANDAG staff but I simply cannot believe they can't
do better. So where is the disconnect? Why isn't the plan better?
I have now seen SANDAG Board members overrule good staff recommendations
as often as challenge bad ones.
It boils
down to this: because the market for public transit is considered
second class, only second-class services are provided. What I
want is a transit system that's for everyone, not mainly the
poor and disabled. No one wants to talk straight about this,
but the fact is: if you ride public transit regularly, you'll
notice right away that 3 out of 4 riders are "captive"
riders (as SANDAG prejudicially refers to them). That means people
cannot operate a car because they are disabled, too young or
too poor. I would hazard a guess that this also aligns with groups
with lower voting turnout.
The suburbs
will soon discover why effective public transit is their issue,
too. If they haven't figured out that it's required to deal with
horrendous freeway traffic, consider the recent public testimony
at an Metropolitan Transit Development Board hearing considering
the cancellation of subsidized van-pick-up services in the Rancho
Bernardo area. An elderly woman, objecting to the cancellation
of what amounts to a publicly-subsidized taxi service, pleaded,
"I'm trapped without it."
Over-optimism
about transit is as unwarranted as over-optimism about cars.
What I want is a system that works better for lower costs. I
want a system that is about people and not strictly about cars.
I want a system that respects limits. A part of maturity is understanding
limits.
There needs
to be a driving principal behind planning how to use transportation
resources and how to argue effectively for more. Right now, that
principal seems to be: let's take the money we have, plus what
we could get from renewing the special sales tax, and divide
it between more highway capacity and expanding the trolley system.
What if,
instead, we propelled our thinking out of that conventional box
and asked: What would it take for the percentage of transit market
share to escape single digits? What strategy would make using
public transportation a truly competitive alternative to driving
a car for many trips?
The trolley
is nice and serves some markets. But for this purpose, it's too
slow (average speed somewhere around 25 mph) and requires too
many compromises and too much cash to be the core of an alternative
system.
What sort
of system could we build that would communicate to everyone who
lives here -- or wants to live here -- that we could use transit
to get most places we need to go, in a reasonable amount of time,
at an affordable cost, with an experience you'd want to repeat,
not avoid?
What sort
of system would that be?
- One that connects the region's major destinations
with high speed service, not giving in to multiple stations to
serve demands for access.
- One that reaches for the best of new bus
technology (check what Lane Transit in Eugene, Oregon is doing),
or shows the innovative boldness of Curitiba, Brazil, or even
Chattanooga, Tennessee. (When they needed a different sort of
vehicle or technology to implement their strategy, they outsourced
it or built it themselves).he flexibility and affordability of
vehicles that run on tires hile not enjoying the romance of other
modes s the superior 21st century thing to do.
- One that builds a system of smaller vehicle
service within a market radius of the major destination nodes,
with service so frequent that no one needs a schedule because
it feels continuous.
- One that designs the experience you get as
a customer with the same sensitivity any successful retailer
has to show these days.
This debate
is tragically similar to the ongoing debate over education. People
assume that we can get substantially different results without
doing something significantly different. Or, that we can't do
anything until the public demands it. Sorry. If that's the triggering
factor -- by the time the public-at-large wants something different
-- it will be too late or too expensive to provide it. We shouldn't
have to wait to get into the Bangkok position -- or even that
of Boston, Miami, or Atlanta.
In fact,
Atlanta provides all the lessons other regions should need. They
had a run of a decade or so as America's great success story
(near top in every "best list" -- Olympics, etc.).
Meanwhile, they let their land use and transportation decisions
chase every developer's whim. Now, with a carpet of cul-de-sacs
(the most anywhere) and roads all over the region, they have
the longest commutes anywhere. This is where Bubba met the business
community. Now they have GRTA (known as "Greta," Georgia
Regional Transportation Agency), arguably the most dictatorial
regional agency in the western world. Is Senator Peace "stealing"
from this script with his RITA (Regional Infrastructure Transportation
Agency) proposal?
San Diego
Mayor Susan Golding only recently began her service on the SANDAG
Board. But with one 2-page memo on February 24, she began to
sweep away decades of stagnated SANDAG policy embedded in the
2020 RTP. The memo directed that SANDAG "immediately engage
in an update that would incorporate a new way of thinking about
accomplishing the same goal of diminishing traffic congestion
and increasing transit ridership but without increasing the amount
of pavement," and "Instead of building a transit system
and hoping 'they will come', let's create a transit system that
gets the people from where they are today to where they want
to go in a timely manner. This change in paradigm is critical.
We need to think about transit options as opportunities and quicker
alternatives to the car, rather than longer and harder to take
than our beloved car."
Included in the goals:
- ift to a "connect the neighborhoods"
philosophy with the goal of double-digit transit ridership as
a percent of work trips.
- Establish incentives for housing densities
consistent with growth projections and transit needs
- Ensure the preservation of our open spaces
consistent with our Habitat Plans
- Quantify the impact of the transportation
system as a whole on the region's quality of life.
The SANDAG
Board approved the memo as part of their adoption of the 2020
RTP. Now the hard work begins. Can the Metropolitan Transit Development
Board and the North County Transit District produce strategic
plans that quadruple the share of trips that transit captures
within 15 years? If they are pushed, they might perform. If San
Diego wants to lead rather than follow, what better than to pick
the issue that will be number one in local politics?
Remember,
George Clooney is now making a film here and the name of the
film is "Traffic." 
|
