I was playing around with Wikipedia the other day, looking at demographic information. (Before the anti-Wiki crowd chimes in, Wikipedia's demographic data is entirely populated by automated download from US Census data. Wikipedia makes it easier to browse.) What I found out there surprised me. We have a conventional idea of the Inland Empire as this vast area of low-density low-population wasteland, unamenable to transit investment or mixed use development. However, this is a possibly misleading analysis. The Inland Empire, or rather, the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario Metropolitan Statistical Area, is the 14th-largest MSA in the United States. That may not sound impressive, but it puts our population above that of the Seattle, Minneapolis, St. Louis, San Diego, Sacramento or Pittsburgh areas, and only a hundred thousand short of the Bay Area. And, as far as density goes, the City of Riverside had 3,908 persons/mi^2, only slightly below that of Portland, OR (4,288 p/mi^2). As transit advocates know, Portland is home to the well-run and well-patronized Tri-Met system. San Diego is also home to population density figures in this neighbourhood, at 4,174 p/mi^2, along with the three-line San Diego Trolley system.
What the Inland Empire lacks in comparison to these other regions is a defined center, a locus of activity. The development patters of the post-war period have spread commercial and social activity thinly throughout the region, and there are few places where viable, dense, mixed-use communities exist that would generate the sort of transit demand that other cities possess.
Fortunately, there is a solution. We must create this center of activity, and I can think of no better place than downtown Riverside. Fledgling cultural attractions are already in place downtown. We must add to this mix various sorts of housing and space for independent businesses, the necessities of daily life, and a fast, frequent transit line, preferably rail. We must make the planning decisions that will enable the construction of all of these amenities in a way that protects pedestrian space and minimizes the footprint of motor vehicles. We must end setback and minimum parking requirements at the very least, as well as the segregation of uses seen in traditional zoning. We must also stop giving away our tax money, in the form of TUMF waivers and economic incentives, to big-box developers on the outskirts of the city. By all means, if you insist upon building that sort of thing, do so, but our city should not be subsidizing it, regardless of how many low-wage jobs it might bring. (I'm thinking here primarily of the Mission Grove shopping plaza, but I'm sure it's not the only one.)
If we do all of this, we can allow Riverside to rise as a charming new urban center, the sort of place that people will want to live and work in. We can position our city to take its place as the leader of the Inland Empire in the coming decades, where our society will be forced to be come increasingly local and transit-oriented.
The beauty of this plan is that it gives our city a forward-looking, leading role in future development, and therefore it should be relatively easy to convince local politicians of its benefits. It will bring in tax money and prestige for our city for years to come, at minimal expense. It is a transformative departure from our usual ways of thinking, to be sure, but it should be one that our leaders can be persuaded to follow. And, if they cannot be persuaded, we ought to find leaders who can.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Monday, June 29, 2009
Late-Night Metrolink
Because we live in an area that grew up during the peak of the automotive boom, it has come to pass that many young Riversiders like to travel in to Los Angeles for their evening and weekend revelry. This is, obviously, prohibitively difficult to accomplish on public transport. Metrolink's Riverside and 91 Lines are notoriously scanty on reverse-peak and off-peak service. The final 91 Line train of the evening leaves Los Angeles at 17:25, and the final Riverside Line train leaves at 18:35. Not exactly ideal for hitting the town. The Metrolink San Bernardino Line, however, is quickly becoming a model of exemplary commuter rail service, with frequent service not only on weekdays in both directions, but also on weekends. There's even a Saturday night train that leaves LA at 11:00 PM. Still a touch early for my tastes, but we're getting there. Problem is, that train ends up in San Bernardino, not Riverside.
A similar problem appears to exist in Pomona. There's a beautiful, well-connected transit center at the Downtown Pomona Metrolink, but that station is served by the Riverside line, not the San Bernardino line. However, these lines are linked by the 24-hour Silver Streak BRT system (from Montclair to Downtown Pomona).
Riverside has no such a connection. Even the Omnitrans 215, which does travel between the two cities, no longer stops at the Metrolink station (why?!?!), and service on that route stops too early to be useful in this particular case. Of course, RTA service stops a touch too early at the moment as well, but this night bus thing is going to take off come January, and I bet we'll see 24-hour service on at least route 1 in the near future.
Combine one last Metrolink run leaving LA at, say 1 or 2 am, an Omni or Metrolink bus waiting at San Bernardino to bring those passengers to Riverside, and late-night RTA service, and you have a recipe for a carfree night out in LA.
In fact, come to think of it, you probably won't even need new late-night RTA service for a 1 am Metrolink. The train won't get out here until 3am, and our wayward partygoers won't see Riverside for another hour after that. The usual 4am transit service will already be running to pick them up.
So, that's my proposal. Get a bus running that connects the amazing San Bernardino Metrolink line to Riverside, at all hours of the day, and you'll instantly improve connectivity for the city. And you'll make the party-going students of our local colleges very happy.
A similar problem appears to exist in Pomona. There's a beautiful, well-connected transit center at the Downtown Pomona Metrolink, but that station is served by the Riverside line, not the San Bernardino line. However, these lines are linked by the 24-hour Silver Streak BRT system (from Montclair to Downtown Pomona).
Riverside has no such a connection. Even the Omnitrans 215, which does travel between the two cities, no longer stops at the Metrolink station (why?!?!), and service on that route stops too early to be useful in this particular case. Of course, RTA service stops a touch too early at the moment as well, but this night bus thing is going to take off come January, and I bet we'll see 24-hour service on at least route 1 in the near future.
Combine one last Metrolink run leaving LA at, say 1 or 2 am, an Omni or Metrolink bus waiting at San Bernardino to bring those passengers to Riverside, and late-night RTA service, and you have a recipe for a carfree night out in LA.
In fact, come to think of it, you probably won't even need new late-night RTA service for a 1 am Metrolink. The train won't get out here until 3am, and our wayward partygoers won't see Riverside for another hour after that. The usual 4am transit service will already be running to pick them up.
So, that's my proposal. Get a bus running that connects the amazing San Bernardino Metrolink line to Riverside, at all hours of the day, and you'll instantly improve connectivity for the city. And you'll make the party-going students of our local colleges very happy.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
When my bus is late, I get annoyed.
Especially when it's late for no good reason. My #16 ride home today was late due to a hundred tiny bad reasons, in the form of people who didn't notice that the bus fare had gone up. Obviously they didn't notice the widely-advertised public hearings in March, the proposal brochures in April, the announcement in Rider News in May, or the glossy yellow brochures this month. Or the new Ride Guide. Or the voice and visual announcements both on board and on every Smart Stop. Or the web site and telephone messages.
So the drivers are waiting thrice as long as they ought to at stops, waiting for people to dig that extra quarter out of their bags and wallets.
Therefore, as a public service announcement:
RTA is now on a new fare structure, effective today.
Cash fares are as follows:
Local routes: $1.50 general/youth, $0.70 senior/disabled. Children $0.25.
CommuterLink routes: $3 general/youth, $2 senior/disabled. Children $2.
Day passes are as follows:
Local routes: $4 general/youth, $2 senior/disabled.
CommuterLink routes (also covers local routes): $7 general/youth, $5 senior/disabled.
7-Day passes are as follows:
Local routes: $16 for all.
31-Day passes are no longer. They have been replaced by 30-Day passes.
They are as follows:
Local routes: $50 general, $35 youth, $23 senior/disabled.
CommuterLink routes: $75 general/youth, $50 senior/disabled.
Annual and 10-Trip passes have been discontinued.
Oh, and ROUTE SCHEDULES HAVE CHANGED for the following routes:
3, 7, 8, 10, 11 (new), 12, 14, 15, 16, 17 (discontinued), 18/18A, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27,29, 30, 33, 35, 36 (discontinued), 38, 38E (discontinued), 40, 42, 52 (discontinued), 55, 57, 61, 79, 202, 208, 210, 212 (new), 217 (new).
Really, that's nearly every route in the system. You owe it to your transit-riding self to get a new Ride Guide. If you can't find one on the bus, check your local library or the RTA office.
Inform yourselves, and stop holding up my bus.
So the drivers are waiting thrice as long as they ought to at stops, waiting for people to dig that extra quarter out of their bags and wallets.
Therefore, as a public service announcement:
RTA is now on a new fare structure, effective today.
Cash fares are as follows:
Local routes: $1.50 general/youth, $0.70 senior/disabled. Children $0.25.
CommuterLink routes: $3 general/youth, $2 senior/disabled. Children $2.
Day passes are as follows:
Local routes: $4 general/youth, $2 senior/disabled.
CommuterLink routes (also covers local routes): $7 general/youth, $5 senior/disabled.
7-Day passes are as follows:
Local routes: $16 for all.
31-Day passes are no longer. They have been replaced by 30-Day passes.
They are as follows:
Local routes: $50 general, $35 youth, $23 senior/disabled.
CommuterLink routes: $75 general/youth, $50 senior/disabled.
Annual and 10-Trip passes have been discontinued.
Oh, and ROUTE SCHEDULES HAVE CHANGED for the following routes:
3, 7, 8, 10, 11 (new), 12, 14, 15, 16, 17 (discontinued), 18/18A, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27,29, 30, 33, 35, 36 (discontinued), 38, 38E (discontinued), 40, 42, 52 (discontinued), 55, 57, 61, 79, 202, 208, 210, 212 (new), 217 (new).
Really, that's nearly every route in the system. You owe it to your transit-riding self to get a new Ride Guide. If you can't find one on the bus, check your local library or the RTA office.
Inform yourselves, and stop holding up my bus.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Late-night service in danger!
(This post gets really, really ranty. As an apology, I grabbed this PDF out of the new SRTP. Be the first on your block to get a copy of the new, improved system map.)
RTA quietly posted their final FY2010-2012 Short Range Transit Plan on their web site today. You can get your copy from here. I was perusing the final version of the plan, and little has changed from the draft. I was heartened in that an address was not included for the Riverside Transit Center, and a line that suggested that said center would allow bus "and rail" connections. Awesome. Then I saw it.
Page 29.
The JARC grant funds summary, which, in the draft, proposed late-night service on 1, 16, 19, 20, 22, 25 and 27. In the final, adopted SRTP, the summary lists routes 7, 8, 41, 74 and 79, with increased weekend service frequency.
WHAT?!?!?!?!
RTA, first of all, this change to your plan was not released to the public prior to your board meeting on Thursday. The public was not given any opportunity to comment on this revision, as they should have. I know I would have submitted commentary. (As I'm doing now...)
Second, those funds were granted to accommodate non-traditional work schedules, such as night shift workers and the like. Increasing weekend service frequency, while it's nice, doesn't accommodate any sort of schedule change. It just reduces waiting times, which, once again, is nice, but it's not the purpose of the grant. The purpose of this grant was to increase the span of service, therefore allowing night-shift workers and the like to be able to get to and from their jobs. This is not accomplished by increasing frequency. The only improvement listed that accomplishes the purpose of this grant is the addition of weekend service on the 41.
Lastly, by shifting these funds to far-flung rural routes, you are essentially guaranteeing the failure of this project- especially when these routes obviously don't garner enough ridership for hourly service frequencies as-is, without federal subsidy. Hell, what does "success" even mean in the context of this service? You're not expanding the window of opportunity for employment for the transit-dependent. You may garner increased ridership on these routes, but even hourly buses aren't exactly a passenger draw, and these routes don't run through areas that are conducive to ridership growth. Now, college students that work weird shifts along the 1 and 16? They might ride your night buses. But rural routes like the ones listed in your final SRTP aren't going to be self-supporting after FY 2012, and you'll just be back where you started.
Oh, and RTA? I'm really bored this summer. I have a bike, a bus pass, a phone and a LOT of time on my hands. Don't think for a second you're getting away with this.
RTA quietly posted their final FY2010-2012 Short Range Transit Plan on their web site today. You can get your copy from here. I was perusing the final version of the plan, and little has changed from the draft. I was heartened in that an address was not included for the Riverside Transit Center, and a line that suggested that said center would allow bus "and rail" connections. Awesome. Then I saw it.
Page 29.
The JARC grant funds summary, which, in the draft, proposed late-night service on 1, 16, 19, 20, 22, 25 and 27. In the final, adopted SRTP, the summary lists routes 7, 8, 41, 74 and 79, with increased weekend service frequency.
WHAT?!?!?!?!
RTA, first of all, this change to your plan was not released to the public prior to your board meeting on Thursday. The public was not given any opportunity to comment on this revision, as they should have. I know I would have submitted commentary. (As I'm doing now...)
Second, those funds were granted to accommodate non-traditional work schedules, such as night shift workers and the like. Increasing weekend service frequency, while it's nice, doesn't accommodate any sort of schedule change. It just reduces waiting times, which, once again, is nice, but it's not the purpose of the grant. The purpose of this grant was to increase the span of service, therefore allowing night-shift workers and the like to be able to get to and from their jobs. This is not accomplished by increasing frequency. The only improvement listed that accomplishes the purpose of this grant is the addition of weekend service on the 41.
Lastly, by shifting these funds to far-flung rural routes, you are essentially guaranteeing the failure of this project- especially when these routes obviously don't garner enough ridership for hourly service frequencies as-is, without federal subsidy. Hell, what does "success" even mean in the context of this service? You're not expanding the window of opportunity for employment for the transit-dependent. You may garner increased ridership on these routes, but even hourly buses aren't exactly a passenger draw, and these routes don't run through areas that are conducive to ridership growth. Now, college students that work weird shifts along the 1 and 16? They might ride your night buses. But rural routes like the ones listed in your final SRTP aren't going to be self-supporting after FY 2012, and you'll just be back where you started.
Oh, and RTA? I'm really bored this summer. I have a bike, a bus pass, a phone and a LOT of time on my hands. Don't think for a second you're getting away with this.
Trains: Noisy, Well-Lit Killers of the Night
They stalk through our neighbourhoods at all hours of the day and night, horns blaring, lights flashing, doing their best to remain undetected by wayward pedestrians as their multi-tonned cars noisily clatter along iron rails. And suddenly, out of nowhere, in the only place you could possibly find them (on train tracks), they strike!
Check the article at the PE. This really gets my goat. I don't mean to make light of the death of this unfortunate gentleman, but he was not killed by the train, any more than a gunshot victim was killed by the bullet. The fact of the matter is it's pretty easy to avoid being "struck, killed by" a train. They are shiny, noisy and relatively predictable in their motions. If you happen to be on the tracks when the train goes by, you've done something very, very stupid. You are not the victim of the train- you are the victim of your own actions.
Also, when somebody is involved in a railroad accident, they are "killed by the train." When they're in a car accident, they are "killed in the crash" or "die in an accident". Don't believe me? Check out this article by the same reporter, submitted within a minute of the above. Car bias, anyone?
It's attitudes like this that lead to groups like Fix Expo, the organization demanding that LA Metro build the new Expo LRT as a grade-separated line. Building rail in LA is hard enough, and you want to add to that the cost of either tunneling or building aerial work? This group just got the CPUC to reject an at-grade crossing design at a high school, for the safety of "the children" (Won't somebody think of the children?!). Sorry. If it was an elementary school, then maybe I'd buy it, but teenagers really ought to be smart enough NOT TO RUN IN FRONT OF A TRAIN.
We really shouldn't have to have quad-crossing gates either. It makes no sense to waste all that money on gates that are designed to prevent what anyone with a brain in their head wouldn't be doing anyway. (Of course, they do help out in that car-train collisions waste commuters' time.) Rail safety is a no-brainer, guys. When a train is coming, as signified by the ample audible and visual warning cues at every single point where you might encounter one, MOVE OUT OF THE WAY.
As an aside, I'm thinking about conducting a large study of press attitudes towards trains vs. cars. Seems like there's something scholarly and meaty here.
Check the article at the PE. This really gets my goat. I don't mean to make light of the death of this unfortunate gentleman, but he was not killed by the train, any more than a gunshot victim was killed by the bullet. The fact of the matter is it's pretty easy to avoid being "struck, killed by" a train. They are shiny, noisy and relatively predictable in their motions. If you happen to be on the tracks when the train goes by, you've done something very, very stupid. You are not the victim of the train- you are the victim of your own actions.
Also, when somebody is involved in a railroad accident, they are "killed by the train." When they're in a car accident, they are "killed in the crash" or "die in an accident". Don't believe me? Check out this article by the same reporter, submitted within a minute of the above. Car bias, anyone?
It's attitudes like this that lead to groups like Fix Expo, the organization demanding that LA Metro build the new Expo LRT as a grade-separated line. Building rail in LA is hard enough, and you want to add to that the cost of either tunneling or building aerial work? This group just got the CPUC to reject an at-grade crossing design at a high school, for the safety of "the children" (Won't somebody think of the children?!). Sorry. If it was an elementary school, then maybe I'd buy it, but teenagers really ought to be smart enough NOT TO RUN IN FRONT OF A TRAIN.
We really shouldn't have to have quad-crossing gates either. It makes no sense to waste all that money on gates that are designed to prevent what anyone with a brain in their head wouldn't be doing anyway. (Of course, they do help out in that car-train collisions waste commuters' time.) Rail safety is a no-brainer, guys. When a train is coming, as signified by the ample audible and visual warning cues at every single point where you might encounter one, MOVE OUT OF THE WAY.
As an aside, I'm thinking about conducting a large study of press attitudes towards trains vs. cars. Seems like there's something scholarly and meaty here.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Google Transit: Now on the GooglePhone!
Apparently I missed this. It must have been very, very quiet, but Google released a new version of Google Maps for the Android smartphone platform (and hence, the T-Mobile G1). This version now includes walking and... GOOGLE TRANSIT!
This was the one thing I was missing on the phone. It's now perfect. *hugs his G1* Hurray!
BTW, you have to manually update your Maps application through the Android Market to get this update. Full story here.
This was the one thing I was missing on the phone. It's now perfect. *hugs his G1* Hurray!
BTW, you have to manually update your Maps application through the Android Market to get this update. Full story here.
Parking Insanity
Riverside's current parking boondoggle is the Fox Theatre, as I reported on last week. However, the parking disease is endemic throughout SoCal. The Torrance Daily Breeze ran a story on Monday about the $126.5 million purchase of a parking lot at LAX. The cash-strapped City of Los Angeles, who owns LAX (as well as Van Nuys, Palmdale and Ontario airports), will be blowing $126.5 million of taxpayer money... on a plot of tarmac...
Note, by the way, that the Metro Green Line currently grazes LAX, and one has to take a shuttle bus to the terminal. So we can blow an obscene amount of money on a parking lot, but we can't make the trains go to the planes. Great.
Note, by the way, that the Metro Green Line currently grazes LAX, and one has to take a shuttle bus to the terminal. So we can blow an obscene amount of money on a parking lot, but we can't make the trains go to the planes. Great.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
