Transit Equity in a Down Economy

by Monique Wahba for NYSTEA - April 11, 2012

In the summer of 2009, AVillage, Inc., a grassroots organization committed to improving the quality of life in Albany’s South End neighborhood, engaged my services.  The advocacy group sought direct CDTA bus service from this low income, inner city neighborhood to the corridor housing three of the City’s major medical centers (i.e. Albany Stratton VA Medical Center, Albany Medical Center and St. Peter’s Hospital).  Joining this effort were its community partners – Trinity Alliance of the Capital Region,Grand Street Community Arts Center, and Westminster Presbyterian Church.

As an economically disadvantaged neighborhood, a high percentage of South End residents do not have cars, making them dependent on transit to meet their transportation needs.  While transit service was available in the neighborhood, it was impractical to reach the hospitals.  It required residents to take a bus or walk downtown, significantly lengthening their commute, or walk up steep Morton Avenue to catch cross-town service, a difficult climb, particularly for the community’s disabled and large senior population.  Too often, residents would miss appointments or pay expensive cab fares to make these trips.  The requested service would give South End residents direct access to job opportunities, medical appointments, shopping and other businesses as well as transfers to buses serving the greater Capital District.

Our first step in addressing the transit issue was to speak with transportation staff.  They were unconvinced of the level of demand for service and doubtful that even if the demand were there, we would see any new service given CDTA’s shrinking funding.  In response we decided to approach the CDTA Board.  Looking at the composition of its members, we noted that: 1) none of the nine members came from one of the four cities within the Capital District, 2) none were actual transit riders though one was a transit advocate; and 3) there was an Albany County seat vacancy.

Soon thereafter we approached the CDTA Board with a petition signed by over 1,300 people, the majority of whom were from the South End or the other inner city neighborhoods which would benefit the most from this service.  We also presented the results of a transportation questionnaire showing a large pent up demand for the service especially for medical and work trips, and its anticipated frequent use (2-5X/week).  Finally, we gave them support letters from fourteen prominent individuals and organizations, among them Albany Medical Center, City of Albany Common Council members, the Albany Housing Authority, local housing and human service groups, church leaders, and neighborhood associations.

Ultimately the service was created through a new transit loop serving not only the South End but Arbor Hill and West Hill as well, giving all three inner city neighborhoods a direct connection to the medical centers.  (CDTA has since reported that ridership on this new route is double what was expected to the point that overcrowding is now an issue.)

On November 13, 2011 I joined about a hundred South End residents and community leaders gathered at the Union Missionary Baptist Church on Morton Avenue.  We chanted “this is how democracy works” as the new CDTA bus #100 pulled up for the first time.  A major victory had been won for both the neighborhood and for CDTA.

By Monique Wahba, Principal and Owner of MW Planning (www.mwplanning.org)

CDTA and local organizations have proven that system operators throughout New York State can make positive steps forward by engaging communities to best utilize existing resources.  But we here at the New York State Transportation Equity Alliance (NYSTEA) and our 80+ coalition members see that there are fundamental statewide issues that need to be addressed.  Join NYSTEA as we make the case for voting rider representation on transit authority boards.  Riders can and should have the right to be recognized as a transit stakeholder.  

Taxation for Representation?

A tax on new bicycles?  Shouldn’t we be providing incentives for people to ride rather than drive?  After all, isn’t bicycling better for the environment – no emissions, less space consumed for parking, etc?  But as I read about the bicycle tax imposed in Colorado Springs, Colorado it made more sense to me.  People buying a new bicycle in Colorado Springs are charged a one-time $4.00 tax.  This money goes toward City bikeway improvements designated by the City’s Bicycle Plan, with first priority being the construction of off-street bicycle paths. 

The tax was initiated in 1988 during the Bicycle Plan update when Council members and others wondered how the City would fully implement the plan.  The Council, seeing bike facilities as a special benefit to just a segment of the population, felt that bicyclists should pay more of the bikeway costs.  At the same time, the development community questioned whether the bikeways were needed and worth the expense.  Developers also had reservations about being required to set aside land for bike paths without reasonable assurances the paths would ever be built.

According to the Colorado Gazette, the bicycle tax has been very successful.  It generates about $100,000 annually for bicycle projects, and has been used to match federal funds to build a significant number of bikeway projects each year.  The City of Colorado Springs reports that it has broad community support and is politically popular. 

It’s so popular in fact that it has generated more funding to support bicycling.  In 1997 Colorado Springs voters approved a one-tenth of a cent sales tax for trails, open space and parks (TOPS). The TOPS tax generates about $6 million annually and has resulted in the development of almost 50 miles of new trails and the acquisition and/or development of approximately 5,700 acres of parks and open space over the last 11 years. (Source:  http://www.bikeleague.org)

Nationally, discussions are ongoing as to how to finance America’s transportation system.  As bicycling is taken more seriously as a mode of transportation and more money is spent on bike related facilities, there’s pressure for bicyclists to pay their own way. 

At the start of the American Revolution, colonists fought against the British to protest against taxation without representation.  In this case, bicyclists seem to be asking for taxation to have real representation at the transportation table.  Is a bicycle tax on new bicycles a good idea for the Capital District?  Will it lead to broader support for bike funding as it did in Colorado Springs?

On the Move

As Americans we pride ourselves as being part of a nation “on the move.”  We’re always going – commuting to work, running errands, chaperoning our children, etc.  But we’re also “on the move” in the figurative sense, always advancing – as individuals, as communities, as a nation – or at least striving to (at least I hope so).  For this blog, I take “on the move” literally, and focus on how we move, i.e. our transportation.  No doubt the sense of advancing will come up too as I explore the impact of our transportation choices on our environment, energy consumption, and more personally, on the quality of our daily lives.  My goal is to share what I know about transportation from my planning experiences, travels and reading, to open a dialogue on the topic with people in the Capital District and explore the possibilities for our future.

Why the fascination with transportation?  As a child growing up in a Long Island suburb, I could walk to elementary school or bike to a friend’s house or to the park.  If destinations were farther away, like ballet or Brownies, I didn’t think twice about having my mom drive me.  But as I grew older, my transportation choices became more limited.  School was no longer within easy walking or biking distance and taking the school bus, acceptable in the lower grades was definitely “not cool” for upperclassmen.  I was dependent on family or friends to get where I wanted to go, just as I reached an age when I desired to be more independent.

Travel to urban centers opened my eyes to transportation possibilities.  Living just 30 miles outside of Manhattan, I could easily get into “the City” via the Long Island Railroad and then navigate my way around town by walking or taking the subway.  Spending a semester in Paris in the late ‘80s, I became fascinated by the Metro which I took to class daily.  The trains were so reliable and provided such great coverage that I became intrigued by the Metro’s efficiency as a system.  I also noted the quality of my trips – the trains and stations were always clean, there was ample seating both in the cars and on the platforms, and different design treatments made the stops unique and interesting.  (Most memorable was the Louvre station which had replicas of artwork on display.)

Though I’ve worked in different fields of urban and regional planning I always seem to gravitate back to transportation planning.  Why?  It is fundamental to every plan.  What good is a redeveloped waterfront if you can’t get to it?  How can a low income neighborhood revitalize if its residents can’t reach employment centers?  And how can you design vibrant neighborhood commercial districts to be pedestrian-friendly without also accommodating auto circulation and parking? 

I invite you to join me as I explore these and other transportation issues.  What transportation issues intrigue you the most?

What is Multimodalism?

Multimodalism is about leveling the playing field so a transportation system can safely accommodate many modes or forms of transportation rather than have one dominate.  To me, it’s about putting people first.  When the question is “how can we move people from place to place?” rather than “how can we move cars?” the transportation solutions abound.  We can have people move on their own - walk or bicycle or use some other self-powered mode of transportation.  Or we can put them in some kind of vehicle – e.g. a car, a bus, a train, a plane.  And when challenges in transportation arise, we can become more creative.  Towns in the US and abroad are using funiculars to connect downtowns with outlying hilltop areas rather than limit themselves to roadway solutions, saving travel time and sparing their environments.

How do we put multimodalism into practice?  Once we start thinking in terms of how people can move, we start seeing our existing roadways, as potentially shared spaces.  And while multimodalism is about giving equal consideration to all modes, this does not imply equal accommodation on every street.  Sure, some streets can safely accommodate multiple modes (think of a four-lane boulevard with on-street parking, bike lanes and sidewalks), but far from all.  Nor would we want them too.  Many local streets are ideal for walking or biking precisely because they have low traffic volumes.  Multimodalism also allows us to think beyond the street for transportation.  We can develop paths not only as separated trails but as shortcuts across long blocks, complementing on-road circulation systems. 

Why have I decided to dedicate a blog to multimodalism?  I do consider it an area of expertise, one I developed as a transportation planner in Portland, Oregon and have continued to draw on in my urban planning career.  However, my interest goes deeper.  I see it as an important component to  making our communities more “livable.”  That means safer for our children, quieter, greener, more energy efficient, but also more community-oriented.   As I said from the start, multimodalism is about putting people first.  Modes like walking, biking or taking transit allow people to interact spontaneously and beyond their usual social circles.  As much as I appreciate how the Internet can bring the world to my laptop, there is still no substitute for daily social interactions.  For these reasons, I choose to be The Multimodalist.