Ben Wear: Lessons from a rocky MetroRapid rollout By Ben Wear - American-Statesman Staff As we all know, you have to break some eggs to make an omelet. The problem for Capital Metro is that some of those eggs are coming from angry riders, and they are aimed at the transit agency. And those customers were just fine with the plain old boiled eggs they were eating previously. OK, enough with the henhouse metaphor. The point is that the rollout of Capital Metro’s MetroRapid bus service has been rocky, to say the least, with a din of protest from longtime riders of the parallel No. 1 local route, which now has half as many bus runs and no longer serves some areas. Some of those riders now have to take an extra bus, the No. 275, and transfer; formerly, they could just get on a No. 1 bus and stay there. Others have to wait longer for overcrowded buses which, in some cases, have been so full the buses passed them by. Or, if they choose to ride a new No. 801 MetroRapid bus, many of them have to walk much longer to the stop, and pay more, to catch a ride. The brickbats have been coming in several forms, including testimony last month to the Capital Metro board. But credit the transit agency at least for listening and making adjustments. Capital Metro has stationed some additional No. 1 buses near the route and, when overcrowding has become too severe, put those into service to scoop up the excess passengers. Beyond that, Capital Metro officials, in the wake of the negative reaction, say they are reconsidering their long-stated intention to eliminate the No. 3 local route when the second MetroRapid route, the No. 803, debuts in August. The problem is that the No. 803 stations, like those of the No. 801 line, will be a half-mile or more apart, whereas there’s a No. 3 stop every two or three blocks on the route along Burnet Lane and South Lamar Boulevard. In the 3.5 miles between U.S. 183 and West 49th Street, there are 16 No. 3 stops, or one every 0.23 miles. The No. 803, on the hand, would have six stops along there, one every 0.7 miles. Forcing people to walk that much farther by eliminating the No. 3, if Capital Metro goes through with it, could make the outcry over reduced No. 1 service seem tame. Roberto Gonzalez, Capital Metro’s manager of service planning, told me the agency in March will hold public meetings on retaining the No. 3, albeit at slightly wider service intervals than the current 22 to 30 minutes. The board likely will vote on the proposal in April. The agency also is pondering adding four more MetroRapid station pairs along the No. 801 route, potentially shortening the walk for No. 1 users willing to make the switch. The trade-off for that is slightly lengthening the No. 801’s trip time, making it a little less rapid. Gonzalez said a decision on that will take awhile, and then the stations would have to be constructed, so that relief could take longer to put in place. All this blow-back has pained Capital Metro officials, who put blood, sweat and years into the $47.6 million MetroRapid project and were no doubt hoping for nothing but sunshine and lollipops when it debuted Jan. 26. But given the choices the agency made, the reaction was predictable. Because the No. 801 buses show up every 10 to 15 minutes on weekdays, get where they’re going much faster than the No. 1, and have a roomier feel with slightly softer seats, Capital Metro folks seemed to think that No. 1 riders would just accept the inconvenience and the extra cost. Dang it, it’s federally supported, high-capacity mass transit: All aboard! But people are funny about transportation. For most folks, how they get to work or school (or wherever) comes down to a hard-boiled weighing (sorry, eggs again) of what works best for them. Into the mix goes their ability to pay for bus or train fares, bikes or personal cars, and for lodging. They consider their available time and the needs of their families in the day ahead and the evening to come. Their tolerance for riding with strangers on a bureaucracy’s schedule, or their need to be the captain of their own ship, also are factors. What emerges is a choice, one that is generally coldly rational rather than warmly idealistic. That’s why, in a town that tilts heavily Democratic, liberal and environmentalist, about 90 percent of us still take a car to work — usually alone and often from very far away. That’s also helps explain an encounter I had last month with a very well-known liberal political consultant who works on city elections. I was walking down San Jacinto Boulevard to Austin Mayor Lee Leffingwell’s State of the City speech downtown when he yelled out to me in frustration from his passing Prius. “Why don’t you write a story about parking?” he said emphatically. “About how there isn’t any.” Well, I have, more than once. And the policies zapping those parking spaces — wider sidewalks, more bike lanes, special spaces for car-sharing vehicles, the new transit priority lanes on Lavaca and Guadalupe streets — came from City Council members he helped elect. The point is, theories of what Austin supposedly needs often don’t match what Austinites truly want. Those angry No. 1 riders and the No. 3 riders have no rooting interest in MetroRapid succeeding. They just want to get where they’re going in the most reasonable way for their individual circumstances. Depending on where they live, and the amount on their paychecks, that might or might not be on Capital Metro’s shiny new prize. As city and Capital Metro officials continue their planning for a possible urban rail election this November, that could be something to bear in mind.
Posted on: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 17:11:11 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015