System reimagining will be mostly better for most

But not quite all better for all.

Metro staff analyzed 452 hypothetical trips along the new [bus] network, most in low-income and minority areas. The standard for disproportionately affecting a trip is that trip taking 15 minutes longer than under current conditions. By the standard, 8 percent of the trips involving minorities and 6 percent of the trips involving low income areas will take 15 or more additional minutes in the new system.

With more than 90 percent of trips in minority and low-income areas unaffected, the new system complies with Title VI, said the agency’s ridership analyst, Jim Archer. He cautioned, however, that some riders will have longer trips.

“We can expect to hear from them,” Archer told board members during an April 20 review of the analysis.

A more detailed look at the analysis shows Metro’s assertion that most trips are improved is correct, but the biggest improvements come in non-minority and more affluent areas. In minority and non-minority areas, 16 percent of trips are reduced 20 minutes or more. Non-minority areas, however, have a higher percentage of trips that save 10-to-19 minutes and less than 10 minutes. Overall, 69 percent of trips analyzed in non-minority areas have some time savings, compared to 57 percent in minority areas.

No non-minority trips analyzed experienced a time increase of 15 minutes or more.

The same tendency for better time savings holds true for low income and wealthier areas. A larger percentage of trips in areas not identified as low-income, 73 percent, enjoy a time savings, compared to 60 percent of trips in low income areas. Meanwhile, 16 percent of trips in low-income areas will take 5 minutes or more longer than they do in the current system, compared to 8 percent of trips in wealthier areas.

As with minority areas, the analysis showed zero trips in wealthier areas that increased by 15 minutes or more.

[…]

Officials conceded when the system overhaul began that resources would have to shift to reflect community demand, which would mean longer trips for some residents and transit dependent riders. Officials said they have reduced the impact as best as they can, but cannot promise every rider the same level of service available now.

As we know, system reimagining is hard work. The wealthier areas tend to be those with greater population density, and also where many job centers are, so they were a priority. The only way to eliminate the remaining gaps is to spend more money maintaining legacy routes that have low (but heavily transit-dependent) ridership. Maybe with greater overall ridership, the resources and the political will will be there to address this. We’ll just have to see.

Related Posts:

This entry was posted in Planes, Trains, and Automobiles and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.