Bus Workgroup14 Response To MTA s Third Revision to the Draft BaltimoreLink Plan

Transcription

1 Bus Workgroup14 Response To MTA s Third Revision to the Draft BaltimoreLink Plan February 16, 2017 The purpose of transit is to move people, not vehicles. 1

2 Bus Workgroup14 Response to MTA s Third Revision to the Draft BaltimoreLink Plan Introduction Bus Workgroup14 was initiated in 2016 by Councilwoman Mary Pat Clarke and residents of the 14th City Council district who were alarmed by initial route changes proposed by the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) in its first draft of the BaltimoreLink plan. Bus Workgroup14 reviewed the original draft of the plan, released in 2015, and the three subsequent revisions released in Our review focused on bus route changes that affect riders in the 14 th City Council District, as well as general issues that affect riders throughout the system. MTA s BaltimoreLink planning staff have been accessible, listened to our concerns, and responded by changing several particularly onerous routes in our district, but serious concerns remain for the Workgroup. Summary of Continuing Problems Route Problems The #36 bus (LocalLink 53) will terminate at the North Avenue Light Rail Stop, requiring transfers to travel downtown, and leaving gaps in existing service. The extension of CityLink Silver across 33 rd Street to Morgan State University for selected trips is welcomed, but a transfer would still be required to reach Good Samaritan Hospital, a destination for many residents of Stadium Place. The restoration of service along Maryland Avenue/Cathedral Street (#11 bus/citylink51) is welcomed, but MTA has identified this change as provisional due to potential cycle track conflicts. To determine proposed changes to your bus route, MTA has provided route comparison sheets. Visit: System-Wide Problems MTA is reducing rush hour service on the #27 bus (LocalLink 94); the #11 (LocalLink 51); and the extended CityLink Silver that serves the 33 rd Street corridor; and many other buses throughout the system. Reduced service is not improved service. 2

3 MTA has not committed to stop pulling buses and cutting in partway through a route, practices that leave riders stranded. MTA has still not provided real-time, next bus information. While local buses have almost four times as many riders as light rail and the Metro combined, MTA is using BaltimoreLink (bus) resources to improve conditions at rail stations; rather than bus transfer points. General Issues MTA has not released its report on the compliance of the BaltimoreLink Plan with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. MTA has not yet released complete information on the elimination of bus stops, although the agency has held its final public hearing. Coordination between MTA and city officials, including school, police, transportation, and land use officials, is critical to the smooth operation of transit in Baltimore, and is the responsibility of the city officials as well as MTA. Organization The remainder of this report discusses route problems, system-wide problems, and general issues in greater detail, followed by a discussion of Revision Three and Beyond. ***** ROUTE PROBLEMS Bus #3 / CityLink Silver Extended The current MTA plan retains service along 33 rd street by extending the CityLink Silver line from Charles Street east to Morgan State University for selected trips, partially replacing service on the current #3 bus. While this change is welcomed, it does not extend far enough. Senior citizens at Stadium Place on 33 rd Street need to be able to reach Good Samaritan Hospital. Under the new draft plan they would not be able to do so without a transfer. Bus #11 / LocalLink 51 The plan restores service along Maryland Avenue/Cathedral Street (#11 bus/citylink51); but MTA considers this route provisional due to perceived conflicts related to the presence of the new cycle track on Maryland Avenue. Bus operators should be able to navigate this route if they drive carefully at moderate speeds, and it should not be changed without thorough, public review. 3

4 Bus Workgroup14 Response, February 16, 2017 Bus 36/ Local Link53 The current bus route 36 picks up 14th District riders along The Alameda, Ellerslie and Kirk avenues, taking them directly downtown to City Hall via Guilford Avenue, and across town to the University of Maryland Hospital, providing access to numerous workplaces and other destinations. The proposed LocalLink 53 route would instead terminate at the North Avenue Light Rail Stop. Riders could continue their trip via Guilford Avenue by transferring from a stop on North Avenue to the CityLink Yellow line. Changes to the 36 route are problematic for three reasons: Source: MTA First, the changes would require a transfer for short trips downtown that can now be made on a single bus from close-in city neighborhoods like Ednor Gardens and Pen Lucy. Second, riders would not be able to make a direct transfer onto the CityLink Yellow line from North Avenue. They would have to walk seven blocks south to Preston Street to pick up the connecting bus to continue south on Guilford Avenue. Moreover, the gap left by this change eliminates direct bus service on Guilford Avenue through much of the Station North Arts District. 4

5 Bus Workgroup14 Response, February 16, 2017 Third, the North Avenue Light Rail Station, the terminus of LocalLink 53, is not desirable as a transfer point for bus riders, nor as a layover point for drivers. This station is actually a park and ride lot below an elevated section of I-83. It is isolated, and feels unsafe. There is no surveillance nor any place to shelter if a rider were attacked no stores or houses. It is not a destination. It contains no toilets or sandwich shops for drivers. In principle, MTAs goal of connecting transit modes is a good one, but such connections should only be made at activity centers where riders can feel safe. Councilwoman Clarke stated in her testimony at MTA s January 18, 2017 BaltimoreLink public hearing: The proposed Local Link 53 route adds transfer requirements which threaten northeast Baltimore patrons with double or triple travel times to arrive at downtown employment destinations. Jobs and careers are at stake without the efficient route commuters rely on. Scores of patrons in northeast neighborhoods have testified to me that they chose their homes based on access to their work and career centers downtown by the 36 bus. Bus Workgroup14 recommends strongly that the current 36 bus route be retained. 5

6 SYSTEM-WIDE PROBLEMS The Frequent Network Is Not Frequent Among MTA s objectives is to reduce wait times for bus riders by expanding the network of frequent buses. The argument is that frequent bus service will eliminate the need for schedules, and make transferring easy because, if you miss a bus, another one will come along quickly (see the MTA Powerpoint frame, below). Source: MTA These claims would make sense if all bus lines were very frequent and reliable, but that is not the case. They gloss over significant problems. Instead of making all buses more frequent, MTA is actually reducing the frequency of buses on many routes, including the #11 (LocalLink 51) the #27 (LocalLink 94); and the extended CityLink Silver that serves the 33 rd Street corridor. 6

7 Service on these routes is being (or has already been) reduced such that buses only come every minutes during rush hour. If timing is not just right at the end of a work shift, this makes for a long wait. Off-peak service on these non-frequent routes can be an hour or more. A minute peak period headway (the time between buses) is MTAs best-case scenario for frequent buses in the Baltimore region. It does not account for late buses and longer, offpeak waits. In other large cities the frequent transit network is a rail network with reliable, 3-6 minute peak period service, extending to minutes off-peak. A rider who takes an infrequent, LocalLink bus from her neighborhood, may have a relatively easy transfer onto a frequent CityLink bus (if she travels at rush hour and the bus is not late). But she will still have a long wait at the transfer point for her return trip. No city bus route should have headways greater than minutes during rush hour. Bus Reliability and Hours Reliability remains the top concern for riders throughout the system. Reducing bus frequencies without ensuring reliability will increase uncertainty and wait times. MTA practices such as pulling buses from one route to fill in on another route, and cutting in part way through a route, leave passengers stranded. Buses with scheduled service less frequent than every 10 minutes should never be pulled or cut in, and the agency should end these practices entirely. Ending service at 1:00 am on bus routes with hospitality-oriented destinations (such as the 27 / LocalLink 94), hospitals, or other late-night employers, creates a hardship for workers who depend on bus service at the end of their shift. Real-time Schedule Information. It is essential that riders have the ability to know when they can expect their bus to arrive. The mobilebased app that MTA promised to implement in 2016 is still not operational, and it is now not likely to be available before Reliable, real time information gives bus riders certainty, allowing them to plan their day. Riders need to be able to make alternative plans, and notify employers, day-care providers, and others when a delayed bus will make them late. Most other transit systems have had this type of information for many years. Real-time information must be expedited. Transfers One of MTA s strategies is to improve on-time service by reducing the length of bus routes, since the longer the route, the more chance of buses getting behind schedule. The problem of long routes has been exacerbated by suburban sprawl neighborhoods, shopping centers, and business parks are 7

8 more spread out, making it harder for MTA to serve these destinations. MTA initially proposed to address this problem by terminating several routes in north central Baltimore City, which would have forced residents of 14 th Council District neighborhoods to transfer for relatively short trips downtown. While most of these interrupted routes were subsequently eliminated, the 36 bus (LocalLink 53, discussed above) remains an exception. Many bus riders throughout the system will still be required to transfer for long trips and to make connections between cross-town and downtown buses; and these transfers will continue to be challenging for riders, who can have long waits (including in bad weather) for connecting buses, or miss a connecting bus by only a few minutes. Some drivers of connecting buses fail to wait for riders to debark and cross the street. Many streets are hard to cross because they are wide with fast-moving traffic. Signals may be too short to allow pedestrians to cross. (MTA should consider transferring passengers when implementing signal prioritization.) Waiting areas often lack shelters, and at some busy transfer points sidewalks are not wide enough for waiting passengers, particularly if some are wheelchair users (an example is Greenmount Avenue at 39 th Street). Some transfer points are isolated and poorly lighted, creating safety concerns. The challenges of transferring could be mitigated through more reliable, more frequent bus service to reduce wait times; driver training and supervision to create a more customer-oriented service; and collaboration with city agencies to increase pedestrian and bus-rider amenities. MTA is using BaltimoreLink resources to improve conditions at rail stations; the agency should also commit resources to improve conditions at bus transfer points, since the local buses have almost four times as many riders as light rail and the Metro combined. GENERAL ISSUES Bus Stop Locations and Spacing Bus Workgroup14 recognizes that more frequent bus stops contribute to delays, that increasing distances between stops can improve reliability, and that fewer stops will make for quicker commutes, but it is important that distances are reasonable and avoid hardship. If routes are to have fewer stops, it is particularly important that the remaining stops be made safe and accessible for all riders, as discussed above. 8

9 The Workgroup had expected that information about bus stop locations and distances between them would be public before the plan was final, and requests that there be public comment opportunities for bus stop distance and locations going forward. Civil Rights Concerns: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of The Workgroup is concerned that BaltimoreLink may be creating an undue burden on City residents who rely most heavily on MTA buses. In November MTA staff said that the Title VI analysis could not be finalized and made public until the plan was finalized. We look forward to hearing when that analysis will be completed and made public. Coordination with Other Agencies. Communication and coordination among government agencies are critical to providing effective public services. Bus Workgroup14 members were surprised to learn that MTA considers the Maryland Avenue route of the LocalLink 51 bus to be provisional, due to perceived possible conflicts between buses and the new cycle track. Any potential conflicts should have been reviewed thoroughly and addressed in the early stages of planning for the cycle track. Since the cycle track was a project of the Baltimore Department of Transportation (DOT) the communications should have been initiated by DOT. (The Workgroup does not believe that the cycle track should preclude bus service on Maryland Avenue, if the buses moderate their speeds for the few blocks that are affected.) MTA has initiated several changes that could help to improve on-time bus service. The agency has already begun to pilot dedicated bus lanes downtown, and is proposing to implement traffic signal prioritization. This means that on certain routes when a bus approaches an intersection with a green traffic signal, the signal will remain green to allow the bus to continue through the intersection. The technology already exists to do this. Bus Workgroup14 applauds these changes, which will require continued, positive collaboration between MTA and the Baltimore City Department of Transportation. Baltimore City Police representatives at a recent community meeting seemed surprised by the proposed changes to bus routes and stops. City and school police dedicate significant resources to patrolling bus stops in the morning and afternoon, which is critical to student safety. The Workgroup urges MTA to ensure that all relevant agencies are aware of the BaltimoreLink plan during the rollout. Similarly, other agencies have a responsibility to communicate with MTA about changes that affect bus service, such as changes to opening and closing school bell times. Lapses in communicating such changes have contributed to past bus service problems. 9

10 Finally, MTA should be routinely consulted by local governments about pending land use policies and development approvals, since such decisions can have significant impact on the provision of transit services. REVISION THREE AND BEYOND Bus Workgroup14 members are hopeful and remain open to the promises and goals set for BaltimoreLink. It is past time that the State pays attention to the importance of mass transit as an economic driver in an urban center. Despite the best intentions of MTA s planners, Baltimore lags behind other comparable cities in modernizing its transit system. Without greater investment by the state, the bus service will continue to be unreliable. Many Baltimore residents depend on city buses to get to work, school, day care, and appointments on time. An effective transit system can go a long way toward improving Baltimore s economy, reducing inequality, and creating a better quality of city life. Ongoing Evaluation. We urge MTA to provide an ongoing process of public comment and involvement which is expanded to regularly evaluate and review all aspects of our mass transit system. The only way that we will all be able to determine the success of BaltimoreLink is if quantitative metrics are available for public analysis in a continuing transparent process. Once the BaltimoreLink plan is implemented, MTA needs to evaluate it, and make their evaluation methods and results public. Support Repeal of Farebox Recovery. Maryland spends one billion dollars a year on transportation. Public transit is the only transportation category that has a built-in ceiling on spending. The state requires 35% of spending on transit to be recovered or reimbursed through fares. Our legislators tried to repeal farebox recovery last year, but the effort was opposed by MTA and blocked by the governor. The farebox recovery requirement is a barrier that reduces the chance of the state providing adequate funding for transit. MTA should support the repeal of farebox recovery this year in Annapolis. Bus Workgroup 14 pledges to support this effort to create an effective and reliable 21st Century transit system in Baltimore, like other east coast cities. Bus Workgroup14 urges Maryland to invest more resources in mass transit, and make it a serious priority, something it has not been for decades. 10

11 A First-Rate Transportation System. The bus system that both riders and transit planners all want is a modern state of the art system that includes reliable and efficient service, connectivity, real time customer information, and reasonable amenities. No rider that Bus Workgroup 14 has interviewed believes that the current system meets any of these goals. We probably all agree that the current system has been neglected and underfunded for years. Research shows that public transit provides social, economic and environmental benefits. Every year in June, the students who come to Baltimore to study at our great schools and universities, give poor transit as their main reason for leaving Baltimore after graduation. We continue to experience a brain drain because of our underperforming mass transit. Visitors and new residents from Washington, Philadelphia, Boston, New York, Chicago, Montreal, Toronto, San Francisco, Portland, and other urban centers, soon realize that they cannot live in Baltimore without a car. What about the 31% of carless low income and working city residents, who have mass transit as their only option? A first class system would have clean buses, excellent customer service, and real time route information. When a driver is sick or a bus has problems, the system should be able to accommodate that without stranding passengers, who wait for a bus that does not come. The BaltimoreLink planning process, in both its missteps and its forward movement, has energized advocates. Bus Workgroup14 will continue to partner with other advocacy groups and with the MTA to make transit in Baltimore better for all of us. We look forward to a continuing dialogue with all parties. 11

12 Workgroup14 Members Mary Pat Clarke, Baltimore City Council, 14th District Brenda Davies Eileen Franch Michael S. Franch Ann Gordon Sharon L. Guida Jacq Jones Jackie MacMillan Yvonne Mathews Tyrone F. Parker Better Waverly Waverly Waverly Tuscany-Canterbury Charles Village Hampden Business District Tuscany-Canterbury Abell Ednor Gardens-Lakeside Michael Puma Joe Stewart Ednor Gardens-Lakeside Better Waverly 12