Greater Downtown - Transit
I should, properly, disclaim that I served on the Citizen's Transit Advisory Comittee, the last two years as chair, just prior to its decommissioning when transit services throughout Butte County were consolidated under BCAG in 2005. But my observations today are from the perspective of a citizen and downtown activist. Still, I gained some insights into how sausage is made, and I confess it has influenced a rather jaundiced view of the policy process administering transit strategies.
One thing I learned, early on, is that the purpose of mass transit is not to furnish needed transporation services, to decrease traffic congestion, reduce air pollution, or improve public safety. No, as it happens, the purpose of mass transit is to ensure that no state or federal subsidy monies go unspent.
I shouldn't have been surprised. After all, I lived in the Bay Area for 20 years, where the Muni system served as a sort of dumping ground for incompetent civil servants from other departments in the city. Still, I was astonished.
I should also observe that Chico, like similarly-sized communities outside of urban centers, receives far less in the way of subsidy money per capita than the large coastal metropolitan areas. In fact, Chico itself receives no transit subsidy money; that is allocated to the county, and administered by BCAG. Butte County gets first crack at the cash, though, and counties like to build bridges and roads. So the amount that BCAG receives is already diminished, and Chico's priorities, while not ignored, are rationalized to the overall transit needs of the county as a whole. This is a done deal, spilled milk, and all that, so developing new strategies for transit services in Chico itself is probably an exercise in speculative fiction.
Not that some investment can't occur outside the BCAG ambit. Indeed, the construction of the new transit center on Lot 2 proceeds at feverish pace, bought and paid for exclusively by the City of Chico. This is notwithstanding the appallingly misguided location of it. In my discussions with various business and civic leaders, I know of no one who approves of this site for a master transfer hub. Nearby businesses bemoan the loss of business and mutter darkly about potential litigation. The University is not happy about it, either, preferring that the eastern gateway to the campus not become a magnet for the career homeless.
Plans to construct a transit center at this intersection have been under development for years. Fortunately, Chico's charmingly parochial process has repeatedly confounded its implementation. The initial proposal comes with a modest cost. Then the various special pleadings begin, requiring photovoltaic power systems, public restrooms, art installations, etc. Then the project goes out to bid, and the proposals received all exceed the budget, so the plans go on the shelf.
When Proposition 1B passed last year, the money appropriated was specifically intended to fund "ready-to-go" transportation projects, not for the development of new projects. (A cynical observer would conclude that it was intended exclusively for freeway projects in large urban centers. An even more cynical observer might wager on whether any of that money would ever find its way north of the Tehachapis. That observer would be David Little.) But Chico had a project ready to go, having everything it needed -- CEQA compliance, EIR certification, a stack of responsive proposals -- except the funding. See my earlier comment about subsidy money going unspent. So we're going to get the wrong project, at the wrong location, at the wrong price, but just in time for the resumption of classes.
The best practices in transit are "intermodal". A bus transfer station that provides no connection to rail, inter-regional, or air services is a transit island. The ideal location for the transit center would be at Fourth and Orange Streets, adjacent to the Amtrak station and Greyhound depot. Since a great many of the B-Line's riders are CSUC students, this location is as convenient to the campus as the current site, and much closer to the south campus neighborhoods where services for the student community are concentrated. Normal Street Bar's loss would be Riley's gain.
In the event that commuter rail service is created to connect Chico to Sacramento and Redding, the railway station at Fifth and Orange Streets is the most likely terminus. Should that happen, folks wanting to use this service to travel to Sacramento, Yuba City/Maryville, or Redding would be required to drive to the depot, and park in one of the most parking constrained areas of the city.
The first transit system in Chico was not funded by state or federal transportation subsidies. It was built entirely by private industry. A streetcar system was built by the Diamond Match company for the very practical purpose of getting the worker bees into the hive. Today, private employers in the downtown are facing the same problem. Perhaps a public/private partnership might be possible.
Just because the B-Line and the bus routes it offers are under the authority of BCAG doesn't mean that other alternatives are off the table. Work Training Center, for example, operates a large fleet of jitney coaches to transport the hundreds of clients participating in adult daycare and workshop programs. WTC is a "private, not-for-profit" entity, not a government agency, although the vast majority of its funding comes from public sources. So it's not only possible, but apparently sustainable, for a private entity to operate a transit service.
In some conversations I've participated in recently, there's been some enthusiasm for a small, downtown-centric, shuttle service. A central loop route, running clockwise and counterclockwise concurrently, connecting the downtown with Enloe and the medical service community along the Lindo Channel, as well as to the growing commercial and residential corridor along Park Avenue, with 4- or 5-per-hour headways, could be a unifying element in creating a cohesive city center community. Parking facilities could be located at the periphery of downtown, with the shuttle loop providing the essential connective tissue and circulatory system of a Greater Downtown.
I'd love to see the old streetcar rail system resuscitated, and while the capital investment is probably prohibitive, light rail connectivity between Chico's anchor employers -- Enloe, CSU, and Sierra Nevada Brewing Company -- and the urban core would be a sensational attraction, and sensible transportation policy to boot. Too bad we didn't have a plan like that on the books when the 1B money became available.
Comments
Alan,
Thanks for the thoughtful analysis on Downtown and Transit. It is a subject near to my heart. I understand you are looking at the long picture when you talk about putting the transit near the train station. It makes sense if you had a long range plan to add a fast train from Chico to Sacramento. And that should be the long-range plan. Meanwhile, I don't totally agree with you about the location of the "Transit Center", though perhaps the best place would be in the parking area behind the Bank of America. (if it were available) What makes sense about the 2nd and Salem location is that it will serve the University, and the available parking in summer is proof positive that the students impact parking in downtown Chico when school is in session. Best would be to get the students (and us)out of their cars, But they have to have a viable alternative in place to do that. I know the University is working on a pedestrian/bike loop. That could alleviate some of the pressure.
What you are alluding to with the "transit loop" is in the Chico General Plan and is called the "Ring Transportation Corridor". I have both an architect's rendering of an elevation from 14th St. and Park Av.and a map, showing the "loop route". (a better name perhaps?)Or you can refer to the drawing and map in the General Plan website.(Google it) see in Transportation Element T-I-27. Also the Community Design Element makes for great reading for anyone, and Fig. 2-12 (Downtown Framework, and Fig. 2-17 Rail Depot District refer to your blog as well.
Let me know if you want to see the elevation and map.
Posted by: Elizabeth Devereaux | July 6, 2007 02:51 PM
Elizabeth--
Thanks for your observations. For more on the lot behind the BofA, see my earlier blog http://www.norcalblogs.com/dog/2007/06/greater_downtown_lessons_from.html
>What makes sense about the 2nd and Salem location is that it will serve the University
But the University hates that location. Again, Fourth and Orange is as convenient as the current site to the campus, and much more convenient to the south campus neighhorhood.
I would indeed appreciate pointers to specific plans, maps, architechtural drawings, etc., and will include them in future blogs. This downtown series seems to have no end in sight...
--Ax
Posted by: Alan Chamberlain | July 6, 2007 07:13 PM
Would it be fair to say that the University "hates that location" because they lose the opportunity of getting the city to put a parking structure there?
Is the University more in favor of parking for vehicles than a mass transit center? Is that part of their sustainability program? I need someone to explain the "vision" there, cause I didn't see it in their master plan.
I guess it depends on your definition of "convenient" but, a bus center at 4th and Orange is not as "convenient" to the university as right across the street, nor is it convenient to the downtown. In this rural area, it is going to be a monumental effort to get people to ride the bus in the first place, but if you can only get them part way to where they are going, aren't you relying a lot on their tolerance. Especially for something that they are not currently tolerating because of the inconvenience. Of course, that probably depends on your definition of "inconvenience".
Currently, I see them get off the bus and go to the bank, cash their social security check and then go pay their PG&E bill and maybe go to the post office or the city building. Why do you want to make that harder for them?
I doubt that it is going to help the University's "sustainablity" charge by asking people to ride the bus so that they can walk 4 blocks to school. Even a transfer to another bus is just another hassle that would discourage most.
Coordinating the bus with the train is your strongest argument, but can you guarantee that if you build a bus station there, that the bullet train will soon follow? By the time that happens, we will probably need a bigger bus station and it might make more sense then.
Posted by: tj g | July 8, 2007 08:58 AM
TJ--
Thanks for your comments.
The CSUC campus is a big piece of real estate. My wife teaches at Chico State, and takes the bus all the time. She teaches mostly in Tehama Hall, sometimes in Glenn, and both are closer to 4th & Orange than to 2nd & Salem. But I'm not just trying to make it easier for my wife. :-)
And nowhere in my argument do I suggest eliminating the many bus stops throughout the downtown and around campus. Someone wanting to do some banking, mail a letter, pay a PG&E bill or parking ticket can always alight adjacent to their destination, rather than waiting until they get to the transit station. The transit station's principal purpose is to provide riders needing to transfer to another route with a venue to do so. SInce most riders' destination is downtown (or the campus) anyway, it makes sense to have it downtown.
But it doesn't make sense to have at 2nd & Salem. It's not "right across the street" from the campus, it's right across the street from the Bear, the ticket window for Chico Performances, and nearest to Laxson, Kendall, and Trinity Halls. Most classrooms are in the West Central Campus. And, again, bus routes have stops all around the campus perimeter.
That ship has sailed. I think the University's objection is the same as the Bear's and the Black Crow's; it will become a magnet for panhandlers, punks, and predators.
Posted by: Alan Chamberlain | July 8, 2007 04:51 PM
“a magnet for panhandlers, punks, and predators.”
Welcome to Chico, Dude.
I guess I'd rather not address the problem by hiding it in someone else's backyard.
Posted by: tj g | July 8, 2007 08:02 PM
I'm not trying to hide it in someone else's backyard so much as keep it off our front steps. And I don't think this is an attempt to address the problem so much as mitigate the impact.
I'll be posting some entries on public safety soon that take a more comprehensive view of the issues.
Meanwhile, it doesn't really matter, inasmuch as the milk is already spilled; the transit center is being built as I type, and that's that.
But I think it helps to illuminate why we need a more mindful long-term vision, strategy, and objectives for the downtown. The transit center project is an example of parochial planning, uninformed by many stakeholders, and reflexively programmed when money opportunistically appeared. That's not how to do it, and I think it will be remembered as Greg Jones' first serious blunder as city manager.
Posted by: Alan Chamberlain | July 9, 2007 08:19 AM
The location seems perfect. right between two growing demand centers. Placing it front and center helps to make it safer for all of us.
Intermodal as best practice is a Myth. Best practice can be applied at each step along the way. We are taking a step. It will have long paid for itself while other parts of intermodal are forming. When passenger Iron does hit the ground here it will be time to apply best practice again.
mike
Posted by: Mike Trolinder | July 9, 2007 09:31 PM
Alan, thank you for your thoughtful observations on transit in Chico.
I used to be firmly in favor of putting the transit center at the 2nd and Salem location but have changed my views somewhat after reading Alan's and Fred Davis' blogs.
(My pie-in-the-sky wish for the Second and Salem location is to rebuild the Hotel Oaks but I'm reconciled to a parking structure there - they're easy to tear down! - if that's what it takes to get people on board for other improvements.)
I think the train station location for the transit center does make sense under the condition that all or most of the transit lines pass through downtown on their way to the center.
Wny?
Because downtown and the university most certainly are the top destinations of transit riders. One of the iron laws of transportation whether it's public transit , passenger railroads, airlines, etc., is that forcing people to make connections diminishes attractiveness.
Example: if you have the choice to fly nonstop or with a connection which would you prefer?
If most transit riders are forced to change buses in order to reach downtown or the university it will lead many of those who have a choice to drive. And those who do have a choice but are considering using transit will find it unappealing because of the necessity of a change of buses.
So set up the transit center at the train station but stream most of the lines down Second and Third Streets to preserve convenient, one-bus service to downtown.
About trains. There is NO WAY that a so-called bullet train will come to Chico anytime within the forseeable or distant future.
This is from someone who used to work for Amtrak and fervently believes in passenger rail service and in high-speed rail between the Bay Area/Sacramento and Southern California via the San Joaquin Valley.
The population density of the North State does not justify it.
That said, what the public and elected officials should concentrate on is the very real possibility of bringing conventional passenger rail service north from Sacramento to Chico and Redding. In the unlikely event that high-speed rail is ever built between Sacramento and Southern California (talk about a lack of vision) a conventional rail connection from Chico to Sacramento would put our area in touch with the high speed service.
After the Boston-New York-Washington DC corridor the busiest rail corridors in the U.S. are (in order) San Diego-Los Angeles-Santa Barbara, Auburn-Sacramento-Oakland-San Jose and Sacramento/Oakland-Bakersfield.
These trains are not even particularly fast but they offer frequent, comfortable, fairly reliable service in traffic-choked markets and have proved to be very successful. The faster (the equipment is capable of 125-mph running), more frequent and more markets they serve, the more popular they will become.
Indeed, few people in Chico are even aware that Amtrak operates 16 trains daily each way between Sacramento and Oakland (7 continue to/from San Jose). (This is known as the Capitol Corridor.) 5 Amtrak buses run from Chico to Sacramento to connect with these trains and trains on the San Joaquin line.
Caltrans' Division of Rail identifies the extension of service to Marysville, Chico, Red Bluff and Redding as a goal by 2009 but that will not happen unless business and the public urge the various city and county jurisdictions along the route to pass resolutions of support for the service and lean on their reflexively anti-rail legislators (Keene, LaMalfa, Aanestad) to lobby the governor and Caltrans for the service. If they don't, other regions with enrolled legislators will see to it that their districts get the state's rail money.
There is no reason why being a Republican means one has to be anti-rail.
Tim Leslie, one of the state Senate's most conservative legislators is also one of passenger rail's biggest supporters.
How could that be, you may ask?
It's easy. His district (Placer County) is served by the Capitols (Rocklin, Roseville and Auburn) so he and his constituents see the benefits.
A little fire underneath our legislators started by the counties and cities along this emerging rail corridor would go a long way toward bringing Chico into California's burgeoning passenger rail network.
And to tie this all together with Alan's blog, rail service to Chico would provide another good reason to locate the transit center at the train station.
-- Greg
Posted by: Greg Fischer | July 11, 2007 10:45 AM