Bus Riders Union of Austin, Texas | El Sindicato de Pasajeros

The following is a list of our answers to questions posed by a "peer review" committee formed by CAMPO to review Capital Metro and help plan for its future. We were invited to a preliminary meeting in February, with follow-up meetings expected, and we presented these answers. To date, we have not heard back from the committee.

Question #1: We have been asked to conduct a study of the Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Capital Metro) as the first in a series of CAMPO-supervised peer review studies of transportation agencies in Central Texas. The objectives of the peer review are to:

• Address topics related to regional transportation planning, organization, governance, and funding sustainability;
  
  
• Compare Austin with other cities in a similar position, now and in the future, and review relevant best practices in those cities;
  
  
• Review performance indicators and prepare a Quadrennial Performance Audit as required by Texas law; and
  
  
• Make recommendations to ensure that limited resources are being deployed efficiently and effectively to meet the challenges facing the region now and in the future.

Do you have any questions about the study or the process?

n/a

#2: What is your vision of transportation in Central Texas over the next ten years? Over the next thirty years?

The vision of the Bus Riders Union of Austin, Texas (BRU-ATX) of public transportation in the Capital Metro taxing district is that public transportation ought to be a person's first choice for transportation due to the system's quickness, efficiency, accessibility, frequency, and level of comfortability. Public transit's goal for now and forever is to reduce automobile congestion and improve air quality.

#3: What is the role of public transportation in the region's multimodal transportation system? What is the role of Capital Metro in the regional transportation system? What markets should Capital Metro serve?

#4: Where does funding for public transportation projects and services fit within other regional mobility priorities? Within broader regional priorities?

#5: What is the role of Capital Metro in regional transportation planning? Is it a key participant in strategic regional transportation system planning and decision making? Why or why not? Should it be more involved, should it focus on refinement of its operations, or something in between?

The role of public transportation in the regional plan ought to be the #1 priority for all parties involved, bar none. The city of Austin and the surrounding areas are classified as near-non-attainment areas in the State Implementation Plan (SIP), and as a result we have entered into an Early Action Compact (EAC) designed to curb gaseous emissions harmful to the climate and environment. Public transportation more effectively transports people for less cost per person, and as such, ought to be heavily promoted, and not be discouraged by higher fare prices.

As a single entity in the region, however, Capital Metro, only needs to focus on its taxing district and continue improvements therein, thereby eliminating the debate on funding streams for regional markets.

Markets for Capital Metro to serve include the suburban areas of Austin, which should be served by the aggressive promotion of van pools, not low-performing and bus routes that would proportionately cost more. These areas are important since they include more "choice riders" who would otherwise drive as their primary mode of transportation, and they need to see public transit as a more viable option.

Capital Metro ought to only have a voice proportional to the service area. BRU-ATX opposes the selling of cut-rate transportation to Cedar Park, Pflugerville, and any other municipality that chooses not to pay the 1% sales tax.

Public transportation projects should be the sole role of Capital Metro. The Transit Authority should cease:

1. the voucher system for drunk peoples cab rides. This should be paid by those who profit from alcohol sales; merchants, bars, liquor sellers, as well as insurance companies.
   
   
2. dubious charitable contributions to the Long Center, ACL Fest, and other financially draining endeavors, not related to providing public transportation.

#6: How is Capital Metro viewed in the community? What is your personal view of Capital Metro?

Capital Metro is viewed poorly by the community since it doesn't do enough for riders. Infrequent service and stinky, dirty buses are among the top complaints. The fact that there are E-Buses that specifically serve student populations needing a ride late into the night from downtown, but not buses that cater to the working (and often the most transit-dependent) populations speaks to some the inequity of the system. Buses that travel east of the highway are without question more infrequent than buses that run north-south.

Feasible improvements to the system that could improve its image include:

• Free bus fares. This could easily be done using existing resources, and the result would include higher ridership numbers than a promotional campaign of roughly the same expense (Capital Metro collects no more than $3.5 million, after expenses associated with collecting and counting the fares).
  
  
  • In doing so, Capital Metro staff would have to cease using the "farebox recovery ratio" as their way of determining system efficiency, since this long outdated method makes its judgment based on the amount of money they make. For an agency that is funded primarily through public taxpayer dollars, maximizing profit is tantamount to maximizing cost to the public. Capital Metro staff should start using "Subsidy per Rider", which judges how effectively each public dollar is used per rider (it is much greater under free fares, due to the large jump in ridership numbers).
    
    
• Envisioning a "carless society" that would mirror the values found in the vision for a "Zero Waste" society. Costs associated with downtown parking garages, 911 calls, road maintenance, isolation of the individual, and more frequent accidents consume public money for transportation and health.
  
  
• Buses that run 365/24/7; in other words, buses are more easily accessible to those any time of the time, any day of the week.
  
  
• More frequent buses, especially during peak hours. Many times, even if a bus comes, a rider cannot get a seat since there are so many passengers. Having a bus that comes 5 minutes later, not 25 minutes or more, would improve the faith of current riders in the system, as well as choice riders in their decision to ride the bus.
  
  
• Larger bike racks. Even increasing the number of bicycles that a bus can carry to 3 from 2 would increase the number of bikers as passengers by 50%.
  
  
• More accessibility for baby strollers. Baby strollers are a common item carried into buses, but take up part of the walkway room. Sometimes, strollers are placed on a seat that could be used by a passenger. Installing baby stroller storages in all buses will leave extra room in the walkway, will not take up an extra seat, and most importantly, could be used for other storage such as groceries, backpacks, or luggage.
  
  
• Installation of more shelters and benches at bus stops. Passengers range from the elderly and the handicapped, to a family with young children. Waiting outside with no shelter against weather such as the sun or rain is an unnecessary burden on the comfort and health of Capital Metro passengers.

Wasteful areas that need examining by Capital Metro include:

• Discontinue buying buses that spend almost as much time in the repair shop as on the road.
  
  
• Hiring bad independent contractors (i.e. the North Operations disaster).
  
  
• Buying the wrong fareboxes that need time and money to replace.
  
  
• Grossly underestimating the cost of the Leander rail project, which diverts attention away from improving the current bus system.
  
  
• Capital Metro and contractor supervisors who drive gas-guzzling SUV's, not hybrids or lower emission vehicles.

#7: What are the main challenges facing Capital Metro as a transportation agency?

Maximize mobility for the carless, create an attractive option for choice riders, and reduce pollution.

#8: How adequate are Capital Metro’s current agency governance and operating arrangements? Are you aware of any issues with its use of an independent contractor to provide bus operators and mechanics to meet conflicting state and federal statutory requirements? Is the Board structured to represent the agency’s service area and contribution to regional mobility, now and in the future? If so, how should representation on the Board be changed?

Capital Metro's current governance and operating arrangements are adequate. There are issues with the current use of an independent contractor, but as long as the quality of service is upheld, the BRU-ATX takes no stance on any decision Capital Metro makes on this. However, we are interested in understanding the "conflicting state and federal statutory requirements" and ways Capital Metro wishes to resolve them.

Although the geographic representation of the Capital Metro board of directors is adequate, we do recommend that all board members be bus riders themselves.

#9: What is your understanding of Capital Metro's financial situation? Given that Capital Metro has been experiencing costs that are rising faster than revenues and that are expected to result in operating deficits within a few years, do you have any recommendations on how Capital Metro could resolve its imminent financial problem?

We understand that Capital Metro makes a ton of money and wastes a ton of money.

We recommend:

• using only effective modes of transportation, such as the rapid buses, local buses, and van pools, instead of trains (especially to the airport with frequent 7 minute service) and streetcars.
  
  
• Capital Metro projected that streetcars would cost taxpayers $230 million, while buses that would serve the same lines would cost $29 million.
  
  
• Promoting public transportation would save the city from building downtown parking garages that would use even more precious taxpayer dollars.
  
  
• Eliminate the rampant duplication of management duties by making precise cuts to administrative staff.
  
  
• Refrain from parking partnerships with private interests, such as that at the Triangle. This is less of a public parking garage for bus riders and more of a subsidized parking lot for customers and residents of the development.

#10: Do you have any suggestions of other cities that may be useful for comparison with Austin in our peer review? Any cities that may provide examples of best practices that could be helpful to Central Texas or Capital Metro?

Austin from October 1989 to December 1990; Logan, UT; East Chicago, IN; Amherst, MA; Paris, France; Curitiba, Brazil; Commerce City, CA.