Fare talk

There’s been talk recently about the future of Sacramento Regional Transit, especially efforts to clean up the system’s image and make RT more appealing to more affluent “choice” riders (see my recent SN&R Feature Story, “Taken for a Ride,” from March 26).

A couple of things seem to be missing from the conversation. First, when we talk about the big decisions facing RT right now—like the downtown streetcar, or restoring service, or “rebranding” RT—we are not talking nearly enough about equity and fairness to those rely on public transit. And RT doesn’t give transit riders, especially the “transit dependent,” the same voice in setting policy that other large urban transit systems do.

Take RT’s “ad hoc system improvement committee,” a tool for business people and developers to shape RT policy, and to which low-income and transit dependent riders are explicitly not invited.

“The public has no voice at RT,” says Chris Jensen, chairperson of RT’s Mobility Advisory Council, a.k.a. the MAC, and community organizer for Resources for Independent Living, a nonprofit serving folks with disabilities. The purpose of the MAC is to provide the perspective of seniors and the disabled. They give advice and help educate operators about the Americans with Disabilities Act, try to solve problems with physical barriers and signage, and sometimes weigh in on fare issues.

If there’s going to be a big effort to improve RT service, seems you’d want to hear from MAC—especially when you’re talking about things like moving light-rail stations. But “neither RT nor to the ad hoc committee has reached out to us or asked us to participate,” says Jensen.

Jensen says riders generally don’t have much juice at RT. Sure, they can go to board meetings. “RT lets us talk, but it doesn’t have much weight.”

And it’s hard for the transit dependent to even go to RT board meetings. Given the agency’s limited service, they are likely to miss the last bus home.

RT board member Phil Serna says the ad hoc business-people committee will ask for public input. But that’s very different from having a seat at the table.

In Sacramento, the RT board of directors are city council people from Sacramento and other smaller cities, or county supervisors like Serna. They are a wealthier, less-transit-dependent group of people than the larger population.

“There is no transit rider on the board,” says Jensen. “No one really rides the buses. No one rides the Blue Line. They don’t have a clue about what it’s like to wait for a bus for an hour and have it show up and be totally full.”

It’s different in other cities. In Portland, theTriMet board of directors is elected to represent geographical districts. The directors come from business and labor and transportation backgrounds. Some are there to speak up for poor and underserved neighborhoods. There’s also a Transit Equity & Access Advisory Committee, which exists specifically to get the transit dependent involved in policy decisions.

In San Francisco, the board is a mix of business people, transit experts, transit advocates and people from community organizations. There, again, the Citizens’ Advisory Council has public meetings every month, and produces regular reports advising S.F. Muni on everything from fares to budget items to ideas for raising revenue to improve the service.

In Seattle, the website for the King County Transit Advisory Commission says of its members: “Most are bus riders. … At least half are people who have disabilities, are elderly, or work with these populations.”

In 2011, the UC Davis Center for Regional Change took an in-depth look at RT, through the lens of transit equity. The researchers found that recent cuts in service “have shifted the burden disproportionately to more transit-dependent block groups.” Also, they found “transit dependent places get the worst service.” Related to this, “The current RT governance system is not representative of its ridership.”

So, CRC suggested several best practices from around the country in order to “meaningfully incorporate the voices of transit dependent riders.”

One possibility was to have the MAC transform into a citizens-advisory committee with a broader mission and a more formal role in decision making, along the lines of the committees seen in other big cities. Another idea was to add a rider representative to the board. Jensen said it would be an improvement to add even a non-voting rider rep, just to have someone there to speak up for the transit dependent.

RT didn’t take notice of the recommendations. But the truth is, there could be rider representatives on the RT board tomorrow. The Sacramento City Council could appoint someone from the community; there’s nothing in law that says member cities have to appoint politicians.

Bites isn’t sure of the best model. But we should talk about it, and talk more about equity. If we’re going to have a meaningful conversation about RT’s future, riders should be part of it.