Open Letter to CATS Concerning their Proposal

http://www.brcats.com/news-resources/Public-Notice-of-CATS-Route-Adjustments

Was a professional transportation planner involved creating these routes, ensuring the numbers jive? This would include projected population usage/density, linking with job centers, university/schools, and entertainment areas? Where can that be found?

CATS Terminal and EKL Hub

• What's the reasoning behind keeping the Earl K. Long hub when the hospital is now closed. Shifting it to the Scotlandville Commercial Area would make it similar to using downtown and the malls as hubs.
• The CATS terminal still has a lot of routes terminating. It just seems like those routes should hub downtown. Especially since LA Swift no longer operates and many routes already pass by the Greyhound Station headed to the downtown hub.

Downtown Shuttle

The DDD could be approached concerning Route 16. Combining a little extra funding from both the DDD and CATS could expand its time period past lunch, and ultimately it's footprint. Most downtowns use their shuttles for special events and not just lunch, since the service is already being funded. Things such as neighborhood integration for Live After Five. Or service for football game days. Other university towns don't use a glamorous $20 shuttle to get people downtown to the university. Instead, they use their shuttles to provide free parking downtown, and circulate all day. It's a win/win for the downtown because they already pay for the shuttle, and it encourages people to tailgate on campus then watch the game downtown. Or visa/versa. Right now the "shuttle" is used as an "attraction" and not a viable transportation source. Lastly, the shuttle could be used for night service into adjacent neighborhoods for a new ridership base. The funding for the shuttle is already subsidized by the DDD. Adding some extra would boost ridership tremendously (ie more federal funding).

Foster Drive and Acadian Thruway

Route 20 seems to be obsolete, yet runs frequently. All riders on this route will have to make a transfer one way or another, as it terminates at the CATS terminal. Combining it with Route 17 would give a citywide connection up and down Acadian. Same thing with Route 23. Combining it with Route 18 would lessen transfers. Right now it terminates at CitiPlace, which doesn't seem like a major destination (as compared to LSU). Thus most people will be transferring. 

Neighborhood Routes

The Plank, Scenic, Government, Perkins, and Highland Routes are great spur routes that not only serve neighborhood populations during the day, but also at night. Government Street and Perkins should be added. These routes would work great for expanded night hours and add younger, new ridership. The Highland Route is somewhat a duplication of the LSU service (I already see a CATS bus following an LSU bus frequently). 

Industry Routes

Given the hospital route connects the medical districts, the hospitals should be approached to assure staff will utilize the shuttle. Many medical districts in the country provide transportation and it's widely successful, thus an opportunity to bring about another source of possible funding assistance. Also, were other commercial, employment centers, and SU/BRCC engaged for possible funding? Many cities and transit agencies gain much of their funding for specific routes through these entities. I realize CATS lost LSU, but there is no reason to engage other large areas. 

Routes Outside the City

Route 50 is mostly outside of the city, is one of the few routes that runs frequently, and only brings the small neighborhood to the hub at the missing EKL. This is also true of Route 59, which seems more centric for people outside the city.

Lastly, while overhauling the system CATS should also be looking at expanding their base (ie younger people needing transportation after 2:00). 

Baton Rouge "Bypass" (aka Loop)

I'm never an advocate for huge infrastructure projects that will only cut travel time by minor increments. Which is the main reason to oppose the currently proposed "Baton Rouge Loop" that kinda sorta just came out of thin air. The actual path wouldn't helps "traffic problems" in the metro area. Instead it would allow people in the suburbs to avoid Baton Rouge at all costs. Actual "travel time" probably won't be reduced... and the millions invested have yet to show any sort of cost/benefit analysis along with reduced travel times. The only rational is avoiding an occasional accident; while in inconvenient, that's A LOT of money. Especially when it is very rare the interstate actually closes. Is it really worth spending a billion dollars to save thirty minutes every so often?

So lets look at the problem purely from an automobile side (pretending other methods of transportation doesn't exist). Baton Rouge already has amazing infrastructure in place to assist in connectivity, and with some upgrades the City can fix a majority of the problems, while keeping the economic ramifications inside the Parish.

I'm still an advocate of upgrading Airline Highway to limited access (and possibly Florida Boulevard). A combination of access roads and interchanges would fix congestion problems. Obviously this process would be expensive, but it would actually help businesses WITHIN the Parish, and not adjacent Parishes. As for the western portion of the "bypass" the infrastructure is already there. Most the right of way is already in place for a connection of I-10 to the Sunshine Bridge; and there have been plans to upgrade Louisiana Highway 1 to limited access (most of the road is close to standards as is). Done. The interchanges at I-10 and the Huey Long Bridge have already been built.

So the recent articles coming out from Ascension and Livingston describing a new highway that links I-10 with I-12 is somewhat interesting. While I would still support the upgrade of Airline Highway, at least this plan utilizes current infrastructure and connects the Sunshine Bridge to I-12.

It just makes sense. People get up in arms when we spend a few million on a bus system... but there is rarely outcry when we want to build millions/billions of new road infrastructure that is duplicating systems already in place.

A plan you say? Preposterous!

I'm incredibly syndical about the Baton Rouge "loop" project which emerged a few years ago. No American city builds loops anymore (bypasses, beltways, etc); and when they are discussed they get rejected by the community fast. Most are shot down because of NIMY’ism. Heck, one could say that Jane Jacobs was a NIMBY at the time.

But the difference between Jane Jacobs and NIMBY's are solution based. Just opposing something gets a city nowhere. Obviously Baton Rouge has a traffic problem. We lack citywide connectivity with little to no interstate alternatives through town. Solutions are needed (plural "solutions"). We need interstate improvements; we need surface street improvements; we need transit improvements. We need an overall plan.

(Caution: sarcasm ahead.)

Baton Rouge insist on paying more than less, and mostly because of an “us” vs. “them”. Transit users are either poor, can’t drive, or get some kind of high using “free services from the government”. Obviously these are the only reasons anyone would use transit. Thus "transportation planners" (um, engineers) argue for a one solution (a loop), instead of a comprehensive fix to the Baton Rouge traffic.

The funny thing is, transit is cheaper, fee based, and can transport more people. So I cringe when newspaper comment sections blow up when the transit system wants $18 million dollars, yet no one opposes an additional three mile lane on the interstate for the same amount (see the above articles). Because of course, one solution is the best. We continue to throw millions and millions of dollars at one solution without any results being produced. A city the size of Baton Rouge needs a plan with options. When I fly home I have several options (my parents live in the middle of nowhere, btw). I could take the commuter rail, Amtrak, MegaBus, or Greyhound… or my family could come pick me up and take interstates, toll roads, highways, etc. I’m not stuck. When I fly into New Orleans I have two options to get home. I park, or someone picks me up. Both options are not ideal. The sad thing is, New Orleans was once on a tier of Chicago or New York... and their infrastructure still reflects that tier to an extent.

So the Baton Rouge's transit system sucks. But our traffic infrastructure is almost worse. Heck, I-10 goes to one lane after exiting the Mississippi River Bridge. Then the interstate expands to three lanes, and finally five lanes in the suburbs. Since Baton Rouge already has a dysfunctional urban interstate, I don't even know why we are arguing a new bypass. We need to improve existing conditions. So when the state proposes an upgrade, we shouldn't just shoot down the idea. This is the time to fix and improve what's wrong. Millions of dollars will be thrown at an interstate project (because a highway will never be rejected by the 'fiscally responsible'), so take a bad situation and make it better for the surrounding communities. I find it funny when people say a wider interstate will “ruin” an area that initially gained its character because it’s under an interstate (Perkins Road underpass). 

Of course, other arguments need to be made. Many cities are tearing down urban highway. Baton Rouge's "plan" should have this scenario. Rerouting I-10 around Airline Highway might be feasible; or around Baton Rouge all together. Even if a complete reroute of I-10 wasn't feasible, upgrading Airline Highway and Florida Boulevard would be much smarter than building an entirely new loop. Airline Highway was "the loop". Why can't it still be the loop? I would assume the cost of upgrading the Airline Highway would be far less than a loop. (But I have to assume because not one study was done).

When someone wakes up one day and decides a loop will fix all the traffic problems, it doesn't make sense. I don't consider myself a genius, but I can come up with all sorts of scenarios that should be studied before dumping hundreds of millions of dollars into just one project. But I guess that's the "planner" coming out in me.

CATS protests LSU competitor | Home | The Advocate — Baton Rouge, LA

CATS protests LSU competitor | Home | The Advocate — Baton Rouge, LA:

I've been one to support CATS... but this doesn't make any sense. CATS went through the bidding process with LSU and lost. So they are now competing with Tiger Trails. Maybe I don't understand how the Federal Transit Administration regulates transit. But still. This lawsuit doesn't seem right. CATS doesn't have enough funding to get through the year. How would they have provided a free route from LSU to downtown? Even if they could have added a route at regular fare, why haven't they done so? I figured it was because of funding limitations. This lawsuit makes me think they aren't providing these links because of a lack or foresight.

I think CATS should learn from this experience and decide to run more evening routs around entertainment (aka. until 3am). Maybe one from Mid City to downtown? Maybe Mid City to Campus? North BR to downtown? Southern routes? If funding is a problem, why can't they approach businesses in these areas (like they did downtown) and see what they can work out? Many smaller cities in which I have lived run routes similar because bars will subsidize the service.

Just sayin'.

CATS Funding

Article from The Advocate: CATS Considers Tax

CATS is again seeking a dedicated tax revenue to sustain the bus system. Public transit in our country has been underfunded for half a century, and the consequences has lead to a system that literally kills itself. If the bus system can not provide a "service", people won't use the service. Since, the majority of CATS is currently funded on ridership numbers (federal grants, box-fares), funding keeps falling. Thus leading to to even less service. Basically killing itself.

So how do you improve transit? Improve service. Transit will work. It works in lots of cities the size of Baton Rouge. Even if a car is necessary at some points in life, it wouldn't require a 2, 3, 4 car household. Most mid-sized cities use property taxes for funding transit. Heck, transit can substantially increase property values. So it makes sense. Why not use property tax as a funding source?

Well, the main reason is (of course) the inherent knee-jerk reaction about any tax increase in Baton Rouge. Never mind the fact that the bus system currently relies on other people's tax dollars (national and state), and very little of our own tax dollars (general fund). We just don't want to pay anymore taxes, regardless of what it is. Which I guess we can blame this mindset on the inefficiencies people can find in our government.

These same people would be the ones to say they wouldn't use the system anyway. Thus saying they shouldn't pay for the system (while I dish out my money to pay for their highway system). I don't buy this argument either. A complete system would be set up around all kinds of groups: the commuter, the elderly, the low income person, the high school student, and the college student. (Oh and the drinkers; or the bicyclist who doesn't want to ride both way; and the out of town visitor; along with the person that gets impatient and wants to leave a party before their ride, etc, etc, etc). These groups of people wouldn't use a system all the time. But their use will benefit the people that wouldn't use the system anytime. (This only includes the commuter who has an irregular commute pattern; the adult without children; the adults without older parents to bus around; and the people who never drive after 11:00 PM when enforcement of drunk driving sucks). All while increasing property value Parishwide. So when people say they won't use the transit system, it is a very short-sighted view point.

PS.
I can't find how much they are proposing for a tax levy, but I doubt it is anything over 2% (probably more within the 0.1%) range. I don't know about anyone else, but that would increase my property taxes less than $5/year. (That's about 1/8 a fill up or 0.01% of my yearly transportation budget).