Most conversations about transit quickly turn to projects. For SacRT, this is Green Line to the Airport, or Stockton BRT. This is true for transit advocates. This is true for transit staff, at least the ones who are not operators. This is especially true for elected officials, who have dreams for ribbon cuttings, or project kick-offs, where they are recognized for their role in the project. The SacRT board is composed of elected officials, from the county and the cities in the county, so this is certainly true of them.

But regular riders don’t quickly turn to projects. They instead talk about transit service. How often does the bus come? How close to my origin and destination does the route come? Is the bus reliable – does it show up when it is scheduled to? Is the bus or light rail car clean? Do I feel safe on it? Do I feel safe getting to and from my transit stop? Does service run late enough, or early enough, to get where I need to go? If I’m using a mobility device, or a stroller, or a shopping cart, can I easily get on and off the vehicle? If I have a disability or limitation, does the service allow me to come as close to ease of use as every rider? Can I afford to ride? Is it easy to pay for my trip?

Sometimes improving service does require a project, but often it does not. When money is spent on projects, service always comes up short.

For most riders, they want a bus that comes every 15 minutes. In big cities, 15 minutes is considered moderate frequency, but in the Sacramento region, it is considered high frequency. Which shows how far we are from highly effective service. (SacRT has two light rail lines and two bus routes that are high frequency. All others are moderate or low frequency.)

For most riders, they want a bus that comes close to their origin and destination. Given the fact that frequency and coverage (a route close to you) are always a trade-off, does the balance work for people? If it is a ways to the bus route, are there sidewalks on the way, and curb ramps, and intersections that are safe to cross? (The further from the central city one goes, the less likely there is to be a good sidewalk and safe route to bus stops. And the less likely to be safe bicycle facilities.)

When riders get to a bus stop or light rail station, is there shelter from rain and sun? Is there a bench to sit on, or a space for a wheelchair out of the flow of walkers on the sidewalk? Is there a trash can? Is it emptied? Do people use it? Is the stop or station cleaned regularly? Is there an indication at the stop of the service available, in particular, does the signing say how often the bus comes? (SacRT bus signs give no indication of the frequency of a route.)

For riders who use apps on their phone, is the app easy to use? Does it have accurate schedule information? Does it track actual bus or light rail locations? (SacRT does not track light rail train locations.) And for riders who don’t use apps, is the information available in another way? Is there a system map that shows routes, with an indication in color or line width about frequency? (SacRT system map does not show this.)

Perhaps most importantly, how effectively does the transit system serve people who cannot drive? How effectively does it offer an alternative to car dependency? See the post on Week Without Driving Sacramento: When Driving is Not an Option, about the book by Anna Zivarts. It should be required reading for every transit board member, and every transit agency staff, and everyone who cares about access to livable places.

Sometimes a project can help provide better service to riders. But nothing guarantees that it will provide better service. If a project is designed with full consideration of what riders want and need, which is better service, it may be a good project.

When a significant portion of a transit agencies budget goes to projects (called capital) instead of to service (call operations), the needs of riders are not being met.

• SacRT
• transit