I have been noticing the buses around town of late. Clearly, they are different operators with different intent (I suspect), but one thing they all have in common is that since I have begun to take note (about 3 weeks ago) I have seen 15 buses crusing their routes and a grand total of 3 people being transported by them. For all I know it was the same person 3 times.

My question is what process is used by the city or county (or whatever level of appropriate public governance) to justify this expense? Its great for those 3 people (or one lucky guy) but is it money well spent? Is it something we have to spend to attract other federal money? Is the thought of cutting public transport too "ungreen" or socially ugly to think about even though its really doing no good at all? Or is it money well spent? (I am open to that possibility as well). Sorry for the misspellings as I don't see a spell check on this thing and I know that really bugs some of you!!!

Thanks

quote:

Originally posted by edgybob:
I have been noticing the buses around town of late. Clearly, they are different operators with different intent (I suspect), but one thing they all have in common is that since I have begun to take note (about 3 weeks ago) I have seen 15 buses crusing their routes and a grand total of 3 people being transported by them. For all I know it was the same person 3 times.

My question is what process is used by the city or county (or whatever level of appropriate public governance) to justify this expense? Its great for those 3 people (or one lucky guy) but is it money well spent? Is it something we have to spend to attract other federal money? Is the thought of cutting public transport too "ungreen" or socially ugly to think about even though its really doing no good at all? Or is it money well spent? (I am open to that possibility as well). Sorry for the misspellings as I don't see a spell check on this thing and I know that really bugs some of you!!!

Thanks

I believe they get state funding. I've taken Petaluma Transit before, and when it was daily I noticed a number of senior citizens riding with me. I don't see why this is such a big deal to you, but at times I found it very convenient and at a buck a ride, it's a deal. Not the most comfortable ride, but it beats the cost of a cab or being behind the wheel myself when Washington Street backs up. I'd say the bigger concern is the single occupant commuters who use the freeways instead of buses or carpools then turn around and demand "3 lanes all the way."

Certainly not a "big" deal to me - I don't think asking in a small town blog qualifies it as so - that said, while your enhanced and convenient mobility is a good thing, does it mean kids can't take art classes or play high school sports somewhere in Ca because the state money that could have paid for a teacher is subsidizing that convenience? I would rather be ranked 47th in the "convenient mobility around Petaluma" catagory than 47th in educating our kids. (I realize I'm being rediculously dramatic, but thats the basis of my question)

I also have to admit that I am a 3 lanes guy. I would support more taxes/fees/tolls/whatever for single commuters though, I just think the infrastructure need of 3 lanes is an inevitablility. Can't sweep back the tide...

Thanks

quote:

Originally posted by edgybob:
Certainly not a "big" deal to me - I don't think asking in a small town blog qualifies it as so - that said, while your enhanced and convenient mobility is a good thing, does it mean kids can't take art classes or play high school sports somewhere in Ca because the state money that could have paid for a teacher is subsidizing that convenience? I would rather be ranked 47th in the "convenient mobility around Petaluma" catagory than 47th in educating our kids. (I realize I'm being rediculously dramatic, but thats the basis of my question)

I also have to admit that I am a 3 lanes guy. I would support more taxes/fees/tolls/whatever for single commuters though, I just think the infrastructure need of 3 lanes is an inevitablility. Can't sweep back the tide...

Thanks

In some cases, it's not a convenience but a necessity. Especially for seniors and students.
Funding for transit systems is different than school funding, so you can't compare the two.

As far as 3 lanes go, may as well take it up to 4 because once the farms are overrun by strip malls, tract housing and filling stations, you'll need it for all the extra traffic.
We don't need to raise fees. People need to quit being so lazy and selfish and learn to carpool. I posted on craigs list and had a ride set up in less than 6 hours. There's no excuse. Just keep asking for more, because it's not convenient to carpool. BS.

I realize they are seperate budgets, but that doesnt mean that we should continue to allocate State money that way IF those funds are not having the social impact that we would expect. Back to the original question, Does anyone know how these transit funds are established? Do we KNOW how many people consider it a necesity vs a convenience? I did see a bus with another guy on it though, so I'm up to 4.


Car pool all you want, but you just delay the issue. The population is growing, we will need more lanes, schools, homes, shopping - whatever. Its a simple fact. Nor Cal is not exempt. Thank you for carpooling
(really) I try to as well, but that isn't the cure. Single communters aren't the real issue (Lazy they may be). Look at the poulation, I'm guessing but I suspect that Petaluma has at least doubled in size in the last 20 years. You can't stop that. All those folks have to shop, eat and drive cars. Its silly to think that carpooling will eliminate the need for more infrastucture. Eventually we will need 3 lanes for all the carpoolers! The 3rd lane is no different than when we built Casa Grande HS or even replaced that scenic little road with the freeway in the first place.

Thanks

Seems to me, then, that the real solutions to the problem are two-fold:

First, we need to be working towards a society which isn't on the same overpopulation direction our current one is. the solution there seems to be a society in which people realize (even if it's at a subconscious level) that having one or two children given advantages and education is a far better strategy for genetic continuation than spilling out a whole bunch and hoping one survives.

The second is developing the local economy in ways that people don't need to commute elsewhere to make a living. Commuting means there needs to be a whole bunch of infrastructure build-up that's only used during peak times, and it reduces the quality of life: that's time spent in cars that could be spent productively or in leisure.

My ideas about this are in flux as I learn more, but right now I think encouraging small to mid-sized manufacturing and paths by which vocational students at the local high schools can work their way into skilled positions in those small manufacturing businesses is the best way to accomplish both of those goals.