Transit Dependent Communities, Social Equity and Environmental Justice
By Anna Daniels
There is no trolley route through City Heights. This deficiency is not for a lack of trying. In the early 1990’s residents were advocating for significant mitigation to the construction of I-15 through the community. The proposed mitigation included the construction of a trolley line in the center of the freeway that would efficiently carry City Heights residents north and south to their jobs and concentrated employment centers.
The short story is that the steep freeway incline/grade made a trolley route infeasible. So while the heavily transit dependent community of City Heights does not have a trolley, it does have buses and will continue to rely upon buses. If you can get past trolley envy, buses become the workable solution to transit needs.
For decades, the highest bus rider ship in the whole Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) has been on the Number 7 bus. This one bus route carries a whopping 3,903,109 passengers annually. To put this in perspective, the Green and Orange trolley lines each record around seven million passengers annually. The Number 7 bus is a plodding workhorse, definitely not a racehorse.
This route also has a relatively high farebox recovery of 42.6%. For a $2.25 one way fare, it provides much more than a mere bus ride–it provides an accurate glimpse into life as it is lived in City Heights.
The Number 7 Bus: Poem by Anna Daniels, Voice and Video by Jim Bliesner
City Heights has been served by a number of other bus routes. In the past decade new expanded routes, including some express limited stop service through City Heights, have been added. Newer buses with easier street access for wheelchairs, kids, the elderly and people with disabilities were finally fully integrated into this service area, as were buses that reduced air pollution. In this same decade however, the economic crash has resulted in service cuts, particularly on Sundays, as well as fare increases. These things all matter in a transit dependent community.
SANDAG (The San Diego Association of Governments) is in the process of revising a multi-modal integrated regional transportation plan that will extend through 2050. They anticipate a future in which the county becomes “majority minority” with Hispanics comprising 42% of the population, the white population declining slightly and other minority populations remaining the same. The population will become older, with Baby Boomers and GenX generations living longer than previous generations.
The anticipated increase of 338,000 new homes are proposed at higher densities to provide for the greatest amount of affordable housing to be built. That means continued infill in existing urban centers. An estimated 54% of the population will be comprised of low income minority (LIM) residents.
San Diego County in 2050 will look remarkably like City Heights today. How will SANDAG, a powerful albeit largely invisible entity, balance the demand for expanded freeway access and new road construction with the reality of transit dependent communities and “smart growth” urban planning models designed to encourage public transit and alternative transportation opportunities?
The 2050 Regional Transportation Plan includes a lengthy section titled “Social Equity: Title VI and Environmental Justice.” This section is clearly a response to pressures for SANDAG to evaluate its planning decisions through the lens of the Title VI of the Civil Rights Act which states that “no person in the United States, shall, on the grounds of race, color or national origin be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, to be subject to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.”
What do Civil Rights have to do with transportation planning? SANDAG acknowledges that it is required to make “investments that provide all residents…with opportunities to work, shop, study, be healthy and play.” They also acknowledge that a lack of proper transportation systems can have a negative impact on the quality of life by placing health burdens on many low income and minority communities and physically dividing those same communities with new transportation projects.
“Social equity” and “environmental justice”–buzzwords or serious transportation planning considerations? The SANDAG plan got off to a rocky start last year. This plan was found deficient in addressing SB 375, which requires long-term transportation plans to meet targets for reducing green house gas emissions. Environmentalists and public transit advocates have hoped that this bill would provide the opportunity to reshape transportation planning in the region.
“State Attorney General Kamala Harris drafted a letter to SANDAG… expressing disappointment with the 2050 plan. ‘The suite of strategies relied on by SANDAG, which include a heavy reliance on roadway expansion projects, does not deliver GHG [greenhouse gas] reductions that are sustainable in the long term.'” Atlantic Cities A Fight for the Future of San Diego Jan 10, 2012
Approximately 30% of the plan’s funding is allocated toward transit projects in the first decade, with the level rising to 57% in the final ten years–2040 to 2050. Two environmental groups have sued SANDAG. “These critics charge that the 2050 Regional Transportation is front-loaded with highway projects and defers major transit efforts until the later years. By that time, they fear, the San Diego region will be locked into an auto-centric transportation network that encourages unsustainable types of development and ignores the transportation needs of its cities.”
City Heights, in the transportation planning meantime…. Whatever changes, if any, to public transit in City Heights in the short term will occur through the planning and budgetary decisions of MTS. There are some relatively modest fixes that would address some of the socio-economic concerns of residents who depend exclusively upon public transit to get to their jobs, schools and health care providers. These modifications would go a long way toward dispelling the perception that City Heights is seen solely as a captive transit audience which will make do with the transit options provided to it.
- There is a critical need to restore the service cuts on weekends, particularly Sunday schedules. In a community with few bankers or residents who work banker’s hours, weekends, including Sundays, are work days.
- There is a critical need to reduce the monthly transit expenditures in households with multiple members who rely on public transportation.
- There should be more outlets to buy monthly and daily bus passes in City Heights. It took years before MTS established an outlet at the Albertson’s in the Urban Village. Transit riders were previously left with no option but to travel to a Vons outside of the community or make the trek downtown to the transit center or other outlets there.
The cruelest cuts… The concept of social equity is becoming more common as a criteria for assessing public policy and determining where and how to invest public funds. This criteria is important. It can also be easily reduced to a feel good word of the day that lacks tangible standards of evaluation.
Perhaps the most over-looked evaluation standard in assessing our commitment to social equity is in terms of what public services and investments we justify cutting and where, as a result of economic downturns. A commitment to social equity requires us to rethink our very definition of “fairness.”
Cyclic booms and busts appear to be baked into the workings of the local, state and national economy. Downturns have occurred approximately every ten years since the late 80’s/early1990’s. Cuts to public services and investments always follow.
In the past decade, we have seen proposals to close a branch library in each district (didn’t happen) and an across the board reduction in library and park and rec hours. Every community has felt the pain of transit cuts in that time period. This is the cut-the- baby-in-half model of fairness that ignores the degree to which certain areas of the city are dependent upon those services and use them more than in other parts of the city.
This accepted practice sets a low bar for fairness and it does not address the matter of social equity. Budget cuts are a pretty good way of assessing our true values. And it is unrealistic to think that there will be no booms and busts between now and 2050.
Planning is invariably seen as an additive process. Budgets can be as much about reductions as about increases. City Heights’ future lies within the plans and the budgets. City Heights is where the rubber hits the road.
Update: SANDAG will hold a public meeting on the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan Update Wed Aug 21, 6-8 pm at the Joe and Vi Jacobs Center, 404 Euclid Avenue.
Anna Daniels
Latest posts by Anna Daniels (see all)
- Bob Dorn: Rest in Power! - December 3, 2018
- The Urgency of Transgender Safety, Legal Protections - November 27, 2018
- Chaos and Cruelty at the Border - November 26, 2018
Nice job with poem and the video. Bravo!
Wonderful, Anna. Loved it.
Thank you Anna for exposing a major social inequity in our region. While everyone pays into our half cent sales tax for transportation development (Trans Net) the majority of funds are still being used for freeway expansion and roads when the public in survey after survey wants more transit development. San Diego’s leaders and many pro transit groups have also taken a poison called Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) which only glorifies freeways and provides little traffic relief. BRT does nothing to solve our real transit issues in the urban core. It commits transit funds to a type of system other cities have abandon. City Heights deserves a light rail system, we need to change public policy – make transit first, for better jobs and health.
Thanks Jack for your support of social equity and public transit. I do disagree with your position on Bus Rapid Transit. It will solve real transit issues, on an already existing freeway in the urban core. City Heights originally envisioned light rail in the center of I-15 to enable residents to get as quickly as possible to their jobs in the northern and southern part of the city and county. As I noted, light rail was infeasible, due to the grade. BRT is clearly a solution to pressing transit needs here. After 30 years, SANDAG identified the last chunk of funds needed to complete the Centerline by May 2015. The Centerline is a way for transit dependent residents to receive a clear public benefit from freeway construction. The two should be tied together as practice in any future freeway construction.
Anna, BRT’s simply do not have the capacity we need to reduce vehicle traffic. In side by side comparisons in the LA area, light rail can attract 30-40 % more riders than BRTs. Light rail is what other developed modern cities have, even if they have mountainous areas to connect. But for City Heights it’s not about I-15, we need a rail line going west on University and/or El Cajon, some of it on street level some off street level. This will ultimately reduce cars and significantly increase biking and walking and solve the crowded No. 7 and 10 bus lines. Funding for all this is available if we stop building more freeways. SANDAG uses the BRT strategy to justify spending billions on freeways. If BRT’s work, why don’t we just convert some of our existing lanes for BRTs? And how come during major event like a Padre game or something at Qualcom the Trolly is the main form of public transit people use? Finally read the “Independent Transit Review” in the old RTP and the “Urban Transit Strategy” in the current RTP. Both point to rail as the ultimate solution. If we make TRANSIT FIRST, we can have a working transit network in 10 years with more working rail lines soon after. And we would have a better economy, better jobs, better health etc. Sorry for such a long response.
Jack- I agree about light rail as possible east- west transit option, simply because of less topographic challenges and meant to add that to my initial response.
Whenever we start turning to extensive public infrastructure improvements I immediately start to think about how many residents and businesses will be displaced. Over a thousand parcels were wiped out with the eight block demolition along 40th street for the freeway. It is impossible to talk about social equity without looking at levels of displacement. I have no idea what that figure would be for light rail construction on El Cajon or University Ave.
Anna – One does not have to be limited to the center lanes of I-15. How does the current Green Trolly line go from Qualcom to San Diego State? It’s an engineering problem which can be solved.
Changes in a community are difficult. But overall a working transit system will help local business and done well, can enhance the existing culture of the neighborhood. In some places, (LA, Bay Area) light rail lines have been placed underground. Our communities need many things, but one thing is sure, we do not need to be more auto dependent. Over a longer period, rail pays off better than buses. The cost recovery of our Trolly system in SD is 54%, for buses it’s 34% (higher for the #7 line) and for cars its even less. The 2050 RTP is a 40 year, $214 billion plan. It has been calculated by some that we need to reduce vehicle miles driven by 15% of current levels by 2035 if we are to meet our GHG emission goals. So why build more freeway lanes of any kind? These are the reasons why the BRT strategy is a poison that unfortunately, so many have adopted.
Jack- most of us in the mid cities are all for public transit, any way we can get it. Your opposition comes primarily from cities in north county- Escondido in particular.
To a great degree, the public transit v freeway issue hinges on politics and the make up of the SANDAG board of directors. The election of Bob Filner, who certainly supports public transit and his seat on that board heralded a change in the politics. Todd Gloria also has a seat, and Marti Emerald fills in for Filner in his absence. We should be keeping a close eye on SANDAG and what our representatives are doing.
Muy buena labor Anna. A great piece!! We should name you our City Heights historian!! And yes, it is about justice and equity. Thank you much for your continued contributions to our C.H. community, and City.
Terrific article and poem Anna. Reminds me of one you helped me with about 18 years ago. :) That year or so was one of the best of my life.
Just a great job. The poem seemed to be saying what the article couldn’t.
Public transit is where the 51 Percent come together and Sandag ought to know it will soon be 66 Percent, given the speed at which the U.S. is being recreated as part of what used to be called the Third World. By the 2030-2050 period of the plan a good network of quick trams will be impossible to build. It should be done now.
You said a lot, Anna.
Thank you, Anna, for the interesting article and the wonderful poem and video. City Heights is lucky to claim you as an adopted daughter. This city would be so different if we had an efficient, affordable transit system that would meet the needs of its riders. By doing so, it would attract more people to ride the bus rather than drive. Well done!
Beautiful poem and video! Excellent work, Anna. Millions have been spent on constructing all kinds of special purpose lanes around Rancho Bernardo and other places that are hardly even used. They just should have added more regular lanes instead. What a waste of money!
A trolley line duplicating the #7 route up Park Blvd past Balboa Park and the zoo before it turned east would be a huge asset not only to City Heights residents but also to cut down on the congestion around Balboa Park where hardly a handicapped space can ever be found much less a regular parking place anywhere near the Prado. And the zoo parking lot is filled way past capacity on numerous occasions.
Thanks John! City Heights did have a trolley line, constructed in the early 1920’s, that ran along University Ave to a terminus on Euclid Ave. The trolley fell from favor with the advent of buses and cars. A return to a trolley/light rail service would require reverse social engineering, more than anything else, to re-institute that transit solution from our not so distant past. It would also require a substantial allocation of funds. Neither are impossible, but they are significant challenges.
John and Anna
It is possible to move from an auto centric system to one which is based a lot more on walking, biking and taking transit. Other cities (in situations like SD) are doing it or have done it. The Cleveland National Forest Foundation has proposed a way to start, it’s called the 50-10 Transit Plan, build much of what is already planned up to 2050 in the next ten years. The name came from LA’s 30-10 Plan. The problem is that SANDAG will not even consider it as an alternative in their EIR. One reason why the 2050 RTP did not pass CEQA standards. We need our elected leaders to at least follow the law, this includes the two SD Council members you mentioned earlier. Mayor Filner is the only elected official who has come out against the 2050 RTP calling it a failed plan.