Based on survey results, Blacksburg Transit created a variety of routes for council to choose from to fit riders' needs.
As reported by Lerone Graham in the Roanoke Times, Christiansburg Town Council is expected to adopt a budget for the upcoming fiscal year at its meeting Tuesday, May 19th at 7:30 pm.
This may or may not include funding of expanded public transportation options for citizens.
Although council was aware of and appeared to support the public transportation survey which was to be sent to every Christiansburg household last fall (but was not), at their first reading on the budget they seemed unprepared to step on board.
In the NRV, Blacksburg Transit is the public transportation expert. They have the experience, resources and established systems. They worked to gather and summarize Christiansburg citizen feedback, and presented possible options including associated costs as a starting point for council's consideration. BT has the ability to track ridership, identify and pursue grants, and continually assess efficiency and use.
As several newspaper articles have shown, the existing Two-Town Trolley (TTT) is vital to some residents, whether traveling for employment or to access medical services. What is also known is that due to current scheduling -- times the TTT bus service starts and stops, where it begins, picks up and ends -- ridership options are limited. Some people who might use it cannot. Wrong times, wrong places. This limits employment options, determining when or where they work based on whether available hours align with the existing bus service.
Council has what appears to be an affordable opportunity. Reasonable people don't presume an opportunity present today will remain available indefinitely.
Council has been funding the TTT for quite some time, even though ridership shows it hasn't been aligned to needs. Council had not been concerned about money collected from fares or selling advertising. Most were not even aware of what it cost to ride or about transfer slips, where stops were located, when it operated, or what sponsorships and advertising revenues might be generated.
So these smaller details should not become council's crutch for parking or stalling the topic now. This is an opportunity to improve and expand what has been available -- and getting the routes and times aligned with needs is the critical issue, not whether the fares are fifty or 75 cents. The experts have the capability of running any number of scenarios and to provide various cost options.
Council should ask why the proposed options do not link the Downtown Loop with the Mall Circulator, with service between the two having stops serving the new aquatic center, local high school and its existing recreation facility. This little two mile gap with numerous public destination points and residential hubs is an almost glaring hole (a council member recently advocated building walking paths for these folks).
Council need not try to micro-manage something they should be viewing from a higher level. Use the data, make a plan. Then deploy, evaluate and adjust as necessary based upon response over the next three to five years. Council should not expect this service to pay for itself -- that isn't what public transportation is supposed to do. It is a public service, an economic consideration, and an environmental issue.
Council's hesitancy on providing this service and amenity to citizens seems to be due to its own lack of data when going along on another initiative -- the aquatic center. That project moved from a purported $5 million to nearly $18 million construction cost. Those annual operating costs will be 10 times any relating to ongoing public transportation options.
In looking at the two -- expanded public transportation options and a public recreational facility -- both have economic development and quality of life aspects. Just because the "town" wouldn't derive direct benefit (revenue) from the operation of the bus service doesn't mean it should be discarded, especially when seeing this could be done at a pittance of what the aquatic center's ongoing operating costs will be.
They certainly didn't have information from over 38% of all households showing an aquatic center was being asked for. They certainly didn't have data showing the aquatic center would be used by 34% of households reporting an annual income level of $40,000 or less.
Maybe if some town residents can get access to a better paying job, more hours, spend less time trying to get to work or reduce transportation costs -- maybe they will be able to afford a couple of visits per month to the aquatic center. Hopefully, bus service could get them there.
Just because council (and therefore taxpayers) were taken for a ride on the aquatic center costs doesn't mean Christiansburg residents should now be denied the opportunity to better public transportation options.