This deficit is mostly due to paratransit, or transit for people with disabilities. Changes to this program may cost RIPTA about $5.9 million next year due to elimination of the “Rhody 10” revenue and the shift of many clients from some DHS programs to unreimbursed but expensive ADA rides. There was also a loss of revenue due to changes at Johnson&Wales that reduced sales.

His “ask” to address this, as far as I can tell, was to refer to bill H6108 which seems to authorize RIPTA to charge a $1 fare to the 1/3 of all passengers who ride free, mainly low income seniors and the disabled.

It would also have the state make up any further subsidy needed as result of this reduced fare. Studley noted this is still more generous than federal requirements which allow full fare during peak hours. He indicated that with 5.6 million free rides/year, such a $1 fare with expected elasticity might produce about $3 million in additional revenue. He noted one reason for the high number of free rides is a generous qualification level at incomes up to 200% of poverty, Mr. Studley suggested consideration of lowering it to 150%.

It seems Pennsylvania and Illinois are the only other states having a comparable free ride level but those states explicitly make up the lost revenue with a state appropriation.

Studley also hinted at another gas tax hike dedicated to RIPTA, (there was a map of state gas tax rates in the power point) noted that is what happened last time RIPTA took a hit from changes in Medicaid transport policy. However, the gas tax is already going up 1 cent in July (RIPTA should get 5% of the additional revenue, about $210,000) and with MA gas tax 6.5 cents less than RI it will be a challenge to get the Assembly to boost it further.

The senators asked about fuel costs, the paratransit system, overtime expenses, but made no suggestions to close the deficit.

Charging low income seniors and disabled a fare is a sensitive subject but it is worthy of serious consideration as there seem no easy alternatives. Most passengers, RIPTA employees, and transit advocates who see the potential of transit to help our core cities, the economy and the environment, think the worst thing would be to reduce service, especially as lines with weak ridership have already been weeded out by the recent route study assessment. While a little revenue can be gained by higher fares on long distance park and ride expresses, a fare increase above $2 in the metro area may provide little additional revenue and would hurt the mostly low income working people who pay the fares.

I don’t expect much more help from the Governor. Channel 10 reported she stated her high priority was to end the car excise tax. That would be a boon to those households with many cars, or expensive cars, but at the expense of those without.

Perhaps RIPTA could do more to rebuild paying ridership which took a hit with the long KP construction and the snowstorms. It was also noted at the fare study hearing how little revenue was being generated by the employer-supported “ecopass.” Note that there is very limited support for Upass support from public colleges. For example, while Brown faculty and staff (as well as students) can ride “free” with Brown IDs, no such benefit is available to faculty and staff from CCRI, RIC or URI, not even at URI-Providence in the midst of congestion but with good transit access and where the “free” parking provided in the Convention Center garage is very expensive.

I welcome suggestions on how to proceed as does the RIPTA Riders Alliance.

But this is the 21st century.

In the 21st century, people don’t want to wait around in the cold for a bus, because they don’t have to. They have the internet, which can tell them, based on real-time location data, exactly when their bus is going to arrive. Or, maybe they live in an urban area that values its transit system enough to provide frequent enough service such that, even if you miss one bus, the next one will be along before your toes fall off from frostbite.

Unfortunately, neither of those things are true in Rhode Island.

Google Maps and other transit apps are still waiting for RIPTA to provide them with real-time data, instead of relying on scheduled bus arrival times. When you’re standing out at a stop in the cold, and you have a meeting you need to get to, what do you do with the statistic that a majority of buses arrive at each stop within 5 minutes of their scheduled time? Do you wait to see if the bus will come? Or do you walk over to the next transit corridor to maybe catch that bus? Or, more likely, you just don’t rely on the bus, because you don’t know whether it can get you there. When you can’t rely on the bus, it’s not a good alternative to car ownership for most people.

Or wait! Even if there’s some major technological, bureaucratic, budgetary, or other reason RIPTA can’t set up a process to format its data in the necessary fashion and provide a feed for Google and other apps (or even *gasp* citizen developers!) it doesn’t matter, right? There are a lot of bus lines; people can rely on the schedule and function pretty okay, yeah?

Except the problem is, RIPTA’s bus service is on the low end of frequency. Transit expert Jarrett Walker categorizes transit service based on off-peak frequency into four categories: buses every 15 minutes or less, every 30 minutes or less, every 60 minutes or less, and occasional service. If you miss those most frequent buses, no worries, because another will be along soon. If you miss the less frequent ones, you know the drill. Walk home, and tell that fantastic job or client you were really excited about that you won’t be able to make it.

So here’s a map of Providence with RIPTA routes colored according to frequency. Red is the best, then blue, then green, then orange is practically nonexistent service.

But look! There are lots of red lines there! Except if you notice, those red lines are mostly along limited-access highways, without much in the way of transit access to the people living next to them. I could count on one hand the corridors outside of downtown with actual frequent transit access:

1. North Main (paragon of pedestrian friendliness that THAT is)
2. West Broadway
3. Cranston Street
4. Broad
5. Elmwood
6. Waterman/Angell
7. Eddy (only to Thurbers)

Okay I borrowed two fingers from the other hand. But THAT’S IT. No frequent service to RIC or PC. No frequent service to the Wards of City Council members Narducci, Ryan, Correia, Igliozzi, Hassett, or Matos, and hardly any to Councilman Zurier’s Ward 2 or Council President Aponte’s Ward 10. And really, the frequent coverage ain’t great in many other Wards; they just have one or two frequent lines running through them.

Ideally RIPTA would solve both of these problems, but of course there are budgetary constraints and an imperative to cover the whole service area with service. As Walker states in this awesome video (yes I’m a geek), there is a tension between the goal of coverage and the goal of frequency. And indeed, with the R-line and suggestions of further focus on the highest-potential routes, RIPTA is headed more in the direction of frequency than it has been historically.

But the other problem? C’mon RIPTA. We’re living in the 21st century. Get on it. Or tell us why you’re failing in this way. Do you think we don’t care? Or that you’ll look bad? We do care. You already look bad when you don’t tell us why you’re deficient in this area. Here are some links to help get you there if you’re not already on your way: GTFS-realtime. MBTA’s live-feed page. Transit Camp 2015 conference notes.