At the Philadelphia City Council’s behest, SEPTA is holding additional hearings on the proposed “Bus Revolution”. The first meeting was held in Germantown, the 9th Councilmatic District.
Rider after rider stood up to voice their concerns. According to the people who rely upon SEPTA, the proposals do not improve bus service. Not a single rider spoke in favor of the “Revolution”.
Under questioning by Hall Monitor, SEPTA’s spokespersons made it clear that no matter what the public thinks, SEPTA will recommend the changes its consultants and staff believe the riders should want.
One rider asked: “If the riders are opposed to the “Bus Revolution” proposal, will you recommend the SEPTA board reject the plan?” SEPTA’s Director of Planning said, “We take all the information back in the way we hear it.” So if a rider says they want a more reliable system, SEPTA’s consultants and staff claim the rider supports the “Bus Revolution.” If a rider says they want faster service, SEPTA claims that means they want the Bus Revolution.
In hearings and meetings that can only fit the criteria laid out by Lewis Carroll in Alice In Wonderland, “sentence first, then the verdict,” SEPTA asks the riders what they think and then uses their comments to support SEPTA’s already-made decision.
Throughout the bus revolution meetings and hearings, the issue has been whether SEPTA routes should accommodate its riders or whether the riders should accommodate routes designed by out-of-town consultants and experts.
There is little doubt that designing a system for SEPTA’s experts will make it easier for SEPTA. As SEPTA’s project manager told the people attempting to stop SEPTA from implementing more transfers, “We like dividing routes up into two; it makes it easier for us”.
It was the most revealing statement SEPTA made throughout its attempt to force the changes on the riders. Consider what he could have said: we like splitting routes in two because it offers riders more on-time rides. Or we would like to split rides into two because riders will have greater frequency. Or we like splitting rides in two because offering riders transfers onto faster service will offer some riders faster routes. There may be many more ways in which a SEPTA spokesperson could explain why SEPTA likes creating more transfers. However, the explanation SEPTA gave had nothing to do with making it easier for the rider and everything to do with making it easier for the SEPTA planner.
8th District Council Member Cindy Bass, who waited to allow her constituents to voice their opinions first, spoke near the end. She summed up SEPTA’s presentation and the plan, saying:
“[It] is incredibly disappointing. We met with SEPTA’s General Manager, who told us they [SEPTA] had to do this because they [SEPTA] are losing ridership and, therefore, revenue. My response is you [SEPTA] don’t have to lose ridership or revenue because if SEPTA is clean and safe, people will take it in enormous numbers. And that is not the environment right now. We can do a whole lot better than what is now in effect . . . I don’t know how many of the people who make the decision are directly affected. It is easier to say someone else should change. . . “
Despite the overwhelmingly negative reactions at meeting after meeting and hearing after hearing, SEPTA claims there is support for the Bus Revolution.
One rider frustrated at SEPTA’s continual dismissal of those saying they don’t support SEPTA’s plan stood up and said: “I’ve been sitting in many of your meetings, and the response has not been positive. Who are the people who say we really need to change the system as much as you are proposing? Some changes may be good; the problem is nobody knows what you are doing (at the meeting, SEPTA said it was still making changes to the proposal, so no one can know what is being recommended). We, the riders, can tell you what works and what doesn’t, but you are not going to get it done in a month. If your plan is to bring it to the board in a month, you are telling us you’re not really accepting our feedback”
Our reporters sit through hours of city council meetings, dig through piles of documents, and ask tough questions other media overlook. Because we’re committed to addressing Philadelphia’s poverty crisis — and challenging those who sustain it. If you think this work is important too, please support our journalism.
We’re counting on readers like you.
