Regarding the Draft Transit Plan Recommendations
This month, Pasadena Transit released their draft recommendations for the update of the Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP), which will guide operations of Pasadena Transit and Dial-a-Ride for the next five years. You can view all the recommendations (and offer your feedback!) at this link here.
There is much in the draft that we are very pleased to see. One of the key recommendations is to extend operating hours on all routes, a very welcome and much-needed improvement that many Pasadena Transit riders have been looking forward to for years. There are increases in frequency on Routes 20 and 40, and more consistent service levels along Washington Blvd and in West Pasadena. Overall, there's much to commend in these recommendations and we're excited to see these improvements.
However, there are a few proposed changes that gave us pause. As members of the Transit Committee of the Pasadena Complete Streets Coalition, we feel it is important to voice our concerns and offer clear, constructive feedback to make sure this update of the SRTP is a plan we can enthusiastically endorse.
Route 10:
The current recommendation is to transform Route 10 into a loop service, akin to Route 20, spanning the length of Colorado and Del Mar Blvds across Pasadena. While this is a bold and exciting proposal that fulfills our wish of a crosstown Colorado Blvd route, the current resources available to Pasadena Transit would limit this to a once-an-hour service, which we feel is inadequate for what could otherwise be an extremely useful service.
The current Route 10 operates every 20 minutes, serves the busiest stretch of Colorado Blvd, and is one of only two regular routes that directly serve Caltech. It is precisely because of its high frequency that it has proven useful to many riders, including a couple members of the Transit Committee. Reducing that to 60 minutes deeply diminishes its usefulness in our eyes. If the resources are not available to run the proposed loop route at least every 20 minutes, we would rather see Route 10 maintained in its current configuration.
However, we do praise the replacement of Route 60, a peak-hour only service, with regular Route 10 service on East Del Mar Blvd. We believe a reroute of the existing 10 from Allen Station to continue down Del Mar to Sierra Madre Villa Station would be a welcome improvement that would expand service coverage while maintaining existing service levels.
Route 40:
While we are happy about the extended service hours and increased weekday frequency, we are opposed to the proposed rerouting of Route 40 from Villa St to Orange Grove Blvd between Lake and Allen Aves. This stretch of Orange Grove is almost entirely lined with single-family housing, which offers very limited ridership potential, while Villa has a far denser mix of housing stock such as duplexes and apartment buildings. Villa is also home to Jefferson Park and the Jefferson Branch of the Pasadena Public Library, two important community amenities.
Furthermore, Orange Grove is a far more dangerous street for pedestrians, with high traffic speeds and few safe crossing points. Overall, we feel that rerouting Route 40 to Orange Grove moves it away from an existing ridership base to a corridor that will be hostile to transit ridership.
However, we do feel that the current detour Route 40 makes to directly serve Allen Station is unnecessary and slows down bus service. In the interest of streamlining the route, we believe that eliminating this detour is acceptable, especially when the stop at Villa & Allen is only a block from the station.
Routes 31/32/33:
We are excited about the imminent transition of the existing Metro 256 into Pasadena Transit Route 33 and the service improvements it will bring to Washington Blvd. While the proposed elimination of Route 32 (and with it the closest bus stop to Eaton Canyon Nature Center) is sad to see, we understand that the very low ridership levels along New York Ave make it difficult to justify the continuation of Route 32 service.
At some point in the future, we would like to see some kind of regular transit service established to serve Eaton Canyon Nature Center, such as a Transit to Trails weekend shuttle like that being proposed for Mt. Wilson.
Routes 51/52:
We are largely in agreement with the proposed changes to Routes 51 & 52. The ArtCenter has its own shuttle service that is far more robust than existing Route 51 service, so we are comfortable with Pasadena Transit redirecting precious resources when the ArtCenter is capable of meeting its own transportation needs. We are also very happy to see the introduction of all-day service to JPL.
Our one concern is the proposed reduction in weekend frequency, from service every 30 minutes to the Rose Bowl to only once every 60 minutes. Given the wealth of recreational offerings at the Rose Bowl (Kidspace Children's Museum, the Aquatic Center, the Rose Bowl Loop, and the Flea Market every Sunday), we feel that it would be a great shame to cut back service to one of Pasadena’s greatest assets. While we understand that there is likely not sufficient demand to justify 30 minute frequency on the whole route to JPL, we still believe that the section between Old Pasadena and the Rose Bowl warrants maintaining current service levels.
Proposed Route 710:
We are excited by this proposed route and would like to see it become the foundation for an eventual regular bus service connecting Pasadena to La Cañada Flintridge, to fill in a connectivity gap between Pasadena and one of its closest neighbors.
What you can do:
Please take a moment to provide your feedback to Pasadena Transit. Currently, they have a webpage (click here) where you can review the draft recommendations and fill out a feedback survey, which will allow you to provide your input on any of the specific routes. Your feedback at this stage is very important!
