TARC Unveils New Network Concepts

What could they mean for the future of Louisville's transit?

Today, the Transit Authority of River City (TARC) unveiled three concepts for it’s future network. These concepts are not proposals, and are being used to gauge feedback to two general types of models - ridership vs. coverage. The agency also showed off a growth model, one that would be possible with additional funding. These network concepts are being revealed as TARC works on a total overhaul due to an impending “financial cliff”. Below are the three proposed concepts.

Ridership vs. Coverage

Most of the discourse you will see in the coming weeks will be surrounding the debate of ridership vs coverage. In the report released by TARC, transit design firm Jarrett Walker + Associates extensively covers the pros and cons of both scenarios. The ridership model maximizes the amount of people who will use the bus by keeping high frequency in denser, urban areas while providing minimal service to the suburbs. The coverage model does the opposite, providing service to most of the county with a very slow frequency.

It is clear what the firm likely prefers. Jarrett Walker, CEO of the firm, is the author of book “Human Transit” that has a whole chapter dedicated to the importance of frequency. He also covers it here on his website. Frequency is vital in encouraging people to take transit. Many folks do not want to have to schedule around transportation; cars are so popular partially because they are available whenever. Transit thrives when you can just walk to the nearest stop knowing a bus or train is arriving in a few minutes.

Walker’s company has an extensive and impressive record of network redesigns, most of which largely favor frequent transit over coverage. The report released with the concepts provides many charts that show how convenient access to jobs, housing, and more will be heavily affected by a coverage model.

Outside of the accessibility to jobs and housing, ridership is also heavily favored in terms of financials. This is all happening because TARC is going broke, and making sure as many people ride your buses as possible is what maximizes fair revenue. TARC is clearly prioritizing stabilization of its finances, so a ridership model will look very appealing.

Ultimately, what TARC and Walker wants does not matter much if there is overwhelming public feedback in favor of prioritizing coverage. In the past, there have been rumblings from east enders about having to pay for TARC while not getting as much coverage. At the same time, these communities are also more likely to oppose public transit efforts in general, so they could not care. Councilman Anthony Piagentini is usually a good lightning rod for what kind of opposition or support you see from the east end, so it will be worth keeping an eye on what he says.

Local organizations such as Streets For People may make concerted efforts to ensure support is shown for the ridership model. The coverage model also heavily reduces frequent service to western Louisville and essentially ends the Dixie “BRT”, so some heavy opposition to the coverage model may come from there. Only time will tell.

Growth?

Despite expected cuts, Walker + Associates have also investigated what a TARC network would look like in a more ideal scenario. This concept creates new routes, such as a vital orbital route that will allow for more transfers outside of downtown, and higher frequency on existing routes. The benefits of this redesign are universal. Coverage remains high and frequency increases. The issue is that this remains impossible under the current funding scheme.

TARC faces such serious cutbacks as federal aid from COVID is beginning to lapse, and TARC has utilized the same funding mechanism since the 70s. Despite lack of new funding sources, the authority has had to expand services to meet a variety of federal requirements such as offering paratransit. The same amount of money is having to go to more services. Any service expansion will have to come with the establishment of a new funding mechanism. Fare increases are unlikely to cover this gap, even doubling fares would only cover around 12% of TARC’s budget, assuming no one was priced out.

Other cities nationwide have been adopting new funding mechanisms in order to expand transit. These are widely being done through ballot initiatives, which have proven to be successful in the past. In 2023, 90% of ballot initiatives on transit succeeded. Our neighbor Nashville will have a ballot initiative in November to implement a half-cent tax in order to provide more transit funding. Even these small increases go a long way.

The Future

Regardless of which concept is eventually utilized for the future network proposal, there will be a 40-50% cut in overall service. Some parts of the county will lose service entirely or transit will be so slow that it may be unusable unless you have no other options. TARC will face ridership declines in the coming years as service decreases.

Any expansion in service will require a new source of funding. Frankfort has shown zero interest in covering the gap, so a new local tax is the safest bet. If TARC or the future Louisville Department of Transportation wishes to pursue this, we could end up with an interesting “campaign season” outside of the typical mayoral or council elections. The safe bet would be on this initiative succeeding, but that does not mean there will be no vocal (likely extremely vocal) opposition.