One thing I've been noticing over the years of collecting the Transit News for the AMCAP web site's discussion board is the number of transit systems that are screaming for money.
What is interesting in this fact is that just about every one of the transit systems that are screaming the loudest for money and threatening massive route cuts and fare hikes all have some form of rail operation. This is not to say the bus only operations aren't in a cash crunch too but they don't seem to be in as critical of a cash flow crunch as those systems that have rail or are hopping on board the rail bandwagon.
This observation tells more than you may think. It shows that rail is draining the treasuries of these public transit operations at a much faster rate. It also shows that systems with bus operations only generally tend to be more resilient to cash flow issues.
Not every system that has rail is on the verge of a complete financial collapse but the vast majority of them are. On the flip side, not every system that is a bus only operation is safe from a financial collapse but it sure seems that those operations that don't have rail aren't in that bad of shape.
While rail has its place, not every city needs it and even fewer can support it. The pro-rail crowd never mentions this little fact in their quest to get every Podunk town, population 2, set up with a rail line.
Rail is inherently expensive to build, operate and maintain. Residents need to start asking the hard questions when politicians and pro-rail activists start pushing rail as the saviour of the city. The main questions need to do with long term costs as well as how many millions of dollars extra will be spent in unrelated costs such as sweetheart deals with developers and other non-direct costs to the project. Most important, don't back down and demand proof of their numbers.
Public transit is at a critical point. The cost to provide service continues to climb and transit systems need to provide the most efficient type of service available if public transit is to survive. Buses provide that efficient service and they have the added benefit of being able to be quickly adjusted to meet demand.
5 comments:
So much for light rail being more cost-effective than bus service. So much for the vast number of new developments being built near rail lines and creating new riders for the system.
Honestly, if transit agencies can't operate efficiently during a period of high gas prices and new customer demand, they really need to rethink their mission.
I think you make a good point here. As someone interested in the finance of transit as well I enjoy reading this blog.
However, I think the financial shortfalls of rail transit has alot to do with deferred capital maintenance. It's easier to ignore a signals or power project for a few years (say, for a 4-year term) and have the trains keep running without any visible signs of degradation. Rail operates on longer-lived, more resilient infrastructure that a short-termist leader can afford to undermaintain. And, because it can take 5-7 years to buy new infrastructure like rail cars or signal systems, no politician wants to bear the pain of investment knowing they might not be in office when it's completed. The political incentives are misaligned with the infrastructure needs, and it's only until rail systems start to fall apart that the agencies beg for more money.
On the other hand, everyone notices quicker if you fail to maintain your bus fleet, and because you can procure buses in about 2 years, the political payoff can be realized.
So I agree that rail appears to be a very expensive thing. But I think it's partly a symptom of a natural tendency to underinvest in maintaining old rail infrastructure.
There's two pots of money transit operates from. Operating and capital.
The screaming going on at transit systems isn't so much over getting capital money to repair what they have but it's over operating money to pay to actually run what they have.
While I agree that capital maintenance is easy to put off and often is, there's a reason behind this. As has been told to me by more than a dozen upper level administrators in the industry is this, 'it's easier to get the politicians to give us more money to build another project than it is to get them to give us money to maintain the project they gave us money for earlier'.
That's a big reason many capital maintenance projects get put off. And transit systems, never one to turn down "free money", jump at the chance to get it even if it means they will be put into a fiscal crisis down the road.
Capital money is rather easy to obtain as is evident in the large number of transit projects being built around the US. Operating money is where the problem is and that is proven at every transit system that is threatening route cuts and fare hikes because they can't afford to operate.
As far as the financial shortfalls of rail, it just isn't deferred capital maintenance. Rail requires a much larger support team and that comes comes out of operating funds. Overhead crews, signal crews, track crews, substation crews, tower room crews, etc.
The cost of the additional employees needed to just run a rail operation is staggering considering that benefit costs are going through the roof.
An old Pittsburgh Railways ad card that was trying got defend a fare hike once said, "It takes 23 to run your bus or streetcar" and included all positions needed from those in the office to those on the road. In actuality, it took 23 to run the streetcar and 18 to run the bus. That was in the 1950's. Today it takes more than 30 different positions to run rail and around 20 positions to run a bus. That's a pretty big difference just in wages and benefits to get the bus or LRV out on the road...
All very good points. Of the support crews required for rail and bus, how many of them are required for corrective/preventive maintenance? I'm no expert, but I wonder if deferred capital maintenance could show up as an operating need through larger maintenance manpower?
Also, I'm guessing that one of the reasons bus appears to require smaller support crews is because alot of the support costs are born by a city DPW or state highway agency. For example, I'm not sure many bus agencies contribute to plowing or repaving roads, or maintaining traffic lights. Then again, private autos would pay for them anyways, so the marginal cost may be near zero I suppose...
Your point about changing labor needs over time is interesting, especially that the gap between bus and rail has been widening over time - I wonder why? It surprises me, since I would normally assume that technology tends reduce labor needs over time, rather than increase them(like Chicago going from 2 to 1-person train crews). Any ideas?
Creative accounting is very much alive. In most cases, transit systems are creatively putting certain operating costs into capital costs to stretch the operating budget. This usually only involves labor costs but labor is one of the biggest slices of the budget pie.
The support crews, in most cases, are there if they have anything to do or not. They are primarily for day to day maintenance for the system. In the case of rail, you still need to have these various specialized crews available even during peak periods just in case of a problem (derailment, downed power line, etc).
As far as road costs for buses, your pretty much on the mark however, it depends on agreements between the system and the municipalities the system serves. In Pittsburgh for example, PAT assists in taking care of roads (plowing and salting) in winter on roads the buses run on. This has led to many municipalities shoving the road clearing costs off onto PAT rather than sharing the cost. Not all municipalities try to do that but some do.
Technology has dramatically increased labor costs if you look close. Back in the day, buses could literally be repaired by a backyard mechanic. Today you almost have to have a degree in electronics, diesel technology and computer technology to maintain them. This comes with a price of higher wages to the system since these employees demand a high price. The system literally has to compete with the private sector to attract qualified maintenance people.
Another problem goes to union make-work rules. The infamous saying of "hey, that's not my job" is often heard in a union shop. I know mechanics that have to sit and wait for hours sometime until another mechanic shows up to fix something that the first mechanic could easily fix. He won't risk a grievance being filed against him by the other mechanic "for taking his bread and butter away" so many times, he'll sit on the taxpayer's dime because he has little choice except to do so.
Post a Comment