Transit is important as long as someone else pays

Pittsburgh PA - The Pittsburgh Post Gazette reports on Allegheny County Chief Executive Dan Onorato's (D) latest pledge to not use money the county has to help bail out the Port Authority of Allegheny County (PAT).

What is troubling over Onorato's actions of late is that he is talking out of both sides of his mouth. On one hand he states that public transit is important then on the other hand he's trying to weasel out of the paltry small amount of funding the county does provide to PAT.

The latest move is putting arts above needed and important infrastructure. The Regional Asset Development tax that was saddled onto the taxpayers of Allegheny County is designed to be used for the improvement of the area. Well that was what it was sold to the public as at least. What Onorato refuses to understand is that without a viable public transit system, the city and county will continue to die.

Arts and culture will not save the area. Jobs will and to get many to those jobs, you need a viable transit system. Hell, to go see a play funded by the RAD tax, many take transit because it's easier and cheaper than fighting to get an overpriced parking spot in town.

While PAT has its problems and needs to clean up its act, Onorato is doing everything he can to shove the problem onto everyone else. He supports PAT as long as someone else picks up the tab for it. Another typical politician.

What Onorato needs to understand is that more of the burden of providing service will be shifted back to the local government. The State Legislature had made that more than clear yet Onorato continues to try and shift the small amount it pays onto the state. All this move does is keep the funding crisis alive so that no resolution will happen.

Don't forget, Onorato, along with many other Democrat politicians in the Pittsburgh area, is trying to saddle PAT with a new trolley line it can't afford to operate. He wants the line because he "supports" transit yet all his actions to date have shown the exact opposite.

When PAT announced the original route cut plan, he was adamant that the original plan go through which would have literally isolated entire communities from transit service. He kept claiming he supports transit but was doing his best to ensure the destruction of it by insisting the original hack & slash plan go through as is. Luckily saner heads prevailed and a much more palatable, albeit still bitter, plan was adopted.

Democrats get it wrong again

Washington DC - Democrats are poised to further screw up mass transit across the nation through their latest boondoggle known as the "PROGRESS Act" (H.R. 1300). As usual, they have good intentions but gave absolutely no thought to actual long term costs that they would saddle public transit operators with. A typical move. The Hill has an article by Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) regarding the PROGRESS Act that he introduced.

The big problem is that the PROGRESS Act provides a one time stimulus grant to transit systems to expand service. The Democrats (as usual) fail to understand that these same transit systems can't afford to run what they have now, even if everything was a peak capacity on every trip. What good is expanding service on a one time grant when in the following year, the transit system can't afford to run the expanded service?

While I agree that public transit is important in playing a key role in America's energy independence, the Democrats (once again) fail to acknowledge that you have to get what you have working first. Expanding service based on a one time grant that will run out after a year will only further cause the transit systems across this country to collapse even more.

Also, if the Democrats want energy independence, let drilling occur in the United States instead of blocking it and keeping us dependent on foreign oil.

Another part of this PROGRESS Act is that it it will "create a bipartisan National Energy Security Commission to develop consensus national goals on energy". Excuse me while I laugh. When Liberal Democrats start talking about a consensus the only thing I can think of is Al Gore and his "consensus" on global warming which, as each day passes, is shown to be a big lie. There is no consensus on the man-made global warming except by the environmentalists that have a political agenda to control the throttle of the United States economy and put us back in the dark ages.

If the Democrats really want to help public transit as they always claim, they'd find a way to fund it properly, including the extremely expensive but completely unfunded mandates they've slapped on the public transit systems over the years which is driving up the cost to provide service.

They won't though. All politicians, especially the transit loving Democrats, are nothing but lip service. They're great at sounding concerned when it comes to transit service but they've done everything they can to drive up the cost of providing that service.

Steny Hoyer, you earned a Lance. While you meant well, your bill just doesn't cut it. Good intentions is not going to improve anything. Your bill is nothing but another feel good measure that will do nothing beside further strain the transit systems while you get to feel powerful for introducing it.

Transit fails to hold ridership

San Francisco CA - While there was a great improvement in ridership numbers following the I-80/I-580 connector ramp disaster, transit systems are failing to hold onto the ridership surge. The Insidebayarea news site reports on the slip in ridership numbers even though the melted interchange has not been repaired.

Many are drifting back to their cars even though they are more likely to sit in traffic. This trend of commuters going back to their cars is dumbfounding the public transit advocates who are off in their own little world when it comes to reality.

The problems in keeping the new ridership are many and the main problem is that public transit is not designed to haul everyone. It never has been nor can it be made to.

This is not meant to be critical of the transit operations in the Bay area. They've done a commendable job in adapting to the influx of new riders however the simple fact that bus or rail service is not anywhere as flexible as the private car needs to be understood.

In such events where there is a sudden surge of ridership, the transit system will be very lucky it retains 10% of the initial flow of new riders after 6 months. The reason is that public transit is designed to flow into a central business core. With urban sprawl and businesses relocating outside of traditionally higher tax base areas, transit systems can no longer compete successfully.

"All you need to do is add more routes and the rider can transfer to get where they're going" say the transit advocates. Wrong. Each forced transfer to get a rider to their ultimate destination reduces the chance of them becoming a regular rider by more than 50% and greatly increases the cost of providing service. Riders that have to transfer more than once to reach their destination are 80% more likely to avoid public transit as long as they have alternatives open to them such as a car.

In general, most of the choice riders are willing to make some adjustments to their travel plans as long as they can get quickly from point A to point B. This usually works fine when dealing with suburbs to the downtown core but even then the system must make itself somewhat flexible by providing sufficient service for the rider to make choices. I used to live in an area where I had 1 bus a day. One trip in the morning and one in the afternoon. If I missed that single inbound or outbound trip, I was screwed.

Another big problem for public transit is the modern trends in the business industry. Many companies are no longer just 9 to 5 but have a 24 hour work force with staggered hours. This makes it far easier for a person to justify taking a car to work rather than transit.

As mentioned earlier, businesses that are relocating outside of the higher taxed urban core play into the transit problems also. Most transit systems, even those with rail, have very poor reverse commuting. In other words, a reverse rush hour.

Transit advocates need to understand that they are never going to get 100% of the people to ride. The automobile will always be a competitor that will win out when push comes to shove. The best transit systems can hope for is to retain as many choice riders as they can. That is done by the basics which is providing clean, safe, reliable and convenient service to as many riders as they can. This is something many systems are doing a poor job at.

The transit advocates need to stop their hand-wringing about the private automobile and concentrate on getting what is in place already for public transit in their area working. I doubt that will happen as most advocates are too busy trying to saddle transit systems with expensive and unneeded transit projects rather than dealing with the basics.

MUNI assaults increasing

San Francisco CA - The Examiner.com site had an interesting report on assaults against MUNI employees. The issue of assaults against transit personnel is something that effects all transit systems and the problem seems to be increasing.

MUNI employees (drivers, station attendants, etc.), experienced an average of 71.4 attacks a year for the last 5 years. That number is actually low as many assaults are not reported. Assaults often not reported are slapping, throwing things, spitting and yelling at the operator. These types of non-reported assaults often happen multiple times a day in every system.

The same trend is occurring at most every major transit system and there is no sign that the assaults will begin to drop off anytime soon. On the contrary, it appears the number of assaults on transit personnel will continue to increase.

The only reports the public usually hears of are on the severe end of the scale. In a few cases over the years, I've found that even these severe side of the scale reports from the Liberal media lean toward blaming the operator rather than the "innocent" rider who started the confrontation. I recall a recent story out of Canada where a driver was dragged out of the bus and beat up. The dyed-in-the-wool Liberal reporter asked in their report what the driver did to provoke such a response as though the peaceful rider that beat up the driver would never do something like that unless the operator provoked it.

Many states have a law similar to what California has where assaults on a transit worker are considered a felony. The problem is that the courts and District Attorneys often reduce charges or dismiss the case all together. This literally make the felony law a feel good measure that does little and puts the transit drivers at greater risk in doing their job.

Those who follow the transit industry will remember when on-board transit security cameras first came out and were being put on buses across the country. Unions complained about them invading the privacy of its members but over the past several years, the unions have done an about face and are demanding security cameras be put on transit vehicles to help protect the operators since the courts won't.

Management also doesn't often support the operators, even when the taped security video clearly shows the operator did nothing wrong. Management is so concerned that they'll be labeled anti-rider by the various activist groups and scare off riders if they start prosecuting the riders that assault the operators that they help put the operators (as well as other passengers) at an ever increasing risk.

Even back in the past when people were more civil toward each other, being a transit operator wasn't an easy job. Today the operators literally risk their lives with some of the nut cases that ride. Until the transit systems and courts start getting tough with the riders that violate the law and assault transit personnel, the risk will continue to increase.

While there are some bad apples in the transit system, the vast majority of the assaults originate from the rider that was never taught how to behave when they were growing up. I have witnessed more than a few of these operator-rider incidents in my life and every one of them was caused by a rider that was in the wrong.

The politicians don't help matters either. Madison Wisconsin operators were screaming for security cameras to be installed on the buses for safety reasons and that was met with politicians debating the expenditure for over a year (yet they can come up with money to study building an unneeded streetcar line). Detroit Michigan operators and riders have been demanding that police be assigned to ride the buses for over a year and the politicians keep voting it down because of the expense yet are talking at the same time about rail lines.

It's time to knuckle down on the misbehaving rider and lower the risk that the operators and other riders that know how to behave have to take. While I'm not known for advocating for spending more money on transit, operator and rider security is one area that must be addressed. It's not cheap to do but it is something that must be done if you want a transit system these days.

Chicago in crisis

Chicago IL - The Chicago area transit network is in crisis and literally on the verge of collapse. The Chicago Tribune reports on the frustration being expressed by the transit systems in the Chicago area over insufficient funding.

The problem is a lack of adequate state funding claims the RTA who oversees and divides the existing funding among the CTA, Metra and PACE operations.

There is more to the story that isn't being reported on. The funding crisis goes beyond public transit and effects the road infrastructure as well. One must ask, what are the underlaying causes and the answers aren't simple.

• The CTA has an old rail infrastructure that is in desperate need of repair. Rail operations inherently are more expensive and far less flexible than bus operations to start with. This often leads to putting off needed repairs to the infrastructure.
  
• 
  
• The CTA also has had far from stellar management over the years. Internal waste at the CTA is rampant.
  
• 
  
• Having an "umbrella agency" structure also doesn't help. The RTA who distributes the funds among the 3 operating agencies takes a slice of the operating pie to run the show.
  
• 
  
• Look at the city itself. There are 5 major transit systems in critical and dire straits currently. Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Boston, Chicago and San Francisco. A common thread among all 5 of these cities is that they've been controlled by Democrats for decades (all also have well established rail operations).
  
• 
  
• Chicago's transit ills have recently gotten worse as they have been selected as the city for the United States bid to host the 2016 Olympics. What does this mean? More strain on the system due to required transit projects that will have to be done. While this may get them some funding to fix the infrastructure, it also means less money will be available to operate.
  

While adequate and reliable funding for public transit is needed, little is usually done to stem the internal hemorrhaging of money within the system. In a sense, increased funding is little more than a Band-Aid being placed on a torn artery with how public transit is run currently. The core problem that creates the need for increased funding is rarely repaired and that leads to more problems in the following years.

The funding crisis in Pennsylvania, for example, is forcing PAT and SEPTA to finally start addressing many of the core problems within their agencies. The RTA in Chicago is still trying to ignore the core problems and address it with another financial Band-Aid with the hope that the influx of funds will balance out the cash hemorrhage.

With public transit being turned into a social service thanks to years of government ownership, nobody in charge is willing to do what has to be done for fear of the backlash. All 5 cities I have mentioned have another common thread which is that they run mostly on historical routes and all systems need a complete route overhaul to streamline the operation. Such route overhauls are never popular but if the system is to survive, it is something that has to be done.

While I disagree with Illinois' state government for putting transit funding on the back burner, it may be what is needed to force the RTA and the three Chicago transit operations to clean house and start addressing the cancer that has been slowly killing them for years.

Tieing funding to performance

Galveston TX - The Gavleston County Daily News reports on a problem occurring between the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) and Island Transit. The problem is how much should the UTMB pay for the service.

Currently the UTMB pays $200,000 a year to subsidize the route for Island Transit and in exchange, Island Transit allows UTMB employees and patients to ride free on that route. It is a deal similar to what many universities across the country enter into with the transit system in their area.

Although there is no problem with the service that Island Transit provides, the UTMB has decided to base future payments on the systems performance. Under the new arrangement that Island Transit reluctantly agreed to, the base payment moved from $200,000 a year to $160,000 a year but the transit system can stand to make up to $240,000 a year if it performs well.

At first glance, that sounds like a reasonable deal. The problem I see is that as time goes by, it will force Island Transit to focus on that one particular route due to this one fact. Performance is based on the UTMB's assessment alone. Too often I see such arrangements go bad as more demands are made on the transit system by the paying agency.

Contracts such as this should be based on the cost of providing "X" amount of service, not strictly on performance. By entering a contract based strictly on performance, it can start the process ignoring the rest of the operation to focus on one particular route.

Given the fact that the UTMB had no problem with the current level of service, nor the quality of that service, the change demanded by the UTMB is not warranted. The excuse being used that the lowering of the base payment will ensure that Island Transit won't let it's service to the UTMB slip is a red herring in my opinion.

That red herring is that the UTMB wants more service without paying more for it. While the UTMB stated that if service remains the same the payment will remain at $200,000, I don't really believe that. When the time comes to pay for the contract, the UTMB will find fault in order to cut its own costs and save $40,000. This move will also force Island Transit to increase service just to try and keep the $200,000 payment.

As I see this, the UTMB agreement will ultimately end up hurting Island Transit by driving up costs. Already extra expenses are being spent to check for problems on the route, which by the way is not being done with the rest of the system.

Politics over purpose

Honolulu HI - The Honolulu Star Bulletin reports on the dismissal of two critics from key positions just before a vote to finalize the routing of Mayor Mufi Hannemann's legacy line.

Donovan Dela Cruz and Ann Kobayashi were removed from the Council Transportation Committee which will keep them from sitting on the Oahu Planning Organization Policy Committee that will be voting on the key route for the project. The move comes at a time that raises suspicion of political meddling to quiet the critics of the rail project.

While this move is perfectly legal, it is suspicious due to the timing. The move was requested by Committee Chair Nestor Garcia with no reason being given for the request. Given the fact that Garcia was not listed as a critic by the media, it is safe to assume that he is in favor of the project. While City Council Chairwoman Barbara Marshall downplayed any meddling by the Mayor's office, once again it is rather safe to assume there was some.

In politics, there is a long history of moves such as replacing critics with people more favorable toward an issue. Given Hannemann's almost rabid desire to get this transit project rammed through, it wouldn't surprise me that at all that this move to replace Dela Cruz and Kobayashi was strictly political rather than because they weren't performing well on the committee.

Critics are an important part of making sure the best plan moves forward. They bring up points often ignored or glossed over by proponents however, transit systems and politicians pushing transit projects have recently started following a new trend to shut the critics up using whatever means necessary. It appears that new trend is being followed in Honolulu by removing two critics from a key committee and replacing them with what appears to be two individuals that are sympathetic to the cause.

The move to replace Dela Cruz and Kobayashi just brings more shadows to Hannemann's legacy project. It comes across as an attempt to quiet the critics so that the already highly questionable plan can move forward. The move also shows me that the pro-rail crowd will do whatever it takes to ram through rail projects.

Security or just trying to hide something?

Portland OR - The Oregonian reports on a Tri-Met decision that would allow the transit system to further isolate itself from the public. This move is being repeated across the country as well and has allowed public transit systems to literally make up data that it spoon feeds to the public.

Light rail critic Mel Zucker recently asked Tri-Met for ridership data for analysis on a proposed rail line. He was denied for security reasons. What Zucker was requesting was the raw data, something most transit systems are reluctant to give up to start with, but the excuse of security is a rather new method of refusal. The excuse is one that is sure to come up more often in our post 9/11 world.

The problem as I see it is this. The new cover for public transit gives the transit systems a free pass to make up any data they wish and there will no longer be any way to verify it's accuracy. This data, such as ridership numbers, are used by transit systems to justify costly transit projects as well as the running of routes.

Public transit systems have always manipulated their data and have been reluctant to reveal the true raw data. Under various state and local laws, this data could be obtained if you were persistent enough. Now by using the catch-all term security, these systems can keep critics at bay and ram through expensive transit projects as the critics no longer will be allowed any access to the needed data to show that the project is not needed. In short, a critic now can only state opinion and observations and have no real data to back them up and the transit system is free to greatly manipulate its data to fit whatever they wish to do.

This move to hide behind the shield of security comes at a time when public transit systems are all finding themselves in a cash crisis. They are demanding more of the public's money and now can freely manipulate the data they spoon feed to the public through the media without the fear of being caught manipulating the data.

Even the media will be effected by this new method. Currently the media can get much of this information but sometimes needs to go to a local or even state court to get the release of data. Now the stakes are raised and the media will be forced to go to the Federal courts to get any information from the transit system beside the manipulated data that the system wants to spoon feed to them. A much more costly and time consuming proposition.

I can see the need for heightened security towards the data, even as far as a background check to obtain the requested data. What Tri-met is doing however is blocking off all access to the data and thereby giving itself the autonomy to make the data fit what they want it to fit without any chance of being discovered.

My take on this move by Tri-Met is this. Tri-Met has been caught with its pants down a few times with manipulated data that they used to ram projects through with. They now are ducking for cover and using a Federal law to hide behind so that they no longer have to answer their critics and can be free to spend whatever they wish on whatever project they wish.

The taxpayers who have to foot the bill for public transit spending sprees and the critics that look for waste in the industry have now had an important avenue of checks and balances closed off to them.

Tri-Met earns a Lance for trying to keep the public in the dark while they continue to pick their pockets to fund their operation and various spending sprees.

Another rail fight in Madison

Madison WI - The Wisconsin State Journal reports on the battle between two competing rail proposals. A commuter rail proposal that would connect Madison to outlaying communities and the streetcar proposal that is championed by Madison Mayor Dave Cieslewicz.

The problem is that both plans are taking the steam out of each other. Mayor Cieslewicz suggested that the proponents of the commuter rail plan cool it so his plan can go forward. While both sides agree that both types of rail need to be done, the order in how it is done is what they are fighting over.

The Dane County officials that are spearheading the "Transport 2020" plan for commuter rail responded to the Mayor's suggestion with a comment that "the mayor is out of sync with the broader community here". Mayor Cieslewicz was a part of the "Transport 2020" task force before throwing a temper tantrum and pulling out because the focus of the panel wasn't on his personal legacy streetcar line in Madison.

The fear of both sides is that competing projects will kill off both projects by making it too expensive to proceed. Neither side wants to budge and both projects continue to compete with each other for attention.

Putting aside the fact that Madison can't afford to run what it already has, I admit that the commuter rail proposal would be more beneficial and serve a much broader population (if done properly) than the streetcar proposal being done primarily for personal legacy reasons. The Mayor is so desperate for his personal legacy line that I truly expect this fight to become rather nasty as each side escalates tactics to get their proposals pushed forward.

Cash strapped MUNI throws party for T-Third line opening

San Francisco CA - A commentary piece sent to me tells of the MUNI parties they held to celebrate the opening of their new T-Third rail line. The cost of these parties to the cash strapped transit system: Approximately $158,000.

MUNI hosted two parties, one for the general public and one for VIP's which included politicians, career bureaucrats and activists. A harpist, uniformed servers passing around quiche and salmon treats, and a red carpet were the highlights of the indoor VIP party.

The $158,000 paid for catering, tables and chairs, entertainment, sound and video systems, portable toilets and a number of other items that go into putting on big celebrations. While no cost breakdown can be found, it's easy to guess that the VIP party took the biggest chunk of the money.

While I have no problem with celebrating a grand opening, MUNI went overboard considering their financial situation. I have been to many grand openings of various transit projects and the celebration cost was usually budgeted anywhere from a few hundred dollars to $35,000. Spending $158,000 while at the same time screaming for more money to operate just tells me that the operation is looking for ways to waste money.

I'm sorry but a harpist is not needed nor is a separate party for the politicians given the financial situation at MUNI. A much more subdued approach would send a message that MUNI is trying to watch its finances. All this did was send a message that the agency is not financially responsible.

I'm awarding MUNI a Lance for wasting money when they can't afford it. They could have done a satisfactory celebration for far less and put the difference into actually running the service.

I won't even get into the problems the new line had on party day...