NYMTA to Disabled Community: Prove it

New York City NY - In a move that the New York Metropolitan Transit Authority (NYMTA) is saying is not related to spiraling costs of paratransit service, the system is now requiring disabled customers to visit a testing center to be certified as being disabled. Doctor notes are no longer accepted.

The move is causing some outrage among many in the disabled community, not so much for the certification itself but in how the certification process is done. Many believe that the NYMTA needs to go to the assisted living facilities rather than have the residents trek down to a testing center.

This change of policy comes at a time when paratransit service nationwide is routinely abused. While the NYMTA claims the move isn't cost related, it really is as paratransit service is extremely expensive to provide and is rapidly draining operating funds.

Some of the abuse of paratransit comes from the ease of being classified as disabled. All you need is a note from your doctor and you can be permanently listed as disabled even for a temporary issue. The NYMTA is attempting to eliminate that rather large loophole.

The NYMTA does need to make a change in its policy however, customers from legitimate assisted living facilities should have the NYMTA examiners go there or certify a doctor at those facilities to make the determination. Other customers not in a registered facility should still be required to make the trek.

I do agree with the NYMTA however that such a certification is needed. The abuse of the much more costly paratransit service has gotten out of hand. I believe that if the NYMTA makes that one change to their policy, the criticism of the new plan will be greatly reduced as well as the abuses of the paratransit system in New York City.

Transit symposium brings up some good points

NYC NY - An article in The Journal News reports on a transportation symposium that was sponsored by the Tri-State Transportation Campaign. The symposium focused on bus rapid transit (BRT) rather than on light rail transit (LRT) and brought up some important points.

I read the article a few times but on the first pass the item that jumped out at me was the first sentence which read, "Bus rapid transit, if planned and built so that it is more than just a cheap version of light rail, could help ease congestion through the Tappan Zee Bridge/Interstate-287 corridor, several experts said at a symposium sponsored by The Tri-State Transportation Campaign".

I couldn't agree more about the concept of not making BRT a cheap version of an LRT line. BRT has the ability of being one of the most flexible modes of transportation available which is obtainable at a fraction of the cost of most other modes of public transport. To turn it into a cheap version of an LRT line severely limits the ability of the buses.

Busways such as those used in Pittsburgh Pennsylvania, for example, are a prime example of how BRT can be flexible. Pittsburgh's busways are designed for the same buses that provide service elsewhere in the service area and don't require specialized equipment. On the opposite extreme is the BRT operation in Eugene Oregon which has limited itself to being an LRT wanna-be with specialized equipment.

Another point brought up is that BRT as an image problem. I agree again. Much of the negative image of BRT is thanks to the pro-rail crowd. By broadly painting bus transportation with terms such as "dirty", "low-class" and other negative connotations, the pro-rail activists have convinced many in the general public that rail is the answer and to ride a bus is slumming it.

What I find amusing are these two paragraphs:

But to build a bus rapid transit system that will attract riders by choice, Alan Hoffman, a principal with the Mission Group, a San Diego planning firm, said buses must get people where they want to go, do it quickly, frequently and with less than a 10-minute wait, and make them feel good about using it - all at once. Without all these elements, BRT is just another dreaded bus.

"We don't want to feel like losers," Hoffman said, adding that "often the experience of transit is a humbling experience."

Why is it that people will wait a half hour for an LRV and feel like winners but if they have to wait 11 minutes for a bus that they feel like losers? Much is the successful stereotyping that the pro-rail crowd as fed to the public.

Don't forget that in the 50's and 60's when rail was rapidly being replaced by buses, the opposite was true. The majority of people complained about having to ride the slow and ancient streetcars and wanted them replaced by buses. They felt like losers when they had to ride a slow streetcar but like winners when they could ride a bus that could bypass many of the problems that slowed the streetcars down.

This point was brought up to me by a friend who sent me the article and he is totally correct. It was completely a mirror image of today in terms of public perception. The only thing that has changed over the years is the flip-flop in the perception of buses and rail vehicles. We'll have another perception flip-flop with the same cities that clamored to get rid of rail in the 50's and 60's and are now clamoring to hop on the rail bandwagon today will be trying to get rid of rail once again in 40 or so years.

Pittsburgh's routes may be changing

Pittsburgh PA - The Port Authority of Allegheny County (PAT) announced yesterday an initiative called "Connect '09" which may bring some sweeping changes to how transit is provided in the Pittsburgh area.

Starting with the introduction of smart card fare collection technology, the Connect '09 initiative is ultimately aimed at overhauling how the entire transit system is structured. Data collected from smart card usage will give PAT a better idea of its customer's riding habits claims PAT Chief Executive, Steve Bland.

One thing that is funny is that many of the things that Bland states have been being said for decades and totally ignored by PAT. Suddenly PAT discovers what needs to be done and acts as though it has never been thought of before. Wrong Steve, much of this has been said from long before PAT even took control of Pittsburgh's public transit system. I know personally that I've been waving the banner claiming PAT needed to look at transit in a new way for decades.

The Connect '09 plan also can be used to integrate the surrounding counties into a single transit system with either a direct agency or as an umbrella agency. That fact was heavily downplayed at the press conference by PennDOT Secretary, Allen Biehler as well as Mr. Bland.

Now before any catcalls about how PAT can afford this, it is being paid for through a Federal grant and has no effect on the service cuts. The cuts would happen with or without this program. One side note however is that the grant only pays for this to be used on the buses and PAT will have to come up with other forms of funding to pay for the implementation of the smart card technology on the rail vehicles.

While Steve Bland has earned himself and PAT a few Lances since his arrival, I must give him a Laurel for finally acknowledging that PAT needs to overhaul its route structure. It took long enough for someone in a position to do something to actually shed light on what us common folk have been pointing out for decades now.

Seattle group forms to fight LRT

Seattle WA - A new advocacy group has formed to oppose Sound Transit's rail expansion plans. Called the Washington Traffic Institute (WTI), the group calls into question the claims made by Sound Transit and other pro-rail advocacy groups as to cost as well as reducing traffic congestion.

I was actually surprised to read about the group in an article in the Seattle Times. Usually these types of groups that go against the "popular flow" get little media coverage.

The WTI was formed to fight the $37 billion Roads and Transit measure that is set for the fall ballot. Sound Transit needs this measure passed to expand its rail transit network.

Although the WTI website is a little spartan currently, it does put up some numbers that show how the costs are skyrocketing and that the costs don't justify the projected ridership numbers. It was a welcome site to me in a world of pro-rail spin which ignores such things.

One of the prime reasons stated by Sound Transit for pushing for the expanded rail transit network is that it will reduce traffic congestion. That is a total fallacy. There is not one study of any LRT line in North America which can show a direct correlation between a rail line and reduced traffic congestion. On the contrary, most studies show even more traffic congestion once a rail line is opened.

That fact is downplayed and often outright ignored by the "damn the costs, full speed ahead" pro-rail crowd in their rush to slap rail lines in as many places as they can. There needs to be more groups like the WTI which want a serious approach to improving the transportation in a city. Rail isn't the answer in the vast majority of the cases yet it is sold as the Saviour of city by the pro-rail crowd.

Rail has become the new way to pick the taxpayer's pockets. As I have often stated in numerous Laurels & Lances articles, rail isn't being used for transportation these days as much as it is being used for political and personal legacy reasons as well as trying to steer development to where the political leaders want it to go.

If cities really want to reduce traffic congestion, they'll fix what they have in place already. Adding more while leaving an existing under performing operation in tact does nothing except create a fiscal black hole that sucks down taxpayer money.

Let's face a simple fact. You are never going to get rid of the private automobile. The best you can hope for is to make transit attractive to the car owners and hope to get some of them to switch. To do that, public transit needs to first go back to the basics of providing service. Bells and whistles such as new rail lines just don't cut it in the long term if the basics of providing service aren't in place or need improvements.

Rail has its place. That is something I don't argue with. Where I have the problem is that rail is being sold to the public as the greatest invention since flush toilets, complete with a long list of dubious claims of positives while the negatives are ignored.

Rail isn't the answer in every situation. In most cases, simple service adjustments on the existing bus system will do far more, and at a much cheaper price, than slapping a rail line down for the sake of having a rail line.

Chastain pounds the rail drums

Kansas City MO - Pro-rail advocate, Clay Chastain, is pounding the drums again to get his rail plan in place in Kansas City. For some strange reason, Chastain seems oblivious to the fact that Kansas City can't just jump ahead of the waiting list for Federal money to build his precious rail line.

Chastain, a Bedford Virginia resident, seems intent on trying to saddle Kansas City Missouri residents with a light rail plan that the city just can't afford. He loves to claim the voters overwhelmingly want his plan when, based on numerous articles and letters to the editor by residents, that really isn't the case.

The truth of the matter is that many Kansas City voters were simply confused, overwhelmed and completely uninformed of what they were voting for. Of the various comments I've seen in KC newspapers and radio/TV sites as well as comments sent to me, many people thought they were voting for KC to look into a rail plan for the future. They were largely unaware that what they were voting for was to implement Chastain's personal legacy rail line immediately.

That really is the voter's fault and they deserve what they get however, the ballot question was reported to also be rather confusing and misleading. That doesn't really surprise me but the voters still should have informed themselves and it was easy to do with all the coverage on the rail proposal.

Chastain's comments in the linked article also give me further proof that this is all about his personal legacy rather than the good of the city. Of the item's listed, "My light rail plan" comes above anything else. He really wants his name on a brass plaque along the line for posterity.

While Chastain does mention that there needs to be a bus funding plan, it falls much further down on his list. Even with his proposed eighth-cent sales tax to cover bus operations, that money will be siphoned off to pay to operate his rail line, complete with gondola ride which in other news stories he insists must be included or he'll sue the city.

Chastain refuses to look at the whole picture. He's so desperate to get his rail plan built that he really doesn't care if he turns the city into a ghost town. Federal money will not be coming to build it as the Feds have already made clear that KC can't jump to the head of the funding line. I doubt the State will rush to pay for it. That means KC residents will have to pick up the entire tab for Chastain's Folly one way or another. By building it or paying to cover the city costs to defend against Chastain's threatened law suits to force the line to be built. Just imagine the sky high taxes and the rush to move to greener pastures where taxes are lower.

Clay, here's a Lance for your "Damn the costs when my legacy is at stake" attitude. You've earned it.

North America could learn from Brazil

São Paulo Brazil - The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., better known as the IEEE had a very interesting article in the IEEE Spectrum magazine regarding the transit operation in São Paulo Brazil. Suffice to say, São Paulo operates one of the most complex bus operations in the world and rather successfully I might add.

While the pro-rail crowd in North America still often points to Europe to show the success of rail operations, São Paulo has quietly turned the bus into something even more successful.

"People won't ride smelly buses" and "Rail attracts the riders" are just a few of the comments made by the pro-rail crowd however, they become silent when São Paulo is brought up. Why? Perhaps it is because São Paulo has turned Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) into a low tech as well as low cost art form that works extremely well in a city of over 18 million people.

While there are problems with the São Paulo BRT operation, it really is no different than what one can easily experience in the US and Canada. It doesn't matter if we're talking bus or rail, the problems are the same and can even be found in Europe. Outmoded equipment, facilities that need expanded and/or improved, better speed to move riders, etc. effect every mode of transit. The big difference is the cost, both short term and long term.

While São Paulo does have rail operations as well, which are larger than the dedicated BRT operation, it's the buses that do the vast bulk of the passenger hauling. Plans are in the works to expand both bus and rail in the city with emphasis being placed on the less costly bus operation.

The BRT operations in the US and Canada are a joke compared to what is in place in São Paulo. Here, everyone and their uncle are trying to hop on the rail bandwagon which drains money out of bus operations when all is said and done. BRT is often times the last resort when a city can't even meet the relatively easy Federal standards to get a rail line. São Paulo views BRT completely different and that attitude is paying off.

Granted that São Paulo and North American cities are totally different in terms of transit usage, the fact remains that bus operations are not overlooked in São Paulo and are treated as an important part of the cities transportation infrastructure.

A few quick facts on São Paulo's operation.

• Population: 18.3 million
  
• Number of buses: 26,391
  
• Daily bus passengers: 10.5 million
  
• Bus: 1,908 routes & 34 transfer stations
  
• BRT length: 146.5 km
  
• Rail length: 270 km
  
• Subway length : 60 km
  

It seems the common folk have the right idea

Montreal PQ - In a letter to the editor in the Montreal Gazette, Dolly Tiger of Montreal states rather well that rather than spending billions of dollars on a new transit plan for Montreal, they should spend that money to fix what they have in place already.

It's a sentiment I have long held when dealing with anything political, especially public transit. Politicians and activist groups are hot to trot to spend money to roll out new and expensive toys while ignoring the infrastructure already in place. This is perhaps one of the main reasons public transit is falling apart today.

Just imagine how popular public transit could become if the transit agencies and politicians would invest in fixing what is already in place rather than building more things that puts further strain on an already strained system. The Port Authority of Allegheny County in Pittsburgh did just that in the early 1970's with very successful results. Over time it failed as they fell into the trap of ignoring what was in place and began focusing on expensive new toys and wasteful spending habits.

Having politicians and transit system administrations actually embrace fixing what is already in place most likely won't happen very often in our times. They can't get the face time in front of the media for ensuring proper funding is there to fix and improve the existing infrastructure. Because of the political treatment of transit, which is geared for new things rather than maintaining what's in place, it's easy to get government money for new transit projects but rather difficult to get money to actually run and maintain what is in place already.

While there are some flaws in Dolly Tiger's idea such as 20 minute service on every route, she is headed in the right direction. Fix what you have first before adding more. I often see letters like Dolly's and it makes me question why those in charge are so dense when the general public gets it.

Is Toledo next on the LRT bandwagon?

Toledo OH - Planners are envisioning light rail for the Toledo Ohio area even though the Toledo Area Regional Transit Authority (TARTA) is in a funding crisis and has a lackluster transit operation.

This desire for rail has spurred a long article in the Toledo Blade touting the benefits of rail as well as an article in the same paper that dredges up the National City Lines (NCL) conspiracy once again even though it had little to nothing to do with Toledo eliminating their streetcars back in the 1940's.

The NCL conspiracy is another trick used to generate support for rail operations and is usually greatly exaggerated. An interesting and well documented article on the NCL conspiracy was written by Cliff Slater for the Transportation Quarterly back in 1997 (HTML or PDF available) and dispels many of the conspiracy theories. Naturally Slater's article has been condemned by the pro-rail crowd because it sheds light on the myth they love and disproves many things they have come to believe.

In Toledo's case, the rail operations were eliminated because the Community Traction Company (CTC) couldn't afford to run the aging and ever increasing costly streetcar lines and local political pressure was heavy on the company to get rid of the streetcars so they could pave over the tracks. NCL had nothing to do with the CTC's decision to dump the streetcars yet what does the pro-rail Toledo Blade bring up to generate public support for the light rail proposal?

Toledo is just another city that wants to jump on the rail bandwagon when it can't afford what it has already. I was surprised that they weren't trying to push it for development although it was brought up. The proposal was discussed more in terms of actually moving people. That's a rarity these days as using rail for actual transportation is down the list behind development and political legacy reasons.

In addition, the manner in which TARTA is funded is unstable. Ohio transit systems rely heavily on voter approved tax levees to fund their operation. Some systems have come and gone based on voters rejecting a levy. Also, TARTA has issues with communities wanting the ability to pull out of the system with little advanced notice. This situation places TARTA's funding on an even more unsecured footing.

To add an expensive rail operation that will not serve all the outlaying communities will spell major problems for TARTA. As costs go up to operate a rail line, communities that don't benefit from the rail line will balk about having to pay for it. Levy rejections and pull outs from the TARTA system will likely happen which will leave TARTA struggling even more to find the money to operate.

TARTA General Manager James Gee acknowledged the all important point which is how would TARTA pay to run a light rail line. Most systems ignore this point but Gee seems to be looking more at the whole picture rather than putting on a pair of rose colored glasses.

Toledo would be better off starting with a Bus Rapid Transit operation similar to Lane Transit's EmX operation in Eugene Oregon to establish a corridor and build up ridership. While Toledo's ridership has increased, it is still not very strong and isn't even remotely close to being able to justify a light rail line, even with falsified ridership projections.

NJ Transit employee newsletter is costly

Newark NJ - The Cherry Hill Courier Post had an interesting article about the NJ Transit employee newsletter and the costs involved to produce and distribute it. While the article was clearly biased against the costs involved with the newsletter due to the upcoming fare increases, the article provided a good look into one of the rarely considered costs that are helping to drive up the price of public transit.

The cost to produce and distribute the "En Route" employee newsletter is over $400,000 a year. While hardly a large amount considering that $400,000 is a drop in the bucket to the overall total budget, it is something that should be looked at.

I've seen many of these employee newsletters from various transit systems across the United States and only an issue or two is worth the cost of producing. Most are simply a waste of time, resources and money. Most employee newsletters from transit systems that I have seen are on the more expensive glossy paper, multi-color printing and multi-paged.

Most of what is included in these employee newsletters are management spin on issues effecting the system and many fluff pieces to fill up the newsletter. I have seen a few employee newsletters that literally were little more than free political advertising that was paid for out of the operating funds needed to run the system.

The cost of the "En Route" newsletter is rather high in my opinion. Many places can kick out a quality newsletter for less than a quarter of the $400,000 plus that NJ Transit pays to produce their employee newsletter. They're usually a little more informative as well.

NJ Transit seriously needs to look into trimming costs in this area as do all transit systems that issue employee newsletters. With the cost to provide service continuing to rise, every penny counts and these employee newsletters do nothing to keep service on the streets.

Rendell pushes for his windfall profit tax

Philadelphia PA - Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell pushed hard for his proposed 6.17% windfall oil profits tax at the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) board meeting. Claiming his tax will save SEPTA, Rendell urged the SEPTA Board to lobby State Legislators to pass his tax.

Rendell projects that his tax will generate $720 million each year from any profits by oil companies that operate or sell within Pennsylvania's borders.

What this tax will do is be the catalyst for skyrocketing fuel prices and fuel shortages across the state. This will adversely effect public transit and keep them in the same exact situation they are in now while the citizens of the state have to pick up the tab through higher costs for everything.

The cost of the tax will be passed onto the consumer through higher fuel prices. In addition to costing even more to fuel a private auto, public transit as well as trucking and rail companies will be hit hard. This will force transportation costs to rise and that will be passed off to the consumer through higher prices from food, clothing, electronics and everything else the public takes for granted.

Also, given the long term history of tax money being funneled off for other things, much of this "windfall" won't end up in the public transit coffers but into political pet projects and other governmental agencies that will be screaming for their fair share of the pot of gold.

Fast Eddie's proposal is not sound. Even the spendthrift State Legislature and people from Rendell's own party see this. If rammed through, all Pennsylvanians will feel the sting from it and public transit will not be saved.

Let's face the facts here. Oil companies will pass on the costs and if the tax proves too expensive to operate in the state, they'll pull out. Shortages will then occur that will spur even higher prices due to the shortages.

This tax isn't just on "Big Oil" either but the entire oil structure within the state border. From the small wells to the retail outlets and everything in between, all will be taxed under Rendell's windfall profit proposal. Small mom & pop operations all the way up to BP will be effected and nobody will be spared.

This is just another "feel good" law that plays off the public outrage over higher prices. Punishing "Big Oil" for being greedy is a big business these days in Liberal circles and is based not off of facts but feelings. These knee jerk reactions will only serve to further destroy this state.

To quote my favorite radio host, Jim Quinn and Quinn's first law: "Liberalism always generates the exact opposite of its stated intent." Fast Eddie's windfall profit tax is a perfect example of this.