O'Toole wrong on this one

Victorville CA - A story out of the Victorville Daily Press tells of the difficulties of the loss of commuter bus service in the Victorville area, especially for the disabled and low income residents. It is a situation that is all too common in many areas of the country. Trips on the commuter bus that cost $9 now cost between $28 and $120 using taxi, Greyhound, Amtrak or the local paratransit service.

Enter Randall O'Toole from the Cato Institute. While I generally agree with most of what O'Toole comments regarding public transit, I believe he's wrong on his latest comments regarding issuing vouchers for transit.

O'Toole comes across as though issuing transportation vouchers will reduce government bureaucracy. "Instead of trying to pay for a service that will never turn a profit, O’Toole suggests giving them vouchers — like food stamps — rather than subsidizing a bloated bureaucratic agency" states O'Toole.

Sadly Randall, that isn't the case and you should know it. All your doing is transferring the bureaucracy from one area to another area. The taxpayer will still be shelling out for a bloated bureaucracy to monitor and run a voucher program.

O'Toole is using the free market philosophy which I support but when it comes to public transit, the free market quickly becomes government regulated which drives up the cost of providing services. The residents are already using the free market options and the cost is much greater. Add vouchers to the mix and the cost will go up more because your creating more paperwork for the private entities which will lessen the value of the government issued voucher.

Whenever I hear the word voucher, the first thought that comes to my mind is the bloated government bureaucracy needed to run the voucher program. Vouchers also will not reduce the bloated bureaucracies that are inherent in public transit systems. With the paper shuffling that will be required to run a voucher program, your going to greatly increase the cost of providing service by having to create whole new departments to handle the vouchers.

Why O'Toole thinks vouchers are the answer to reducing costs, spurring free market competition and reducing the size of government is beyond me.

While I sympathize with the plight of the residents that depended on the commuter bus service, instituting a government voucher program isn't the answer to the problem they face nor is it an answer to reducing the cost or size of the bureaucracy in a transit system. All it will do is increase the problems as well as the cost to everyone.

What is needed is what the Victorville Valley Transit Authority General Manager, Kevin Kane, suggests. Get the non-profit social service organizations involved. So far these groups have been reluctant to step up to the plate, even with the carrot of a free van to provide the service. Perhaps the VVTA needs to reduce the bureaucratic weight on such groups that provide service to make it happen or cover their operation using the VVTA insurance.

The cost for a non-profit group to provide such a service isn't cheap. Insurance costs alone can make or break such an operation. Then there are the many government regulations that add to the cost of providing service.

Whatever the reason, the non-profits won't step forward to assist and the reasons need to be made clear. Once understood, perhaps a deal can be worked out to get the idea moving.

Don't try to ride if you don't live here

Apple Valley MN - A battle over parking spaces at an overcrowded park and ride lot has prompted the the City Council of Apple Valley to implement a rather odd plan. The plan is to ban anyone except Apple Valley residents from using a publicly funded Minnesota Valley Transit Authority (MVTA) park and ride lot.

Police are already licking their chops at the prospect of being able to write more tickets. A $29 ticket will be issued to anyone outside of Apple Valley that parks in the publicly funded MVTA park and ride lot.

The debate over this stems from the fact that 59% of the parkers at the park and ride lot come from outside of the Apple Valley special transit tax district. Therefore the claim is made that the residents of nearby Lakeville and Farmington don't have the right to park there.

Naturally the residents of Lakeville and Farmington, areas not served by the MVTA hence why they are not in the special tax district, claim that existing property tax and motor vehicle taxes they pay already go to helping the MVTA.

The Democratic-Farmer-Labor party (DFL) politicians, Minnesota's version of an Ultra-Liberal Democrat, tried to take advantage of the conflict to raise taxes by expanding the special transit tax district to a 7 county area. The measure was defeated primarily by the counties that have no transit service because the MVTA doesn't serve there and has no plans to in the future.

Similar situations are occurring all over the country. It's just the banning of riders that is a new twist on an old theme.

The simple premise of barring certain people over political boundaries will do nothing to encourage transit usage. To the contrary, it will force people back into their cars. Considering that the MVTA receives State and Federal funding which is paid by the Lakeville and Farmington residents, the residents are paying. Just because Apple Valley residents voluntarily voted to approve an additional tax on themselves doesn't give them the ability to ban others.

Here's a solution. If Lakeville and Farmington join in the special transit tax district, the MVTA gets off their duff and starts providing service to those areas along with a park and ride lot all their own. It is obvious that the demand is there. The main reason these communities haven't joined the tax district is that the MVTA has absolutely no plans to serve those areas.

If Apple Valley goes through with its plan, look for this to be dragged into court. In the mean time, look for Apple Valley residents and politicians to continue to complain when the banned riders are forced to another lot further up the line where they can board first. Complaints of parking will be replaced with complaints about overcrowding of the buses before they reach Apple Valley.

Apple Valley's City Council received a Lance for the attempt to ban transit riders simply due to political boundaries. The MVTA also earns a Lance for not serving areas that obviously generate quite a lot of its ridership. The MVTA could easily get the outlaying areas into its special tax district if they would only serve it as well as genuinely increasing its ridership numbers.

Streetcars give a lift but at who's expense?

Tampa FL - A Wall Street Journal story that was picked up by many papers focuses on Tampa's streetcar system in an attempt to show how having a streetcar will spur massive development. It at least acknowledges that the $68 million streetcar line in Tampa as a transportation tool is a total dud.

Unfortunately, the story by Thaddeus Herrick of the WSJ barely mentions anything about how the massive development is funded. It sings the praises of using streetcars as a development tool while glossing over the fact that the taxpayer is shelling out billions of dollars to developers each year across this country. From tax breaks, grants, low interest loans that are often never repaid and other sweetheart deals, the cost to lure developers often is never recovered in tax revenue from the development.

The public is routinely spun a tale of how a rail line will spur development on its own. Sadly that isn't the case in most instances. The public pays for the development through the various sweetheart deals that the politicians create.

I would love to see the true amount that a developer is given in taxpayer money through various incentives versus the cost of the actual development for transit projects. It's a closely guarded secret it seems as I have tried to obtain this data and have been stonewalled every step of the way. I have been told off the record (but haven't been able to verify with my own eyes) that many times the tax breaks for developers on transit oriented development exceed the actual cost of development. That really doesn't surprise me given other sweetheart deals in non-transit project related development where this was in fact true.

The taxpayers need to understand that the development isn't free. They are paying for it though their taxes. While transit systems struggle, police and fire are being cut back and other other important services curtailed, a nice chunk of that money is given to the developer in one form or another. Either as a grant or loan or through having their tax burden greatly slashed or even eliminated. The taxpayer is left holding the bag either way.

Then there is the congestion argument once again:

While streetcars lack speed and mobility, proponents say the role they play in urban development makes them a worthy transportation choice. They (proponents) argue that by helping to draw development to urban areas such as downtowns, and by providing a transportation link in those areas, streetcars reduce the need for extra lanes of highways to the suburbs and limit the need for cars in and around downtowns.

Actually that isn't true. No streetcar line built in the US has reduced traffic congestion. It's had the opposite effect of causing more traffic congestion. Proponents refuse to understand that easily observable and documented fact.

The final part of the article goes into how Tampa's streetcar line is losing $1 million a year. It's attracting tourists but I must ask, does the revenue from the approximately 195,000 tourists that visit the Tampa area each year and are reported to ride the line cover the losses of running the line? Obviously the answer is no since the line is losing $1 million a year and the city has decided not to pony up more money to keep it running. If the line was such a boon to the city coffers, they'd have no problem stepping up and pouring more money into keeping the line operating.

The bottom line is that the WSJ article is just a bunch of pro-rail rhetoric designed to help generate support for getting more streetcar lines slapped into various cities. A real story would have included the cost to taxpayers for subsidizing the private developers. If the developers truly believed the streetcar was a draw for their development as Fida Sirdar, president of Key Developers Group LLC stated in the article, they wouldn't need sweetheart deals to build there.

When a cut is actually an increase

Sacramento CA - In a letter to the Alameda Times-Star, Dale E. Bonner who is the Secretary of the California Business, Transportation and Housing Agency (governmental) responded to an article posted in the paper that whined about Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's cuts to transit in the State budget.

Bonner wrote:

A RECENT ARTICLE ("Bakers Bemoan BART Budget Issue," June 20) misrepresents Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's proposed transportation budget.

First, referring to Gov. Schwarzenegger's public transportation budget as a "cut" is inaccurate and misleading. The Governor has increased funding for transit by more than 20 percent over the last year and more than 400 percent over three years ago. His budget proposal shows tremendous leadership on public transit by increasing funding for state and local transit by $321 million.

State funds account for a very small portion of transit agency funding. According to the state's non-partisan legislative analyst, state funds accounted for only 2 percent of all transit agency operating revenue statewide over the last 10 years. The remaining 98 percent comes from federal and local revenue sources and passenger fares. Attributing any change in a local transit agency's budget to the state's traditional 2 percent contribution is illogical and unwarranted.

Gov. Schwarzenegger supports transit in the state. He championed last November's Prop. 1b, which included $4 billion for public transit, intercity and commuter rail and waterborne transit operations, and has promised to continue to build infrastructure for the next generation of Californians.

I myself had been a little confused over the funding situation in California and could slap myself for not remembering one of the key political tools used these days (yes, the spin doctor was winning). An increase in funding over the previous year is considered a cut if it fails to meet the percentage level that the politicians pushing for it want. In their eyes, an increase becomes a cut in the world of political spin and the fact that it actually is an increase over the previous year is completely ignored. It's a tactic that is heavily used by politicians these days as they try to spin their way around each other and I'm ashamed I forgot about that often used little trick.

As with most transit systems across the country, California is no exception to wasteful spending. Remember the 30 page procedure to buy a cake for office parties story that was posted on Laurels and Lances on February 1, 2007. California operations are also much more cost heavy due to more stringent environmental rules which cost transit operators across the state billions of dollars in extra costs. The politics of transit is also very heavy in California which tends to make for wasteful procedures to satisfy the bureaucracy machine.

I have thought for quite awhile that what transit systems in California were doing was looking for the financial band-aid rather than trying for an efficient operation. Another Laurels and Lances column from March 8, 2007 shows the mentality of the Bay Area transit systems which were eagerly gearing up to build more transit projects while at the same time crying about not being able to afford to run what they already have.

As I am seeing this, the state increased its funding but not enough to satisfy the transit systems, local politicians and activists. My solution is to stop whining and trim the internal fat of the transit operations. Try becoming more efficient. Stop looking to build more transit projects when you can't afford to run what you have in place already. And please, stop the spin, I'm getting dizzy.

I'll say this for public transit systems these days, they're becoming worse than my local PBS station (WQED) when it comes to begging for money. I'm just waiting for them to call the riders a bunch of freeloaders like WQED called their viewership many years ago when they were shaking their tin cup a bit too hard...

HART's union unwilling to accept reality

Tampa FL - The Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority (HART) was flying high only a few months ago. Big plans were in place to expand service and a recently negotiated 5 year union contract assured no threat to those plans. It was a win-win for everyone.

Fast forward to the present and HART is now sounding very much like most transit systems in the US, route cuts and fare hikes.

The sudden change that shot down HART's fast flying dreams was a change in the State budget. HART found itself $5.2 million short of what was needed to expand service as well as fund the new contract.

Union president Mike McCoy dismissed any idea of renegotiating the recently approved contract which gave union members a 5% yearly increase (25% increase over the course of the 5 year contract). "We expect that contract to be adhered to," McCoy said and added that the union won't go back to the bargaining table.

I'm sure Mr. McCoy will be the first to whine like a little baby when 50 of his union brothers and sisters are sitting on the unemployment line after they are laid off. Working in the best interest of the union membership? It sure doesn't sound like it to me when he's voluntarily tossing 50 of his members into the fiscal shredder and willingly taking away routes that his members would be driving otherwise.

The recently approved contract was rather generous and was based upon having the money available. I'm more than positive that the union actually wanted a double digit increase in pay each year and were forced to accept a lower amount to fit into the forecast of what HART would be getting in funding.

Unions, as well as management, often forget why they they are there in the first place. Let me remind them. They are there to serve the public with clean, reliable and convenient transit service. Unions have shown at many transit systems that they are more than willing to let the public, who are the ones that pay their wages by the way, suffer when projected income falls well below what was anticipated and the union contract becomes detrimental to the operation.

HART's union needs to rethink it's "screw you" attitude. Not only are they out to hurt the ridership with their outright refusal to even consider reopening the contract due to the sudden fiscal changes at HART but they are hurting their own membership and helping to push HART into the fiscal abyss that it may never be able to escape from. Once in the abyss, the downward spiral continues with more and more cuts and more layoffs.

Even one of the more difficult unions to deal with, ATU Division 85 in Pittsburgh, is open to contract negotiations to save their member's jobs and keep service on the streets for the public. Mr, McCoy obviously doesn't seem to give a rat's ass if the public is cut off from service or if his union brethren lose their jobs.

Mike McCoy, you've earned a Lance for not understanding the consequences of your actions. You alone have the ability to keep HART from entering the fiscal abyss that so many transit systems are in right now as well as determining if your members work or are sitting on the unemployment line.

PAT continues in the fiscal death spiral

Pittsburgh PA - Port Authority of Allegheny County (PAT) on Friday approved more service cuts, layoffs as well as a yet to be determined fare hike. This will only further push PAT into the abyss from which it can't escape.

The years of living large under the former executive director, Paul Skoutelas, have caught up to PAT. Wasteful spending practices were honed to perfection under the Skoutelas reign at PAT which left little wiggle room for unexpected emergencies or cost increases which would immediately tilt the delicate balance.

The result of the wasteful practices was a 15% service cut with associated layoffs that went into effect last Sunday. Now an additional 10% of service has been approved for slashing as well as what will be a hefty fare increase.

Of course not all blame is to be laid on Skoutelas' doorstep. The State and local politicians are also to blame for not being willing to fund transit properly. It is hard to fund a wasteful organization properly however but the service shouldn't be destroyed for the people that depend on it just to cover political rear ends.

We as a nation just went through a national "Dump the Pump" promotion of public transit. What is happening in Pittsburgh is the very model of the opposite of what the promotion is all about. PAT is now at the point where it may never recover the lost ridership and what ridership remains will be finding other methods to go where they need to go.

Critics of PAT often cite duplicate service as a wasteful measure. It is true PAT operates what seem to be more duplicate routes than other systems but there is a reason. Pittsburgh has one of the most difficult service areas of any transit system in North America. The hills and valleys with roads that wander along the lay of the land make duplicate service hard to avoid. Roads in this area are designed to funnel into the Point in Downtown through a series of ever narrowing corridors. As buses head out of town, the routes break off a main trunk and head into the various communities tucked away in the geography.

Even with PAT's long overdue plan to overhaul the entire service under the "Connect '09" initiative, they will find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, not to have duplicate service in the majority of the natural geographical corridors.

PAT does need to control its spending. There is no question about this fact. PAT also needs a reliable source of funding it can depend on as well. Reliable funding is something that Pennsylvania has never allowed any public transit system in the state and it is long overdue.

The current fiscal crisis PAT faces effects every transit system in Pennsylvania but primarily the two largest operations, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. The State Legislature is stuck in session until something is done regarding funding the transit systems.

It's much more than just wasteful spending practices that triggered this crisis. Fuel, health care, wages and other operating expenses continue to go up while more and more unfunded government mandates continue to be placed on transit systems. All of this has helped push transit nationwide on to the event horizon of a massive fiscal black hole.

Nowhere is the effect as devastating as it is in Pittsburgh. This region has many areas that appear to be very close to a major transit line, as the crow flies, but can actually be a several miles away by road and sidewalk (if the road even has a sidewalk). This issue makes it much more costly to provide service in Pittsburgh. Something needs to be done to prevent public transit from failing completely here. It will hurt the entire region if PAT is allowed to continue to implode.

I have been critical of the most of the various plans brought up to help fund transit in Pennsylvania. The plans championed by various politicians do little toward actually solving the funding problem and everything to allow the politicians to pick the pockets of the taxpayer. None of the "cures" brought up to date address the problem of the need for a dedicated and dependable source of income for public transit.

The various proposals brought up by the politicians will still require the same method of distributing the funding. This means it has to be added to the state budget and then left open to being slashed for political pet projects and other agencies and groups in the state that are screaming loudly for money.

While I know taxes will have to go up to save transit in Pennsylvania, I will not nor cannot support any tax increase until the politicians allow a truly dedicated source of funding that is distributed equitably and not subject to the political whims of the politicians and activists. The public transit systems also need to continue to clean up their act and eliminate wasteful spending practices if such a funding scheme does happen.

Public transit is important to many people as well as the economy of the region it serves. It can't be allowed to crash and burn however we taxpayers also can't allow new taxes to be placed on the books for transit just to maintain the status quo. Changes are needed before we can accept more taxes for transit. Let's face a fact, PAT isn't the model of fiscal efficiency but it is improving. Those improvements need to continue and the state needs to allow for a truly dedicated funding source that is can be depended on.

Art project rusts while costing city plenty

Ventura CA - In an event that is more common than most think, yet another piece of art that adorns a transit facility is being damaged by the elements and costing the taxpayers much more money than the art is worth.

The City of Ventura built a transit center at the north end of the Pacific View Mall in 2002. This art work, which the city calls a shelter, cost $2 million. Since its installation, the structure has started to rust away. Fingers are being pointed and now is in court, wasting even more taxpayer money.

The city isn't maintaining it and trying to get the contractor to pay for restoration while the contractor insists that the city should pay for it since they didn't maintain it. The artist had final say in what paint and undercoating were to be used and he blew it. The result is a $2 million dollar rusting hulk that will take a few hundred thousand to restore, not including the money spent on the legal proceedings.

Anytime Federal funds are involved, art is mandated. If Federal money isn't involved, the local cultural community whines and complains until they can get art installed. Both scenarios are fully at taxpayer expense.

What few seem to understand is that these artsy-fartsy designs, sculptures and other permanent art work cost millions and the cost is on-going for maintenance. In some instances, the artwork takes priority over the facility itself due to the agreements over the artwork. If the piece doesn't get pristine maintenance, the artist and cultural groups begin hiring lawyers.

I have always had a problem with the rules requiring artwork, especially in transit projects. Most of what I see in these public art projects that cost millions to have is pure junk. I've seen better junk being tossed out on trash day.

Art is an acquired taste as well as one of personal taste yet the cultural community has succeeded in shoving their vision of art on everyone at the taxpayer's expense.

Transit systems are especially hit hard by having to maintain the mandated art due to the threat of expensive legal proceedings if they don't. In addition, if the art isn't maintained, it makes the facility look shabby. There is nothing wrong with a clean facility using easy to maintain materials, especially when the taxpayers are footing the bill.

Here's a solution, if the cultural community insists on art then let them pay for it as well as maintain it on their dime. It will never happen as it is just so much easier to spend your money than it is to spend their money.

The last two paragraphs in the article say it all and are sentiments expressed by the vast majority if the public in every city:

“It’s just rotting away and they paid $2 million,” Comstock said. “Somebody should be paying for the upkeep since they spent so much money on it. It doesn’t make any sense to me. I guess it’s art. They call it art. I don’t understand it.”

Sally Ramos, owner of Allison’s Country Cafe which faces “Bus Home,” echoes Comstock’s sentiments. “I think it was a waste of money. I think they should have built something practical like a structure that people could stand under when it’s raining and not get wet,” Ramos said, then added, “You look at it and just kind of wonder ‘Why?’”

PA Dems out to pick pockets for transit

Harrisburg PA - Higher vehicle fees, higher emission sticker fees, higher tolls, increased fuel taxes, higher taxes on tires, titles, inspections and taxing professional sports are all on the plate with Pennsylvania's tax and spend Democrat legislators.

I have mentioned in the past on the AMCAP Transit Talk discussion board that I truly believe that the Liberal politicians are trying to price the automobile out of existence through taxes and fees and once again, my vision of the future is coming true. Pennsylvania Democrats are trying for everything except congestion pricing at this point to generate money for transit but Governor "Fast Eddie" Rendell wants to tax oil companies at the state level instead.

If these Democratic plans go through, most of the money generated won't go to transit anyway. Pennsylvania's transit funding crisis is simply a convenient excuse for the tax and spend politicians to justify picking the taxpayer's pocket once again.

It's just not in Pennsylvania that such lunacy is taking place. One example is New York City, home of the ultra-Liberal Mayor Bloomberg (who actually was a life-long Democrat who only changed parties since the Dem ticket was too full for him) wants congestion pricing and is promising lower fares if his initiative passes. Yeah right, lower fares. It's not happening in London, the showcase for congestion pricing.

Luckily, the Pennsylvania Legislature is controlled by the Republicans who are resisting raising taxes. Most of these new taxes are dead on arrival when it comes to a vote yet the Dems keep coming up with more ways to raise taxes while offering nothing toward showing any fiscal responsibility.

Trying to tax the automobile out of existence won't help public transit, period. Even if all the tax increase went toward transit, all that would happen is that the status quo would remain in place for a few more years and then we'd be right back in the same exact position we are in now.

It is also a proven fact that taxing automobile ownership doesn't work. Minnesota has such a scheme to fund transit and they are finding that as people abandon their cars for transit, the automobile generated revenues for transit are dropping rapidly, placing the systems in a financial bind. Fares just don't cover the operating expenses of public transit today.

A single dedicated funding source such as a local 1/4% or 1/2% sales tax is a far more equitable method of funding transit rather than nickel and diming every aspect of automobile ownership. Any form of funding should also come with a string attached which is that wasteful spending practices will be punished by the system not being funded.

Much of the funding crisis is the direct result of wasteful spending practices at transit systems for decades. My local system, the Port Authority of Allegheny County (PAT) mastered the technique of wasting money on everything except putting service on the street. Simply taxing the hell out of the taxpayer to pay for transit service by wasteful systems is useless as they'll continue to blow money and have their hand out for more next year.

Transit funding is a complicated issue. The two things that are clear however is that public transit does need to be adequately funded and public transit administrations and unions need to stop wasting money and refocus on the basics. It's like matter and anti-matter with the funding being obliterated by the wasteful practices at many agencies.

The answer to funding isn't to tax the car owner out of existence. It won't solve the transit funding crisis and will only serve to push even more people out of the state. The Pennsylvania Democrat's plan is a disaster in the making and decades of evidence on past political behavior show that much of the money raised will not go to what it is intended for and transit will still be left with inadequate funding.

In Kenosha's tracks?

Kenosha WI / Madison WI - Madison WI Mayor David Cieslewicz and his partner in the pro-rail spin machine, Charlie Hales (streetcar consultant to Cieslewicz), are attempting to use Kenosha's streetcar system as proof that a streetcar system in Madison will work.

The article in the Madison Times had me laughing for quite some time. These 4 paragraphs are pure gold:

"It a boon to tourism," Cieslewicz said. "And tourism is one of the reasons for a streetcar here."

However, on a recent Monday, there wasn't a tourist in sight on Kenosha's downtown lakefront.

The weather was glorious. The sun was glinting off the water. The breeze was mild enough to keep the small crowd gathered at a transit transfer point comfortable in the 80-degree heat without messing up their hair.

But none of that crowd got on the streetcar. They were waiting for buses.

The article then goes into mentioning the empty streetcars that frequently run on Kenosha's tourist line. 50 riders a day is average for a weekend during tourist season. "There are fewer riders in the winter, when Brandup cuts back the hours of service so people don't see empty cars going by as often."



Cieslewicz and Hales then state that streetcars aren't about ridership. Excuse me? Not about ridership? That's one of the reasons Cieslewicz has frequently stated as to why he is trying to ram his streetcar proposal through, it will reduce the traffic congestion in Madison.

Cieslewicz wants his streetcar line for two reasons. One is that he thinks that in time, it will be a positive factor for his legacy and the second is development. Once again, no mention was made of the fact that the bulk of the development which will occur will occur on the taxpayer's dime. Grants, no-pay back loans, tax breaks and other taxpayer funded methods will be used to lure developers to build along the line. It can take 20 years or more before any real development occurs. As I have mentioned before, I'm still waiting for the promised development along the rails in my hometown.

I have to give Madison Mayor David Cieslewicz a Lance for this performance.

Forcing transit on the public

Honolulu HI - The Honolulu Advertiser has a story on the recent Census Bureau study that showed commuters nationwide are not being swayed to hop on board public transit. In the story however, an ill-conceived game plan of sorts has been laid out to show how people can be convinced to abandon their cars and hop on board mass transit.

The basic plan laid out uses a two prong strategy of persuasive as well as coercive tactics. The coercive tactics spelled out in the plan are scary and are aimed at literally taxing the hell out of private autos so that owning one would become completely unaffordable to the general population.

While the Honolulu Advertiser reporter, Jerry Burris, states that to be fair mass transit must be in place first, his goal is to give a template to the pro-rail activists which they can follow to force expensive rail projects to be built.

Nowhere in the article does Mr. Burris state that Honolulu's mass transit system should improve its operations and become more efficient. Nor does Mr. Burris state that mass transit has limitations that just can't be solved. What he does state, more or less, is that the pro-rail supporters have to step it up a notch. In other words, push harder to get rail built.

The problem with Mr. Burris' template is that it just won't work. Simply building transit projects such as LRT or BRT will not get people to switch even if you tax every aspect of car ownership to the max. People will ride transit if it is convenient and takes them where they want to go without a lot of fuss. Often times, what is a 15 minute car ride translates to a 2 hour plus transit trip with multiple transfers. Try hauling a bunch of kids with a few hundred dollars of shopping on a two hour bus ride in crowded conditions. It's obvious to me that Mr. Burris never has.

Mr. Burris also fails to understand that if you get people to give up their cars and on board public transit, you also give up your revenue stream. Less cars entering the city means less in congestion taxes, parking taxes and other taxes that have been levied on the concept of private auto ownership. With reduced revenues, the translation becomes route cuts and fare hikes which then will start the downward spiral that so many transit systems are in today.

I am a transit advocate but I am also well aware that transit has problems that will never be solved. Getting from point A to point B isn't simple on transit and that fact seems lost on many transit advocates. Many transit advocates these days feel that all you have to do build just one more expensive transit project and everyone will suddenly abandon their cars. Where I live, we've had many expensive transit projects built and I'm still waiting for the massive influx of new riders.

The best that can be hoped for is to attract as many choice riders as you can through focusing on the basics of providing service. That point is also lost on the majority of the transit advocates. Your never going to get a 50% share of choice riders, yet alone the much higher percentage they seem to think they'll get even with the coercive tactics suggested in the the article.

Simply building rail lines and marketing the system isn't going to get people to switch. Even taxing the car owners to the point of abandoning their cars won't do it (most will simply move to greener pastures where their money is treated better). The reason these methods won't work is that public transit is incapable of handling the diverse number of destinations that people want and need to go in any form of a timely and efficient manner. Expensive transit projects are not the answer nor is trying to force people onto transit through the leftist tactic of taxing something they don't like into oblivion.

While I agree with Mr. Burris that attitudes toward public transit need to be changed, his suggested methods are not the way to do it. Public transit needs to fix what it has in place already and go back to the basics of providing service. They need to stop building expensive transit projects when they can't efficiently run what they have in place already. A system that has good service at a reasonable rate will attract far more riders than a system that is going bankrupt building transit projects that benefit few.