Failure despite success

Toronto ON - The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) is in a unique spot these days. Its ridership is greatly increasing but is causing overcrowding as well as cash flow headaches. The TTC finds itself unable to cope with the influx of riders as politicians and activists push harder to get more people on board.

This is a problem every transit system in North America faces as they try to find ways to get people out of their cars and onto transit. It's a Catch-22 where even if you win, you lose.

Of course there is no additional money forthcoming. The TTC claims it needs $6.7 million (C$) to battle the overcrowding by adding more transit vehicles and drivers. Where does this leave the TTC? Wanting to hike fares to help cover the expenses of increased ridership.

Now, one more time people. Let's look back at the Port Authority of Allegheny County (PAT) during the early and mid 1970's. They had a massive increase in ridership yet this was handled without dramatically increasing costs and without fare increases or increased funding. New routes were added, service was run efficiently which allowed more service out of one bus and driver as well as having just about every fare incentive out there to get even more riders on board.

PAT had crowded buses and trolleys but they were able to handle the quick influx of riders quickly, effectively and efficiently. It's too bad the PAT management of today doesn't understand this basic principle but that's another rant for another time.

This is what bothers me on the Toronto story. The TTC has plans for various new transit projects while ignoring the existing service. Just about every other transit system in North America is the same way. Rather than make their operation efficient, they instantly put their hand out for more tax money and when they don't get it, they punish the ridership by raising fares and cutting service.

Politicians, activists of various causes and transit officials all want more people on board. When they get them, they aren't prepared for them. It doesn't take much to prepare either. Run an efficient operation and the ability to handle the crowds becomes easy. You don't need more money to handle an increase in ridership.

The answer most of the politicians, activists and transit officials see is to build expensive transit projects that benefit few and take away from the rest of the area's service to pay to run the project. Rarely do you see any of the above decide to make the system cost efficient and focusing on what they already have in place. As the above groups push harder to make driving more expensive by wanting to tax private car ownership to oblivion, they are also hurting the transit systems. By forcing unneeded transit projects to be built and sacrificing the rest of the operation to pay to run these projects, they ensure people keep finding new ways to keep driving, regardless of cost.

The TTC is also pointing the finger of blame at the monthly pass holders for its revenues dropping while ridership increases. What a load of BS that is. That makes absolutely no sense what so ever. Again, PAT in the 70's had just about every fare incentive you could think of to get riders on-board and it wasn't losing revenue doing it. The vast majority of the riders back then used some form of pre-paid discount fare instrument and fare revenues were increasing, not decreasing. PAT turned the worst fare days into the best with the Tuesday Special reduced fare for everyone during Tuesday off-peak. Using the TTC excuse, the PAT of the 70's should have been losing money faster than water going over Niagara Falls with the Tuesday Special. The TTC is just trying to justify a fare hike with the claim that monthly pass holders are costing it money.

Toronto is just one of many operations that are experiencing a rider surge. More will follow, some will totally screw it up *cough* PAT today *cough* while others will adapt and deal with it. Toronto seems to be trying hard to screw it up while at the same time trying to slip their hand into the tax till for more money.

Is PAT Really Trimming The Fat?

Pittsburgh PA - Allegheny County Councilman Matt Drozd (R) has spoken out that it is time for the PAT unions to give back like the management has in light of the fiscal crisis that PAT is currently in. Drozd doesn't address this however.

PAT has 19 jobs in upper management currently posted in-house and 15 currently posted on their web-site. The lowest salary is for $4,800 a month ($57,600 a year) with one going for $9,800 a month ($117,600 a year), not including benefits.

Considering that some of these positions can be merged together into one position and that the bulk of the positions would go for less in the private market, it tells me that PAT is still not being fiscally responsible.

Matt Drozd needs to mouth off about this issue but I doubt he will.

While I agree that the unions do need to make concessions, Drozd is letting management off the hook once again as they are trying to refill their ranks at a higher price than the private market in Pittsburgh offers. The fiscal crisis PAT finds itself is cannot be solved by a one-time theatrical act of cutting management staff and salaries while then silently going out to fill the vacancies at greater than market prices.

As I have mentioned before in various Laurels & Lances articles on PAT's financial woes, the agency has decades of waste built into the management philosophy. As one can see, that philosophy is still there. Many of those management positions need eliminated, merged with existing positions and salaries reduced to market levels consistent with the Western Pennsylvania area.

County Councilman Matt Drozd (R-Ross) earns himself a Lance for letting management off the hook on this situation while pounding the drums about the union needing to give back. While I do agree with him on that point, PAT's management still has a long way to go before they can even be remotely considered fiscally responsible.

Fare Free Transit - Does It Work?

Whidbey Island WA - The Seattle Post-Intellegencer had an article regarding fare free transit for Island Transit on Whidbey and Camano Islands in Washington. The article went into the benefits of providing a fare free system. It did list some of the cons as well however they were glossed over in my opinion.

With several cities as well as various transit activists pushing for this type of operation across North America, the article appeared as though it was commissioned.

Let's take a trip back in history first. In the early 1960's, the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) was a strong advocate of just such a scheme. In fact, it was tried in several cities for a very short time. Some cities, such as Cleveland, stopped the experiment within a few hours due to excessive crowds on the buses as well as fights and other rowdy behavior. The experiment was pushed by the ATU to "protect its drivers" from the hassle of fare disputes. The union became rather silent on the subject after the experiment.

Over the years, many cities implemented free fare zones in their downtown cores. This worked for the most part and was convenient for all, especially for systems like in Pittsburgh which has a zone fare structure that required paying first inbound and paying as you leave on the outbound.

Now to the present. Cities such as San Francisco and New York City as well as states like Connecticut are looking into such schemes again. The activists in these places hold up operations like Island Transit as well as Chapel Hill NC as the poster children. "It works there so it'll work here", they claim.

Wrong. What you will have is chaos in a larger city. Small towns can accomplish free transit rather easily. They don't have many of the problems that larger cities have with rowdy teens, homeless populations, crime, etc. In small scale applications, even in a large city, these factors can be controlled. On a large scale, these issues can't be easily controlled.

Many systems today already have many problems with disruptive people riding even with fares. Complaints are very common regarding the homeless that get free passes from other government agencies and then ride around panhandling on the buses and teens that get special discounted fares who ride around with nothing else they are willing to do besides cause problems on board. I could write a book on my experiences of riding buses and the majority of it would easily be filled with such incidents.

Then one must ask this. How will public transit in large cities make up the loss of millions of dollars in fare box revenues if they went free? Most cities can't afford the increased cost for transit as it is and to then throw out millions of dollars in income because they want to jump on a bandwagon which is being spearheaded by transit activists and Liberal politicians would simply create a situation that would cost everyone.

The activists and Liberal politicians would be having fits as service was slashed to cover the reduction of millions of dollars in fares. You know they have absolutely no plan to cover the loss of fares beside raising taxes on anything and everything. Much of that increased tax money wouldn't end up at the transit system anyway and we all know that.

The bulk of the various free transit plans being floated around currently are nothing but another example of Liberals once again refusing to look at what the results of their actions would be. They pop on their rose colored glasses and see a transit Utopia rather than the reality of further destroying public transit.

And don't think the transit activists and politicians would be silent once they push through a fare free system. They'll be whining about needing to add more buses to eliminate overcrowding from the people just riding around trip after trip after trip and causing problems. Don't push them off either or you'll be guaranteed to have other Liberal groups stepping in to fight and defend the rights of the people causing problems and keep them right where they are, on the bus causing problems.

The free transit bandwagon that is forming will attract even more willing participants. Like most things Liberal, it sounds good but has no basis in reality. It will further destroy public transit if instituted in a larger city simply because many of these same cities can't afford to run what they in place now.

Small operations like Island Transit work. There is no denying that currently. The problem comes if their subsidies suddenly change. If they lose a subsidy, they are screwed. Other taxes will go up to compensate of course but they aren't invulnerable to the rising cost of providing service, in fact they are more vulnerable to it since they have no quick patch to the problem.

Critics also point out fare collection costs. A valid point but in most cases, fare box revenues exceed collection costs by a good margin. The article shows this with the exception of Skagit Transit which is losing money on fares. One must then question why their collection costs are exceedingly high. I would bet they have padded payrolls and make-work rules in place.

The bottom line to all this is that fare free public transit in larger cities will not work. What it will do is further push people into their cars. It will also push people out of the cities and into the lesser taxed suburbs as taxes in cities go up to try and cover a fare free plan. In the end you'll be left with a shuttle service carrying those that can't afford to leave the area along with the troublemakers and panhandlers. It would be one more nail in the coffin for public transit brought to you by those that stand on their head and tell you that your are upside down.

Port Authority announces an additional 10% cut in service

Pittsburgh PA - Port Authority announced today its plan to eliminate 34 bus and rail routes, eliminate Saturday and/or Sunday service on 18 others and reduce service on 65 additional routes as part of a 10 percent service reduction scheduled to take effect September 2, 2007.

The service reduction was one of the assumptions in Port Authority’s Fiscal Year 2008 Operating Budget, which includes a $44.6 million deficit to be offset with funds previously designated for capital purposes.

The 10 percent service reduction, which will not only affect 117 of Port Authority’s 185 routes but also result in 174 layoffs and close the Harmar Division, will be rescinded if the State Legislature approves additional funding for Pennsylvania’s transit providers.

The timing of today’s announcement coincides with the notification of affected employees as required by the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act and the presentation of the September 2 service plan to Amalgamated Transit Union Local 85 and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 29 as required by their respective labor contracts.

The announcement of these measures comes three weeks after Port Authority instituted a 15 percent service reduction that eliminated 30 routes, reduced service on 104 weekday routes and resulted in 203 layoffs – the largest one-time service reduction in the Authority’s 43-year history.

"We remain hopeful that the transportation funding crisis in Pennsylvania will be addressed by the legislature, and we continue to work diligently toward achieving that goal," said Port Authority Chief Executive Officer Steve Bland. "But we must prepare our customers and our employees for the possibility that new funding will not be available.

"Should this service reduction go into effect in September, it will reduce transit options in Allegheny County to unthinkable levels. It will result in significant ridership losses, estimated to be at least 11 percent; it will devastate those customers who will be unable to get to or from work; and it will harm our local economy and further erode our competitiveness as a region."

Among the routes eliminated in this plan are 3L Creighton-Lower Burrell Express, 3M Tarentum-Natrona Express, 6C Spring Garden, 11C Perry Highway, 13B Babcock Express, 13G Thompson Run Express, 13J Franklin Park Express, 18C Bellevue-Union Avenue Express, 21B Kenmawr, 21D Kennedy, 29E Millers Run, 37A Mt. Lebanon-McFarland, 41C Cedar Boulevard, 42M Mt. Lebanon Short (rail), 42S Penn Park rail trips, 46H Pleasant Hills, 51D Churchview, 51E West Mifflin-Jefferson, 55D West Run-Brierly Lane, 55E Whitaker-West Mifflin, 60P Port Vue-Liberty, 63A North Braddock Express, 63B Rankin Express, 67E Greensburg Pike, 69A Forbes, 75A Monroeville Shopper, 75D Penn Hills-Monroeville, 77C Shadyside, 78E Penn Hills-East Vue Express, 79A Blackridge, 84B Oakland Loop, CO Coraopolis Flyer, E Elizabeth Flyer, G Greensburg Pike Flyer and T Trafford Flyer.

Routes with Saturday service eliminated include 24A Crafton-Presston, 36D Westwood, 46K Beltzhoover-Knoxville-Bon Air, 51B Spencer, 53F Homestead-Lincoln Place, 67F Trafford, 74A Homewood-Squirrel Hill, 94A Stanton Heights and LP Lincoln Park Flyer.

Routes with Sunday service eliminated include 1D Mt. Royal, 6A Troy Hill, 11E Fineview, 21F Presston-Kenmawr, 25A Robinson-Moon-Coraopolis, 35A South Park, 46K Beltzhoover-Knoxville-Bon Air, 56E Greenfield, 67F Trafford, 74A Homewood-Squirrel Hill, 75B Pitcairn-East McKeesport, 89A Garfield Heights, 94A Stanton Heights and LP Lincoln Park Flyer.

Port Authority continues to plan for a fare increase, its first in more than five years, to go into effect on January 1, 2008. Neither the fare structure nor the amount of the increase has yet been determined.

(Source: Port Authority of Allegheny County)

MARTA being pushed to waste money

Atlanta GA - Political and business leaders are pushing for MARTA to move from their current headquarters, built in 1987, to a run down section of town in the name of development.

Many MARTA board members are on board this idea even though MARTA will stand to lose millions of dollars. "A new MARTA office tower could act as an anchor to clean up the area", said the Rev. Walter Kimbrough, MARTA's board president. He then adds, "MARTA is in a position to provide leadership to that cause". Based on what Rev. Kimbrough?

This whole plan comes on the heels of ideas to revitalize the Five Points area of Atlanta. While MARTA is struggling both operationally and financially, the idea that public transit magically spurs massive development rears its ugly head once again. The area already has a major rail transit hub which didn't save the neighborhood. I just can't grasp how MARTA wasting millions of dollars to move its headquarters to Five Points will suddenly turn things around.

Central Atlanta Progress (CAP), the Atlanta business group which is actually an activist group for Atlanta businesses, is pushing hard for this as are the local politicians. They all fail to comprehend the cost to the transit system which is having many problems. They are looking though rose colored glasses and seeing a massive revitalization if MARTA moves to Five Points. My alarms go off whenever I see the word Progress in a group's name. 99% of the time it turns out to be a left-wing group and their push for this plan told me all I need to know about CAP.

What these groups and individuals don't (and won't) tell you is that all this revitalization that they see in their vision comes at a huge price to the taxpayers. Besides the millions that MARTA will have to shell out to rehabilitate a building to move into, the other development will only occur after billions of dollars of taxpayer money are sunk into sweetheart deals for developers. Hell, they could do that now without making MARTA move but that's too easy.

This situation shows how ignorant the MARTA Board of Directors, politicians and activist groups really are. Transit everywhere is having major problems and these boneheads want to compound the problem because they have a Utopian vision of tree lined streets and a waiting list for all the people that will want to come to Five Points if they can just get MARTA to move its headquarters there.

The MARTA Board of Directors, Central Atlanta Progress as well as the various politicians supporting this unneeded plan to further compound the problems for MARTA each earn a Lance.

MARTA to review operations

Atlanta GA - After 25 years, the Metropolitan Atlanta Regional Transit Authority (MARTA) has decided to do an in-depth look at their bus and rail operations. From routings to just about everything else that it takes to provide service is going to be looked at. MARTA hopes to retool its operations to meet current times starting with a $1.8 billion dollar study.

While reviewing operations is something all systems need to do, such an undertaking should have been happening all along. This situation is all too common in the transit industry and has been a major complaint of mine for decades. Every few years at least, operations should be looked at to ensure things are running smoothly. By waiting 25 years or more, as some systems have done, your talking an expensive undertaking that can result in dramatic changes rather than gradual changes.

$1.8 billion dollars isn't chump change, even in government circles. Much of what is to be studied could have easily been done cheaper in-house if it had been done on a regular and timely basis over the past 25 years. It does often take an outsider to point out the flaws in an operation however and even if studies were done every few years by a consultant, it would end up being cheaper than having to do it when the system is in crisis.

"The system's unwieldy tangle of bus routes — some still following the paths of old trolley lines — is difficult for even longtime Atlantans to grasp." A common theme among many systems that insisted on hanging onto historical routings rather than move them to meet the changing demographics of an area. This single issue alone, if corrected, could greatly increase the efficiency and effectiveness of transit service.

Then there is the other common plague of many cities, rail maintenance that has been deferred over the years due to the excessive cost, inherent in any rail operation, has come back to haunt the operation. You can call for better maintenance in the rail operations however, that money has to come from somewhere and public transit budgets are already stretched to the breaking point, MARTA included.

While MARTA should get a Lance for spending $1.8 billion dollars on a one-time study that should have been occurring on a regular basis, I'll award them a Laurel for actually waking up and realizing their transit system is in trouble, needs fixed and starting the long overdue process.

Transit Oriented Development a flop?

Los Angeles CA - Transit systems and cities spend billions of taxpayer dollars on real estate development. They cite the mantra that Transit Oriented Development (TOD) will encourage transit use, allow for development of decaying neighborhoods and bring in more than is spent. That doesn't appear to be happening and finally there is something being said about it.

In Los Angeles, the LA Times did a review of Los Angeles area TOD projects over the past several months. The conclusion was that most who live in TOD projects don't use public transit for a variety of reasons. I can't locate the main story but found the LA Times blog site which has some of this information. It may be information on an upcoming story but the fact remains, most TOD residents weren't using transit.

This is something I have long known anyway so it came as no surprise to me. What did surprise me was the indication of how many shunned transit even though TOD is supposed to be designed to encourage transit use.

With many transit systems focusing more and more on TOD, entire departments are being set up to plan, design and administer such developments. This is taking money away from where it needs to be which is service. SamTrans has designed an entire TOD community at taxpayer expense while at the same time complaining it needs more money to run service.

TOD is fickle. Many TOD projects are failing, not just in attracting ridership but in the whole concept. The build it and they will come philosophy just doesn't work. Costs are much higher than standard development and generally are in higher tax districts. The residents being attracted to these developments tend to be more affluent and far less likely to ride public transit yet billions are being pumped into various TOD projects across the nation. In addition, the real estate bubble is at the point it will burst soon and prices will bottom out leaving the taxpayer holding the bag.

In many ways, TOD it is just another excuse for the politicians can pick the taxpayer's pocket. It also isn't helping public transit as money that can be and should be used for providing decent service is being diverted to real estate development.

While some of the projects have worked, many more haven't even come close to living up to the promises made. With the fact that the vast majority of TOD's are done using taxpayer money, either directly or through sweetheart deals, the taxpayers need to put a stop to the waste.

The urbanization activists that push for TOD are as bad as the pro-rail crowd for spinning the truth. Much of their banter is based on half-truths, misinformation and outright lies all spun to create yet another Utopian vision of perfection that the spendthrift politicians and government bureaucrats bite on.

I am glad to see something finally that gives the opposite viewpoint to what has become an accepted consensus. TOD isn't the Utopian vision that will bring throngs of people onto the transit system and make the area a wonderful place to live.

PAT's coach shortage is of its own making

Pittsburgh PA - The Port Authority of Allegheny County (PAT) is still experiencing coach shortages, even after a 15% reduction in service, which is adversely affecting service. Often routes run late because buses are not available for the driver and they need to wait until a bus returns to the garage from another run.

Now in PAT's infinite wisdom, they are retiring many buses that run just fine. At one garage, 8 of these buses sit with orders not to run them.  Even when drivers are standing around waiting for a bus so they can get their run started, those buses are officially off limits for service (although one or two may sneak out). It's much the same story at other PAT garages as well.

PAT has a long history of coach shortages. What is infuriating is that they usually are shoving running buses out the back door to be scrapped while they whine about not being able to meet service.

There have been various reasons over the years as to why PAT has had coach shortages. This time it's mostly because the newer buses are laid up with trivial problems as well as problems from advancing technologies that just aren't ready for prime time.

While PAT is crying the blues for more funding, cutting service and raising fares, they are also driving off riders by the late buses. Due to the coach shortage, it is a sin that PAT is disposing of buses that run and not allowing some to be run when they don't have enough operable buses to meet the service.

It is just one more thing that shows how out of touch PAT management is. If I ran the show, I wouldn't be disposing of operable buses when there aren't enough buses to meet service. All PAT is achieving by doing so is to further alienate the ridership and helping to keep public transit in the downward spiral in Pittsburgh.

This is not something PAT wants to be known and is rarely on the news. The information comes from various PAT employees. It is information that needs to be known by the ridership.

Short takes

These are just a few stories that I have comments about but don't warrant a full article.

Norfolk VA - I'd love to know how much it actually cost to choose a name for Norfolk's proposed LRT system.

NYC NY - Mayor Bloomberg not only wants to tax people coming into the city, he's going to tax them to leave the city as well. Talk about wanting to make your city visitor unfreindly. All it will do is raise costs for everyone and won't reduce congestion one bit.

San Francisco CA - Clueless Mayor Gavin Newsom, the same one that wants to make MUNI a fare free system and won't increase funding to cover the fare loss, was beseiged at a meeting where he hoped to plug his Central Subway Plan. Instead he fielded complaints about MUNI's problems. Newsom is the last person I'd trust to solve MUNI's problems as he's been out to make more problems for them.

Washington DC - APTA's press release about how 48% of the people want to take public transit when visiting another city has more spin than an amusement park ride. Even though the poll results had environmentalism low on the list, the rest of the press release goes into the long failed marketing effort of pushing transit as the environmental choice. The vast majority of people riding transit don't give a rat's rear end about "green" choices, they just want to get where they're going.

Reforming Pennsylvania's Public Transit Systems

Pittsburgh PA - In an editorial out of The Valley Independent, a rallying cry for the privatization and free market competition in the reform of public transit is once again heard. While the editorial has some valid points, it misses the mark.

The paper correctly points out what other "reformers" are doing which is throwing good money after bad while not actually solving the core problem of why public transit is in a crisis. The problem I have with the editorial is that they are too busy pointing fingers at the union and laying the whole problem on them while ignoring the administration as well as the multitude of other issues that have helped price transit out of the market.

The problem public transit faces today just isn't the union, as the paper will have you believe, it is a whole cadre of issues. Wages, benefits, mis-management, inefficient operations, rising costs outside of the control of the system, etc. While the union definitely plays a role in the wasteful practices, the waste in some of the transit administrations across the country can make a generous union contract look like Ebenezer Scrooge wrote it.

The call for privatization that the paper wants is based on information that is more or less cherry picked. Denver's private operations, for example, have more than its fair share of problems and the costs continue to climb. Rider complaints are much higher on the privatized service than on the agency run service. You won't hear any of this mentioned however. It is detrimental to the cause of privatization and Denver's problems have recently received national press so that city, once the poster child for the privatization movement, was completely ignored.

In Pittsburgh, privatized maintenance on specialized transit vehicles known as Small Transit Vehicles (STV's) resulted in massive over billing for services by the contractor, many times for services which were never performed. The same will happen with contracted service. Money that should be used for service will also end up paying lawyers to settle the multitude of disputes that will arise between the overseeing transit authority and the contractor.

I also find it funny that the editorial doesn't mention the Westmoreland County Transit Authority (WCTA) which is right next door to Pittsburgh and the same editorial staff also writes for a paper in Westmoreland County. The WCTA contracts out services to private carriers just like the editorial writer wants. The reason they don't mention this system is that the WCTA has had many problems with its contracted services. From complaints, lack of maintenance, many missed trips, disputes between the WCTA and the contractors, etc., the system isn't the Utopian model that the privatization crowd wants you to see.

Privatization isn't the answer. Public transit is incapable in today's market to succeed without subsidies and the wasteful bureaucracy that is in place now will still be there overseeing the contracted service. Even in the golden age of transit in the 40's and 50's where private operators ruled, transit operations often were in and out of receivership multiple times and some just outright folded.

The cost to provide service today is even greater. With EPA and ADA regulations that cost systems millions of dollars to comply with as well as the new burden of security, the cost of providing service is going through the roof and it doesn't matter if the service is contracted or not, it won't contain the costs.

The reform that is needed is to eliminate the wasteful internal practices, reduce and even eliminate much of the politics that have come to drive transit systems these days (i.e. politically motivated routes that haul few), get transit systems out of the real estate development market, stop building new transit projects, chain up the marketing department and stop letting them literally run the operation, and concentrate on the basics of providing service. It is possible to run efficient operations even under a government agency and PAT did just that in the 1970's with a massive route expansion that was funded through streamlining the entire operation to make it efficient.

I totally agree with the premise that changes must occur. The status quo can't be allowed to continue. I just can't justify the position of the editorial however. Trading one set of expensive problems for a new set of expensive problems isn't a good idea and won't benefit the public that depends on transit service.