Audit on PAT offers no surprises

Pittsburgh PA - A county audit ordered by Allegheny County Chief Executive Dan Onorato showed no surprises when it came to the Port Authority of Allegheny County's (PAT) fiscal picture. Waste and inefficiency in the transit system are still present and the previous administration spent money like a drunken sailor that just came in from months at sea.

The Allegheny County Controller, Mark Patrick Flaherty, also compared PAT to 11 other comparable transit systems and PAT. While the names of the systems weren't released (I am trying to find out), PAT finished up at the bottom in most all of the categories.

Flaherty traced some of the agency's current financial woes to its "Ride Gold" program, which the authority retired in 2006. I have been saying that since the inception of the program in 1999. Former PAT head, Paul "Captain Scuttles" Skoutelas and his marketing guru Smilin' Deb followed the golden Liberal rule when the marketing program initially bombed. That rule was to just throw good money after bad and they did just that by ramping up the marketing campaign and pumping millions more into it even though it was a proven failure.

While PAT has been saddled with many long term costs over the years, waste and inefficient operations have become ingrained into the culture of the system. That is quickly draining the money needed to run service. Many things that PAT management feels are mandatory to do the job really are luxuries that can be done away with. They have management positions in place which literally were created to give someone a title along with additional perks.

The geography of the area also helps to increase costs. In order to service the various communities along a major corridor, you literally need multiple routes that converge once they begin funneling themselves into the city through the ever narrowing geographical corridors. Other cities don't have this issue but the cure many are suggesting is to turn PAT's operation into a mirror of what other cities run. That won't work well here and fails every time it has been tried.

Current PAT CEO, Steve Bland, is working on trying to eliminate some of the waste but has often focused on the wrong things. Cutting service and hiking fares isn't the way to do it. What is needed it so overhaul the administration, lay down new work rules for any new employee that is hired so that they aren't covered by the current contracts that are bleeding PAT dry but a newer contract that is more fiscally responsible as well as going back to the basics of providing service.

While Steve Bland feels the critical audit report shows PAT is on the right track now, he's wrong. Flaherty stated cutting service should be the last thing to be done yet that was among the first things Mr. Bland did. What Bland has done is help set PAT up to continue the downward trend by hacking 15% of the service before cleaning up the management's wasteful ways.

A job interview I went on once many years ago at PAT said it all. I will remember these words until the day I die. "You know too much about how transit should be run. We need someone that doesn't understand so they can be trained to do it our way".

Another flawed rail study?

Charlotte NC - Critics of Charlotte's light rail line charge that a study done by the University of North Carolina at Charlotte (UNCC) and commissioned by the Charlotte Chamber of Commerce is skewed to favor rail. The report, used to bolster public support for a controversial tax, has critics of Charlotte's rail operation and tax to support it questioning the fairness as well as the accuracy of it.

Questions surrounding the study and report center around the fact that it was commissioned by a group favorable to the rail plan and tax. Records indicate that the President of the Chamber of Commerce, Bob Morgan, may have influenced how the rail study was handled by the UNCC.

The UNCC is investigating the matter but it's like in Washington DC when politicians police their own members. They won't find much that they did wrong. Even if researchers purposely ignored certain facts, the study was more than likely handled properly within the realm of the UNCC policy.

The policy prohibits "serious deviation" from commonly accepted research practices, including fabrication, falsification or plagiarism. Even ignoring key data and cherry picking the results would not fall within the grasp of the policy. Only making up their own data in lieu of gathering the data properly, deliberately changing results or stealing results from another source would violate the policy. I don't believe that happened here.

What I believe may have happened was that key data was ignored and not even looked at as well as results being cherry-picked to create at report that the people, who commissioned the report, wanted to see. The UNCC did nothing wrong beside possibly not looking at all information and not including information that didn't meet the study criteria. Research is like statistics, data can be viewed and even ignored in a variety of ways while not violating any ethics policy.

This isn't the first time such a thing happened. Studies generally tend to slant toward the views of whoever commissioned the study, regardless of who does the study. This is why I tend to question all the various studies that are being waved around by various groups and government agencies. The studies to believe lean more toward those studies that end up being buried by the groups that commissioned them as it doesn't say what they want it to say.

Personally speaking, the various studies being done for anything and everything these days aren't worth the paper they are printed on. Few produced are done without being commissioned by some group that is paying for the study to be done and setting the study criteria. Of course the Charlotte Chamber of Commerce will get a report favorable to their position when they are the ones setting the criteria of the study. I would bet that if the rail critics commissioned a study and set the criteria, they'd get one that supports their views.

Using commissioned studies to sway popular opinion has become a big business these days. Few are accurate and even fewer are non-biased. While the UNCC study will hold up to the internal investigation since it most likely didn't violate any internal policy, it is still a highly questionable report given the fact that it was a commissioned study which had the study criteria set by the group paying for it.

Someone woke up to the RTD FasTracks boondoggle

Avarda CO - Denver suburbanites are beginning to take notice that the RTD's FasTracks program was over-hyped, full of lies and is costing them plenty. An opinion piece in the Mile High News by Tom Graham expresses many of the concerns that I have long held about rail and many other public transit projects.

Graham appeared to be a supporter of the FasTracks project to place new rail lines in the suburbs that would connect to Denver. Today he calls it a boondoggle. Why the change? The Utopian facade of rail is starting to fall apart with rapidly escalating costs, promises that weren't fulfilled, total lies and plans to take even more money from the residents to pay for it all.

RTD planners originally touted the project as a relief to the mounting traffic congestion in the Denver area. I could have told Mr. Graham from day one that reason was just spin to garner support by the traffic weary residents. There isn't one study, that anyone can produce, which shows rail will have a significant effect on the reduction of traffic. In most cases it is just the opposite and traffic congestion increases after a rail line opens for passenger traffic.

As Graham feels his wallet getting lighter by the minute, he has woken up to the fact that rail isn't the answer for Denver, or for many areas for that matter. He states that Avarda residents are already paying $2,600 each per year and not even one train is running. He fully expects that amount to increase and I agree.

He then complains that what is happening isn't what the people voted for. Again, I have to agree but also add this; What did he expect to happen when government is involved? What the voter wants rarely coincides with what they actually end up with. The Utopian vision painted by the supporters makes it easy to say "I want that" and cast a vote in favor of the plan. The reality is that what is presented is just spin. The ballot initiatives are written to encourage a yes vote as well.

Reality is like a slap in the face with a dead fish but the voters in Avarda and other Denver communities got exactly what they voted for because they didn't do their homework and find out more. Just listening to the RTD, politician and activist spin without bothering to take the time to look at the opposite side of the issue just played right into their hands. It's exactly what they were counting on.

Tom Graham has nailed the situation in the Denver area pretty good. It's just too bad he didn't see the light before now since it's too late to do anything about it. It's an expensive lesson that too many people learn after its too late simply because they believe the Utopian spin that rail is the Saviour and everything will be fine once a rail line is slapped down.

PAT gets funding with strings attached

Pittsburgh PA - Pennsylvania lawmakers finally approved a budget which includes dedicated transit funding for the state's transit systems but there is a string attached. To get the funding, local government will need to put up matching funding.

In Allegheny County, the state is going to allow Allegheny County officials to impose up to a 10 percent poured drinks tax as well as a $2 per day tax on rental cars. In other words, the state politicians passed the buck to the locals.

Now, to Allegheny County Chief Executive Director Dan Onorato's (D) credit, he stated that he would not impose the new taxes until the Port Authority gets its union and management costs down more. Yet another string on the funding. Given Onorato's desire to implement the original and poorly conceived PAT hack & slash plan which left large sections of the county without any transit service, I really believe he will hold to what he is stating.

The Port Authority has a long way to go to trim costs. The union is willing to reopen the contract for negotiations however they will fight against any major concessions. Management is busy doing a smoke and mirror act with many of its costs.

There are some problems with the new funding plan for Allegheny County also. Primarily is that it is yet another "sin" tax. A poured drink tax is a targeted tax aimed at a select group of people, most of whom will have no problem taking their business across county lines. These types of "sin" taxes have proven to generate far less than projected in addition to chasing away money to other areas that are more money friendly.

Secondly, the string attached to the so-called dedicated funding by the state politicians is designed strictly to take the focus off of them the next time there is a funding crunch and place it on the local politicians. The state also must budget and tax the residents for the maximum amount of the funding even if it isn't used. Unused money from one year won't be carried over to the next year in the budget either.

Each year the state politicians will still have to do exactly as they have been doing since 1964 and budget the money. In effect, all the state politicians have done is to increase the red tape and bureaucracy since they now require the local government to tax and match to get the funding. I didn't expect anything less from the state politicians.

How I see this going down is as follows in Pittsburgh. The county will impose a small portion of the tax, around 2-4%. Some of the revenue generated will go to get matching funds but not all of it. PAT's management and union will not bring costs down much more than they already have which will keep the county from providing the full amount of money to get the state's matching funds. Probably around half of the poured drink tax revenue will be skimmed off for other county needs even though it was implemented as a transit tax. While all this is going on, each year the state politicians will find new reasons to reduce the state funding pot. In other words, nothing really will change except for more taxes and more bureaucratic red tape.

PAT, SEPTA and the other state transit agencies are breathing a huge sigh of relief over the new state budget but they aren't out of the woods with the new policy on transit funding that was passed by the state politicians. Some may squeak out a few years before being in the same position they are in now. Others may be lucky if they can make it to next year before crying about being out of money again.

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.