More Money = Better Service

Hartford CT - From The Advocate paper, a story regarding a coalition of transit operators as well as business and environmental agencies who have formed a group called Transit for Connecticut. The Transit for Connecticut group is doing am 8 week, $50,000 study on ways to increase service and the costs involved.

The group is seeking to have transit subsidies increased so that bus service can be increased. Over the years, the subsidies have remained stagnant while costs have increased which has led to many service cuts.

While it's laudable for wanting to increase service, I certainly hope the group looks at the waste occurring in what service is currently running as well as waste that occurs within the administration.

Simply giving more money to public transit if the operations are loaded with waste is not the answer to improve service. Pittsburgh is a prime example of what can happen when you simply pump more money into an operation that has massive internal waste. For over a decade, the more money you gave them, the more new ways to waste it were found by the spendthrift administration.

I have not run across a transit system serving a medium to large city yet that is not loaded with internal waste. Waste that costs millions each year that, if eliminated, could go towards increasing service where it's needed.

In my opinion, simply doing a study that says "we need more bus service and this is what it will cost you" is not exactly the type of study needed. What is needed is a study that examines existing service and the administration and operating areas looking for ways to trim costs first. Once that is done, then you present the cause for more service.

Sadly, most transit advocates don't want to look at the internal waste that is helping to keep service from expanding. As the advocacy group in Pittsburgh as well as many others across the country show me, they are more interested in just getting more money tossed at the service while burying their head in the sand over the bleeding of money from inefficient operations and management of the transit system they want so badly.

The other aspect they seem to be shooting for isn't so much about the fact that transit can save people money but instead are pulling out the environmentalist card which has failed just about every time it's been tried. The fact of the matter is that you could double the transit fleet, have it all powered by electricity and the impact would still be negligible on the environment. Transit for the wrong reason, such as environmentalism, is more costly and wasteful than a well planned operation that focuses on moving people from where they are to where they want to go.

While I hope the Transit for Connecticut group succeeds in obtaining additional funding, they'll be in the same position in a few years from now if they don't address the internal waste which will only drain off that money.

Take the bus to the mall? Maybe.

Waterford CT - A news story from the theday.com web site brings up a problem that many transit systems face, bringing transit service to shopping centers.

In Waterford, Southeast Area Transit (SEAT) has been attempting to serve the Waterford Commons shopping complex. The problem is the owners of Waterford Commons are concerned over liability issues of having buses running on their property.

SEAT seems confused over what Waterford Commons means by liability issues but from the story, it appears clear that they are referring to having the buses destroy the pavement. A common occurrence at malls and shopping centers which aren't designed for having a steady flow of heavy vehicles.

This brings up an important point. Why aren't shopping centers, malls and other such development built with transit service in mind?

Many zoning regulations don't have any mention of public transit access so developers aren't required to build to accommodate transit so the owners ignore it. While I'm not a fan of adding new regulations to the already over regulated businesses, zoning regulations for large shopping developments should include public transit access.

Many shopping developments across the country do encourage transit service and even go beyond zoning regulations to ensure transit ridership can patronize the businesses within the development. By working with the transit system, the owners of these developments can easily allow access for buses without having problems.

If buses are causing problems with pavement deterioration, the transit system needs to pony up the money to repair it. If there are other issues related to public transit at the development, then action should be taken by both sides to solve the problem before pulling service.

Another part of the problem is that owners of some developments are scared of the long standing belief that public transit will bring the "wrong element" to their property. This is more of the primary driver in the move by some shopping complex owners in keeping transit out. While this belief may have some truth behind it, other evidence suggests that the problems the owners fear would have occurred whether transit was there or not.

Many people are dependent on public transit to shop. Businesses generally don't want to turn away any potential customers so it seems odd that the owners of some of these complexes try to make it harder on the public, as well as the businesses that pay to be in those complexes, by making it difficult for them.

The bottom line is that owners of malls, shopping centers and other large business developments that depend on the public showing up should work with the local transit system to allow transit service to their complexes. By ignoring transit, the owners of these complexes are not only hurting the public but the businesses that lease space at their complexes.