The push is on for streetcars in Tacoma

Tacoma WA - The push is on once again for streetcars to ply the streets in Tacoma. The Tacoma Daily Index has a story on one of the activists pushing to saddle the city and its taxpayers with the expensive toy. Now that the city is once again considering the plan, the activists are coming out of the woodwork.

Tacoma resident (at least he's a current resident unlike the Kansas City meddler) Morgan Alexander has been leading the charge at the grassroots level to bring back streetcar. The article on him stood out to me based on a quote from Alexander which was: "I guess it's just one of those ideas you either get right away, or you don't get at all."

Based on the rhetoric Alexander uses for his support of bringing streetcars back, I don't think he gets it.

Alexander of course uses the standard boilerplate argument that developers will flock to Tacoma. What Alexander won't tell you is that it can take decades to get developers in and then the vast majority will only come after hundreds of millions in tax concessions and other taxpayer funded sweetheart deals are offered up.

The line is clearly being considered strictly for development with transportation secondary. Alexander so much as states this in the last part of the article. "The advantage of a streetcar over a bus is that it's a real visible, physical improvement and investment in the city that developers will build around. Plus, they are just fun. I think it's key for the City of Tacoma because there's really not a lot the city can do to really impact economic development itself. The current model is to have developers and business owners do it. I think it's a great way for the City itself to build a community, and the system be a visible outgrowth of the city's spirit."

Alexander also won't tell you that the local transit system, the Spokane Transit Authority, will suffer. Where does he think some of the funding to run the streetcar will come from? That's right, a swap of funds from the STA to the city or non-profit entity set up by the city to run the operation. More than likely, the STA will be stuck running it while the city coughs up only a small portion of the true operational costs. That ultimately translates to fare hikes and route cuts down the road.

The STA is a rather well run system and I even honored them with the MOD Award on January 12, 2007 for their back to basics approach to public transit. Tossing in a streetcar will throw that agency into a tail spin. Even though the STA is well run, they still are on a precarious perch financially and don't need a fiscal black hole sucking down the money needed to run the entire bus system.

His explanation of how this streetcar line will be financed is confusing to say the least. It does involve the "tax everything" philosophy however. While he admits that the private sector must be involved in helping to finance the building of the line, he doesn't relate the fact that it will be hard to obtain the private funding and that offsetting taxpayer funded tax incentives to the private entity will need to be done.

Of course, the obligatory trip to the Holy See of the streetcar movement, Portland Oregon, was done and the city tossed up as an example of how great Tacoma could be if they only listen and build the streetcar line. Again, Alexander fails to state how many billions of dollars Portland truly spent on their rail lines through making taxpayer funded sweetheart deals that will cost taxpayers for decades to come.

Alexander also goes on about how much public support there is for a streetcar line in Tacoma. Of course there is. When the question is worded in such a manner that it paints the streetcar as the saviour of the city, people will say they support it. I've seen the same thing in Pittsburgh. The North Shore Connector, when originally brought up, was widely supported by the general public in various polls until the cost of the project was discovered in addition to the fare hikes and service cuts. People then realized that the system couldn't afford it but it was too late to stop the project.

While I am the first to admit that a streetcar is nice, I also realize that it is expensive and doesn't do what proponents such as Alexander claim it will do. What Alexander is doing is literally akin to the old snake-oil salesman of the past. Selling a product based on totally false claims. Development, solving traffic problems, cleaning the air, etc. are all dubious claims that are routinely used to promote rail.

Tacoma really needs to rethink the streetcar plan. It won't do what they think it will and will ultimately end up making the city much more expensive to live in due to all the increased taxes that will either directly or indirectly be needed to pay for the building and operation of a rail line that really isn't needed. For once at least I can't use the argument that they need to fix what they have in terms of the STA since that agency is one of the shining stars in the otherwise bleak cosmos of public transit these days but they still don't need the fiscal black hole known as a streetcar.

More on the free ride problem at PAT

Pittsburgh PA - In reference to a Laurels and Lances article I put up earlier in the week, I was informed yesterday that the free fares at Pitt and CMU are not only for the students but any university employee. Janitors, secretaries, professors, etc. This makes the situation much worse than it was previously reported as these two universities are major employers in the Pittsburgh area.

Thousands of people are employed between just those two institutions alone and makes the fact that PAT must absorb 80% of their travel even more critical to deal with. It's one thing if it was just student travel but the situation in Pittsburgh is totally unacceptable. PAT can't continue absorbing this cost and if these universities want their employees to have free rides, they better start coughing up the cash to pay for it.

The University of Pittsburgh has been whining the most about how much it has to pay now to PAT for the free ride program and has been angling to pay less. The simple fact here is that PAT can't afford to subsidize Pitt's program, especially at 80% subsidization, just so Pitt can use the program to help lure in students as well as employees.

I'm not against free transport for employees and students at a university but I am against providing it when the university doesn't want to pay the full freight for it. The college and/or university is the one that benefits from such an arrangement, not the transit system. The supporters of the program claim it will encourage transit use which is true but on the flip side, it is also helping to bankrupt the transit system so that all the encouraged use will be for nothing.

Pitt, CMU and other institutions and businesses that have such plans need to pay for it. The transit system can't continue to afford subsidizing these free rides to the tune of 80% of the cost of each rider, as is the case at PAT and the Pitt/CMU arrangement.

As mentioned in the earlier article, PAT isn't innocent in this mess. They failed to charge enough on the first contract so the precedent is set price wise. The universities have been balking at the cost from day one and want to pay less but they really need to be quadrupling their payment for the free transit perk for their students and employees. PAT officials, trying to help encourage transit use as well as polish its image, were too eager to acquiesce to demands for smaller contract fees initially.

What I see happening in Pittsburgh is that PAT will get the universities to pay a bit more but nowhere close to the amount required. If PAT is lucky, they'll end up subsidizing each ride to the tune of 65% to 70% rather than the 80% they currently do. PAT is painted into a corner on this one.

If PAT were to not re-up the contract where it continues to heavily subsidize the free rides, students would be protesting on the street over the callousness of PAT's actions while being urged on by the university. University officials would be sending out press releases blasting the decision and claiming PAT is turning away riders and trying to make the cost of education even more expensive. The Liberal leaning Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (who totally ignored this story by the way) and campus newspapers would be blasting PAT from all sides in both news stories as well as in editorials. Few would hear PAT's side under the din of protest which is that PAT is losing tens of millions of dollars subsidizing a free ride service that the universities should be subsidizing since they are the ones that want it.

Even if PAT ends up getting a bit more money, universities will lambaste PAT by increasing tuition under the excuse of having to pay PAT their blood money. It's a public relations nightmare PAT faces in addition to the fiscal problems they already have. As I have long said, "once the government giveth, it can't taketh away easily". PAT is basically in a lose-lose situation over this while the universities hold the trump card.

There's Snow Worries at OCTranspo

Ottawa ON - After a mess in 2005 with heavy snows stranding many buses, OCTranspo has been looking for snow tires to place on the buses. To date, they haven't found any.

What happened in that city, especially with the articulated buses, happens everywhere there is snow. Ottawa is acting like this is the first time ever that buses had problems in the snow. Here are a few options.

In Pittsburgh, with it's hills and every type of weather imaginable, they used sanders for decades to help buses get around in the snow. With the advent of low floor buses, sanders can't be used any longer as there is no place for the sand hoppers and sander apparatus. Chains are also an option but only for a short period as they break and can chew up the wheel wells of the buses.

One other option OCTranspo might look into is keeping a decent set of tires on their buses rather than baloney skins. A set of tires that actually have some tread can do wonders for getting a bus moving in bad weather. These tires aren't called snow tires but regular tires that aren't worn out.

Given some of the problems OCTranspo has during winter with its buses, it really makes me question the quality of the tires they use as well as even question if the drivers know how to drive in the snow. Again, in Pittsburgh, buses traverse hills in snow on a routine basis without special snow tires. They do this by having a decent set of regular tires as well as drivers that know how to drive in the snow.

As far as articulated buses go, of course they will have more problems in snow, especially those articulated buses that use a pusher turntable with the engine in the rear. The answer there not to send them out on routes that aren't clear in bad weather. OCTranspo is expecting the articulated buses to behave exactly as a standard bus and that's like expecting an 18-wheeler to behave exactly like a small Chevy S-10 pickup.

Then there is ice. The ice that forms under the snow on the road surface. No snow tire will help there unless they are studded. Studded tires are much more noisy than regular snow tires which are noisier than regular tires. If I recall, in the 2005 fiasco in Ottawa, there was plenty of ice in addition to the deep snow.

OCTranspo really needs to refocus its efforts from trying to find a new way to spend money by getting snow tires to making sure the tires that are on the buses to start with are good, drivers are trained properly and the city gets out and plows and salts the roads. Snow tires wouldn't have helped very much at all with the 2005 mess and chances are they won't really help much in the future. In heavy snows, few things move and buses are one of the things that usually don't move except on snow routes that are primary roads that get attention first.

Discounted fares and the transit funding deficit

Pittsburgh PA - It's been a while since I had the available time to comment on various activities that effect the transit industry. When I came across this story regarding how discounted fares are effecting my local system, I made a little time to say something on it.

The primary issue in many of the reduced fares in every transit system is that it fails to generate revenue. Say that again RDC? OK, in simple terms, reduced fares should actually increase the bottom line. That's why stores have sales. It generates additional money. In transit circles, those sales are in the form of reduced fares. Some reduced fares have become unfunded mandates such as those dealing with disabled and senior fares and lose money since they are dictated price controls. Others, such as monthly passes actually do generate more income in the long run than not having them since more people buy them and that helps cement the use of transit so they can get their money's worth out of the pass.

The big issue in Pittsburgh however are the student fares for college students. Colleges and universities are contracting with the Port Authority (PAT) to provide free transportation for the students. That sounds fine and dandy until you realize that the colleges and universities aren't willing to pay anything except a small fraction of the actual cost of providing the transit service for their students.

What wasn't covered in this story is that the local Pittsburgh colleges and universities are whining and complaining about the proposed cost increase to provide free transit service for their students. They don't want to pay more and actually want to pay even less. This situation has been going on for a few years now in Pittsburgh but is coming to a head finally due to PAT's finances.

Part of the problem with providing college students free rides lies with PAT in failing to initially charge the colleges and universities a realistic rate. Now that the low price to these institutions has become precedent, they are balking at a proposed increase in the contract price. At the same time however, it is not PAT's responsibility to absorb 80% of the college student's transportation costs just so the college or university can use free transit as a selling point to get more students to attend their institution.

To be honest, I think the college students should be paying just as I have to pay. I'm tired of hearing about the "poor college student" who has little money but still has enough of money to go out to bars and clubs to party when not in class. I'm also tired of hearing many of the college students claim that free transit to students is a "right". I brought this subject up once several years ago on another forum and was bombarded with e-mails from college students trying to make the case that free transit for college students was a right under the US Constitution. Ah, that entitlement mentality brought to you by the Liberals and preached in the pathetic public school system rears its ugly head once again.

If these colleges and universities want to provide free transit for their students then they need to start coughing up the money to pay for it. Yes, educational costs are high but so is the price to provide transit service. It is not the transit system's responsibility to absorb the the bulk of the cost of providing student transportation (80% in PAT's case), it is the colleges and universities that need to absorb that cost since they are the ones that want and benefit from it.

The bottom line here is that between the mandated discount/free fares and the student transportation free ride, transit systems across the country are taking a big hit that they can't afford. In PAT's case, a hit of $30 million which is the vast bulk of the deficit. Colleges and universities need to cough up the money if they want the free ride for their students to continue. As the cost to provide transit service continues to climb, transit systems can't afford the luxury of providing free service just so the colleges and universities can use the perk to help boost their enrollment.

Routes should serve public, not politicians

San Jose CA - In an editorial from The Mercury News, editors have said things I have been saying for years: Transit service should serve the public, not politicians.

The writers of the editorial appear somewhat surprised that transit service today is political. Sadly, that is exactly what it has become and one reason I have spoken out often about taking the politics out of transit. The political issues with transit have done little except to increase the cost of providing service and have done much to push transit systems to the wall.

From being forced to hang onto routes that haul few because of political threats to the countless bad decisions made based strictly on political pandering, public transit today is a mess.

In this situation, the editorial is based on the plan that the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) came up with to change many routes to better serve the public. The VTA Board of Directors wishes to play politics instead and have been reluctant to approve the plan. Why? The VTA route restructuring plan would eliminate many of the political routes that few people ride but politicians just have to have.

It's time to stop the political pandering to brain dead politicians that wouldn't be caught dead riding a bus or streetcar unless it afforded a photo-op. The political pandering hasn't solved any transit problem in this country nor will it in the future. All it's accomplished is to make it too expensive to provide service.

The political issues of transit is the main reason I often state that transit needs a dedicated source of funding that isn't doled out by the politicians. If you take the politicians out of transit decisions, you ultimately will end up with a better operation that is more efficient.

I know a few transit fans and transit insiders that want more government involvement in public transit. They think it will solve the problems. I just laugh at them and show them the mess the political pandering has gotten transit into already and ask them if the politicians have screwed it up this bad already, what makes you think having more involvement from them will solve it? They usually see the light after that.

Although transit has always had politics involved in it, the impact wasn't too bad until the politicians began to meddle in the day to day activities. This started in the 60's but reached current levels of political butt kissing back in the late 1980's and early 1990's. That period was when I noticed many politicians jumping in and meddling with operational decisions at various transit systems as well as threatening transit systems, almost annually, over funding unless their ideas were incorporated into the operation.

Transit systems across the US need to put an end to this and refocus the operations. They need to become efficient and that will never happen as long as they have to pander to the egos of politicians that have no clue what transit is about.

Former PAT union boss defends improprieties

Pittsburgh PA - The former head of PAT's union, Joe Hutzler, is defending the deferred retirement he set up for himself while retired but serving as union president as well as sitting on a 4-person pension board.

Hutzler believes that he did no wrong and that the current union president, Pat McMahon, has a vendetta against him.

Joe Hutzler is using the defense that it was wrong to collect a pension while collecting a union paycheck at the same time as well as that McMahon had a vendetta against him over differing views of union leadership. By claiming a vendetta as a big part of his defense, it sets off my alarms that there is much more here than meets the eye and that the vendetta may be in the opposite direction and aimed at McMahon rather than at Hutzler.

Regardless of the defense that Hutzler has offered, there are still some very serious questions regarding the self-crafted pension agreement that Hutzler set up as well as the secrecy surrounding his retirement.

The first point was that he retired from PAT but kept the retirement a secret from his union. Second was that while keeping the retirement a secret from his union, he was negotiating a union contract that ultimately stripped many protective work rules away from the union. Third was that he created the pension plan for himself and that would not have been done for others in the union as there was no such provision for it in the union contract or union rules.

At least to me, it seems as though Mr. Hutzler is trying to deflect the criticism of his bad decision(s) and trying to turn himself into the victim by claiming that the current union president had a vendetta against him. The points I mentioned in the previous paragraph all speak of a questionable act(s) by Hutzler.

While there may have been bad blood between Hutzler and McMahon, the criticism of Hutzler's actions are valid. Even if no quid pro quo occurred between PAT's management and Hutzler during this period, the simple fact that Hutzler crafted a pension deal for himself that no other union member would receive as well as keeping his retirement a secret from the union itself raises many valid questions that need to be answered and Hutzler's defense answers none of them.

While I normally avoid dealing with internal union issues here, this is one that I needed to comment on. I still believe that Pat McMahon was correct in his criticism of the Hutzler pension deal. There are just too many questions regarding it not to be critical.

Teen that knows transit

West Roxbury MA - A 16-year old high school student, Stuart Spina, probably knows more about the transit service in Boston than those that run the MBTA. Spina is also several steps beyond most transit fans whose interest is mostly in the vehicles.

Much like myself, Spina is not just interested in the vehicles themselves but in how those vehicles provide service. He pays attention to not only the current routes but the history of those routes as well. While not directly mentioned in the article, I get the distinct impression that he also is very interested in what I call the back room which is the administration and management of the system.

Unlike what I dealt with growing up with my local transit system, the MBTA seems more willing to accept Spina's ideas and suggestions. At PAT, my local system, they never really shook off the Pittsburgh Railways mentality which was "it's our way or no way". The MBTA is already looking into implementing one of Spina's ideas which is a hand held Charlie Card reader which can be used to help cut down on boarding times.

Transit systems often times brush off "fans" as an irritant. Many times they are and I know many that I am embarrassed being seen with in public with but we "fans" also have an insight into the transit operations that the administration and employees just can't see. The fans like Spina and myself, who are interested how service gets on the street, are often times able to easily see problems that the insiders completely miss.

I'm glad the MBTA is taking Spina's suggestions and ideas seriously. With a little luck, Spina may one day run the MBTA and use his "fan" expertise along with work experience to further improve the MBTA operation.

SEPTA fighting to end paper transfers

Philadelphia PA - SEPTA is continuing to fight to end the issuing of transfers and has appealed a lower court decision which forced the transit system to keep them.

While I haven't covered this issue before, it is something that needs to be addressed as SEPTA is trying to set a precedent and is being looked at by many transit systems as to the final outcome. If SEPTA wins their case, look for many other transit systems in cities across the country to start dumping transfers over the next few years.

Transfers are one of the most troublesome parts of any transit operation. Transfer thefts, reselling at a higher price on the street, attempted use of expired transfers, etc. have made transfers an item that many transit systems have on their list for possible elimination. The vast majority of fare disputes involve transfer issues as well.

The problem however is that transfers are needed. Given that no transit system can take everyone where they need to go without switching buses, transfers become a necessary evil in the transit industry to help make transit service somewhat convenient.

Better technology exists today to allow transfers to be issued while eliminating many of the headaches associated with the old style paper transfers. For example, coded transfers that are timestamped by a fare recording device and can be read by fareboxes eliminate the use of expired transfers. Cities that have adopted coded transfers have seen a large drop in transfer abuse and fare disputes but that technology doesn't come cheaply.

Eliminating transfers in a city such as Philadelphia will not spur transit usage. On the contrary, it will encourage people to find alternative means of transport that bypass the transit system completely. While SEPTA says it wants more riders, it is also making it more difficult to get those riders.

SEPTA is assuming that people will rush out and by a monthly pass or just pay full fare on multiple trips and the SEPTA financial coffers will start overflowing with money. It won't happen. As I mentioned, people will find alternatives to SEPTA and cut them out of the loop completely so that they end up pulling in less each month than they are now. In cities such as Philadelphia, unregulated/illegal low-cost jitney service is already a very common competitor with the transit system and eliminating transfers will just send many riders over to the competition.

Where I live in Pittsburgh, we used to have rather strict transfer rules which made sense even though it was somewhat complicated. The policy was loosened up over the years and ultimately have led to widespread abuse of transfers. In the distant past, you could only use a transfer for a one-way trip continuing away from the boarding point. Today they can be used for round trips and have a greatly increased valid time.

Not being familiar with SEPTA's transfer procedure, it may very well be the case that SEPTA just needs to tighten up the procedure as Pittsburgh needs to do. The problem here is that once the government gives the public something, it is almost impossible to take it away later. In other words, reimposing an older and more strict policy would meet with howls of protest, greater than what is occurring with the complete elimination of them.

In SEPTA's current eagerness to eliminate transfer privileges, it is setting a bad precedent in my opinion. By making transit more inconvenient for the rider, it will lose ridership in the long run and defeats the very purpose of what transit is there for. The added capital expense of implementing coded transfers is worth it as it helps make taking the bus or LRV more convenient, especially for the occasional rider which the transit systems would ultimately love to have as a regular rider.

SEPTA earns a Lance for its attempt to make riding transit more inconvenient. This move will only serve to keep people off of the transit system, not attract them.

Questionable doings not just a management thing at PAT

Pittsburgh PA - The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review unearthed a highly questionable act by the Port Authority of Allegheny County (PAT) transit union. The highly questionable act was the formation of a special retirement package by former ATU Division 85 Union President Joseph Hutzler for himself which was kept quiet, even from his union.

The special pension deal revolved around allowing Hutzler to collect pension payments in a special account while he was retired and still union president. While Hutzler retired from PAT in 2001, he kept the retirement a secret from the union. This has upset the current union local leaders as Hutzler was leading the union in contract talks with PAT at the time which ultimately stripped the union of many protective work rules.

The pension arrangement was crafted when Hutzler was president of the PAT union and sat on a four-member pension board. The current union leadership called the Hutzler's self-crafted retirement deal an abuse of power. Current ATU Division 85 Union President, Pat McMahon, said ""I think he abused his position on that board to his own benefit."

Here I must credit the current PAT union president, Pat McMahon. When the Hutzler deal was discovered, McMahon and the current union leadership brought the questionable deal to the attention of PAT's management as they should do. PAT's corrupt management however swept the affair under the rug as they were too busy double-dipping into the management pension fund for their own benefit. Hutzler's arrangement was very similar to the controversial DROP program which key management people participated in during the same period.

The news came to me without much shock. I was aware there there were some shady deals occurring within PAT's union during the Skoutelas years at PAT. What did shock me however was Pat McMahon's response to the controversy. Instead of defending the former union leader, he said what was needed to be said which was that the deal was wrong and self-serving.

While I often disagree with Pat McMahon on transit matters, I must award him a Laurel for not trying to bury an embarrassing union incident under the rug and showing that the current union leadership is not acting as their predecessors. He's earned a lot of my respect today.

Empty seats just don't pay the bills

Sacramento CA - As fare box receipts and funding continue to decline, Sacramento's Regional Transit (RT) is facing the same realization which many other transit systems across North America are facing. That is, empty seats don't pay the bills.

RT is looking at service cuts to less patronized routes as well as service adjustments to trim out the worst of the under performing routes. Cries of protest naturally are occurring from the decision however, RT can no longer afford the luxury of funding routes that carry few people.

In Sacramento, one route waiting for the budget ax to fall is the Downtown Trolley which averages about 5 riders per hour. "The bus' value transcends skimpy ridership numbers" states RT driver Stephen Renda in defense of the under performing route. Renda then continues that the tourist trolley bus is a "Welcome to Sacramento' bus for tourists".

Renda also states that Sacramento needs more transit, not less. That brings me to ask this, how is all the extra service you want going to be paid for?

I hear the same in every city. More service not less but let's face a hard reality, transit can't continue to run routes and trips that carry nobody just on the hope that someone might ride. The same people that use the "more service, not less" battle cry are the same ones that have fits when their taxes and fares go up to pay for it or their precious social services get slashed to pay for it.

Transit needs to become efficient if it is to survive. Running routes that fall well below ridership minimum standards is not efficient. In Sacramento, the first route I would eliminate would be the Downtown Trolley. It serves few, is duplicated by other routes and is a luxury the system can't afford.

The RT, as well as most transit systems out there, need to take a good hard look at the routes they run. Many routes can stand some thinning out of a trip here and there. One of the tried and proven techniques of increasing efficiency is being on top of the ridership trends and shuffling service to meet those trends. Yes, that means low performing routes get the ax but it also means increased ridership as freed up service can be sent to routes and areas that justify having the service. Sadly, this technique isn't used much these days as transit has become so political and the brain dead politicians can't comprehend such things as they insist that low performing routes be kept so they can get a few votes at election time.

Low performing areas can often still be served by a simple deviation from an existing nearby route on select trips. This frees up manpower and equipment that can be better utilized elsewhere while reducing the cost to serve the low performing area. Another simple and proven technique is to trim back headways on certain routes. Taking a route that runs every 20 minutes and changing it to every 30 minutes has little impact on the existing ridership (beside a slightly longer wait time) but frees up 1/3 of the service for service elsewhere or just plain elimination.

I'm sure the administration at the RT has plenty of waste as well that can be trimmed to save money. Union contracts are another area that I'm sure has plenty of waste built into it.

Many of the problem transit finds itself in today can be traced back to the 1970's and 1980's. That was the period that many of the low ridership routes routes came to be along with generous union contracts as well as having the money available to just waste without worrying about it. Well, it caught up with the transit systems as costs continue to climb and inefficient operations became ingrained as part of the culture of public transit. Few operations during the 1970's and 1980's were immune to this. While some did well at making the routes efficient during this time like PAT in Pittsburgh during the early 1970's, they became top heavy in administration and were learning the ways of wasteful spending in other areas.

The bottom line here is that transit is at the brink of failure today. Through inefficient operations and plain wasteful spending practices. Of course the riding public is the one that suffers for it and the only way to even begin to deal with the situation that transit systems find themselves in now is to go back to the basics of providing service which includes eliminating low ridership routes and freeing those resources for use in areas that will utilize those resources effectively. Money is not unlimited and it's time for everyone to understand that point.