Rough Week
Posted by Fred Jandt
Mass Transit magazine editor
Every industry has its ups and downs and transit is no stranger to that. Every time there is a strike or an accident transit seems to get the light shined on it from the media. This week, while quieter than most, had its share of unsightly stories with transit as the focus.
First we have David Lazarus’ column in the L.A. Times. After spending a couple weeks in Japan Lazarus returned to the United States and lamented the “truly pitiful status†of our transit system in comparison. Now, it’s easy to dismiss Lazarus as someone looking at transit through rose-colored glasses, but he makes some salient points.
As Lazarus states, “it won’t be enough to just lay down lots of track and hope people will leap aboard trains and subways. You also have to discourage the use of cars — which most Americans won’t stand for — and make our cities considerably less comfortable.â€
As he says, good luck with that. Right now there is no public will to move to a better transit system. And really, for most people, why should there be? They can get into a car and travel anywhere at any time with anyone — or no one for that matter.
After reading Lazarus’ column, I ran across this story where the chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Subcommitte on Housing, Transportation, and Community Development, Senator Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) said transit couldn’t exist without public subsidies.
Great. Not only is transit trying to take people’s cars, it has to rely on the government to stay in business. That’s some great PR for the transit industry. I can already hear the boondogglers coming out of the woodwork now with their statements about how transit should be run like a business and nobody uses it anyway and why doesn’t the government put the money for transit into roads instead.
The final nail in this week’s bad news coffin came courtesy of GDOT. Just when transit was starting to get a little traction with the national media and decent public sentiment, the Georgia Department of Transportation bungles its programs to such a degree that the federal government decides to freeze its transit grants.
Now transit is trying to push people out of their cars, needs government subsidies to survive and when they get those subsidies, they mismanage them so much the feds pull them anyway.
Like I said, not a good week for the transit industry. Of course, by now most transit industry professionals I know would be lining up to knock down these charges like dominoes:
-
Transit is trying to offer drivers a more desirable option, not forcing them to stop driving.
-
Transit isn’t a private business and shouldn’t be compared with them. It is as much a public utility as parks and highways and should be treated as such.
-
Contrary to popular opinion, one bad apple doesn’t spoil the bunch.
Transit works. But the image of transit needs to evolve past the idea of the fixed-route city bus. The United States is a different beast than Europe or Asia, on many levels, and with transit it simply cannot be held up to copying the standards there.
Like everything else in the United States, transit needs to adopt that melting pot mentality and take the best parts of European and Asian systems, distill them down and hammer out what gestalt works best for what we have. And from the looks at recent ridership numbers — despite news stories to the contrary — what we have is pretty good and getting better all the time.
Thanks for reading the MT Position updated every Friday,
Fred
fred.jandt@cygnusb2b.com
Check out our LinkedIn page!
August 7th, 2009 at 11:47 am
Mr. Jandt:
I like and enjoy your articles very much. They are concise and allways to the point. Thanks.
August 7th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
With regards to your quotation in your article that said:
“As Lazarus states, “it won’t be enough to just lay down lots of track and hope people will leap aboard trains and subways. You also have to discourage the use of cars — which most Americans won’t stand for — and make our cities considerably less comfortable.â€
As he says, good luck with that. Right now there is no public will to move to a better transit system. And really, for most people, why should there be? They can get into a car and travel anywhere at any time with anyone — or no one for that matter.”
The one thing that YOU and ALL OF THE POLITICIANS in this country fail to remember is: WE ARE A COUNTRY BUILT ON PERSONAL LIBERTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What this means is that you will get a black eye each and every time you try to get Americans out of their cars by forcing more legislation down our throats! You’re going to continue to have “bad weeks for public transit” until you learn that your only path to success lies in OFFERING POSITIVE INCENTIVES to talk people out of their cars and onto public transit.
As long as public transit caters to the minority riders, IT WILL FAIL. A bus route passes right outside my front door. Will I use it? HELL NO! It takes the bus 45 minutes to get me downtown from my residence. I can make the same trip in my own automobile in 20 minutes. Less than half the same amount of time, because the route weaves and bobs through each and every government-subsidized housing complex between here and downtown.
While the fare is cheaper than the amount I spend in gas for my personal vehicle, I CANNOT AFFORD THE LOST PRODUCTIVITY OF ALL OF THE EXTRA TIME THAT I SPEND RIDING THE BUS THROUGH ALL OF THE FREE RENT APARTMENT COMPLEXES GOING TO AND FROM MY PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT!!!
Get a grip on reality! Make routes that travel straight down the MAJOR streets of the city instead of kowtowing to all of the people who live for free on the government dime and pay no income taxes at all by the time they get their “adjusted income” refunds at the end of the year. Then you might get the boost in ridership and get people out of their cars that make life more productive.
August 7th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Transit advocates always claim that the government is subsidizing drivers by building and maintaining highways and streets.
However, they conveniently don’t mention that highways and streets are actually mostly funded by drivers in the form of gas taxes, auto license and registration fees, sales taxes on vehicles, etc.
However, the transit system in this major California city requires a subsidy of at least 380 percent. Yes I said 380 percent! In fact, some of the subsidies for transit actually come from taxes and bridge tolls on autos. Without subsidies from auto owners and drivers, transit could exist.
Furthermore, transit is simply not an attractive option in the first place. It’s inconvenient, too slow, and too uncomfortable and unhospitable. Accordingly, people are not willing to pay higher fares for an inferior mode of transportation.
The transit industry would be better off if it were run like a business and had to compete for its own funding from the free market instead of being another money losing government program.
August 7th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Reply to Jason Lockhart, Sr.:
You hit the nail squarely on the head. Riding the bus here takes at least 3 times (and sometimes 4 times) longer than driving my car over the exact same route at the same time of day.
On top of being “Slow as molassis in the winter”, the bus is packed like a can of sardines and on some routes, it’s loaded with all sorts of “undesirables” from the seedy part of town. In general, riding mass transit is an emotionally distressing experience to say the least.
Furthermore, transit does in fact cater to the “Lowest common denominator” in the city – mainly people who are not financially able to afford a car or those who are physically or mentally unfit to drive.
If the transit industry sincerely wants people to get out of their cars and onto transit, it should cater to the wants and desires of those who own cars and drive -not those who don’t.
August 7th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
The transit debate is experiencing the same challenge facing the health care debate albeit less raucous…People continue talking “past” each other and not “to” each other. Until we tell special interest groups to stick it in their ear, lower the volume level and try to regain a modicum of civil discourse, nothing constructive is going to happen in this country.
August 7th, 2009 at 11:36 pm
I quote Fred here:
“…what we have is pretty good and getting better all the time.”
Thank you, Fred. Truer words were never spoken.
As you know, I regularly attend metings and shows. I keep tabs on the industry and the people in it. It never ceases to amaze me the new faces that come with new ideas to keep the older beasts in the mass transit collective functioning.
Call me an optimist. On the outside, transit systems may look the same, but I can see numerous changes (some subtle, but still an evolution of sorts). Rolling stock has improved as well.
I agree that Europe and Asia have awesome systems. They function well, and the populace uses them. We may never be able to fully replicate sytems in, say London or Tokyo, but as you say, they do bear looking at and taking note. I say transit here will rise to the challenge!
August 8th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
The argument ends in the terse prose of IEA Chief Economist Fatih Birol’s Report last week. From 2030 a few years ago as the estimated date of liquid motor fuel limits; Fatih Birol has brought the date to -next few years- sooner if economy (attempts) rebound. Mother of Catch 22′s blessed be your delay…
Talkers about cars equaling “freedom” do not ever discuss blood and treasure expended to protect the happy motoring era. Saddest fact of any civilization in history: the demolishing of the legacy local rail footprint that brought America into the 1950′s, a lending not a borrowing nation. We had freedom then too, I was there, and my family considered themselves free to go where we needed to go. Some places on foot or bicycle or public transportation. Or car. First car in the family was a 1938 Ford, then a 1952 Buick: used in moderation, shopping trips & entertainment combined, etc. We took a Radio Flyer wagon to the grocery store.
Our contribution (fortunately not a young soldier as nowadays)to motor mania was loss of our home at 2911 E Street to the North-South run of I-80 thru Sacramento, circa 1960. Freedom is a state of mind, and woe to us if we do not replace the agricultural branchline rail connections, before Peak Oil brings famine our way. Richard Heinberg is a source for research on these proceedings. Elected ones, contact Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, (R-MD) the Peak Oil go-to man on the Hill.
Roscoe Bartlett is a REPUBLICAN. Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee et al should be comfortable with the interview being on record… Like, get a jump on Gas & Diesel Rationing!
August 10th, 2009 at 8:31 am
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: transit must be sold as a desirable way to travel, not as the mode of last resort. Every time we refer to the people who use transit because they can’t use a car, we are saying “transit = no choice”. Get the people to ride because it’s a better choice, not because they have to.
Transportation is a big, public, visible industry. With YouTube and camera phones, there’s no way to avoid being put in the public eye. Let’s put ourselves out there in a positive light! Present transit to the people.
Want ideas on how to present transit in a positive light? Look back to the days when transportation was for-profit: they knew about marketing before focus groups and online surveys were invented.
And for goodness sake, when some film crew shoots footage on our property, we should insist on a positive portayal: they can show “gritty urban” footage without always using “bums” and “young tough guys” in the scene.
It’s a blog, I’m allowed to rant a little bit.
The point remains, make it positive, and stop telling people they have to ride transit “or else”.
-Jeff
August 13th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Several years ago when I was in St. Petersburg, Russia I saw trolleys (light rail) with relatively few riders, while route-taxis were packed. Why I asked? My friend said the trolleys riders were mainly pensioners and youth. It was too slow. Route-taxis cost twice the fare as trolleys, but everybody had a seat and they did not stop until someone got off.
The lesson, even in Russia, is that many people will pay for superior, convenient, fast service. The public transit industry needs to make service innovation and integration their highest priority. Transit has to change to operate in prime time.
August 23rd, 2009 at 2:07 am
This is a reply to California Transit Rider. Since Bridges are mentioned, you must be talking about the San Francisco Bay Area.
First of all, I question your subsidy of 380%. The Metropilitan Transit Commission publishes farebox recovery ratios and the worst is the Harbor Bay Ferry, hovering around 40%. The best is the Vallejo Ferry at around 78%. BART, MUNI and AC Transit fall in between. Where did your number come from?
From the East Bay to San Francisco, there are huge options and most are quite speedy. I can use the Alameda ferry and from the ferry terminal (free parking) to San Francisco is a 20 minute pleasure cruise, with scenic views of the Bay. It’s 30 minutes from Oakland (free parking). Clean, pleasurable and with services, such a coffee and danish in the AM and adult beverages in the PM.
It’s short walk from my house to AC TRansit, where I have the choice of a Transbay Bus (using express lanes) or the local which takes me to City Center BART. If I don’t make the ferry, I simply let AC Transit decide whether its Transbay or BART by getting on the first bus that arrives.
In your second post, you say it takes 3 to 4 times longer. That may be a fair criticism where you live, but for a majority of us in the East Bay, transit is either faster, equal or slightly slower. But we don’t have pay exhorbidant rates to park in the city.
If you say “packed like sardines” that applies only to BART in the commute hours and MUNI’s busiest lines. Most Transbay Buses have plenty of available seating and you can have your own table on the ferries.
When you say transit only caters to the lowest common denominator it sounds as if you are a transplant from out East, where people grew up believing that Buses were for “poor” people. On all the lines I use, “suits” and managers of all sexes and colors vastly outnumber someone who be considered “seedy.”
The executive VP of a Fortune 500 company loved his motorcycle, but on rainy days he rode the bus. It’s very clear you never use transit or you wouldn’t make so many incorrect statements.