While the reason in the title wasn't expressed verbatim, it's more or less the only thing you can conclude from those who voiced their complaints
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/new...lled/84383906/
While the reason in the title wasn't expressed verbatim, it's more or less the only thing you can conclude from those who voiced their complaints
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/new...lled/84383906/
The overall status of mass transit in SE Michigan isn't very good. It's a moot point to defend every individual system to the utmost. Overall, things are lacking, drastically.
How can you have a healthy view of anything when you advocate censorship?
If your service or company deserves public trust, you should welcome and debate others who don't share your position.
__________________________________________________ _
Letter from advocates quoted in newspaper:If you are underfunded, the first thing you do is adjust your service to your funding. You know your operating cost per mile [[or whatever metric), and you know that you have achieved a reasonable level of efficiency in your operations.Quote:
...demoralizes a service that is largely underfunded. It also comes at a time when regional transit officials are gearing up to ask voters this fall to pony up for various transportation improvements.
In other words, you do your best with what you have been given. You don't try to deliver more than you can. And if you have to cut lines/hours/staff, etc -- then you do. And you then tell the voters and your City what you need to restore those lines.
What you don't do is limp along -- just accepting bad equipment condition. Refusing to modernize operations. And just blaming your 'funding'.
You might also consider allowing others to step in and do what you can't do. Encourage private jitneys. Encourage Uber and its kin. Be innovative.
I am frankly tired of hearing that all we need to do is 'pony up'. [[Although in this case, I do support increasing funding for transportation.) But I'm not so sure that funding should go to the existing providers unless they can make their operations efficient within their existing funding. If you can't do that, why should anyone think more money fixes anything.
I wonder Trainman and The TRU gang are behind the anti-public transit scheme?
The spokesman on the YouTube channel for A Coalition For Transit is Dennis Archer Jr. In the video, in which Archer speaks about regional transit, he is describing a quad-county public transportation system. Linking Washtenaw, Macomb, Oakland and Wayne counties is forward thinking, but somewhat unrealistic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRSK7AdqUqc
The Free Press article that the Detroit News gives a snapshot of, actually states: “At the turn of the 20th Century, southeast Michigan had the largest and one of the best mass transit systems in the country. Today, we have one of the worst.” The story is divided into three parts, subway, streetcars and buses. The article takes a long swing down memory lane – another rose colored glasses story – discussing transportation back at the turn of the century, and several proposals of a hypothetical subway system. There are snapshots [[2) of James Robinson; the man that walked 21 miles to work, and the link provides a video of Robinson telling his story.
http://www.freep.com/story/news/loca...nsit/22926133/
There is a video on the same channel discussing special needs transportation. This certainly needs more funding.
I ride DDOT when I need to get around; for the most part the buses I ride arrive on time – relatively speaking. DDOT, like many cities, has a variety of buses, ranging from ancient to modern.
Occasionally I need to jump on a Smart bus; if I use a DDOT transfer, it’s a .50 charge. The SMART buses that I do use could run a little more often each hour.
I’m not sure what metric is being used to place Detroit “one of the worst cities for regional transportation”? If they are referring a bus starting in East Point and traveling all the way to Ann Arbor, I would evaluate the distance versus demand.
How are SMART and DDOT supposed to modernize without funding? Metro Detroit is, I believe, the largest metro area that spends the least on its public transportation. [[The GOP mantra of underfunding a government program and then blaming "big government" when it doesn't work, so they can finish it off with support from the taxpayer who was duped into believing it didn't work when all it needed was proper funding).Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch
If 'all it needed was proper funding', then funding would solve the problem. And in that case, finding the taxpayer monies to fund a good program makes good sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by dtowncitylover
I can't speak to SMART, but DDOT has both a funding problem and an operational/administrative problem. Solving funding by itself does nothing. Funding does not fix administrative problems. It just papers them over.
DDOT is not unfunded -- just underfunded. They can and should be using more of their limited funds to rehabilitation themselves, and less to maintaining the current, seemingly dysfunctional system.
Sure, there are some in the GOP that might hold those beliefs, but there are also others who just don't want to pour money into a sewer -- preferring to find good uses that produce improvements.
Do buses have bootstraps?
Wow, take your pick. Transit vehicles per hour per capita, funding per capita, percent of jobs available within 1/4 mile of transit, miles of rapid transit per anything; if I had time I could probably come up with a half-dozen more. Travel to almost any big urban area on Earth and compare their transit to Detroit, the city or the region, and ours will be worse than nearly every one.Quote:
Originally Posted by SDCC
By the way: I did not say "every one", I said "nearly every one". I'm sure there is some city somewhere on the planet that manages, somehow, to be even worse at this than we are.
You do realize that you cannot get Uber and its' kin without a computer or a SmartPhone.... you can't just pick up a landline telephone to get it....Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch
I agree that DDOT has historically been underfunded.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch
I also agree that DDOT has historically taken 70 cents on the dollar and given us a 30 cent product.
It's one thing to be dealt a bad hand. It's another take that hand and play it in the worst way possible.
I digress.
I believe that the Regional Transit Authority will have final say over how the money is spent, and I have a higher degree of confidence in them than I do in either SMART or DDOT.
Of course. I've no idea what you're getting at. Not every service is the same, or should they be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gistok
Detroiters using DDOT.... you telling them to be innovative.... at current prices would they be likely to afford having a SmartPhone to use one of your suggested alternatives? Your comment came across in a "let them eat cake" way... :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch
They secure riders who stand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enduro
Ah, thanks. Didn't intend to be pushing online services, just alternatives. Was thinking more jitney than Uber. Don't see why DDOT needs a monopoly is all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gistok
Thanks.
we'll see... I doubt that the millage will pass based on the volumes of people who hate the idea of buses in general, especially going through "their" neighborhoods.
DDOT and funding for public transit really are not the problem because DDOT is not primarily a transit system; it is a jobs program. As soon as people realize this fact they will really recognize how the ads hurt the workers feelings. Detroit and the Feds are wasting millions on a 1920's streetcar line to nowhere, just as the people mover wasted money and transported almost no one.
Across the US, many other transit systems are the same; they are jobs programs run by quasi-governments. Because they are government run, they get huge subsidies to pay exorbitant wages with outrageous benefits. Case in point; Washington Metro Rail has incurred an unfunded pension liability of One BILLION dollars in its short 35 year existence. Combine that with their well-documented service and safety deficiencies and it is clear that a Governmentally controlled system is incapable of managing almost anything, least of all a transportation system [[think TSA, Amtrak, the Veterans Administration, etc. ad infinitum).
Is there a solution. Well, maybe in an Alice in Wonderland world but not this world. Private enterprise would be capable if they were not hobbled be incredible regulations, dogged by lawsuits [[governments are largely shielded from lawsuits) due to individuals lack of personal responsibility, labor contracts dictated be many jurisdictions, and a myriad of other 'restrictors' placed on businesses in this country. If you do not know what these are, you are part of the problem.
So just keep on payin' those taxes and fares for incompetent management and poor services and feel good that you are providing jobs for those who would not otherwise find jobs.
The River Rat
Yes, we certainly don't invest enough per capita on transit in Michigan. One thing that DDOT could easily do to improve its revenue situation is raise fares. $1.50 fare is about the lowest in the country. Over age 65 fare is $.75. Both fares should be increased by at least 1/3. Many Detroiters are poor. But so are many folks in Chicago, New York and Philadelphia where bus fares are $2.00 or more.Quote:
Originally Posted by professorscott
I think any reasonable person knows the message in the ad wasn't directed towards the workers.Quote:
Originally Posted by river rat
But in any event, to folks like Melissa Roy, I say "tough cookies" and "grow up" The truth sometimes hurts. Instead of crying like a big baby about people telling you that you shit stinks when you know it stinks, you should be focusing your energy on cleaning up your shit.
I wouldn't be surprised if the workers like the ad. Sometimes you need someone to speak plainly. See Trump/Sanders.Quote:
Originally Posted by 313WX
People's 'feelings' are overrated. I'd rather have hurt feelings if we can get better bus service.
Dammit, where are the Galts when we need one. They will know how to solve the issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by river rat
Just let the Cintras and the Macquaries of the world do their job. Come on, who needs eminent domain? Property costs just get in the way of efficient transportation. Just Compensation? You will get nothing, you lose, good day sir!
You want to get paid for your work? Too bad, what do you think this is, a jobs program? There is plenty of company script due to you at the end of your day. Provided you don't break too may of the rules.
Ruinous ruiners ruin it for everyone.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-to...tcy-1456958991
http://www.nwitimes.com/business/tra...1ce03caf8.html
And my personal favorite, your toll road not generating enough traffic [[aka revenue)? Start closing competing free roads to funnel the traffic to your facility as outlined in your concession agreement.
http://www.omegacentre.bartlett.ucl....EY_PROFILE.pdf
You could do that, but it wouldn't get you very far, for two reasons:Quote:
Originally Posted by swingline
1. Elasticity of demand - if you raise the fares, the number of trips will go down. Not by a huge amount - most people who ride DDOT are transit dependent - but it will go down.
2. Detroit only gets a small fraction of its revenue from the farebox, I think it is something like 16% of the total budget. So if you raise fares from, let's say, $1.50 to $2.00 which is a 33% increase, you only increase the top line by a little over 5%, which brings the system from being one of the most underfunded in the developed world, to still being one of the most underfunded in the developed world. And that 5% increase is based on the false assumption that my first point is incorrect; in reality it will be somewhat less than 5%.
Professor, your points are well taken. I'm aware that a 33% fare increase would only help DDOT's bottom line in a relatively small way. But I also don't think that ridership would be affected more than minimally. The bottom line is that DDOT's farebox recovery rate is nearly the lowest of all major US cities. For the most part, only very small cities, the kind that provide services like free on-call van rides to senior citizens, have lower rates. Detroiters have no reason not to contribute at the farebox like residents residing in peer cities. If we're asking for subsidies from other sources, especially federal and state sources, we should be paying what other folks pay. Even if it only modestly improves the budget numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by professorscott
I think this is missing the point of the objection.Quote:
Originally Posted by 313WX
The objection was raised because the ads, which were intended to help increase public support for transit funding, were poorly done, and featured a negative and counter-productive message.
If you want to increase support and funding for something, the last thing that you want to do is describe it as the worst. That doesn't help to instill hope or confidence in the people that you are trying to persuade.
Instead of an ad saying: "our system is the worst because we don't have enough support, so vote to increase funding", an ad focusing on the increasing demand for mass transit, transit-oriented developments, and the benefits to be gained by increasing support and funding for transit would be a much more effective way to go.
The problem with the ad was not that "the truth hurts", but that the ad was counter-productive, and was having the opposite effect of its intended purpose.
Believe it or not, there are many people in this region who would have saw this commercial that weren't previously aware of the facts presented in it. You can't possibly solve a problem if you're not aware of the problem and its severity. Sometimes, it is negativity that breeds transparency [[maybe that's why our "One Tough Nerd" lives and breathes the motto "relentess positivity," which lead to the issues with Flint's Water was swept under the rug for so long?), and we all know transparency breeds the truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by erikd
The objection is not about hiding the facts or not being transparent, it's about a poorly done ad. The new ads feature the same information, just presented without the big "we are one of the worst" as a focal point.Quote:
Originally Posted by 313WX
Is it possible that airing ads focused on being the worst will create more awareness of the severity of the situation, and cause people to support increased funding because they don't want Detroit and the metro area to be the worst? I guess it's possible, but I find that highly unlikely.
As I said previously, the better way to garner support is to showcase the opportunities and benefits of increased funding, and what we are missing out on due to the current dearth of funding - which is what the new ads are focused on.
In any event, the original ad was not pulled because of "hurt feelings", but because it was counter-productive.
Maybe I missed something, but the new ads [[one of which with Dennis Archer Jr.) say the same thing as the old ads.Quote:
Originally Posted by erikd
The main difference is that the new ads now feature someone that people like Melissa Roy would empathize with to give their personal stories about why Detroit's transit system is one of the worst in the country.
But that seems unnecessary to me if the message is the same. We're not children.
No, we're not children. But a loud percentage of us are children, whose 'feelings' are self-celebrated too muchQuote:
Originally Posted by 313WX
I wish RTA would first focus on consolidating SMART and DDOT and creating one transit authority/system instead of having 3 systems. This would improve service and cuts costs and would demonstrate to the average suburbanite that this effort would cut government inefficiency and bureaucracy.
THEN after the systems have been consolidated and bus service improved, the RTA would have demonstrated a track record for efficiency, and asking voters to fund rapid transit lines would be more palatable.
They don't need to be consolidated, they NEED to be coordinated together so that their service compliments each other. As well, they need to be talking to each other. I think we're already seeing this with the express bus plan which is being put together by SMART and DDOT.Quote:
Originally Posted by masterblaster
The suburbs and the city can have their own bus systems [[many metro areas do this), what needs to be regionalized and directly controlled by the RTA is anything that provides service regionally, ie commuter rail and the bus rapid transit system.
There may be no reason why two systems covering separate territories can't work, but in practice it probably isn't the best choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by dtowncitylover
I can't think of a good reason to have two monopolies. But if you've got the cash, and you can't get the politics to work, OK.
The irony of this is so perfect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch
A pro-transit advocacy group produces a poorly-done ad that is ineffective and counter-productive to the pro-transit message that they intended to convey, which causes pro-transit advocates to call for the ad to be changed.
This was an absolutely reasonable, rational, and prudent response to the poorly-done ads.
There is no controversy or outrage to be found here, but the "anti-feelings" brigade couldn't let a non-issue go by without making much ado about nothing, and getting all emotional and overly-dramatic. It is hilarious to see the "anti-feelings" people get all butt-hurt and overly emotional about non-issues.
Irony is undergoing a renaissance. Now the pro-feelings camp tells the anti-feelings camp to get over it.Quote:
Originally Posted by erikd
But onto the subject, what we are debating is whether the ad is 'productive' or 'counter-productive'. The feelings camp thinks its productive, anti -- not. The debate about feelings is important. I don't think every ad for something I favor must be 'positive' and 'feel-good'. In fact a 'conversation' about the problems with Detroit's transit agencies to me is part of the solution that's necessary before I'd be in favor of regional transit. An agency or movement in denial [[see BLM) doesn't work for me. And of course whether it works for me is important. Just as today's campus advocates [[see Heller on campus activism in the New Yorker).
No, what is needed for the Detroit area is a transportation authority with broad and sweeping powers over all transportation in the region, including motorized and non-motorized transport as well as public transit. Then a cohesive comprehensive transportation plan can be properly development and implemented. This plan should include streets, highways, bridges, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, buses, trains, and any other transport modes. It's crucial that transportation is thought of as a whole, and not as public transit being somehow seperate from our road and highways.Quote:
Originally Posted by dtowncitylover
"Bureaucracies with sweeping powers"? Be careful what you wish for. They won't always do what you want. Think M-DOT. Think Moses Triborough.Quote:
Originally Posted by casscorridor
I think there may be some misunderstandings and confusion about this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch
If we replaced the word "ad" with "news coverage" in your post, then I would absolutely agree with you. To be sure, we should demand hard-hitting factual news coverage and political debate about our failures and shortcomings, but that is exactly what we have been getting.
There has been no denial of the facts, nor any attempt by the pro-transit advocates to stifle or soften media coverage that [[correctly) points out that metro Detroit transit is the worst in the nation.
If the pro-transit advocates just "can't take criticism" and are "in denial" about the issues, then why was there no outcry over the 2015 Detroit Free Press article "How metro Detroit transit went from best to worst", or the 2014 MetroTimes article "How Detroit ended up with the worst public transit."
http://www.freep.com/story/news/loca...nsit/22926133/
http://www.metrotimes.com/detroit/ho...nt?oid=2143889
Pro-transit advocates are not at all in denial of the problems with metro Detroit transit, or our status as the worst in the nation. In fact, many of the most critical and blistering articles and commentaries on the situation come from pro-transit supporters, including the two that I linked above.
The point that has seemingly been missed in this discussion is that there is a difference between dispassionate journalists reporting the facts and figures in a news article, and hired ad agencies who are being paid to portray an organization, issue, or situation in a positive manner, in an attempt to increase support for it.
Let's consider the Chrysler "Imported From Detroit" ads in 2011 as an example. At that point, Chrysler had been battered by declining sales, declining quality, declining market share, and had just come out of a bankruptcy aided by a government bailout loan.
Should Chrysler have aired ads talking about their bankruptcy and declining market share, in order to stimulate the "conversation" about the challenges around outsourcing American manufacturing, and the compounding legacy cost issues due to the skyrocketing costs of funding health care and pensions?
Were the Chrysler executives too concerned about their feelings to pay for ads that weren't "positive" and "feel-good"?
Of course not! Marketing 101 teaches you not to position your client in a negative light, and ABSOLUTELY not to position your client as "the worst." The fact that this ad ever hit the air blows my mind. This should have never even gotten to the production stage.