Editorial: Bus service essential to all transit improvements

[begingri]

Detroit's elected leaders have focused a lot of attention on the Woodward Light Rail Project. Still, no rail system in Detroit will work without reliable and adequate bus service to feed it. More than 25% of Detroiters don't own vehicles. It would be a big mistake for the city to neglect bus service while developing light rail.

In fact, the Federal Transit Administration, which would pay for a large share of the Detroit rail project, won't allow it. Nevertheless, the city has so far failed to develop a plan to adequately pay for operating both systems.

Detroit's bus service historically has cost the city's general fund about $60 million a year -- $53 million in the current year. Facing an estimated $155-million deficit, the city is looking to the Department of Transportation to reduce costs. Correcting inefficiencies will, of course, help, but large cuts will inevitably mean reductions in already inadequate service. This month, the city proposed another heavy round of bus service cuts that would eliminate three routes, end 24-hour service and reduce weekend trips throughout the city.

What's more, the city has approved a bond issue for the Woodward rail project to be repaid largely though federal transit grants that would otherwise go toward bus service.

Long-term, the city may be counting on a regional transportation system to relieve it of its general fund subsidy to city transit service. That's a good idea: Transportation should be planned, run and funded regionally. But Detroit hurt itself by opposing legislation last year to create a Regional Transit Authority for southeast Michigan. Nor has Detroit seriously talked with suburban leaders recently about merging the city and suburban transit systems.

Detroit leaders cannot -- at least not now -- assume a regional solution to transit costs. To make that happen, Detroit must start negotiating with its suburban partners to come up with a regional plan that doesn't push bus riders to the back.


http://www.freep.com/article/2011051...5/1068/opinion

[Detroitnerd]

And that plan, of course, is BRT, which everybody seems determined to try to force down our collective fucking throat. While you're at it, why not propose a fucking PRT system as well. Idiocy...

[stasu1213]

I still say that the bus system should pay for itself. Money made through ridership should go not into the General Fund but back into the transportation system itself whether local or regional. The only time that the bus system loses money will be due to low ridership. The taxes from it could go to the city. The water company pay for itself by it's customers. DDOT could improve greatly using this idea

[Fnemecek]

And that plan, of course, is BRT, which everybody seems determined to try to force down our collective fucking throat. While you're at it, why not propose a fucking PRT system as well. Idiocy...

There's a difference between BRT and a bus system that simply works efficiently and cost-effectively.

[Bham1982]

Quality bus service is 100 times more important than Woodward light rail.

They should fix the bus service first. Ensure more reliable funding sources and better service along primary corridors.

[ghettopalmetto]

I still say that the bus system should pay for itself. Money made through ridership should go not into the General Fund but back into the transportation system itself whether local or regional. The only time that the bus system loses money will be due to low ridership. The taxes from it could go to the city. The water company pay for itself by it's customers. DDOT could improve greatly using this idea

On what premise do you base this? No form of transportation in the world pays for itself. Let that sink in for a moment. None. Anywhere. On earth.

If transportation systems were capable of self-sufficiency, there would be no need for any sort of government intervention. No MDOT. No Wayne County Airports Authority. No Wayne County Road Commission. No Federal Aviation Administration. No Amtrak, SNCF, or Deutsche Bahn. But government gets into this business because transportation in and of itself is inherently unprofitable. By assuming this burden, government frees consumers to use the infrastructure to achieve their own profitability.

Why should buses in Detroit be the sole exception to this rule?

[stasu1213]

On what premise do you base this? No form of transportation in the world pays for itself. Let that sink in for a moment. None. Anywhere. On earth.

If transportation systems were capable of self-sufficiency, there would be no need for any sort of government intervention. No MDOT. No Wayne County Airports Authority. No Wayne County Road Commission. No Federal Aviation Administration. No Amtrak, SNCF, or Deutsche Bahn. But government gets into this business because transportation in and of itself is inherently unprofitable. By assuming this burden, government frees consumers to use the infrastructure to achieve their own profitability.

Why should buses in Detroit be the sole exception to this rule?

Then have a privitazed bus system and see the profits increase for the owners. Detroit had for years paid little attention to it's transportation system. You had said that goverment frees consumers to use the infrastructur to achieve their own PROFITABILITY.Is money being generated though DDOT? Leave DDOT and Smart operating the way they do and have a private bus company that is regional and see how much money that company makes without government intervention which had done little to improve DDOT for more than 40 years

[ghettopalmetto]

Then have a privitazed bus system and see the profits increase for the owners. Detroit had for years paid little attention to it's transportation system. You had said that goverment frees consumers to use the infrastructur to achieve their own PROFITABILITY.Is money being generated though DDOT? Leave DDOT and Smart operating the way they do and have a private bus company that is regional and see how much money that company makes without government intervention which had done little to improve DDOT for more than 40 years

I don't think you understand a single damned thing I wrote, so let me rephrase it:

IT. IS. IMPOSSIBLE. FOR. A. PRIVATE. COMPANY. TO. OPERATE. ANY. SORT. OF. TRANSPORTATION. SYSTEM. WITHOUT. PUBLIC. SUBSIDY.

If there were money to be made, companies would be lining up to do so. But they are not. Alas, we have to have government build our roads and rails and airports and sidewalks and ports. Because there isn't a single damned dime to be made by anyone. That's not a Detroit phenomenon, that's economics.

[stasu1213]

I don't think you understand a single damned thing I wrote, so let me rephrase it:

IT. IS. IMPOSSIBLE. FOR. A. PRIVATE. COMPANY. TO. OPERATE. ANY. SORT. OF. TRANSPORTATION. SYSTEM. WITHOUT. PUBLIC. SUBSIDY.

If there were money to be made, companies would be lining up to do so. But they are not. Alas, we have to have government build our roads and rails and airports and sidewalks and ports. Because there isn't a single damned dime to be made by anyone. That's not a Detroit phenomenon, that's economics.

The light rail that Penske, Karmanos, and the rest were going to build up Woodward from Hart Plaza to New Center area would had been privately owned or government owned

[ghettopalmetto]

The light rail that Penske, Karmanos, and the rest were going to build up Woodward from Hart Plaza to New Center area would had been privately owned or government owned

Yeah? You sure about that? Were they going to pay for operating costs too? What are the projected profits? Why did they have to leverage federal money if the light rail line is going to be profitable on its own? Why does every article I read on that matter cite the need to identify a "permanent funding source"?

Hmmmm. Wonder why that could be.

News flash: EVERYTHING is "privately owned or government owned". You're being intentionally disingenuous in order to skirt an argument that you can't prove.

Throw the ideology in the garbage can and start thinking about things that can work in the real world.

[Bham1982]

I think Hong Kong's rail network is privatized and profitable, but even there, it doesn't come close to fare-based profitability; it's cash cow is the real estate it bought back when land around stations was comparatively cheap.

[Fnemecek]

Then have a privitazed bus system and see the profits increase for the owners. Detroit had for years paid little attention to it's transportation system. You had said that goverment frees consumers to use the infrastructur to achieve their own PROFITABILITY.Is money being generated though DDOT? Leave DDOT and Smart operating the way they do and have a private bus company that is regional and see how much money that company makes without government intervention which had done little to improve DDOT for more than 40 years

You really think that it's possible to run a private mass transit system that makes a profit?

Okay - I could cite example after example, study after study to prove that you don't what you're talking about. However, let's make this interesting.

Go ahead and launch a private, for-profit mass transit system - in Detroit or anywhere else in the nation.

I'll match your profits tenfold. For every $1 you earn in profits, I'll give you another $10.

[stasu1213]

Yeah? You sure about that? Were they going to pay for operating costs too? What are the projected profits? Why did they have to leverage federal money if the light rail line is going to be profitable on its own? Why does every article I read on that matter cite the need to identify a "permanent funding source"?

Hmmmm. Wonder why that could be.

News flash: EVERYTHING is "privately owned or government owned". You're being intentionally disingenuous in order to skirt an argument that you can't prove.

Throw the ideology in the garbage can and start thinking about things that can work in the real world.

I would rather see the money DDOT recieves through ridership go back into the bus system itself that it all. Not into the general fund but into the system to help pay for repairs, upkeep of or new busses, and the reopening of closed routes.

[ghettopalmetto]

I would rather see the money DDOT recieves through ridership go back into the bus system itself that it all. Not into the general fund but into the system to help pay for repairs, upkeep of or new busses, and the reopening of closed routes.

What makes you think that fare revenue *doesn't* go into operating expenses?

[Hermod]

On what premise do you base this? No form of transportation in the world pays for itself. Let that sink in for a moment. None. Anywhere. On earth.
**************
But government gets into this business because transportation in and of itself is inherently unprofitable.

PASSENGER transport doesn't pay for itself.

Freight transport can be and is quite profitable.

Landing fees from air freight subsidize a lot of passengers costs at airports.

FEDEX and UPS are both profitable companies.

Railroads have survived without subsidies since the 19th century despite gummint parasitism.

Yes, waterway way transport benefits from gummint dredging of waterways [[which the ACOE has been doing for most of our nation's history.

Passenger transport used to be profitable [[barely so) until about 1920.

[Detroitnerd]

PASSENGER transport doesn't pay for itself.

Freight transport can be and is quite profitable.

Landing fees from air freight subsidize a lot of passengers costs at airports.

FEDEX and UPS are both profitable companies.

Railroads have survived without subsidies since the 19th century despite gummint parasitism.

Yes, waterway way transport benefits from gummint dredging of waterways [[which the ACOE has been doing for most of our nation's history.

Passenger transport used to be profitable [[barely so) until about 1920.

Nah. There are or have been plenty of subsidies for those carriers [[railroads are still some of the largest landholders, thanks to the generous 19th century U.S. government) and many of their costs are externalized and passed on to the rest of us.

[stasu1213]

On what premise do you base this? No form of transportation in the world pays for itself. Let that sink in for a moment. None. Anywhere. On earth.

If transportation systems were capable of self-sufficiency, there would be no need for any sort of government intervention. No MDOT. No Wayne County Airports Authority. No Wayne County Road Commission. No Federal Aviation Administration. No Amtrak, SNCF, or Deutsche Bahn. But government gets into this business because transportation in and of itself is inherently unprofitable. By assuming this burden, government frees consumers to use the infrastructure to achieve their own profitability.

Why should buses in Detroit be the sole exception to this rule?

Do you really think that the consumer would lose out if the bus system was privatized?

[Rocko]

So did anyone attend any of these public comment meetings about the DDOT changes? I was hoping to attend one but didn't make it; still I hope the letter I wrote did some good. Hopefully the magnitude of service changes come June 25 won't be anything near as severe as what DDOT originally laid out. Guess we'll have to said and see....

[ghettopalmetto]

Do you really think that the consumer would lose out if the bus system was privatized?

Yes, I do think consumers would lose out in a privatized transit system, for the simple reason that the motive changes from "moving people" to "profit". What is most profitable for the transit operator isn't necessarily what is most profitable for the Greater Good.

And of course, in order to allow for any kind of profit on top of existing operating expenses, fares and government subsidies would necessarily have to go through the roof. Profit is nothing more than an additional, unnecessary expense when discussing public services. SMART and DDOT exist on a shoestring budget as it is--who covers this additional cost once profit is added to the metrics???

[professorscott]

It is possible to privatize all or part of bus service but the resulting private company would have to be paid [[out of public funds) to operate the service. This is already being done, all over the place. Many school districts have contracted out school bus service to First Student or others. DDOT has contracted out its paratransit service to private operators for many years.

Generally the profit in a private contract transit arrangement comes from imposing operational efficiencies of various types: better purchasing arrangements with parts suppliers, changes in contracts with various classes of employees, etc. So it's not inconceivable. I don't see it happening any time soon though.

[ghettopalmetto]

It is possible to privatize all or part of bus service but the resulting private company would have to be paid [[out of public funds) to operate the service. This is already being done, all over the place. Many school districts have contracted out school bus service to First Student or others. DDOT has contracted out its paratransit service to private operators for many years.

Generally the profit in a private contract transit arrangement comes from imposing operational efficiencies of various types: better purchasing arrangements with parts suppliers, changes in contracts with various classes of employees, etc. So it's not inconceivable. I don't see it happening any time soon though.

How many private companies are honestly qualified to transport 140,000 Detroiiters a day?

[Hermod]

How many private companies are honestly qualified to transport 140,000 Detroiiters a day?

I am not sure of the exact numbers, but the Fairfax Connector bus service in Fairfax County, VA is contractor operated and seems to work well.

Google "Her..." and "Veolia" for large public transport system contract operators.


Edit: for some reason, it keeps editing out the last three letters of H-E-R-Z-O-G

[ghettopalmetto]

Why not just have a transit agency adopt Veolia's business practices, cut out the profit, and save money for the taxpayer?

[Detroitnerd]

Why not just have a transit agency adopt Veolia's business practices, cut out the profit, and save money for the taxpayer?

That would be like ... COMMUNISM.

Remember, anything where you COULD take a profit must be privatized so legal graft can take place.

Anything that's inherently unprofitable [[insuring nuclear reactors, etc.) must be SOCIALIZED to saddle the taxpayer with junk.

[Wesley Mouch]

Why not just have a transit agency adopt Veolia's business practices, cut out the profit, and save money for the taxpayer?

That's exactly the right recipe. But when we try and do that here, we get corruption, incompetence, bureaucracy, with a gigantic dash of spend now / pay later. That's the only reason to privatize.

The best system would be publicly owned and operated. But its pretty clear that its as likely here as flying unicorns.

btw, love all your posts on this, GP. People have no idea how it all works. That said, if government would let its monopoly go on bus service, for example, I think we'd be surprised how it is totally possible to make money privately. Don't necessarily think bus. It might be more jitneys, or smaller busses. A private company [[with no requirements at all) might run the operation very differently.