Transit police on buses "24/7"

**professorscott** · March-11-14, 08:23 PM

"Detroit’s new public transportation director told lawmakers Tuesday he intends to upgrade the city’s troubled bus fleet, better coordinate routes with the suburban transit system and have 24/7 on-board police to keep passengers safe."

From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...#ixzz2vhuCh4OU

That fascinate me... that he plans to have police on the buses even when the buses are not running.

**Dexlin** · March-12-14, 12:23 AM

Oh, come on. Stop being pedantic. While the buses are in service, they plan to have police on them. What I find weird is that people seem to think that this [[the need for transit police) says something about Detroit when even the article is clear in that Detroit is basically the only system its size without a dedicated transit police presence. Still, until DDOT is spun off as a seperate entity like transit agencies just about everywhere else in the country, it's going to be hard to run a system dependent directly upon a city budget, even when the city's budget is healthier. I've been trying to rack my brain for another large city where the area's premiere transit agency is a literal city department directly dependant upon the city's general fund, and I can't think of any off the top of my head. This is an usual set-up. This really could have been posted in the existing transit thread, though. It's not worthy of its own.

**MikeyinBrooklyn** · March-12-14, 04:22 PM

Does anyone know how many full-time [[or equivalent) police officers would be needed to man every bus?

**compn** · March-12-14, 09:11 PM

in 2012, March 19, DDOT metrics showed a peak period requirement of 241 buses

http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/in...vides_dai.html

so thats about 200 officers.

**MikeyinBrooklyn** · March-12-14, 11:35 PM

Originally Posted by compn

in 2012, March 19, DDOT metrics showed a peak period requirement of 241 buses

http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/in...vides_dai.html

so thats about 200 officers.

I think that in order to figure out the number of officers needed, you would need to know how many total hours buses are used. Obviously, if 241 is the most buses in use at any one time, you would need 241 police officers at that time, but that doesn't take into account lower usage times, and buses that are in service for longer than 8 hours a day or more than 5 days a week. The most pertinent number for figuring out how many officers needed would be to determine the total number of hours all buses are in service a week. Then DDOT and DPD can determine how to staff it.

**Danny** · March-13-14, 08:34 AM

There's security cameras in most SMART buses, too.

**313WX** · March-13-14, 08:44 AM

Wait, so the city brought back 24/7 bus service?

When did this happen?

I recall under Bingo's administration and the Consent Agreement that they shut down service from 1-4 AM to save money...

**mwilbert** · March-13-14, 09:20 AM

I did not read this as meaning that they would man every bus, which would be impossibly expensive, but rather that there would be a police presence on the bus system during all hours during which it operates--I doubt they were making a comment on the bus schedule specifically.

**downtownguy** · March-13-14, 10:49 AM

Originally Posted by 313WX

Wait, so the city brought back 24/7 bus service?

When did this happen?

I recall under Bingo's administration and the Consent Agreement that they shut down service from 1-4 AM to save money...

I don't know the answer to your question, but the inference that bus service is 24/7 came from the reporter. Dirks' quote does not go that far.

Detroit’s new public transportation director told lawmakers Tuesday he intends to upgrade the city’s troubled bus fleet, better coordinate routes with the suburban transit system and have 24/7 on-board police to keep passengers safe.

“We need, especially now, [[transit police) in the buses at all times,” Detroit Department of Transportation Director Dan Dirks told members of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation.

**professorscott** · March-13-14, 11:08 AM

Originally Posted by downtownguy

I don't know the answer to your question, but the inference that bus service is 24/7 came from the reporter. Dirks' quote does not go that far.

Most likely the reporter is not a passenger and has not studied the bus system, and does not realize that there is no longer overnight service. Similar to how the State, when it wrote the Belle Isle agreement, specified that public transit vehicles would not have to pay admission, ignorant of the fact that no public transit vehicle has entered the park for several years now.

**DetroitPlanner** · March-13-14, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by professorscott

Most likely the reporter is not a passenger and has not studied the bus system, and does not realize that there is no longer overnight service. Similar to how the State, when it wrote the Belle Isle agreement, specified that public transit vehicles would not have to pay admission, ignorant of the fact that no public transit vehicle has entered the park for several years now.

I read that as being a permissive clause if the service is restored, not an ignorant one.

**professorscott** · March-13-14, 03:07 PM

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

I read that as being a permissive clause if the service is restored, not an ignorant one.

OK. I like your interpretation better.

**stasu1213** · March-13-14, 05:44 PM

Originally Posted by Dexlin

Oh, come on. Stop being pedantic. While the buses are in service, they plan to have police on them. What I find weird is that people seem to think that this [[the need for transit police) says something about Detroit when even the article is clear in that Detroit is basically the only system its size without a dedicated transit police presence. Still, until DDOT is spun off as a seperate entity like transit agencies just about everywhere else in the country, it's going to be hard to run a system dependent directly upon a city budget, even when the city's budget is healthier. I've been trying to rack my brain for another large city where the area's premiere transit agency is a literal city department directly dependant upon the city's general fund, and I can't think of any off the top of my head. This is an usual set-up. This really could have been posted in the existing transit thread, though. It's not worthy of its own.

I had been asking the same question. The water dept is an entity unto itself so DDOT could be one as well Let the money go back into the system

**stasu1213** · March-13-14, 05:48 PM

Why is the money going into the general funds for city officials to probably get their greedy hands on it. Buy better busses with wider aisles and seats, make them safer, be reliable, increase ridership, then you will see how much money DDOT would generate. But unfortunately there are entities in this city that don't want to see this happen

**mwilbert** · March-13-14, 06:27 PM

Originally Posted by stasu1213

Why is the money going into the general funds for city officials to probably get their greedy hands on it. Buy better busses with wider aisles and seats, make them safer, be reliable, increase ridership, then you will see how much money DDOT would generate. But unfortunately there are entities in this city that don't want to see this happen

It wouldn't generate any money. Bus systems don't make money. If you are lucky, they get close to covering their operating costs. Nationwide in 2012, the average farebox recovery of operating cost of the 824 reporting public transit agencies in the US was 33%. Public transit is a public service, not a profit center.

**stasu1213** · March-14-14, 04:13 PM

Originally Posted by mwilbert

It wouldn't generate any money. Bus systems don't make money. If you are lucky, they get close to covering their operating costs. Nationwide in 2012, the average farebox recovery of operating cost of the 824 reporting public transit agencies in the US was 33%. Public transit is a public service, not a profit center.

how do the transit system in other city operate wilbert

**stasu1213** · March-14-14, 04:15 PM

even Dexlin acknowledges how other cities run their transit

**mwilbert** · March-14-14, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by stasu1213

how do the transit system in other city operate wilbert

They are subsidized. Most places have an RTA which is funded by some kind of regional tax or from general revenue of the state or states where the RTA operates. Sometimes there are dedicated revenues from weird places--the MTA in New York gets revenue from bridge tolls. Capital costs are subsidized by the Federal government.

**stasu1213** · March-17-14, 08:26 AM

Originally Posted by mwilbert

They are subsidized. Most places have an RTA which is funded by some kind of regional tax or from general revenue of the state or states

where the RTA operates. Sometimes there are dedicated revenues from weird places--the MTA in New York gets revenue from bridge tolls. Capital costs are subsidized by the Federal government.

Is the Detroit Water Dept funded by regional tax? Is it for profit? Is the mony collected from customers put back into the dept? DDOT could operate the same way if the answer to the last question is yes

**mwilbert** · March-17-14, 10:04 AM

DDOT does operate in the same way. The difference is that water companies can charge enough to cover their costs, and bus companies can't. As a result, DDOT needs money from the general city budget to keep operating, which the Water and Sewer department does not.

**stasu1213** · March-18-14, 01:08 PM

I hate hearing people say that there are not enough people living downtown to support retail. That is the biggest B.S said. A good transportation system bring potential shoppers from all around to support retail downtown. Don't need residents living in the downtown area to support it. Detroit did not have many residents living downtown 50 years ago when retail were thriving. Most shoppers had caught the bus or used street cars in an earlier era to go downtown to shop. Go figure

**astongraham** · March-18-14, 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by stasu1213

I hate hearing people say that there are not enough people living downtown to support retail. That is the biggest B.S said. A good transportation system bring potential shoppers from all around to support retail downtown. Don't need residents living in the downtown area to support it. Detroit did not have many residents living downtown 50 years ago when retail were thriving. Most shoppers had caught the bus or used street cars in an earlier era to go downtown to shop. Go figure

Thats a correct statement. We dont really have to rely on downtown residents to support downtown retail. There are enough people in the city to support it. Many residents currently drive to area malls that they currently don't leave near. Those that don't drive rely on public transit to shop, which requires long waits and multiple transfers. Most buses within the city pass through the downtown Woodward corridor, which means much easy access to city residents, shorter travel times, and one bus access.

**professorscott** · March-18-14, 03:56 PM

Originally Posted by astongraham

Thats a correct statement. We dont really have to rely on downtown residents to support downtown retail. There are enough people in the city to support it. Many residents currently drive to area malls that they currently don't leave near. Those that don't drive rely on public transit to shop, which requires long waits and multiple transfers. Most buses within the city pass through the downtown Woodward corridor, which means much easy access to city residents, shorter travel times, and one bus access.

In order for a retail district to attract the quantity of shoppers required for sustainable profitability, you either have to have plenty of free parking [[like at the suburban mall) or frequent, reliable transit [[like in other cities). Downtown Detroit has neither.

**stasu1213** · March-18-14, 09:31 PM

Originally Posted by professorscott

In order for a retail district to attract the quantity of shoppers required for sustainable profitability, you either have to have plenty of free parking [[like at the suburban mall) or frequent, reliable transit [[like in other cities). Downtown Detroit has neither.

Dan Gilbert had just complete his Z lot parking structure. I could see a Target or something opening in the empty retail spot on the ground level and the customers could park in the lot for half price with a receipt. Downtown has many parking structures. The people mover could carry shoppers from parking structures to the parking district. Good reliable transit systems starting with good safe busses will bring shoppers from all over. Especially express busses that would pick up from certain areas and travel downtown non stop and back. I was on a downtown building tour. The tour guide had said that the only reason downtown doesn't have good retail for there are not enough residents living in the area. I told him that I disagree and he should travel to different cities across the country. They have reliable transportation to bring shoppers into the shopping districts and back to where they live. Detroit need urban thinkers as it's planners for making a revibrant downtown instead of planners who probably came from areas where they had a shopping mall in the area where they live where they could walk to. Downtown in many cities are set up different

**stasu1213** · March-18-14, 09:33 PM

Originally Posted by mwilbert

DDOT does operate in the same way. The difference is that water companies can charge enough to cover their costs, and bus companies can't. As a result, DDOT needs money from the general city budget to keep operating, which the Water and Sewer department does not.

How many people commute on DDOT daily? That is not enough money to go back into the system for upkeep and purchasing of new busses?