Privatize DDOT Today !!!

[Trainman]

It's best for the city of Detroit to privatize DDOT and lay off union workers.

The city can and should competitively franchise the entire bus system to one of a number of large bus companies, for a period of up to 20 years. Under such an arrangement, the private company would provide a basic level of service specified by the city of Detroit, charge fares within a broad range authorized by the city, and renew the bus fleet and facilities. Like D-DOT today, the private company would have an exclusive right to operate service along the city's routes.

Another option would be to have competitive contracting. In England, London Transport, which is twice the size of New York City's public transit system and 15 times the size of D-DOT, competitively bids out to private contractors all of its bus services. Competitive contracting has reduced operating costs 45 percent, inflation adjusted. In addition, service quality and the number of passengers using the system are both higher than before. London Transport maintains its right to establish routes, fares, and service standards. It even tells the private contractors how to paint their buses.

London is not the only major urban area to competitively contract its transit services. Other cities that have competitively contracted transit services, or are in the process of doing so, include Stockholm, Sweden; Copenhagen, Denmark; Adelaide and Perth, Australia; and Helsinki, Finland. The European Union is issuing regulations that will require most public transit systems to be subject to competition. In America, the cities of Denver and San Diego have saved 35 percent and 40 percent, respectively, thanks to competitive contracting for transit services.

Detroit could reduce the cost of its operations by at least 40 percent using competitive franchising or competitive contracting. This estimate is based on hourly operating costs. Detroit spends more than $75 per service-hour per vehicle, whereas competitively contracted buses cost approximately $45 per hour, a 40-percent difference. Savings of this magnitude could exceed $60 million annually.

Detroit outlaws the use of "jitney" services by private vendors. A jitney may be a taxicab, van, or minibus that charges a flat fee while operating along established routes. In New York, jitneys are providing low-cost, flexible service to low-income residents that are less costly than transit service and more convenient for many riders. Many will provide door-to-door service for repeat customers. If legalized, they could supplement current transit service, reduce subsidy requirements, and provide a new source of income for city residents who could become jitney entrepreneurs. All of this would benefit the community by increasing employment and providing higher levels of service to people who do not have ready access to automobiles

The efforts of transit tax advocates are not to protect Federal and State funds but to replace them with a tax on fast food and other regressive tax increases to BAIL OUT both SMART and DDOT

The November 2006 Livonia SMART bus reductions are proof that both federal and state funds for SMART and DDOT are fast becoming history.

Learn the truth about southeast Michigan's mass transit funding in Trainman’s save.. In DETROIT LINKS

[stormin' norman]

Bings' your man then trainman, I hope some one privatizes your job and lays you off too bud!

[oldredfordette]

Ask any citizen of London about the privatized trains. Privitization NO.

[crawford]

Another option would be to have competitive contracting. In England, London Transport, which is twice the size of New York City's public transit system and 15 times the size of D-DOT, competitively bids out to private contractors all of its bus services.

London has a smaller transit system than NYC, so I have no idea where you came up with that.

And you do know that public transit in the U.K. is about three times what it costs in the U.S., right?

You want to pay $7 for a bus trip?

[reddog289]

Hell do it , And bring back the horse drawn trolleys too.

[EastSider]

Under such an arrangement, the private company would provide a basic level of service specified by the city of Detroit, charge fares within a broad range authorized by the city, and renew the bus fleet and facilities. Like D-DOT today, the private company would have an exclusive right to operate service along the city's routes.

Is this really privatization? The city still determines the level of service, the range of fares and apparently still the routes the buses would travel.

That's not privitzation, it's just more crony capitalism.

True free-market privatization would be to close down DDOT, period, and remove the city from any further decisions regarding fares and routes. Whatever routes were established and how much the bus company charged for them would be determined by the voluntary exchange between the bus company and its possible passengers.

I already see the criticism coming, "Wah! What if the bus company treated us badly and wasn't fair?"

Since the city would have no role in the matter, there would be no limit in how many bus companies operated on the streets. If you weren't happy with the ACME Bus Company because their buses were dirty, you could ride on the Livingstone Coach Line, whose buses were cleaner. Or you could base your decision on price, or whatever aspect is most important to you.

Or if you got really excited about this subject, you could maybe even work your way up through a company and open your very own transportation company!

[ordinary]

Why does the city of Detroit outlaw jitney service?

[ndavies]

Why does the city of Detroit outlaw jitney service?

Because it competes against the Bus service. Jitneys tend to take over routes that have the potential to be the most profitable. Leaving the most unprofitable areas to be serviced by the city. The city would lose the customers on the routes that tend to generate the most money.

[Tig3rzhark]

I disagree with privatization of DDOT. However, something needs to be done for the betterment of public transportation around here.
What I would like to know is there a way to form a regional coalition that would include representation from all transportation authorities?

[ghettopalmetto]

Because it competes against the Bus service. Jitneys tend to take over routes that have the potential to be the most profitable. Leaving the most unprofitable areas to be serviced by the city. The city would lose the customers on the routes that tend to generate the most money.

How is a jitney any different than a cab?

[kraig]

How is a jitney any different than a cab?

Cabs are a lot more regulated. They have to pay up to $5,000.00 just for a Bond Plate. Throw in the fees to the city, registering of drivers and insurance requirements as well. A jitney is just somebody with a car offering a ride to someone who needs it for money. No real regulation.

[Tig3rzhark]

People do that already. Under the table, that is.

[crawford]

Oh, and BTW, the jitneys you see in the NYC area are almost all illegal. They obviously exist because there's an unmet need, and local governments have not been super-strict in enforcement.

Now I am pro-jitney, but there is NO NYC-area government policy that favors jitneys. It's just immigrant entreprenuership.

Just go anywhere in Bergen or Hudson County, NJ. Tons of jitneys on all major routes. Almost all illegal. There's also a fair amount in parts of Brooklyn and Queens.

And jitneys, at least in the NYC area, do not really compete with cabs. Jitneys are usually vans or minibuses. They compete more with fixed-route public transit than with cabs.

There are unauthorized cabs too in the NYC area, but they are just called car services, not jitneys, and serve a different market than the jitneys.

[EastSider]

Leaving the most unprofitable areas to be serviced by the city.

In other words, the city would insist on providing a service to an area where there are not enough customers to support that service.

[Bearinabox]

In other words, the city would insist on providing a service to an area where there are not enough customers to support that service.

...so that the customers who live in that area can actually get jobs instead of collecting welfare or robbing people.

[Danny]

Maybe privatization of D-DOT could be the last solution in order to to have 24 hr bus services in Detroit. The city council can't hold the 'fort' of city public services too long. It's going to crash and burn into recievership in a couple years.Detroit can't survive without regionalization and privatization. It maybe harmful to some people but it could be the only way to move this city forward through the 21st Century.

[professorscott]

Recall that public transportation in cities was originally provided by private companies. In Detroit, as in most cities, the city took over the service and kicked out the private operators in the 1920s. Back then, it was possible to make money transporting human beings, but it is no longer so. The DSR in 1922 at least broke even and possibly contributed to the general fund, but in modern times, DDOT like every other transit provider relies on subsidies. People simply won't pay the actual cost of their transportation.

SMART came out of a different phenomenon. There were privately owned transit operators in the suburbs until, what, the mid to late 1960s? In fact, as recently as the 1980s, it was possible to use Greyhound to go from suburb to suburb, for the larger suburbs. All of that fell apart because, once again, people won't pay the cost of their own transportation.

When people speak of "privatizing" DDOT, there are two possible meanings to this. One is to ask the City to continue to pay most of the cost, but to hire a private company to operate the system instead of using City employees. That's a possibility, I suppose. The other is to remove transportation from the City budget entirely, and find a private operator to try to run it as a business. That's impossible.

Of course, the realistic option is to regionalize it: to have a single, public, regional transit system, with some dedicated funding source, serving Detroit and the suburbs.

[Danny]

Professorscott sez... "When people speak of "privatizing" DDOT, there are two possible meanings to this. One is to ask the City to continue to pay most of the cost, but to hire a private company to operate the system instead of using City employees. That's a possibility, I suppose. The other is to remove transportation from the City budget entirely, and find a private operator to try to run it as a business. That's impossible."

Those are very good alternatives for public transit services for D-DOT and a one of the final solution to the keep the buses running 24 hrs a day seven days a week. Detroit needs regionalization and privatization for revenue survival or die.

[DetroitPlanner]

Cabs are a lot more regulated. They have to pay up to $5,000.00 just for a Bond Plate. Throw in the fees to the city, registering of drivers and insurance requirements as well. A jitney is just somebody with a car offering a ride to someone who needs it for money. No real regulation.

Jitneys still operate even though they skirt the law. Most of the supermarkets in the City have them for the folks who walk to them, but need to get their groceries home. I know I am confusing those of you who believe that there are no supermarkets in the City, but they do exist.

[EastSider]

...so that the customers who live in that area can actually get jobs instead of collecting welfare or robbing people.

Well, of course, we can't expect any of those people to start their own service themselves, can we?

[JBMcB]

John Stossel had a great show on about a year ago on what's wrong with our economy. He went to Hong Kong, I believe, and showed how for $50 you could rent a stall in a huge shopping district and start a business re-selling used cell phones with a couple hundred dollars of startup capital.

He then showed how difficult doing the same thing in the US was. Most cities don't allow the type of unregulated, hodge-podge markets like they have in Hong Kong, so you have to go to a big mall, which can cost a *lot*. You have to register a tax ID, which costs a bunch in fees. If you don't want to get soaked in taxes, you have to start a sole-proprietorship company, which equates to more fees, and probably hiring an accountant. You have to pull a business license, submit to fire inspections, make sure your store is conforming to ADA rules, the list goes on and on.

Ideally, people would see that the bus system in Detroit is horribly broken, and step in to fill the need. If you owned a van, you could probably make a decent living transporting people around the city. Unfortunately, you would be breaking dozens of laws, including the one about unlicensed taxis and buses.

[rb336]

all one needs to do to argue against privatizing busses is to look at areas where they have both public and private bus services - NYC.

The NY transit busses that run in brooklyn & manhattan are cleaner, more often on time, and generally better in every area than the private lines that run in queens.

[stasu1213]

Detroit need to designate streets only for private ranned busses and others for city owned busses and try that out for a month

[EastSider]

Detroit need to designate streets only for private ranned busses and others for city owned busses and try that out for a month

Why, so the designations could be another prize in the basket to hand out to well-connected companies? No, the city needs to stay out of it.

[stasu1213]

I had always said that the much smaller busses should be put on the streets on routes that are light with passengers. Hayes used to have a mini bus ten years ago. These busses could be used at night when the bigger busses are not needed. Bing doesn't care for he doesn't catch the bus.He is just a mouthpiece for those whom are controlling the idiot