Ways to make DDOT better

**Tig3rzhark** · September-27-09, 09:10 AM

Everyone has already read the articles pertaining to the service cuts and increase in wait times on DDOT buses, even the delay in the equipping of bike racks on buses, and continued use of old buses that should have been replaced a long time ago.

I ask all of you for suggestions that I can present at the next Customer Information meeting to help DDOT be a better provider of public transportation.

I'm well aware that many will say that it would take the formation of a regional authority. However, it will take an act from the legislative to form one. So we must find ways of implementing changes that can be put into place quickly.

One of those suggestions that I will propose will be to give traffic signal priority to buses that are currently in service. Place a electric device on a bus and every time the bus gets closer to a light and it is green, that light stays green longer.

I look forward to hearing all of your suggestions.

Trainman · September-27-09, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by Tig3rzhark

Everyone has already read the articles pertaining to the service cuts and increase in wait times on DDOT buses, even the delay in the equipping of bike racks on buses, and continued use of old buses that should have been replaced a long time ago.

I ask all of you for suggestions that I can present at the next Customer Information meeting to help DDOT be a better provider of public transportation.

I'm well aware that many will say that it would take the formation of a regional authority. However, it will take an act from the legislative to form one. So we must find ways of implementing changes that can be put into place quickly.

One of those suggestions that I will propose will be to give traffic signal priority to buses that are currently in service. Place a electric device on a bus and every time the bus gets closer to a light and it is green, that light stays green longer.

I look forward to hearing all of your suggestions.

Sell DDOT to balance the budget of the city of Detroit and vote NO next August 2010 to defeat the regressive SMART property tax.

Both SMART and DDOT are dinosaurs from the past when federal and state funds were enough to support them.

They both cost too much and are much too incompetent to meet industry standards of any kind, thus do not deserve any more local or county tax dollars from the hard working taxpayers of Southeast Michigan at this time.

Privatization Should Drive Detroit Transportation

With any government service, the public is best served when quality is provided at a cost that is no higher than necessary. Sadly, this is not the case with respect to the Detroit Department of Transportation, a city-run system of buses that operates inefficiently at great cost to Detroit's struggling taxpayers. But this need not be. Privatizing Detroit's public transportation system could result in vastly improved service and could even reduce overall operating costs by as much as 40 percent.

The privatization options are multiple. The city could competitively franchise the system, competitively contract individual routes, or simply repeal the prohibition on "jitneys," sell its buses, and contract only for those services not provided by private companies. There also are opportunities to involve employees by making them owners through a stock ownership plan.

Background

The Detroit Department of Transportation [[D-DOT) is the largest public transit system in Michigan. It operates approximately 450 buses that 1,300 route miles throughout the city. Each year the fleet travels 23 million miles delivering 42.5 million passengers.

In the 2000-2001 budget, the city appropriated $172 million to operate this system, $68.4 million of which is an operating subsidy that will come from Detroit's cash-strapped General Fund. This is up substantially from $53 million in 1998.
These financial problems are among the reasons that DDOT is pushing hard for a full-scale merger with the Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation [[SMART) bus system, which serves suburban counties with routes largely radiating from Detroit's downtown and New Center areas. A merger is also supported by state legislators who have threatened to withhold state funds to each transportation system unless a merger takes place.
However, the merger has been deemed inadvisable by KPMG, an international accounting and consulting firm called in to determine the feasible operating alternatives. KPMG's judgment has been endorsed by six transit-expert evaluators hired to assess KPMG's finding. This is the same advice provided by this author while under retainer to Oakland County Executive Daniel Murphy in 1985, which became the basis for the policy against merger that lasted into the 1990s.
Privatization on wheels
So how can DDOT be made more cost-effective and reliable? There are four privatization options city officials might consider:
Option 1: Competitive Franchising. The city could 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.
Melbourne, Australia, recently implemented such a program. The franchises began officially in 1999. Each of two competitively selected firms now have 20-year contracts to provide expanded and upgraded transit services for a fixed fee - an amount less than it would have cost the former government transit agency to provide the same service. The government expects savings to be substantial.
Option 2: 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.
The service is operated through hundreds of individual contracts that are re-bid at least every five years. Service operators are still provided with subsidies, but they are far smaller than when the system was under government operation. In some recent years, no subsidy was required.
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.
Either of these alternatives - competitive franchising or competitive contracting could be implemented in Detroit though skillful design would be necessary to accommodate highly intrusive federal labor regulations.
Option 3: Employee Stock Ownership Plan [[ESOP). An ESOP is an arrangement like that existing in many corporations, in which employees are issued stock in the company as part of their compensation package. ESOPs have facilitated privatization around the globe.
How do they work? Usually, stock is sold to employees at a discount. In some cases it is given to employees in exchange for their cooperation. Creative approaches could combine an ESOP with competitive franchising or competitive contracting.
The city of Fort Wayne, Ind., considered converting its transit system to an ESOP approximately 10 years ago, but the effort was abandoned due to union opposition. However, a federal report concluded that it was feasible.
Option 4: Legalize Jitneys. 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 is 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.
Privatization of Detroit's public transit system should be part of the city's overall campaign to hold down costs and make the city more "user friendly." City officials should get started soon, before the state imposes an intrusive and less effective solution from Lansing.
Posted: Dec. 1, 2000 by - Wendell Cox Consultancy, an international public policy firm. He has provided consulting assistance to the United States Department of Transportation, among others

**Tig3rzhark** · September-27-09, 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by Trainman

Sell DDOT to balance the budget of the city of Detroit and vote NO next August 2010 to defeat the regressive SMART property tax.

Both SMART and DDOT are dinosaurs from the past when federal and state funds were enough to support them.

They both cost too much and are much too incompetent to meet industry standards of any kind, thus do not deserve any more local or county tax dollars from the hard working taxpayers of Southeast Michigan at this time.

Privatization Should Drive Detroit Transportation

With any government service, the public is best served when quality is provided at a cost that is no higher than necessary. Sadly, this is not the case with respect to the Detroit Department of Transportation, a city-run system of buses that operates inefficiently at great cost to Detroit's struggling taxpayers. But this need not be. Privatizing Detroit's public transportation system could result in vastly improved service and could even reduce overall operating costs by as much as 40 percent.

The privatization options are multiple. The city could competitively franchise the system, competitively contract individual routes, or simply repeal the prohibition on "jitneys," sell its buses, and contract only for those services not provided by private companies. There also are opportunities to involve employees by making them owners through a stock ownership plan.

Background

The Detroit Department of Transportation [[D-DOT) is the largest public transit system in Michigan. It operates approximately 450 buses that 1,300 route miles throughout the city. Each year the fleet travels 23 million miles delivering 42.5 million passengers.

In the 2000-2001 budget, the city appropriated $172 million to operate this system, $68.4 million of which is an operating subsidy that will come from Detroit's cash-strapped General Fund. This is up substantially from $53 million in 1998.
These financial problems are among the reasons that DDOT is pushing hard for a full-scale merger with the Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation [[SMART) bus system, which serves suburban counties with routes largely radiating from Detroit's downtown and New Center areas. A merger is also supported by state legislators who have threatened to withhold state funds to each transportation system unless a merger takes place.
However, the merger has been deemed inadvisable by KPMG, an international accounting and consulting firm called in to determine the feasible operating alternatives. KPMG's judgment has been endorsed by six transit-expert evaluators hired to assess KPMG's finding. This is the same advice provided by this author while under retainer to Oakland County Executive Daniel Murphy in 1985, which became the basis for the policy against merger that lasted into the 1990s.
Privatization on wheels
So how can DDOT be made more cost-effective and reliable? There are four privatization options city officials might consider:
Option 1: Competitive Franchising. The city could 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.
Melbourne, Australia, recently implemented such a program. The franchises began officially in 1999. Each of two competitively selected firms now have 20-year contracts to provide expanded and upgraded transit services for a fixed fee - an amount less than it would have cost the former government transit agency to provide the same service. The government expects savings to be substantial.
Option 2: 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.
The service is operated through hundreds of individual contracts that are re-bid at least every five years. Service operators are still provided with subsidies, but they are far smaller than when the system was under government operation. In some recent years, no subsidy was required.
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.
Either of these alternatives - competitive franchising or competitive contracting could be implemented in Detroit though skillful design would be necessary to accommodate highly intrusive federal labor regulations.
Option 3: Employee Stock Ownership Plan [[ESOP). An ESOP is an arrangement like that existing in many corporations, in which employees are issued stock in the company as part of their compensation package. ESOPs have facilitated privatization around the globe.
How do they work? Usually, stock is sold to employees at a discount. In some cases it is given to employees in exchange for their cooperation. Creative approaches could combine an ESOP with competitive franchising or competitive contracting.
The city of Fort Wayne, Ind., considered converting its transit system to an ESOP approximately 10 years ago, but the effort was abandoned due to union opposition. However, a federal report concluded that it was feasible.
Option 4: Legalize Jitneys. 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 is 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.
Privatization of Detroit's public transit system should be part of the city's overall campaign to hold down costs and make the city more "user friendly." City officials should get started soon, before the state imposes an intrusive and less effective solution from Lansing.
Posted: Dec. 1, 2000 by - Wendell Cox Consultancy, an international public policy firm. He has provided consulting assistance to the United States Department of Transportation, among others

I'm not sure you understand or not, but by privatizing DDOT, you would put a lot of drivers out of work. There's been enough layoffs already, and the service for DDOT has gotten worse. The wait times are longer and there are still only few buses with bike racks.

Should we privatize public transportation in Detroit, there is a chance that the private companies will overprice their fares and the quality in services that they provide would be worse than what DDOT is already offering.

In Carson, California, I have seen buses as small as the MetroLift buses that have bike racks on them. I would recommend that those buses be used for DDOT during the nightly hours.

I have looked under your privatizion options and I have noted the last one with great interest. The legalization of jitneys could be implemented quickly with action from City Council. I would be in support of that, if the buses that I just mentioned were in use.

**ghettopalmetto** · September-27-09, 02:13 PM

Dumb question: Why would you need to pass legislation to allow unregulated cabs?

**jhartmich** · September-27-09, 03:08 PM

Originally Posted by Tig3rzhark

Everyone has already read the articles pertaining to the service cuts and increase in wait times on DDOT buses, even the delay in the equipping of bike racks on buses, and continued use of old buses that should have been replaced a long time ago.

I ask all of you for suggestions that I can present at the next Customer Information meeting to help DDOT be a better provider of public transportation.

I'm well aware that many will say that it would take the formation of a regional authority. However, it will take an act from the legislative to form one. So we must find ways of implementing changes that can be put into place quickly.

One of those suggestions that I will propose will be to give traffic signal priority to buses that are currently in service. Place a electric device on a bus and every time the bus gets closer to a light and it is green, that light stays green longer.

I look forward to hearing all of your suggestions.

BY FAR...the most desired buses are Smart 445 and 475. DOT talks about revenue, why on earth would they not do a Limited that WENT PAST the fairgrounds?

My friends working downtown are sick of how crowded the Smart Limited buses are, but they do take them to RO transit center. Why doesn't DOT get back into going to RO transit center? My friends say that they would take any bus that had limited stops and got them at least to Royal Oak. DOT missed the ball on this one. DOT's limited buses are nice, but they don't get you out to the burbs and THAT is what people want. I live in Detroit and not even I - ever - get off at the fairgrounds.

**gnome** · September-27-09, 03:16 PM

give up.

SMART provides a better service at a cheaper price.

**Tig3rzhark** · September-27-09, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by gnome

give up.

SMART provides a better service at a cheaper price.

SMART currently provides better service, but it barely stops in Detroit. In December, the fare is going up but DDOT is keeping their fares the same.

So SMART won't be cheap for long, especially when the state starts making them cuts.

Bearinabox · September-27-09, 05:10 PM

I'm not sure there are that many "changes that can be put into place quickly" that will really address the worst of DDOT's problems [[fixing the funding and building rail on the mainlines should be the highest priorities, IMO). Still, I can think of a few things that could be tried:

Dispatch could be more proactive about dealing with bus-bunching. Tell the almost-empty bus to stop picking up passengers until it gets to where the overloaded bus should be, or something like that. Look at how other cities deal with problems like this, and start there.

Drivers need to be more invested in making the system work well, so they don't try to get away with taking extra-long breaks or stopping along the route to buy food, and there should be real consequences when they consistently choose not to adhere to the schedule [[as distinct from being thrown off by factors beyond their control). Mostly, they need to view schedule adherence as a point of pride, not as a burden forced upon them by the suits on East Warren.

Maintenance needs to operate more efficiently. No bus should ever leave the terminal without being thoroughly looked over and repaired, and maintenance trucks should arrive within minutes, not hours, of being called. If there's more than one thing wrong with the bus, the maintenance guy should fix everything, not tell the driver to call in each issue separately. Also, when a bus breaks down, there should be a spare close by to pick up the passengers--even on routes with relatively long headways, it's almost always faster to wait for the next bus than to wait for yours to be fixed or swapped out.

Information about the system needs to be more readily available. Most buses have some vacant ad space above the windows--maybe a specially-designed system map could be printed on one of those cards and stuck in all the buses. There should be more system and route maps at bus stops, too, especially at major transfer points with shelters, and there should be clear signage on Woodward downtown indicating which routes stop on which side of Congress. Whoever is responsible for refilling schedule racks around town needs to be more diligent about it--the racks are often missing the routes I need, even at the transit center, and the ones on the buses are usually completely empty. The new signs with the route numbers are a big step in the right direction, information-wise, and I hope they're implemented system-wide before too long.

Trainman · September-27-09, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by gnome

give up.

SMART provides a better service at a cheaper price.

Sure, at the farebox SMART and DDOT fares well but not in the Federal Transit Database or other databases.

Maybe you want to support the NEW County Sales Tax of one half percent and another half percent for county roads? There will be little if any money from the federal and state government without a fight.

You see anyone who can afford to buy fast food will then pay for the union bus drivers at the cost of $22 per passenger going to and from work. Of course unless things change

This will be a case of the poor paying for the rich without competent management of limited tax money, thus I truly do believe that competition is the best answer.

Transit tax supporters want your tax dollars for the big multi billion freeways and luxury trains and trolleys.

The biggest supporter of the August 2010 SMART tax is MDOT, so they can build 25 miles of new freeway lanes in Detroit and bulldoze the houses. These people drive gas guzzlers and live in far out suburbs and say they care. But they don't. If they did they would stop the state cuts in funding to SMART and DDOT and get Wal-Mart in Livonia to pay their fare share.

I know the facts and want to publicly debate my opponents.

**casscorridor** · September-27-09, 09:39 PM

i don't think SMART service is somehow "better" than DDOT. In fact I find the SMART is late wayyyyyy more often than the DDOT. Not to mention the headway are way longer, and they don't run 24 hours on major routes like DDOT. The main advantage of the SMART is the bike racks... which DDOT is soon to impliment. But they are still comparable services with different focuses... DDOT = within inner city and SMART = suburbs and in and out of city. I don't think it is fair to say SMART is better. My experience says otherwise.

**Rocko** · September-27-09, 10:51 PM

Bearinabox, I agree with your ideas. There are some sad looking coaches trundling around out there that really look like they need an hour or two of quality work and they'd be in much better shape.

Other ideas:

Continue with the new bus stop signage along streets until all routes are included. Expand this to include transfer information where appropriate and also SMART bus information where necessary. This information is very helpful for figuring out the route and when the next bus can be expected.

Someone at DDOT really needs to take on the "Adopt a Shelter" campaign and make it happen. I've heard stories about interesting parties getting the runaround from DDOT about a program they themselves created so they could do less work. Unbelieveable. While it's unlikely every shelter would be adopted, put priority on those that are on the busiest routes, and near attractions where [[gasp!) a visitor might ride to.... before they learn what riding a bus in Detroit is all about.

Continue to stock bus line schedules on the coaches themselves in the racks behind drivers. Not everyone plans their route out in advance on line [[when that system is working), and so having a reference schedule at hand is helpful on the bus. Once I'm nearing the end of my journey, I usually fold the schedule back up and put it back in the rack for someone else to use.

Try as best as possible to alternate high floor and low floor coaches on routes. While the high floor RTS are equipped with handicap apparatus, their design makes boarding a handicapped passenger a much larger and more time consuming effort than boarding a low floor New Flyer D40LF. Alternating between the two coach styles will help make sure delays are minimal and handicap riders are not passed by again and again by buses that have malfunctioning equipment.

Work on acquiring higher capacity "accordion" buses, even just two or four of them, to run in testing on busy routes such as Woodward or E. Jefferson. This will increase capacity on these routes and allow regular size coaches to fill in on other lower service routes.... or fill in for coaches that are being adequately repaired as Bearinabox mentioned.