District 4 Dilemma

[Red Arrow]

Anyway, it seems this is an industry that begs privatization.

Most of it originally was private.  In many cases, cities saw the streetcar companies as cash cows.  Unfortunately, the cities milked them dry.

[AquaMan]

Yeah, one of those lobbyists is probably one of our local bus manufacturers. A well funded private operator could avoid that whole process by smartly defining what vehicle would best accomplish our specific needs then finding a mfr. who either already builds it or could build it.

This idea that only a muni can operate transit to effectively serve the needs of all the people is unproven at best. My suspicion is that just like the demise of passenger railroads in the 50's, the growth of muni systems is probably more due to the lobbying of manufacturers (GM) to shift to cheaper cost  bus type vehicles and away from cheaper operating systems like electric trolleys.

Now we need to view transit in terms of the increasing needs of a growing inner city and combustion engine buses aren't as preferable.  Hybrids of propulsion with different designed bodies.

Sorry for the drift. No real dilemma for District 4 in my mind.

[Conan71]

Yeah, one of those lobbyists is probably one of our local bus manufacturers. A well funded private operator could avoid that whole process by smartly defining what vehicle would best accomplish our specific needs then finding a mfr. who either already builds it or could build it.

This idea that only a muni can operate transit to effectively serve the needs of all the people is unproven at best. My suspicion is that just like the demise of passenger railroads in the 50's, the growth of muni systems is probably more due to the lobbying of manufacturers (GM) to shift to cheaper cost  bus type vehicles and away from cheaper operating systems like electric trolleys.

Now we need to view transit in terms of the increasing needs of a growing inner city and combustion engine buses aren't as preferable.  Hybrids of propulsion with different designed bodies.

Sorry for the drift. No real dilemma for District 4 in my mind.

A private operator could not operate as an affordable alternative to passengers without the subsidies which already go to Metro Transit.  If we could reduce Metro Transit to nothing but an administration of a few people managing private contractors and funnel the vehicle operational costs to private companies, it's all feasible.

[Gaspar]

A private operator could not operate as an affordable alternative to passengers without the subsidies which already go to Metro Transit.  If we could reduce Metro Transit to nothing but an administration of a few people managing private contractors and funnel the vehicle operational costs to private companies, it's all feasible.

+1

Stay tuned for the "private companies are evil" crowd.

[Townsend]

+1

Stay tuned for the "private companies are evil" crowd.

Like who?  Who says "private companies are evil"?

[AquaMan]

A private operator could not operate as an affordable alternative to passengers without the subsidies which already go to Metro Transit.  If we could reduce Metro Transit to nothing but an administration of a few people managing private contractors and funnel the vehicle operational costs to private companies, it's all feasible.

If I understand you correctly, then I disagree.

You see the existing system and opt to strangle its administration and have it only manage private contractors to be competitive. I see the system being subsidized because it doesn't serve the function it was designed for. Remember, this function was brought under government operation because individual companies were perceived to be in-efficient and not serving the growth of the city. Ironically, the subsidies received now are because the system is not an effective one and is not serving the needs of the city. Hence, the MTTA should be eliminated altogether in my estimation. Totally privatized. It will quickly become profitable.

I see contracting as useless in this case as it enables an in-eficient system which will only grow back in time. The only bureaucracy remaining should be regulatory in nature to make sure that operators are not putting passengers at risk or abusing the public by ignoring certain demographics. Like cab companies with the addition that this regulatory body could administer the incentivizing of the un-profitable markets.

I know that sounds draconian, libertarian, or whatever the current labels are, but it is really common sense. In this case business can and should determine routes, vehicles, timing and rates with a regulatory body protecting the interests of the public.

edit: let me add this. There is no provision in the state or federal constitutions that cheap, accessible, public transportation be provided by the government. I find it odd that people seem to think this is a vital function of any modern city government. Mass transit is important but not if operated to the city's detriment.

[TheArtist]

  Hey, lets do it.  I am aaall for the private sector doing mass transit.  But you have to be serious about that.  No more "muni" or government funding of roads or highways so that private "rail" can compete fairly with private "road".   Also, zone to allow good density and infill or sprawl, let the market decide.  No minimum parking requirements, anywhere.  No city building of parking garages. No banning of high density and or mixed use developments, anywhere. etc.  Open up an level the playing field so that mass transit can fairly compete with the auto, and let what happens happen.  

Its costing them about 100 million dollars a mile to widen that highway behind my house.  It would cost less than one miles worth to do rail, stations and all, all the way from Downtown Broken Arrow to Downtown Tulsa.  And if people were paying for the roads, and for maintaining the roads, and for expanding the roads, that go in front of their houses/businesses/work and were allowed to build more density,,, I bet you would see more density and thus when you got off the rail, or bus, you could actually walk places.   And developers would realize that, hey people are walking, and rather than me build my place, the next development down, past a sea of parking, people will more likely go to it if its the next building down, right next to the building before it.  And so on. 

[Gaspar]

If I understand you correctly, then I disagree.

You see the existing system and opt to strangle its administration and have it only manage private contractors to be competitive. I see the system being subsidized because it doesn't serve the function it was designed for. Remember, this function was brought under government operation because individual companies were perceived to be in-efficient and not serving the growth of the city. Ironically, the subsidies received now are because the system is not an effective one and is not serving the needs of the city. Hence, the MTTA should be eliminated altogether in my estimation. Totally privatized. It will quickly become profitable.

I see contracting as useless in this case as it enables an in-eficient system which will only grow back in time. The only bureaucracy remaining should be regulatory in nature to make sure that operators are not putting passengers at risk or abusing the public by ignoring certain demographics. Like cab companies with the addition that this regulatory body could administer the incentivizing of the un-profitable markets.

I know that sounds draconian, libertarian, or whatever the current labels are, but it is really common sense. In this case business can and should determine routes, vehicles, timing and rates with a regulatory body protecting the interests of the public.

Someone drowned Aquaman and put this obvious impostor in his place!  

His solution is 100% reason based without bubblegum.  

Aquaman,
Ignore any labels. let the common sense flow, and feel free to cry, cry cry!  Let it out.  You are on the path to smartyness.

[AquaMan]

The key factor to me in any discussion of these issues is the answer to "who, what, why, when and where". In this case the answers are pretty clear. It started out with the public interest at heart but got corrupted by growing bureaucracy, poor leadership (always a good whipping boy) and self serving industrial behemoths. Artist, if our leaders cannot accurately determine the answer to those questions in regard to the subsidizing of competitors in the transit industry, then no amount of outcry from the public is going to balance the field.

Can you imagine a candidate for Mayor or Counselor running on a platform of eliminating MTTA?! We can't even get our trash pick up system modernized! Neither Blake nor a majority of city leaders could make it happen. Lots of jobs and careers would be put at risk.

Frankly, I think this issue is a microcosm of a lot of state and local lunacies. We have to go back and re-examine why we are doing things the way we do and see if they still make sense in this environment.

I don't know what to say to you Gas, but I'm happy if it makes you happy....

edit: My insights came from actually depending on the bus to get to work about a mile away. It failed me in that simple trip along a straight line. My boss simply could not understand why I couldn't come in at the same time each day. To do that I would have to have caught the earlier bus which would put me to work an hour early. Even to save gasoline, and wear/tear I couldn't make it work. The walk along Cherry Street was too dangerous. Narrow sidewalks too close to the street and crazy drivers with coffee, McMuffins and cell phones who don't even see pedestrians much less care whether they have a Walk Light or not. 108 degrees!! Enough said.

My point is this- Make every counselor, the Mayor and his staff, the heads of Authorities and Boards ALL TAKE MTTA TO WORK AND MEETINGS EVERY DAY FOR A MONTH!! If that doesn't change outlooks on the system, nothing will.

[Conan71]

Unfortunately, without subsidy of the system, it's no longer affordable to passengers if you turn it over to private enterprise.  They necessarily would have to charge a higher fare rate in order to pay their bills and turn a modest profit.  Tulsa Transit would have gone broke years back if not for subsidy.  The reason there would still be a shell administration or oversight board in what I originally proposed is someone needs to keep an eye on the subsidy funds going to private contractors.  It's not about dismantling a public system out of spite and strangling it, if that's what you think I was saying.  

Tulsa Transit's primary customers are people who either cannot afford other transportation options, ride the bus to save on fuel expenses, or cannot drive for one reason or another.  I'm willing to bet that the majority of TT's current ridership is lower income, therefore, they have less money to get around.  If you changed the fare structure in such a way that someone's usual fare of $1.60 now becomes $8.00, you've just priced the service out of reach of the largest ridership.  Either that or created a new hardship for them.  The primary (if unstated) purpose of Tulsa Transit is to provide affordable transportation to the citizens of Tulsa.  Of course there are side benefits of less emissions with shared transit and less congestion.

It's a matter of simple economics.  Vehicle costs, maintenance, insurance, fuel, driver's salary and benefits, a storage and maintenance facility with all it's attendant costs, administrative staff, mechanics, etc. add up.  You could use smaller vehicles on shorter routes with lower acquisition cost, but then you cannot split the fares enough ways to keep it affordable and allow for a profit.

If upwardly mobile hipsters want a more efficient type of shared transit, are willing to pay for it, and it's a viable business model, then someone will start such a company and it really won't compete with Tulsa Transit because there's different target groups.

A good point Chicken Little made one time when we were discussing rail is that every form of transportation is subsidized in one way or another.  Whether I ride my bike, row a racing shell, drive my car, fly in an airplane, pilot my own airplane, ride a train, bus, or board a cruise ship, it's all taking advantage of some sort of government subsidy or investment.

[TheArtist]

The key factor to me in any discussion of these issues is the answer to "who, what, why, when and where". In this case the answers are pretty clear. It started out with the public interest at heart but got corrupted by growing bureaucracy, poor leadership (always a good whipping boy) and self serving industrial behemoths. Artist, if our leaders cannot accurately determine the answer to those questions in regard to the subsidizing of competitors in the transit industry, then no amount of outcry from the public is going to balance the field.

Can you imagine a candidate for Mayor or Counselor running on a platform of eliminating MTTA?! We can't even get our trash pick up system modernized! Neither Blake nor a majority of city leaders could make it happen. Lots of jobs and careers would be put at risk.

Frankly, I think this issue is a microcosm of a lot of state and local lunacies. We have to go back and re-examine why we are doing things the way we do and see if they still make sense in this environment.

I don't know what to say to you Gas, but I'm happy if it makes you happy....

  What I am trying to point out is the hypocracy of the "get government out of the transportation business" "let the free market decide" crowd.  They only mean that when its not something THEY want the government to do for them or spend money on. When its something the other guy wants, then its "government intrusion and waste".    

  As another for instance, our "built environment" choices can't be detatched from our "transportation environment" choices, or lack there of.   I still roll my eyes when I think about how that one developer on Cherry Street had to get an "exception" to the minimum parking requirements.  You cant have mass transit friendly density if you have rules against it.  And then they have the gall to say, let the free market decide!?  Really?  Then why are you forcing minimum parking requirements?  In a supposedly pedestrian friendly area ta boot. lol     Then think of all the effort it took to get Form Based Codes "transit friendly codes" in the Pearl District.  One little, tiny, itsy bitsy area of the city.   They are labeling it an "experimental" area.  Its as if they are acting like its some straaaange alien thing that may rape our women and eat our children.  Oh, let the free market decide they say. I cry BS to that statement.  Unless they are willing to change the rules to allow it to happen.  So in this instance, not even talking about financing here.

So if you truly believe that there should be fair and free competition, then you should be with those people fighting for a level playing field.  If not, then your going to have to realize that your gonna have to share some of the "tax dollars" for types of transportation you don't want or think is affordable or cost effective,,, and I too am going to have to share some tax dollars for the type of transportation you want, and that I dont think is affordable or cost effective.   

[Gaspar]

It's not a problem with the subsidy Conan, it's a problem as to how it is used.  If that same subsidy can be used to fund private industry solutions more efficiently and with a lower cost to the public than WHOO HOO!

Sure all transportation is "subsidized" to some extent through the expense of infrastructure, but that's no reason to dismiss the waste.  You can rent a Limo for $45 an hour, take 6  commuters to work and back, and stock the wet-bar with a dirty-thirty of Natty Light for less than it is costing to transport them on the bus.  They would also get to work faster!

I'm not suggesting we do that, but it does point out the degree of waste associated with the existing system.

[AquaMan]

Unfortunately, without subsidy of the system, it's no longer affordable to passengers if you turn it over to private enterprise.  They necessarily would have to charge a higher fare rate in order to pay their bills and turn a modest profit.  Tulsa Transit would have gone broke years back if not for subsidy.  The reason there would still be a shell administration or oversight board in what I originally proposed is someone needs to keep an eye on the subsidy funds going to private contractors.  It's not about dismantling a public system out of spite and strangling it, if that's what you think I was saying.  

Tulsa Transit's primary customers are people who either cannot afford other transportation options, ride the bus to save on fuel expenses, or cannot drive for one reason or another.  I'm willing to bet that the majority of TT's current ridership is lower income, therefore, they have less money to get around.  If you changed the fare structure in such a way that someone's usual fare of $1.60 now becomes $8.00, you've just priced the service out of reach of the largest ridership.  Either that or created a new hardship for them.  The primary (if unstated) purpose of Tulsa Transit is to provide affordable transportation to the citizens of Tulsa.  Of course there are side benefits of less emissions with shared transit and less congestion.

It's a matter of simple economics.  Vehicle costs, maintenance, insurance, fuel, driver's salary and benefits, a storage and maintenance facility with all it's attendant costs, administrative staff, mechanics, etc. add up.  You could use smaller vehicles on shorter routes with lower acquisition cost, but then you cannot split the fares enough ways to keep it affordable and allow for a profit.

If upwardly mobile hipsters want a more efficient type of shared transit, are willing to pay for it, and it's a viable business model, then someone will start such a company and it really won't compete with Tulsa Transit because there's different target groups.

A good point Chicken Little made one time when we were discussing rail is that every form of transportation is subsidized in one way or another.  Whether I ride my bike, row a racing shell, drive my car, fly in an airplane, pilot my own airplane, ride a train, bus, or board a cruise ship, it's all taking advantage of some sort of government subsidy or investment.

I made some edits to my posts above. One of them was that there is no city, state, or federal constitutional provisions for cheap, public transportation. It simply isn't a basic necessity for a good life. Emphasize that last sentence. Its not cold hearted, its that those elderly and low income riders are being shuttled to businesses and services that could have been available in their own areas.

The result of subsidizing a city wide transportation system, especially when it fails operationally to do its function, is that development occurs artificially. Artist touched on that. Suburban growth is artificial development in that it cannot survive without the subsidies of taxpayer funded roads. Without that, the cost of infrastructure would be passed on to the buyers of those properties and would not be competitive with higher density development closer in where infrastructure already exists. Why do cities do that? Because the trade-off is increased tax at a pay as you go basis. And power. And jobs.

That process led to the decline of services to the inner city. The old Greenwood business district was a perfect example of how that artificial development was once blunted. Greenwood was self-sufficient. It employed many Northsiders but was a threat to the economic growth of the near Southside.  It was tolerated through the first two decades of Tulsa but when wealthier folks on the Southside couldn't get good maid service and couldn't make their retail operations profitable without minority purchasers....riots ensued. Partly racial and partly economic. Isn't it odd that the rise of the municipal bus system was concurrent with the riots....

I could see a compromise of sorts by keeping MTTA to operate the unprofitable routes. The problem is that you continue to blunt North and Northwest development when you do that. As long as it is easy to jump on a bus, call a taxi, call a paratransit or drive to the opposite side of town for groceries, medical treatment and supplies...it will never be available where you live.

[Conan71]

It's not a problem with the subsidy Conan, it's a problem as to how it is used.  If that same subsidy can be used to fund private industry solutions more efficiently and with a lower cost to the public than WHOO HOO!

Sure all transportation is "subsidized" to some extent through the expense of infrastructure, but that's no reason to dismiss the waste.  You can rent a Limo for $45 an hour, take 6  commuters to work and back, and stock the wet-bar with a dirty-thirty of Natty Light for less than it is costing to transport them on the bus.  They would also get to work faster!

I'm not suggesting we do that, but it does point out the degree of waste associated with the existing system.

I agree.  I think we are all on the same page, but are all talking past each other a bit in the process.  The one thing you have to watch for on the private carrier side is if they start cutting out routes because they negatively affect their profitability, then you wind up with un-served areas.

One of them was that there is no city, state, or federal constitutional provisions for cheap, public transportation. It simply isn't a basic necessity for a good life. Emphasize that last sentence. Its not cold hearted, its that those elderly and low income riders are being shuttled to businesses and services that could have been available in their own areas.

Neither is health insurance.  That didn't even exist for over the first 100 years of this country's existence, FAIK.

Cheap transit does improve the livability factor for the elderly and lower income folk.  There's plenty of other economic realities at work as to why there's not a heavy duplication of certain businesses and services within each area of the city.

[AquaMan]

West side is self-sufficient. East side is self sufficient. Sand Springs, Owasso, Bixby, Broken Arrow, Jenks, Glenpool...not only self-sufficient but provide no municipal bus service to their residents, poor, elderly or not. Each of those areas have multiples of grocery stores, hospitals, medical clinics, entertainment and services. The MTTA buses and routes to those areas could hardly be profitable.

So what exactly is it that you think keeps downtown, north side, north west, Reservoir Hill, Owen Park and Brady District without a plethora of these life enhancing businesses?