April 9, 2009

Not "good" enough

ARTICLE TOOLS

RSS Email Print

Send an e-mail to a colleague Please fill out the form below to send a link to this story to your colleague.
Your Name:	Your E-mail:
Colleague's Name:	Colleague's E-mail:
Message: (Max. 500 chars.)
Enter the verification code as it is shown below without spaces. (Case-insensitive) Enter Code: What's this? Image Code Verification Automated programs can't "read" the code you see in the box: only humans can. When you enter this code, it ensures that your order is going to a real person. If you don't see an image, make sure your browser is set to display images and try again. If you're not sure what the code is, make your best guess. If you're incorrect, you'll get another chance to enter a different code on the next screen. Close

By  Dan Reichard

• Gladys[ April 9th, 2009 @ 5:45pm ]

  When you say "their normal sources for revenue income, other than farebox revenue, are declining." Are you referring to special services and charter services? What are traditional funding sources for transit agencies other than tax revenues?
  Thanks -
  Gladys

• Jared Mendham[ April 9th, 2009 @ 6:13pm ]

  Now is the time to focus on using the available funding to invest in projects that will increase efficiencies and reduce overall cost of management. Then, when there isn't as much funding available, they will be able to better cope with the demands put upon them.
  
  Pushing my own barrow a little, if they chose to implement a cost effective scheduling system that included mobile data terminals (like our new eTransit package), then that will help them cut hours and dollars in repetitive costs, as well as becoming a smoother machine and empowering their employees.
  
  If they spend it on vehicles or something along those lines, yes they will have new buses, but they will still have all the old efficiency issues.
  
  Keep up the good work Dan :)
  
  Jared

• Jeff Brown[ April 10th, 2009 @ 4:40am ]

  It seems like the best plan is to use the capital funding to reduce repeated operating costs. One obvious way is to purchase new equipment (a capital investment) which requires less maintenance (an operating cost), thus reducing the repeated maintenance costs. The same logic goes for new fare systems (a capital investment) and improve revenue collection (which funds operations).
  
  The Transportation Industry tends to work in the long term; our equipment lasts a long time and our decisions make a long term impact. Rather than wishing we had a long time to study and make a decision, let's use our long memory to remember what we coulda shoulda woulda invested in years ago, and accept this gift horse.

• Mike Miller[ April 10th, 2009 @ 5:47am ]

  Gas taxes are a primary source of operating funds for our agency and many others. Those funds are declining. It's ironic that as gas prices rise, auto mileage improves and more alternative energy vehicles are being developed, people are driving less. Yet we and other transit agencies are experiencing increased demand for transit service. We must find an alternative funding source. One that is more reliable than traditional sources.

• David[ April 10th, 2009 @ 7:15am ]

  Ultimately, transit will need to increase fares even more and partner with 3rd party sources of revenue (media, advertisements, real estate developers, etc...). Transit needs to become more self funded in the future and not rely so heavily on subsidies... because public funding at these levels is unsustainable.
  
  David.

• andrew[ April 10th, 2009 @ 7:20am ]

  What is the point of buying new buses if you can't afford to pay the operators to drive them??
  
  

• John F. Barone[ April 10th, 2009 @ 7:20am ]

  Perhaps it's time to work smarter. Example: The installation of an oil/carbon separator after the bus air compressor will remove bypassed oil and carbon from the compressed air system thus reducing maintenance costs and allow the air dryer and all air system components on the vehicle to operate more effectively and efficiently. Component operating life expectancies are increased when compared with past experience, while road calls and labor costs are decreased.
  
  John F. Barone
  Air & Power Transmission Inc.
  Farmingdale, New York
  

• George Trudel[ April 10th, 2009 @ 8:17am ]

  If we are going to look to the future as far as this stimulus spending goes, we must remember a very important fact. Americans like their vehicles. As new technologies develope for autos using alternate fuel sources like electric and hydrogen powered vehicles, resulting in lower cost per mile driven, Americans will go back to their autos.
  
  This will be especially occur in the West, where Public Transportation is relatively new compared to the East Coast. At some point this needs to be looked at.

• Phil SIlver[ April 14th, 2009 @ 8:31am ]

  So, how can transit agencies use these funds to deliver substansial operational cost savings in areas that today consume massive amounts of operating expense? As an example, deploying business solutions that improve customer service and reduce operational expense that can be hosted and managed externally for a fraction of the cost to do the same task in-house?

• Erik H.[ May 1st, 2009 @ 11:44pm ]

  Here in Portland, our local transit agency is spending very, very little to improve our bus system despite the despirate need for new buses, high capacity buses, and bus stop improvements. In fact only $1 million of our stimulus package funding is going towards bus improvements that bus riders will see.
  
  Meanwhile, a lot of money is going into repairs at one light rail and two bus garages, an I.T. server room, streetlighting for a bike path, and a big huge new $75 million Streetcar line that will require additional support from the transit agency (although the transit agency does not own/operate the Streetcar, it has committed to fund it to the tune of $5 million annually!) Meanwhile bus service is being cut further and further despite the fact that ridership is at an all-time high and is climbing, while streetcar/light rail ridership (light rail ridership in particular is heavily dependent on the vehicle park-and-ride riders) is declining.
  
  The result is that transit is no longer providing the service of transporting people from where they are to where they need to go -- but as a political toy to help would-be developers redevelop a warehouse district at the expense of bus service.
  
  Is this the true role of a transit agency - to develop, or to transport?

• Jim M.[ May 21th, 2009 @ 7:00am ]

  Funding transit improvements without allowing some of the money to be spent on operations is like giving money for a bridge to be built and being told told you can't spend it on the people to build it.

• Dan Reichard[ May 25th, 2009 @ 5:15pm ]

  Gladys,
  The fixed revenue I refer to in most agencies are local sales tax or property tax. The sluggish economy has a direct affect on the agencies dependent on this as their major source of revenue (income).

• Precision castings[ September 1st, 2009 @ 8:24pm ]

  That article is so great! Thanks for sharing it into us.

• DALTONEsmeralda[ March 16th, 2010 @ 2:41pm ]

  I had a desire to make my commerce, nevertheless I didn't earn enough amount of cash to do that. Thank heaven my fellow said to take the personal loans. So I used the college loan and made real my dream.

Receive the latest Metro E-Newsletters in your inbox!

Join the Metro E-Newsletters and receive the latest news in your e-mail inbox once a week. SIGN UP NOW!

View the latest eNews
Express Tuesday | Express Thursday | University Transit