You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves. Abraham Lincoln

Which brings up a real good question. Part of liberty is being self-sufficient. We are, through subsidies to transit and other social programs, seducing people into dependency. After decades of doing this, we are starting to realize it doesnt work in the welfare arena, but we continue to do it in the transportation arena. For much less than the capital cost of adding transit services to get another rider, we could arrange programs for discount sales of extremely energy efficient cars, subsidized liability insurance, and similar. We should still keep demand services for the people who for whatever reason, mental, physical, or administrative, will never drive. But this is a very small fraction of the total transit users. If you are truly concerned about social equity you should be working to provide the poor transit dependent person what they REALLY want, personal transportation that can take them anywhere they want to go, not just along the fixed guidepath transit route, when they want to go, not when they have to go to meet their transfer. And when you look at the cost of LINK and Sounder, itd be FAR cheaper just to buy the people economy cars, based upon NEW users.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 14, 2000

Answers

Zowie, you're assuming most people WANT to drive. Judging by the faces I see stuck in traffic all the time, I don't view driving as such a pleasurable experience as previously believed. Nor is it efficient, since many people use a $45,000 car just to drive 12 miles for a gallon of milk.

Few people WANT to drive for the sheer pleasure of driving itself - - most people drive because they need to go somewhere. The pleasure usually rests in that cars allow most of us to get somewhere far away in a fraction of the time it would take to walk it (which you alluded to). . . .So why not walk it? Because most of us can't, either because of ridiculous neighborhood planning (the grocery is 10 miles from home, which in turn is 10 miles from school, which is 10 miles from work) or because of physical neglect (obesity, sendientary lifestyles). And that's what's REALLY wrong with America.

But I digress.

Who defines "poor" in your "discounted car" scenario, zowie? Shall we base it on income level? Number of kids? Educational status? Class? Race? Place of residence? Occupation?

And what about CHILDREN who cannot drive, but nonetheless want to go places beyond their street? Shall teenagers younger than 16 forever be incarcerated where they can't get anywhere without begging for a ride from mommy? Since you propose an anemic public transit system, I doubt that most kids - especially suburban ones - will be able to get anywhere without mom's taxi service. Indeed, that's the state most suburban kids are in now! The elderly and disabled face a similar situation, and an anemic transit system like you propose will imprison them into their homes even further.

And what about those adults who CHOOSE not to drive because they distaste automobiles? They still need to go places, you know! A car that's "discounted" or a car that's $100,000 makes no difference to them. They will not drive! I realize this is only a small fraction of the population, but they are growing.

And what of those who CHOOSE not to drive because they realize there are better ways to spend money than on gasoline, auto insurance, and repairs?

And what of the unfortunate consequences an auto-centric policy has on planning, architecture, and public spaces? That's another issue entirely!

In all of these cases, shall we just say "Too bad. The public transit system sucks because the rest of us can afford to drive, or have the ability to drive a discounted car. We've chosen to subsidize automobile transit at the expense of everything else. DRIVE OR DIE!!!!"

There are many other issues, and I could probably go on all day about the ridiculousness of your proposal, but I'll end it here.

On a side note, how is handing somone a "discounted car" any different than subsidizing transit that already exists? If your point is that we should ween people off welfare, than what's the difference between handing them affordable transit or an affordable car? I don't see the difference, as far as responsibility goes.

-- Common Sense (1@hotmail.com), January 14, 2000.

Zowie, you're assuming most people WANT to drive. No. Thats what the National Personal Transportation surveys that weve been doing every five years for the last 25 years or so indicate. Course, they could have been lying on their surveys.......

Few people WANT to drive for the sheer pleasure of driving itself - - most people drive because they need to go somewhere. Actually, no. Pleasure driving greatly exceeds commuting to work and other truly necessary driving. Look at RV sales.

The pleasure usually rests in that cars allow most of us to get somewhere far away in a fraction of the time it would take to walk it (which you alluded to). . . .So why not walk it? Because most of us can't, either because of ridiculous neighborhood planning (the grocery is 10 miles from home, which in turn is 10 miles from school, which is 10 miles from work) or because of physical neglect (obesity, sendientary lifestyles). And that's what's REALLY wrong with America. Because friends and family are mobile. And the average person cant keep up a route-march of 4mph.

Who defines "poor" in your "discounted car" scenario, zowie? Shall we base it on income level? Number of kids? Educational status? Class? Race? Place of residence? Occupation? Who defines poor now? Transit advocates are always saying that people who try to decrease transit are trying to hurt the poor. One would assume its the same poor as these people.

And what about CHILDREN who cannot drive, but nonetheless want to go places beyond their street? Shall teenagers younger than 16 forever be incarcerated where they can't get anywhere without begging for a ride from mommy? Oh right, I want 12-16 year olds to have unrestricted mobility with a transit pass.

Since you propose an anemic public transit system, I doubt that most kids - especially suburban ones - will be able to get anywhere without mom's taxi service. Indeed, that's the state most suburban kids are in now! Absolutely correct. And a damn good thing, too.

 The elderly and disabled face a similar situation, and an anemic transit system like you propose will imprison them into their homes even further. 

What part of We should still keep demand services for the people who for whatever reason, mental, physical, or administrative, will never drive.  didnt YOU understand? These people can better be managed by demand services, smaller vehicles like paratransit that come to where they are and get them.

YOURE the one thats force them to wheelchair a quarter-mile to a bus stop to conserve transit for healthy people at the expense of these people.

Its a zero-sum game. Healthy people riding subsidized transit are stealing resources from the elderly and disabled.

And what about those adults who CHOOSE not to drive because they distaste automobiles? No one should eat an automobile. No one.

They still need to go places, you know! I wouldnt give me a straight line like that twice if I were you. The temptation to tell you where to go is too great.........

A car that's "discounted" or a car that's $100,000 makes no difference to them. They will not drive! And John Madden wont fly in an airplane, but HE doesnt expect me to pay for HIS bus. Why should I pay for yours? I LIKE John Madden FAR more than I like you.

 I realize this is only a small fraction of the population, but they are growing. They are growing fewer all the time, according to surveys. And what of those who CHOOSE not to drive because they realize there are better ways to spend money than on gasoline, auto insurance, and repairs?  They can CHOOSE to bicycle, kayak, jog, go by bus, go by train, go by camel for all I care. As long as they dont ask me to subsidize it.

And what of the unfortunate consequences an auto-centric policy has on planning, architecture, and public spaces? And what are these?

That's another issue entirely! So far, you havent demonstrated that it is an issue AT ALL.

In all of these cases, shall we just say "Too bad. The public transit system sucks because the rest of us can afford to drive, or have the ability to drive a discounted car. We've chosen to subsidize automobile transit at the expense of everything else. The figures really dont back you up. But that's what I would say to someone who wanted me to buy him a plane ticket to Hawaii. Why should it be different if he wants to go to Federal Way?

 DRIVE OR DIE!!!!" Under welfare reform, thats kind of what we are saying to the poor. If you are healthy and able to work, there is no lifetime entitlement to welfare. Why should I give you a lifetime entitlement to have transportation paid for by me?

There are many other issues, and I could probably go on all day about the ridiculousness of your proposal, but I'll end it here.  Good, you havent made much sense so far.

On a side note, how is handing somone a "discounted car" any different than subsidizing transit that already exists? Because its transitional. It makes them better able to function in society. It does not keep them dependent. They can join the mainstream.

If your point is that we should ween people off welfare, than what's the difference between handing them affordable transit or an affordable car? I don't see the difference, as far as responsibility goes.  Give an individual a fish and you feed him one day. Teach him how to fish, and you feed him forever. Do you want him/her to have increased opportunity? Or do you want them to just go where we are willing to subsidize them to go, when we are willing to subsidize them? Do you support THEIR liberty, or are you just out to get something for yourself, using the claims of helping the poor and ITS FOR THE CHILDREN to get your own secondary gain.

Be a mensch. Do like John Madden did. Buy your own damn bus. Dont expect to leech off the rest of us.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 14, 2000.

dear common. Do you get up every morning, look in the mirror and laugh hysterically until you fall down?

You should write a book..Nobody would buy it but at least it would give you a project

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), January 14, 2000.

No common sense,

Before I start crying big crocodile tears for teenagers who can't get to the mall or wherever, (because they have all finished their homework and chores, right?) What is wrong with a parent transporting teens? Maybe they would have a better idea where their teens are, and what they're doing. Could lead to lower juvenile crime.

As for the elderly, we have a chore program in this state, that includes transportation for low income, elderly and handicapped. And I don't mind telling you, many people won't suffer as much as you think. If they have to rely on family for transportation, they may be grateful for the opportunity to spend time with loved ones. If it puts an inconvenience on adult children, too bad. Take mom or Grandma shopping once it week, it won't kill ya!

Of course, you would rather everyone be dependant on the state right? Instead of taking care of our own?

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 14, 2000.

Demand-Response services costs about $23 dollars, where fixed route local service costs about $3. I am shure becouse we are all here we wish for our government to spend our money in the most cost-efficent way, the demand-response should be elininaed becouse operating fixed- route service is more cost effective than operating demand-response. the unfourtunate part is, the demand-respose is mandated by fedral law (the americans with disabilies act). A lot of money could be better spend transporting thoes who use public transportation by eliminateing the demand-respose service and putting that money into better fixed service.

-- Zack W (Busdude@Worldnet.att.net), January 17, 2000.

Bud,

Sometimes demand response is pretty efficient. Providing service to remote areas is what is too costly. Many agencies provide demand response in areas NOT covered by fixed route systems. They are not required by ADA to do so.

Just for comparison, Kitsap Transit carries 4.33 Unlinked Passenger Trips per Vehicle Revenue Hour. This includes remote rural areas not required by ADA, in a County with many water obstacles (no bridge or ferry available.) that increase time and distance by the vehicle.

Many agencies work hard at keeping the passengers per hour figure up. (helps them qualify for Federal Grants) Many don't really care.

The Yakima figure is 5.39 Seattle Metro reports only 2.48.

We are required by ADA to provide service to *only* those areas served by fixed route. You can not do away with it altogether, but you can certainly cut it back and require higher passenger counts be achieved.

Keep in mind, that most demand response systems are already operating economical vehicles, and the operators are not being paid top wages of most fixed route operators. ($11.00 per hour is norm.) Perhaps what we really need to do is use demand response outside large urban areas totally. Charge high enough fares to cover operating expenses and subsidize the fares of low income passengers only. It would create more jobs, since you will need at least 4 small vehicles to replace the capacity of one big bus. Scheduling the trips in advance allows you to maximize your service with computer scheduling. There are many alternatives available, once you get rid of that smelly big bus and your rigid, fixed route. A demand response operator can avoid congestion better. A network of these vehicles can usually keep each other informed as to traffic conditions and reroute each other. Instead of several transfers, you get door to door service. The difference between this and a cab, is that you share the cost with other passengers, to make the trips more economical. Of course, you still have the inconvenience of the time of added stops to your trip, but for many it would still be less than fixed route. Think about it....

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 17, 2000.

Sorry, Zack, not Bud.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 17, 2000.

Marsha-

I see demand response as being the answer to the needs of the transit dependent. I think it should be run as economically as feasible, but I consider it a societal obligation. For the REST of the people using transit, it's a personal choice. I don't think they should be subsidized at all. If the parking fees saved, car insurance saved, gas saved, etc. etc., justify transit use, they ought to use it. There will be few (and mostly very densely populated) areas where it does.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 17, 2000.

Craig,

The biggest obstacle here isn't even the Transit Agencies. They would love to downsize much of their big bus fleets, and replace them with smaller vehicles.

Two reasons they don't is that they have bargaining agreements that dictate most work WILL be done with a big bus, and most times, the operator of a smaller vehicle will be paid considerably less. So even if they have the incentive, the Unions won't allow it.

The only way to change this deadlock is to force it on the Unions by us, the taxpayers. This has been a hot issue at several ATU properties. Small vehicle operators feel like second class citizens, who are being discriminated against by their own Unions.

Most bargaining agreements also contain a savings clause to allow Agencies to renegotiate or change the way they operate, IF funding or laws change.

What is a bit different post I-695, is that Agencies who would normally use reduced funding to force concessions on the Union, have not done so, because they have now feel compelled to be in bed together. They think they need the support of Labor, to further their silly Transportation Agendas.

This is just one more reason I support the Transportation Improvement Initiative. Sooner or later, reduced funding will cause these Unions to lose bargaining power to control how my tax dollars are spent, and allow these Agencies to implement needed changes.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 17, 2000.

"Two reasons they don't is that they have bargaining agreements that dictate most work WILL be done with a big bus, and most times, the operator of a smaller vehicle will be paid considerably less. So even if they have the incentive, the Unions won't allow it. " I know this, Marsha. If you look at where the money goes in transit, it's disproportionately to salaries. Even private transit companies deliver far more cost-effective service, because they aren't a monopoly, have competition, and know that the company will go under if they use politically driven rather than economically driven business practices.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 17, 2000.

Craig,

While your point is well taken, I am afraid it isn't just the drivers wages that suck up all that money. Management and support personnel are even more overpaid. In some agencies, you will find 1 support person for every 1.5 drivers. (I heard of one agency that actually had more support personnel than drivers, but I could not verify.) What I mean by that is if you have 200 drivers, it is likely that you have at least 100 other support personnel. These include dispatchers, schedulers, customer service reps, road supervisors, mechanics, bus fuelers/washers, payroll etc. In nearly every instance, they make a higher wage than the driver. In fact, the Drivers Union seems to hold down wages much of the time. Demand response Operators are often payed $6.00 or $7.00 an hour less than fixed route, large bus Operators, and Demand Response requires twice the training!

Non represented employees make much more than those who are represented.

My biggest concern with the Union is that they increase the ineffieciency by not allowing Agencies to switch to smaller busses.

Time to scrap it and privatize.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 17, 2000.

Marsha-

I agree. Bloated administrative staffs are the hallmark of government monopolies. It's not just that they are union shops. Union shop private transportation companies are generally far more efficient with fewer chiefs and more Indians than the government transportation monoplolies.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 18, 2000.