posting
03-22-2006, 10:09 PM
The View From Myrtle Beach: Taking the Bus by Richard Tindal
This is the second in an occasional series of articles depicting the similarity of local government issues north and south of the border.
I have always been puzzled about the way municipalities cost and operate their transit systems. First, they impose a very limited measure of costs versus revenues and then lament the failure of the system to operate at break-even. Second, in an attempt to reduce what are regarded as unacceptable transit deficits, they typically raise rates, often while reducing the service as well. The predictable public response is reduced ridership and an even larger transit deficit.
I was reminded of this strange approach when reading about the adventures of "Lymo" the popular name for the regional transportation authority that provides busing services within Myrtle Beach, including a run along Ocean Boulevard, a main thoroughfare immediately adjacent to the string of condos that stretch along the ocean for many miles. Lymo had responded to financial pressures by doubling the fare on its Ocean Boulevard run, while at the same time cutting the number of buses on this run from six to two. The result was a drop in ridership of almost 50%.
It is strange that we insist that public transit operate at break-even when the main alternative - constructing and maintaining roads for automobile travel - never comes close to covering its costs. Moreover, any suggestion that toll roads be introduced as a way of generating revenues always prompts a cry of outrage. A balanced and fair cost/benefit analysis for public transit would take into account the savings from reduced air pollution, traffic congestion, stress, fender-benders, insurance costs, police costs, and court costs. In Myrtle Beach, where the "Happy Hour" in the many bars along Ocean Boulevard runs from 4:00 until 8:00 p.m., increased use of public transit would surely reduce the potential legal liability of bar owners and be part of any sensible program of risk management and risk reduction. [Not that I have any personal experience with the "Happy Hour" phenomenon, of course.]
With proper accounting and measurement, I would argue that public transit does not operate at the level of deficit commonly cited and may even have a net cost advantage. Rather than raising rates (and reducing services), I would take the opposite approach. What would happen to ridership, I wonder, if transit rates were reduced - or even eliminated - while service levels were maintained or improved? What would be the overall impact on the local community and the local quality of life? These questions are never considered by municipalities that focus on an overly narrow and unfair measure of the financial status of public transit operations.
In this vein, I am reminded of the "Christmas Bus" experience a few years ago in an American city (Baltimore, as I recall). Through a series of mishaps, there had been a number of disruptions in bus service in the weeks prior to that particular December. With everything finally back to normal, the municipal bus company wanted to let the public know and also to make it up to those who had been inconvenienced by the earlier service disruptions. Throughout December, the buses of that city were covered with Christmas decorations, there was no fare, the drivers were dressed in Santa Claus costumes, and people boarding the bus were given coffee and Christmas cookies. Years later, people in that city still talk about the Christmas Bus - and they still use the transit service.
In our obsession with making municipalities operate more like a business, we treat public transit as an operation that must run at break-even (impossible as that usually is). An alternative approach is to consider public transit as a public good that provides broader benefits to society and should be measured accordingly.
The other articles in this series can be found at the following links:
The View From Myrtle Beach: Property Taxes Are Beloved Everywhere (http://www.kingstonelectors.ca/forums/showthread.php?t=1204)
The View From Myrtle Beach: Taking the Bus (http://www.kingstonelectors.ca/forums/showthread.php?t=1203)
The View From Myrtle Beach: Be Careful What You Wish For - Property Tax Reform (http://www.kingstonelectors.ca/forums/showthread.php?t=1202)
The View From Myrtle Beach: What If Patients Were Revenues Instead of Costs? (http://www.kingstonelectors.ca/forums/showthread.php?t=1201)
The View From Myrtle Beach: Rocky Movies and Property Tax Reforms (http://www.kingstonelectors.ca/forums/showthread.php?t=1200)
This is the second in an occasional series of articles depicting the similarity of local government issues north and south of the border.
I have always been puzzled about the way municipalities cost and operate their transit systems. First, they impose a very limited measure of costs versus revenues and then lament the failure of the system to operate at break-even. Second, in an attempt to reduce what are regarded as unacceptable transit deficits, they typically raise rates, often while reducing the service as well. The predictable public response is reduced ridership and an even larger transit deficit.
I was reminded of this strange approach when reading about the adventures of "Lymo" the popular name for the regional transportation authority that provides busing services within Myrtle Beach, including a run along Ocean Boulevard, a main thoroughfare immediately adjacent to the string of condos that stretch along the ocean for many miles. Lymo had responded to financial pressures by doubling the fare on its Ocean Boulevard run, while at the same time cutting the number of buses on this run from six to two. The result was a drop in ridership of almost 50%.
It is strange that we insist that public transit operate at break-even when the main alternative - constructing and maintaining roads for automobile travel - never comes close to covering its costs. Moreover, any suggestion that toll roads be introduced as a way of generating revenues always prompts a cry of outrage. A balanced and fair cost/benefit analysis for public transit would take into account the savings from reduced air pollution, traffic congestion, stress, fender-benders, insurance costs, police costs, and court costs. In Myrtle Beach, where the "Happy Hour" in the many bars along Ocean Boulevard runs from 4:00 until 8:00 p.m., increased use of public transit would surely reduce the potential legal liability of bar owners and be part of any sensible program of risk management and risk reduction. [Not that I have any personal experience with the "Happy Hour" phenomenon, of course.]
With proper accounting and measurement, I would argue that public transit does not operate at the level of deficit commonly cited and may even have a net cost advantage. Rather than raising rates (and reducing services), I would take the opposite approach. What would happen to ridership, I wonder, if transit rates were reduced - or even eliminated - while service levels were maintained or improved? What would be the overall impact on the local community and the local quality of life? These questions are never considered by municipalities that focus on an overly narrow and unfair measure of the financial status of public transit operations.
In this vein, I am reminded of the "Christmas Bus" experience a few years ago in an American city (Baltimore, as I recall). Through a series of mishaps, there had been a number of disruptions in bus service in the weeks prior to that particular December. With everything finally back to normal, the municipal bus company wanted to let the public know and also to make it up to those who had been inconvenienced by the earlier service disruptions. Throughout December, the buses of that city were covered with Christmas decorations, there was no fare, the drivers were dressed in Santa Claus costumes, and people boarding the bus were given coffee and Christmas cookies. Years later, people in that city still talk about the Christmas Bus - and they still use the transit service.
In our obsession with making municipalities operate more like a business, we treat public transit as an operation that must run at break-even (impossible as that usually is). An alternative approach is to consider public transit as a public good that provides broader benefits to society and should be measured accordingly.
The other articles in this series can be found at the following links:
The View From Myrtle Beach: Property Taxes Are Beloved Everywhere (http://www.kingstonelectors.ca/forums/showthread.php?t=1204)
The View From Myrtle Beach: Taking the Bus (http://www.kingstonelectors.ca/forums/showthread.php?t=1203)
The View From Myrtle Beach: Be Careful What You Wish For - Property Tax Reform (http://www.kingstonelectors.ca/forums/showthread.php?t=1202)
The View From Myrtle Beach: What If Patients Were Revenues Instead of Costs? (http://www.kingstonelectors.ca/forums/showthread.php?t=1201)
The View From Myrtle Beach: Rocky Movies and Property Tax Reforms (http://www.kingstonelectors.ca/forums/showthread.php?t=1200)