|
|
| Author |
Message |
danr
|
|
Forget The Ride??
| 
Jan 31 03:22 UTC 1994 |
February's Ann Arbor Observer has an eight-page spread from the Ann
Arbor Transit Authority (AATA), our beloved bus company. Have a look
at it, especially the financial statement. They spent nearly $13
million dollars in 1993 and collected only $2.1 million in fares.
More than $10.8 million in tax money made up the difference!
They say that they served 3.84 million passengers in 1993. That means
that it cost them $3.38 for each passenger.
Is it just me, or does this seem ridiculous to anyone else? The IRS
says it costs 28 cents per mile to operate a car. At this rate, $3.38
will get you 12.1 miles. Now, they don't give the average trip
length, but I would guess that that average AATA bus ride is less than
12.1 miles. If you look at it this way, we would be better off buying
cars for people than operating the AATA!
|
| 87 responses total. |
omni
|
|
response 1 of 87:
|
Jan 31 04:03 UTC 1994 |
Considering the fact that the AATA just bought a bunch of new busses.
they look right, but as time goes on, I would hope that this figure
will come down. I hope that they don't raise fares again, but in light
of these figures, they might have no choice.
|
scg
|
|
response 2 of 87:
|
Jan 31 04:49 UTC 1994 |
I don't ride AATA because it takes too long and costs too much. For example,
if I were going to take the bus to school it would take 17 minutes, plus it
would get me there about ten minutes early, for a total time of 27 minutes.
If I walk, it takes me about 20 minutes, making that much faster. If I drive,
it takes about twelve minutes (including parking), and if I bike (which is
what I usually do) it only takes about eight minutes. Now, with time figures
like that, why take the AATA? And the last couple of times I've taken the
AATA the driver hasn't noticed when I pushed the stop button, and I've ended
having to go a stop too far, while having to yell at the driver to get their
attention so they would stop then.
|
vidar
|
|
response 3 of 87:
|
Jan 31 21:37 UTC 1994 |
I almost never ride the RIDE if I have some other means of transportation:
bike, car, foot (if it ain't to cold),or ski. However, in the event that I
actually need to ride, I have this nifty bus pass that was absolutley free
since I live outside their "walking zone" which is a one mile radius from the
school.
Even back when it cost only $00.65, it was still expensive. I prefer to walk
anyway, It's better exercise.
|
shf
|
|
response 4 of 87:
|
Feb 1 10:42 UTC 1994 |
If you don't like the AATA, try SMART. You'll feel much better once back on
AATA.
|
danr
|
|
response 5 of 87:
|
Feb 1 12:12 UTC 1994 |
I'll skip both, thank you. Bus service wasn't that great when I was a
kid in Detroit, and I suspect it isn't any better now.
|
kaplan
|
|
response 6 of 87:
|
Feb 1 16:13 UTC 1994 |
I have not read the info in the Observer yet. However, I know the AATA
provides more services than rides to people who pay fairs. For example,
EMU has a contract with AATA to take people between west campus commuter
parking, main campus, and the college of business in downtown Ypsi. The
money that EMU pays to AATA would not come in as a fair, but it is paid to
AATA in exchange for transportation services.
Even if it would be cheaper to provide cars to people than provide bus
service, that doesn't do much good unless you also provide a driver for
those who can't or won't drive. That would be expensive.
|
danr
|
|
response 7 of 87:
|
Feb 1 17:06 UTC 1994 |
Believe me, I'm not suggesting that. There is a line for "interest
and other revenues." That totalled only $209,000. They're probably
losing money on that, too!
|
chelsea
|
|
response 8 of 87:
|
Feb 1 23:41 UTC 1994 |
I take the AATA to work. It's convenient, runs on time, and is free
for those staff who work on the medical campus. I've been this
for about 5 years now and would never go back to
dealing with the $350 parking stickers, having to hunt endlessly for
a non-existent spot, and often being late for work.
Regarding Dan's point about the heavy financial subsidies - the
city has always paid a big portion of the AATA's operating costs.
It needs to in order to provide the city with a lot of its
minimum wage employees. You can either offer low cost housing
somewhere within walking distance of employment or you have to
offer cheap transportation into town. I think, quite clearly,
Ann Arbor barely tolerates the poor and would rather bus them in
than deal with their living here. But you can't keep them out
and continue to staff the restaurants, stores, service stations,
and City Hall.
There may also be some waste involved in the day-to-day operations.
I've watched many a route run flawlessly for years with only a
handful of riders during the non-rush hour trips.
|
danr
|
|
response 9 of 87:
|
Feb 2 00:27 UTC 1994 |
I think that's baloney. If people can't get in to work, then the
restaurants, etc. will have to pay more to get them. If that means
paying higher restaurant bills, so be it. I'd rather pay this money
more directly to people who earn it than to some quasi-government
agency. Perhaps if they were paid more, they could go out and buy
a car and be more free to do what they want during non-work hours.
|
omni
|
|
response 10 of 87:
|
Feb 2 05:27 UTC 1994 |
If there are more cars on the road, then road maintenence costs rise
as does taxes. Mass Transit IS the best solution, and a general increase
in the minimum wage as well. It is 3 miles from my front door to 4th and
William. As an asthasmatic, I cannot walk that distance, therefore Mass Transit
is the better option. I don't mind freezing a little.
A fare increase is a better option than a tax rate increase.
|
mjs
|
|
response 11 of 87:
|
Feb 2 05:28 UTC 1994 |
Bus service is an "option demand good", something that is worth
having around, and therefore worth some price, even to those who
don't regularly use it. I think a society without bus service
would create a lot of social problems for those without cars, and
that might get around to affecting the rest of us in other ways.
Huge amounts of public money are spent on parking lots and roads.
It doesn't all come from road taxes. Not to mention all the expense
of regulating cleaner air.
|
danr
|
|
response 12 of 87:
|
Feb 2 12:06 UTC 1994 |
This rationalizing of huge goveernment waste is a clear example of
why we're in the mess we're in. Like Everett Dirksen said, "A billion
here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money."
|
kami
|
|
response 13 of 87:
|
Feb 2 18:33 UTC 1994 |
public transit is a good thing. That doen't mean that a poor transit system
is better than none. They need to get their act together. On the other hand,
Americans are CHEAP! You get what you pay for- good roads, good busses, or
innovative solutions. I think there should be a MAXIMUM wage- siphon some of
the excess off the top into "low status" but necessary jobs so those workers
canafford non- subsidized transit costs and the transit companies can therefor
stay abreast of technology.
|
omni
|
|
response 14 of 87:
|
Feb 2 18:58 UTC 1994 |
AATA is a well run organization, but still could stand *some* reorganizing
and streamlining. It's a lot better than SMART is, and a LOT of other bus
services in other cities.
|
bartlett
|
|
response 15 of 87:
|
Feb 2 20:45 UTC 1994 |
And the other thing to remember is that $0.75+$0.05/transfer is cheap in
comparison to other mass transit systems. I got an education in real
commuting by mass-transit in November, when while visiting a friend in
Berkeley Ca, we did a lot of BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) and bus riding.
$0.80 was a minimum, and the average charge was more live $1.25 or more.
Also, the employess were for the most part hurried, rude or just indifferent
to customer problems. If I recall correctly, Chicago buses are more
expensive, and you wouldn't want to ride them after a certain time.
Let's not be so hard on AATA that we forget that it could be a lot worse,
and is in many places.
|
danr
|
|
response 16 of 87:
|
Feb 2 22:48 UTC 1994 |
You guys are still rationalizing. How can they be a well-run organization
when they spend $10 million more than they take in? The actual fare
may be low, but your paying for it one way or another.
This is money that could be going to schools or other more worthwhile
endeavors.
|
omni
|
|
response 17 of 87:
|
Feb 3 05:26 UTC 1994 |
Adding more cars to the mix will not help the roads, Dan. Let's say that
one bus can be replaced by 40 cars. In time, there will be more wear and
tear on the roads, and taxes will have to be increased in order to repair
those roads. I don't think you want higher taxes, Dan.
The drivers that I know are friendly personable people. Unlike some in
Detroit.
Maybe a tax increase is in order, But I still suspect that the reason
that AATA is that much in the hole is the replacement of the rolling stock
and the new building that is only 5 years old. I would think that there still
paying for that as well, and will be for quite some time. AATA used to use
that old complex on Carpenter across from Meijer which was really outdated
and ineffiecient. I have toured the new facility and I can safely say
that it was needed and will be there for quite some time.
|
scg
|
|
response 18 of 87:
|
Feb 3 06:09 UTC 1994 |
In addition to all the wear that 40 cars will put on the roads, they will
also cause far more traffic congestion. Since I bike whenever I can
(including this morning, when it was about 0 degrees out), the AATA doesn't
tend to concern me that much. The biking is far more cost effective and
faster. What I would like is for the AATA to run later at night. That's when
it would be really useful to me.
|
mjs
|
|
response 19 of 87:
|
Feb 3 07:31 UTC 1994 |
Rationalizing, smationalizing. Consider what you people spend on your
cars ($15,000 for a modest new one, plus interest). $2000 depreciation
or more in a single year. Spend that much per rider on public transport
and you'd have a system like on the Jetsons. We can all complain about
public expenditures. Let's complain about priorities. This is money
that could be going to schools or other worthwhile endeavors.
|
vidar
|
|
response 20 of 87:
|
Feb 5 03:01 UTC 1994 |
If you can't ride an AATA, the is always the U-M bus system. However, It would
be nice if these bus passes started working befor 1500 Hours, and lasted longer
than 'til 18:45. My Freshman year they started working at 11:45.
However, bus passes have nothing to do with the effectivness of AATA. I
would like to add that I walked home from school today. And a nice afternoon
it was too,
<|)
|
polygon
|
|
response 21 of 87:
|
Feb 7 04:21 UTC 1994 |
Virtually all city bus or transit systems everywhere are subsidized.
The reasons for this are sensible, not just "rationalizations."
Every person who takes a local trip via bus rather than car reduces the
amount of air pollution, energy consumption, traffic congestion, parking
demand and road wear. Remember that the greater the traffic congestion,
the more time it takes *everyone* to get to their destination.
The trouble with our transit systems is that they've come to be regarded
as a form of welfare for the poor. AATA is actually quite unusual in its
valiant attempts to attract a broader cross-section of the public as
riders. Anyone who has ridden the Detroit city buses, or Greyhound
intercity buses in recent years, knows how wretched bus service can be
when it's provided specifically to people who have absolutely no other
choices.
In Europe, a different attitude prevails. Since rail transportation was
seen as a vital link, it was not allowed to fall into decay and disuse in
the 1950's, as it was here. Since European cities could not possibly
accomodate as many cars as American cities do, transit is seen much more
as a good thing for the whole population, as opposed to a subsidy for the
poorest of the poor. Yes, they also provide tax support for their transit
systems. They also use vastly less energy on transportation than we do,
and their economies have benefited.
The other extreme is represented by Los Angeles. Even before the recent
earthquake severed its major freeways, Los Angeles was drowning in its own
traffic. The nearly exclusive dependence on cars was making it very
difficult to do business in one of the world's major economic centers, and
hence threatening its role. Meanwhile, Los Angeles' competitors, like New
York, Chicago, Tokyo, London, etc., were able to move even larger numbers
of people to and from work with far less trouble, using a more balanced
system. There is *no* way that Los Angeles can extricate itself from its
transportation problems without heavy subsidies to build and operate
alternative modes.
What would Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti be like without AATA? It would be more
polluted and congested with more cars. It would be more expensive. More
and more buildings near downtown (currently providing housing, economic
activity and tax base) would have to be demolished for more parking
(costing tax dollars for acquisition and maintenance). Greater traffic
flows on all the major streets would bring about more rapid deterioration
of neighborhoods. With deterioration and lack of access to jobs would
come greater crime, and greater fear of crime.
Eventually the crime, the deterioration of the physical fabric, and
the hassles of getting to and from downtown, would discourage people from
wanting to go downtown at all, and it would itself become ever more
seedy. As the city's tax base suffered, so to would city services, which
(along with all the other problems) would propel middle-class people out
of the city and make everything worse.
Ann Arbor, these days, is incredibly unusual in having largely avoided
many of these familiar urban problems. Ann Arbor has an economically
vibrant downtown which retains the vital downtown density of activity that
cannot usually be sustained in such a small town. Ann Arbor still has an
intact middle class, and though there is some urban development outside
the city limits, Ann Arbor has essentially no suburbs. I don't know
precisely how much AATA is responsible for keeping all these problems at
bay, but given how many places have failed at doing this, I wouldn't want
to risk throwing it away.
|
scg
|
|
response 22 of 87:
|
Feb 7 04:40 UTC 1994 |
This stuff about LA brings up an interesting point. After the earthquake
there was a lot of moaning about how expensive it was going to be to rebuild
the freeways, and how much time it would take. Yet, I didn't hear anybody
ask whether rebuilding them was really necessary. I see the destruction of
the freeways not as an opertunity to rebuild them to their former capacity
at a great cost, but rather as a great opertunity to redesign the LA
transportation system. To rebuild them without very careful consideration
of the reasons for doing so is just plain irresponsible.
|
srw
|
|
response 23 of 87:
|
Feb 7 06:07 UTC 1994 |
Even if they now put in a good mass transit system, those damaged
freeways would still be needed to carry almost as much as they were
designed to carry before. There is no way they will fail to rebuild
them, whatever else they may do.
|
omni
|
|
response 24 of 87:
|
Feb 7 06:57 UTC 1994 |
The reason that the rail systems in Detroit and LA decayed, was due in
part to General Motors who just found out that they could build busses
and support thier way of doing things. They virtually eliminated rail transit
in LA by themselves, and this is a documented fact!/
|