Comments on: Is Public Transit Bankrupt?

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 13:24:19 +0000

Transit service in St. John’s, Newfoundland seems to be becoming obsolete now. Metrobus (St. John’s transit service) ridership has been in decline since 2006, and now there is a transit strike happening with which there is no end in sight. The strike will cause a deficit if it goes on long enough. If the strike lasts long enough, they will have to raise the fares sky high to make up for lost revenue. Before the strike, we paid $2.25 for riding the bus; if the strike goes on long enough I have a feeling they will be increasing to $3.00, and if that high public transit in St. John’s may end up becoming a luxury. $3.00 adult cash fare will keep riders away, and the company may end up on the verge of bankruptcy in due time. It wouldn’t surprise me if Metrobus in St. John’s loses riders after the strike ends, and I wouldn’t be surprised if they declare bankruptcy because of a significant drop in ridership and not being able to afford to continue operations. 2011 is looking to be a grim year for public transit in St. John’s, IMO.

By: Michael Sexton

Michael Sexton — Tue, 11 May 2010 12:59:43 +0000

Public transit is not a decongestant. It will only gain usage when there is congestion, so the article’s inference that because transit is placed in major urban areas with congestion it does not work is illogical. I am not suggesting that all is right with the current “politically correct” notion that public transit can do no wrong, but transit does have its place — regardless of what you say — as an example, how can you measure the benefits of reduction in parking spaces needed in downtown San Francisco — and its attendant increase in development?

By: Norris Hall

Norris Hall — Thu, 06 May 2010 15:22:12 +0000

Sacramento public transportation is a joke.
I just came back from a trip to Vancouver, Victoria and Seattle. Our group was able to get from downtown to the airport on public transportation in all those cities.
When I got into Sacramento airport, our only alternative was taxi or shuttle bus. We took a shuttle bus. It cost us 5 times more than the light rail from downtown Seattle to SEATAC airport…a 40 minute trip.
No public transportation to and from the airport? Sac international will never be a major airport hub no matter how many terminals they build.
Without public transportation to and fron the airport you have too choices. Leave your car parked at the airport , rent a car, or take a taxi….all very expensive

By: James Hawn

James Hawn — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 22:57:52 +0000

Why in the world would the various forms of so-called public transportation entities operated by governmental bodies, do anything that makes sense or that has any real merit at this late date.

I have been around long enough to remember the Red and Green lines (and others) of Los Angeles that really operated quite well. However, the bureaucrats thought as always that they knew better, and removed all such forms of functioning services at a tremendous cost to the taxpayer, and then replaced a working system, with bus line system that has never operated properly and is far more expensive to maintain.

Now there exists a massive and inoperative system that does not function adequately, that in all reality few people use, since it really does not and was not intended to function usefully for the citizens, it was really meant to be nothing more than a Brownie Button for the bureaucrats, little different than most governments program. Does little, serves few, and costs more than enough for all to use. You just have to love our government officials and what they believe is good for us, since we are incapable of knowing what is best for ourselves.

By: Steve

Steve — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 20:42:53 +0000

A very thought-provoking article.
I agree that buses are more efficient in that they don’t require a new, dedicated infrastructure and their routes can easily be changed to match changes in commute patterns. Rail does not enjoy those advantages, although for this same reason they avoid traffic congestion and have much better on-time records than buses do. In any event, I think a good case can be made to put scarce dollars into preserving bus service rather than expanding rail service.

I’m less convinced of the article’s suggestion that public transit should act more like a private business. Normal market signals don’t really work here. Even with fare increases, riders of public transit are still receiving a subsidy. And the beneficiaries of public transit are not simply the riders — the reduction in traffic congestion, parking congestion, and air pollution benefit the broader public. This is one reason that the public subsizes transit in the first place.

The real issue here, I think, is not so much that transit agencies are raising fares or cutting service. The issue is that government is reducing funding for transit. I understand that government leaders don’t have much choice but to make cuts in this fiscal environment, but I sure wouldn’t blame transit agencies for raising fares and cutting service.