Erik Cole on MTA Bus Cuts
Erik Cole, Chair of the Budget and Finance Committee in the Metro Council, said that the MTA Board has agreed to revisit later in the year, their decision to only keep two of the seven routes that were originally scheduled to be cut before the Council approved an extra $1MM in funding.
Once it became apparent that we could find about $800,000 (to restore them all, we needed $1.8 million) I asked them to consider ways to include more routes in the restoration (suggestions included limited hours, no weekends, etc.) with the basic idea that folks could still rely upon public transit to get to work. [CEO of the Metro Transit Authority Paul] Ballard , rightly, I think, responded that he has to follow his governing body's decisions. There was no way possible for them to meet before the end of the fiscal year.
However, he did agree to revisit routes and productivity later in the year. Plus, they will have a master planning process later in the year as well. They have agreed to look closely at routes and funding and fuel prices throughout the year and, if, at all possible, to consider reinstating routes.
Councilman Cole also recommended that his fellow members of the Council, along with citizens effected by the cuts, attend the next MTA meeting to discuss their thoughts and feelings on the direction of the transit authority.
7 comments:
"...citizens effected by the cuts, attend the next MTA meeting to discuss their thoughts and feelings on the direction of the transit authority." - They might, if there was a bus to get them there...
Why aren't bus rates set to the level needed to pay for the bus services?
Rachel,
The cuts don't tale place until July, so I'm afraid there has been bus transport to the relevant meetings. The #44 MTA Shuttle and #45 Midtown run straight from 4th and Deaderick to the MTA HQ where the meetings are held.
Jim,
That's a better question. When I ran for Council at Large last year I called for higher fares in response to both the Green Party and Walk Bike Nashville questionnaires. The actual full fare on a loser route like Mcferrin would have to be set at perhaps $10 per ride. Opposition to rate increases comes from the riders themselves who do appear at the MTA Board meetings, as well as the majority of Board members such as Rev. Bill Barnes who are dedicated to helping the poor. Also remember that Vanderbilt University, and the school system are purchasers of tens of thousands of fares. Businesses which refuse to pay the living wage required for car ownership by employees are also getting an indirect subsidy.
The actual cost of a single ride works out to $5.00. The Feds and state pay half, and Metro and actual revenue each contribute about 25%, according to the info I was given when I toured MTA last June.
If you'd like to help me get on the MTA Board, I will not flinch at raising fares. It's all about fuel cost increase and everybody has to pay their share.
I believe that Metro would be wiser to assist poor folks on loser routes to move to new homes on busier routes, such as #26 Gallatin Road, which pays it own way at current rates.
Paul Ballard does a great job. I admire him work greatly, and the entire MTA team.
I read that post over and I say rate hike and then $10 per ride on loser routes..... I don't advocate $10 local bus fares! What I advocate is changing the Nashville MTA from a barebones service for the working poor and the businesses that utilize their underpaid labor to a service that we can all use easily enough so that a large number of us can actually get rid of our cars for obvious reasons. So the hike from $1.35 to $1.65 was too small. $1.85 would be more like it. The working poor need a living wage because they work, and the MTA should provide transport and cease to function as a social service.
Is that unclear enough, now?
Jon, I'm afraid I was just being a smart-@$$, although the elimination of the routes will make it difficult for people to attend any future meetings. Not to mention that many working people may only be able to register their comments via phone (or email) but not have the leisure time/extra fare $ to head to MTA headquarters - these solicited methods of input should be just as acceptable as attending a meeting, especially when we're talking about people using public transportation. Are you seriously suggesting that it would be better for people to move than for the public transportation system to actually serve the entire city?
Jon, reading your second comment it's more clear - if you believe that MTA should be "a service that we can all use easily enough," then presumably you don't actually think just moving the working poor is a good solution.
Well, I don't read blogs all the time, but I'm happy to respond 2 weeks later.
The real solution is $100 million a year from Metro if we want to serve everyone,
and I'm only talking about moving the 1% of the riders who use 4% of the resources, (wild guesses but I'm a genius guesser), so we serve 3% more people with existing funds.
There's some detail below, but what I am seriously stating as a fact is that the MTA has to make do with a SMALL FRACTION
of what it would need to serve the entire city, and it has to make a lot of painful choices. PLease consider that the "restored funding" was made at the expense of some other program. Was losing ten teachers, (wild guess), or ten cops really worth it? Guess what, I would relocate 100 citizens if that got us 5 cops plus 5 teachers in return, and I myself would be glad to move if Metro helped me. Are you aware that this country is in TROUBLE that may have a slight connection to oil consumption. We can't be so sensitive anymore. We can't afford it. And it's damn hard for the poor to move on their own.
Back to odds and ends:
If you can find more tax money to increase service sytem wide, then good. I'm all for that and I actually advocated increased tax-funding for, and great expansion of, mass transit when running for State House in 2006 and Council-At-Large in 2007. In fact, it was my primary issue both times. Where were you? Did you vote for that/me?
A non-performing route is one that has so few passengers that the buses are close to empty and may only be 20% full at rush hour. If we could actually relocate the few dozen people ( worst case) who are truly dependent on a "non-performing route", then we could use the bus, the drivers, the fuel, ( the same anount of each), at a different location, to provide transportation for perhaps 4 times as many people.
Can't you agree that offering relocation assistance is far better than offering NOTHING, which is what the MTA Board offered to persons on the the cancelled routes? In the past, the cancelled routes stayed cancelled. What about them?
Post a Comment