Time for out of the box thinking and less bureaucracy?

Image via Wikipedia
As things continue to look bleak for transit agencies across the nation, and with politics in Washington DC not making things any easier, is it time for some out of the box thinking? I know, that is a catch phrase that has been over used over the years but it is so appropriate to the challenges now facing the transit agencies.

Many transit agencies are cutting service and having to do more with less. I have mentioned many times about the unfunded mandate with paratransit service which is something we have to live with and some of the innovative ideas that are being used to make the service less expensive by combining it with flexible bus routes. However, I have also pointed out some of the problems that comes with those types of operations such as cost and connectivity.

One thing we need to see out of transit agencies is more entrepreneurship type innovative thinking and less bureaucracy. The problem is any large organization gets to the point where it is almost difficult to accomplish anything. They squash any attempt at innovative thinking that will rock the boat.

Big transit agencies are so used to do everything the same way they have for years it is impossible to get them to change the way they do business. Now I am not just picking on transit agencies here. Many big companies face the same issues including ones that started by being innovative. Even the mighty Microsoft is feeling the affects of it and for a good look at what is happening there and with the problems it can create take a look at the book Paul Allen: Idea Man. In one chapter of this book he points out how bureaucracy has become rampant at Microsoft (although he never calls it that).

He points out that up to a quarter of the staff at Microsoft is not pulling their weight and need to go away but it has become almost impossible to get rid of them. I am sure that anyone could look inside your neighborhood transit agency and find the same situation.

However, advocates are often their own worst enemy and make the situation worse. So many of them are so negative to anything the transit agency does that the agencies bureaucracy becomes even more embedded into the agencies culture.

Just look at what is happening in Portland, Oregon. Trimet has announced cuts to take place in September. While some advocates are coming up with some good ideas, too many of them are so negative to the agency and so blatantly militant that their views don't get heard.

Is their changes that could take place at transit agencies? Of course there is, many of them could loosen the grips of their bureaucracy and become more willing to adapt to changes and more innovative. But advocates also need to meet the agency half way and have a positive oriented discussion and not a name calling session.

The elections this year may bring change but not the change transit advocates are looking for or transit agencies for that matter or we could have more of the same. Now is the time for transit agencies to start thinking outside the box, become more innovative and to start breaking down their bureaucratic barriers and encourage a entrepreneurial  and true leadership spirit within their ranks. It is also time for transit advocates to start having serious but positive talks with transit agencies.

Related articles

• If Nokia is a bureaucracy, and Microsoft is a political party, then what are Apple and Google? (therivalsbook.wordpress.com)
• Bureaucracy Killing DC's Movie Industry (outsidethebeltway.com)
• TriMet budget-balancing plan: Longer waits, higher fares, no 'short hopper' trips, no Free Rail Zone (oregonlive.com)
• TriMet once again proposing LIFT fare hikes to help balance budget (oregonlive.com)
• Protecting the transportation needs in our communities (thehill.com)
• 14 Ideas for Busting Bureaucracy (blogs.hbr.org)
• Why the House Transportation Bill Hits Bus Riders Especially Hard (dc.streetsblog.org)
• How the Hypernet Will Overthrow Bureaucracies and Empower Teachers (forbes.com)

The Balancing Act of Paratransit Service

Image via Wikipedia
I have commented many times on the difficulties presented to transit agencies with the passing of the Americans with Disabilities Act. One of the biggest difficulties is the bill created an unfunded mandate that transit agencies need to provide services to those with disabilities but provided no money to actually provide the service.

Notice, I am NOT saying that people with disabilities should not have transportation however, what we have to recognize the the service is costly and the funding has to come out of a transit agencies operating budget which means that route service has to be cut to provide paratransit service.

Depending on the transit agency, the average cost to provide service is anywhere from $25.00 to $35.00 per rider which is several times higher than providing regular bus service or even more times higher per passenger for most light rail services.

However, the ADA did not just require transit agencies to provide a totally separate transit system. It also required transit agencies to make their regular bus service accessible. At first this included adding wheel chair lifts. For some agencies such as RTD in Los Angeles this was not a big deal since they started ordering buses with wheelchair lifts back in 1977 with the 200 buses they received from American Motors General.

Gradually transit bus manufacturers and transit agencies transitioned from high floor buses with wheelchair lifts to low floor buses. While the wheelchair lifts were expensive to maintain the low floor buses have their own disadvantages including lower passenger capacity and other design issues.

To reduce the cost of Paratransit service transit service has a couple of alternatives to make it more efficient.

Once solution that many transit agencies have done is contracting out Paratransit service to private operators. Of course transit agencies are ripped to shreds over the service provided by the contractors and how they do not care about the disabled. The question has to be asked, since the service is essentially a glorified taxi service and not true transit service, are transit agencies doing the right thing by contracting out the service.

Another way to reduce the price of Paratransit service is for agencies to limit those who ride paratransit service to those most in need. Those who do not meet the standards for Paratransit service then have to ride regular bus service. While that reduces cost it is also fodder for activist and also slows down regular transit service since it takes longer to get those people on and off the bus service.

A third way that transit agencies are reducing the cost of Paratransit service is to only provide service to the 3/4 of a mile limit from a regular bus routes that is mandated federally. Once again this is extremely controversial and is blasted by those located outside that service area.

Finally you have the Flex and Call N Ride routes that Denver and Salt Lake have implemented that provides both regular route and off route service with small vans that substitute for regular paratransit service.

Whichever route a transit agency decides to take to reduce the cost of Paratransit service, they will be criticized for the decisions they will make. However, transit systems have a fine balancing act of providing transit service to the maximum number of people possible with limited funds (that are even more limited during these economic times).

Of course the ultimate solution would be to build livable cities that someone with limited mobility can get the services they need without long trips. One of the often overlooked aspects of livable development is that if people with disabilities are able to live with easy reach of businesses and services they use frequently, they fewer trips they will need on Paratransit service.

Until then transit agencies will have to continue to do the balancing act will continue between cost and needs.