Want Better Service? Take 'Em To Court.
Los Angeles' Metropolitan Transit Authority was ordered to purchase 145 new buses by a federal judge yesterday. This is part of a larger court order and civil rights consent decree designed to reduce overcrowding. The purchase will cost the agency $40 million.
Local activists successfully argued that both poor and minority neighborhoods were routinely underserved by the agency. They won a 1994 lawsuit claiming that overcrowding on the bus system violated the civil rights of the system's half-million riders.
This is simply a variation on a larger theme. Does local transit have an obligation to provide service to those who need it, or should they instead operate as a 'free market' enterprise that can serve only areas that are profitable? In the U.S., at least, transit went from free market to full-service in the 50s and 60s when state and local agencies purchased failing private transit providers. While it's harder to force private operators to service all areas (although in some cases, this has been done), its very easy to force the government to provide service coverage, because they're under an obligation to serve their constituents. This, then, creates an endless argument between governments that refuse to fund transit because it isn't profitable but will not allow service to be cut in unprofitable areas because of service obligations (hence, some WMATA funding issues and many of Amtrak's current problems). So what's the solution? For our money, better dedicated funding for transit and an understanding that it is a necessary feature to having an economically vibrant metropolitan area. But that's not likely to happen anytime soon....
Post Author:
amg | 11:52 AM |
Link
|
TrackBacks
Amtrak's 5 year plan came out yesterday. David Gunn's state corridor program (starting p. 69) is quite interesting.
Amtrak.com
