Mayor takes RTA side in Circulator issue

[Dan Alaimo]

There is an effort underway to restore the Circulator van discontinued long ago despite much use within Lakewood.
http://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIwhcz9wDc
It quotes the Mayor taking the side of the entrenched powers, in this case RTA, instead of his constituents, much as he has done in many other situations, such as the increase in train traffic and the hospital. Regionalism vs. the interests of the city. Should this man be mayor?

The comments seem awfully familiar:
--
Lakewood Mayor Mike Summers says the circulator in Lakewood was almost breaking even, but running it comes down to money that RTA doesn't have.
"This is a state, Ohio, that ranks about 36th of the 50 states in terms of our funding for mass transit," said Mayor Summers. "This state does not fund mass transit."

[Bridget Conant]

My gosh, he’s such a dinosaur.

He doesn’t even recognize the future. So funny coming from someone who called his opponents ‘stuck in the past.”
If anyone is stuck in the past, it’s Mike Summers.

[Michael Deneen]

Roldo Bartimole nails it in his latest column, titled "RTA Cuts? Who Cares, It Serves Working People"

http://havecoffeewillwrite.com/?p=59732

[Bridget Conant]

Millennials don’t want to own cars. They want to protect the environment.

The mayor wants to attract millennials but hasn’t a clue as to what they want.

http://m.americancityandcounty.com/publ ... ls-transit

[Bridget Conant]

RTA also just announced cuts to the two main lines that serve Lakewood, the 55 and 26 routes.

There will be fewer busses running the length of Lakewood at both rush and non-rush hours.

And the mayor thinks this is acceptable?

[Dan Alaimo]

RTA also just announced cuts to the two main lines that serve Lakewood, the 55 and 26 routes.

There will be fewer busses running the length of Lakewood at both rush and non-rush hours.

And the mayor thinks this is acceptable?

He doesn't fight for his constituents. He doesn't fight for us.

And too often, he fights us.

[Bridget Conant]

Think about it - who rides busses?

Do you think the mayor and his cronies depend on bus transportation?

His peer group of privileged white people don’t ride busses. And that is who he thinks of as “his constituency.”

[Tim Liston]

I wonder. Where are all the numbnuts who come on here from time to time and lambast “privatization?”

I say take all of RTA’s assets, the routes, vehicles, transit stations, maintenance facilities, all of it, and split it in two. Auction them both to two different high bidders. Then let ‘em have at it. They'll go where the demand is and not where the politicians tell them to. But end the taxpayer subsidies. It’s all just wasted. Every penny.

Or maybe even better, if taxpayer subsidies must be on the table, just mothball RTA, and pay $5 of every eligible Lyft or Uber fare. That’s less than it costs for two RTA passengers. I bet those drivers would figure out how to make one hell of a great circulator. Custom, recognizable cars, the whole shot, round and round all night. Figuring it out should take about 15 minutes. Fact is we don’t need an RTA circulator anymore. The ride-sharing services can work just fine. I bet you could even get Lyft or Uber to modify their software to create a great circulator. The one who does, designate them "the official circulator of Lakewood, Ohio. the Paris of North America"....

Just putting it out there. It seems like the more money we spend on government transit (aka “public transit”), the worse it gets. How could it possibly get even worse than it is now?

[Stan Austin]

Tim---you offer an intriguing alternative. Maybe RTA is an ocilized relic. Uber, being the new norm-- if there is a legitimate (folks who need transport) demand, then maybe we should discombobulate (that's not perjorative) the old time routes and substitute the Uber market demand structure and enter in public subsidies for payment. Stan

[Mark Kindt]

Mr. Liston, as one of the so-called "numbnuts" who rails against privatization, I cite the way in which Lakewood Hospital was privatized into oblivion to the financial benefit of private entities. Need I say more?

I would suggest to you that civic infrastructure has considerable independent value in and of itself regardless of whether it meets some kind of artificial economic utility standard.

We disrupt infrastructure to the general detriment of stability.

Let us not suggest the willy-nilly displacement of public transportation, for some other advocate will suggest equally that even roads be removed.

You present an interesting thought experiment.

[mjkuhns]

I'll just share this examination of the premise that ride-hailing apps can offer the utility of transit infrastructure while innovating away its costs.

What if grabbing an Uber isn’t about to get cheaper—but more expensive?

Hubert Horan, a transportation consultant writing at the blog Naked Capitalism, looks at some of the revenue tables Uber has provided to investors and concludes that the company’s current intake makes even American streetcars look like a good investment.

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/ ... _fill.html

[Tim Liston]

Mark Kindt asks “Need I say more?”

Yeah. You need to say how the Lakewood Hospital fiasco has any relevance whatsoever on whether government should run transportation networks.

Or hospitals for that matter. Here’s what I say. I say hospitals should be run privately too, like the Clinic and UC are. Though I would question their non-profit status, as I think you might also. Hospitals should not be run by government. The VA hospitals in particular should be sold to the highest bidder, if there are any, and any hospital should be able to provide subsidized care to veterans. Metro seems to do good work though. But it still should be privatized.

“The VA Hospital System. Because Every Life Deserves World Class Care.” Said nobody ever.

Now, as for your straw man. The act of closing a hospital, even maliciously, is not at all reflective of the merits (or not) of privatization. Lakewood Hospital was not “privatized into oblivion” as you said. It was closed by a 7-0 vote of city government. There is no hospital anymore, public or private. Your use of that word (privatized) in that phrase is a straw man that could confuse careless readers. The closure of Lakewood Hospital was wrong. But it no bearing on the merits (or not) of private vs. government provision of services.

Mike Summers is right about RTA. Ignore them. They’re likely in a death spiral. Like land lines and Hartford. Their biggest concern is keeping their jobs. Solve the problem without them. I suggested one way, though admittedly it was a brainstorm. But I think it could work. If there were more hours in a day I’d take it on.

[Tim Liston]

Matt, rereading my post, your point is half fair. Using Uber or Lyft to completely supplant public transportation is a stretch. At least in 2018. But I bet you the product development people at Uber and Lyft are not ignorant of the woeful state of many government-run regional transit systems. If I ran those companies there'd be stuff happening in my development process.

But my point is more toward using ride-sharing to supplant the shuttered Lakewood circulator, the subject of this thread. And I think there's a pony in there somewhere. On any given day or night, if there were drivers just working the circle, Madison/Riverside/Detroit/117th, I bet it could work. Especially if some clever people though it through. And its availability was promoted. It could become one of those brand-building thingies....

And after your post my main point remains. RTA is a mess. Dealing with them is pointless. There is little one can do to make public transportation worse in this area. So what would be the harm in trying something else?

One more thing. Naked Capitalism has been bagging on Uber in particular for years. Not Lyft. And they do make some good points. Some. But at the end of the day it'll work out in some fashion, if government stays out of the way. It didn't get to where it is now because it's an impossible business model.

[Mark Kindt]

Mr. Liston, I completely disagree with your premise that the government sector should not provide either transportation or hospitals. Further, I disagree with the embedded premise that private parties will inevitably fill the gap.

What private parties really do is either seek statutory protection for their economic activities or seek direct/indirect subsidies from the government sector for those economic activities.

I do, however, concur that we are on the brink of a transportation revolution that will effect dramatic change in the ways in which individuals will organize their transportation needs.

The government sector will be intimately involved in this transportation revolution (as it has been for the past 200 years) by building roads, managing global satellite system architecture, establishing standards, and funding infrastructure changes/upgrades.

I see no functional difference in the government building roads for citizen use or the government building track for public use and running buses. Both are publicly subsidized for the benefit of the larger community.

I understand that anytime that I walk on a public sidewalk or drive my car on a public road, I enjoy the benefits of a taxpayer subsidy.

As Americans, we have made a "guns-over-butter" choice that comes with a long-term decline in our nation's infrastructure and in our non-defense public institutions.

Urban areas suffer severely from this choice; perhaps RTA as well.

[Stan Austin]

just to be clear--- this was the intent of my post to Tim yesterday

I do, however, concur that we are on the brink of a transportation revolution that will effect dramatic change in the ways in which individuals will organize their transportation needs.