Whatever Happened to Fair Studies?

[BrooklynBus]

http://www.sheepsheadbites.com/2014/04/whatever-happened-fair-studies/

[realizm]

Interesting article. There is a problem with studies done not just in transportation but in other areas as well. Many times researchers cite research that is factual in itself but in a manner that paints a different picture then from what really is going on to prove a point that can be biased as terms of political or corporate agendas. Such as the case of transportation studies all the way to even medical studies and more. In the case of transportation done other issues unrelated to this, the researchers deliberately omit certain factoids on facts concerning a growing need for transportation options for the outer boros. I can tell you this much, its all about the money. Also pressure from the higher ups. 

 

I guess thats what happened to fair studies as you were alluding to in the article where it relates to that also the Vision Zero initiative which adversely affects the efficiency of +SBS+ on time performance. That is something to consider. I mean Vision Zero seems to always place the blame on the driver when in reality its not always the driver that is the cause of the accident. Not trying to harp on Mayor DeBlasio here but to me its clear he isn't exactly in tune with transportation needs for this city, unlike Bloomberg was. he talks about 'rapid bus service'.... Whoa what? Its select bus service. Shows how unacknowledged he is on public transit right there. Sounds to me like a repeat of the Robert Moses era and his agendas although not as intense. 

 

Not getting into the other problems of the Deblasio administration vs the former Bloomberg administration since that is off topic from the article written. Anyway to me I think you bring up good points.

[BrooklynBus]

Thanks but I think you are giving Bloomberg too much credit. Bloomberg's knowledge of rapid transit was limited to the Number 6 line between I think 77 Street and Brooklyn Bridge. He only saw rapid transit as a means to encourage real estate development to make his rich friends richer which was his entire reason for the #7 extension. It had nothing to do with meeting any existing demand. His knowledge of SBS was limited to buses run faster and operating costs are lowered, so it must be a good thing and he will support it.

[B35 via Church]

To sum up this article... Money talks, bullshit walks.....

 

I'll say this as many times as I have to.... People have money for the things they want to spend money for - Otherwise, they're broke, they need more funding, this, that, and the third.... The Metropolitan Transportation Authority is most definitely not exempt from that!

[traingoat]

To sum up this article... Money talks, bullshit walks.....

 

I'll say this as many times as I have to.... People have money for the things they want to spend money for - Otherwise, they're broke, they need more funding, this, that, and the third.... The Metropolitan Transportation Authority is most definitely not exempt from that!

Its always amazing that when a buck can be made somehow the money appears but otherwise there is scarcity.

[BrooklynBus]

To sum up this article... Money talks, bullshit walks.....

 

I'll say this as many times as I have to.... People have money for the things they want to spend money for - Otherwise, they're broke, they need more funding, this, that, and the third.... The Metropolitan Transportation Authority is most definitely not exempt from that!

I've always said the exact same thing. No money is just an excuse when they don't want to do it. If they do, by some miracle they manage to find the money. I've also said that doing a study is an excuse for not taking action. When they want to take action they just do it. Where was the study that said the #7 needed to be extended to the West Side? There wasn't any. Bloomberg just decided he wanted it done.

 

When they don't want to do something like reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, then they need a study first.

[realizm]

Thanks but I think you are giving Bloomberg too much credit. Bloomberg's knowledge of rapid transit was limited to the Number 6 line between I think 77 Street and Brooklyn Bridge. He only saw rapid transit as a means to encourage real estate development to make his rich friends richer which was his entire reason for the #7 extension. It had nothing to do with meeting any existing demand. His knowledge of SBS was limited to buses run faster and operating costs are lowered, so it must be a good thing and he will support it.

 

I see. Yes Bloomberg is known for that, catering to the wealthy supporters of his campaign in different ways during his controversial tenure in office. So you are saying he had a different agenda behind the extension, more than meets the eye? Well yes I agree with you on that notion.

 

You are correct about Bloomberg's intentions of pushing the extension despite the fact that we had previously lost the bid to host the Olympic Games. For these reasons. But the thing is that the growth of the Hudson Yards development could stimulate the local economy and bring in job growth. So maybe for once in my opinion he may have had the right intentions for New Yorkers regardless of economic status, in a way that is rare, coming from him. Knowing that otherwise I think, in general he was indeed biased towards persons of lower economic class for many reasons but thats a different story.

 

 

I've always said the exact same thing. No money is just an excuse when they don't want to do it. If they do, by some miracle they manage to find the money. I've also said that doing a study is an excuse for not taking action. When they want to take action they just do it. Where was the study that said the #7 needed to be extended to the West Side? There wasn't any. Bloomberg just decided he wanted it done.

 

When they don't want to do something like reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, then they need a study first.

 

And yes, he had the goal on making his extension his final feat before he left City Hall. His flagship sort of speak. He got really carried away with this however, trying to push a to Secaucus NJ that the MTA of course found as ridiculous.

[bobtehpanda]

I've always said the exact same thing. No money is just an excuse when they don't want to do it. If they do, by some miracle they manage to find the money. I've also said that doing a study is an excuse for not taking action. When they want to take action they just do it. Where was the study that said the #7 needed to be extended to the West Side? There wasn't any. Bloomberg just decided he wanted it done.

 

When they don't want to do something like reactivate the Rockaway Beach Line, then they need a study first.

 

Funny thing is, 7 to the West Side was actually a Giuliani idea, among other less successful projects (N to LGA, LIRR to JFK, etc.) It only got super big once Bloomberg hitched it to NYC2012, which I am glad did not actually happen.

 

Studies are needed if a project gets federal funding. Bloomberg essentially said "screw that" and just used city money to pay for the entire thing (which is how it got the MTA on board, since the MTA didn't really see the need for it either)

[BrooklynBus]

Funny thing is, 7 to the West Side was actually a Giuliani idea, among other less successful projects (N to LGA, LIRR to JFK, etc.) It only got super big once Bloomberg hitched it to NYC2012, which I am glad did not actually happen.

 

Studies are needed if a project gets federal funding. Bloomberg essentially said "screw that" and just used city money to pay for the entire thing (which is how it got the MTA on board, since the MTA didn't really see the need for it either)

But the MTA didn't care either way since they weren't paying for it, but would reap the benefit of additional revenue with little additional operating costs so it was a good deal for them

[traingoat]

But the MTA didn't care either way since they weren't paying for it, but would reap the benefit of additional revenue with little additional operating costs so it was a good deal for them

That's a maybe at this point as the only thing running around that area presently is hookers. Future wise maybe yes if that complex is built as planned.

[BrooklynBus]

There are so few running around now that they couldn't even afford to keep the M42 branch to the Javits Center.

[B35 via Church]

There are so few running around now that they couldn't even afford to keep the M42 branch to the Javits Center.

In their defense though, who even took the M42 to the Javits Center....

[bobtehpanda]

But the MTA didn't care either way since they weren't paying for it, but would reap the benefit of additional revenue with little additional operating costs so it was a good deal for them

 

MTA is a operations agency first and foremost, so it'd make sense that they're not willing to put the cart before the horse when it comes to transit expansion; they don't have the means to preemptively propose things on their own.

[BrooklynBus]

In their defense though, who even took the M42 to the Javits Center....

I took it once from the Javits Center. It was very convenient to just walk into the driveway and get right on the bus. I remember it being very crowded.

 

MTA is a operations agency first and foremost, so it'd make sense that they're not willing to put the cart before the horse when it comes to transit expansion; they don't have the means to preemptively propose things on their own.

Ridiculous. Of course they do. They won't even do it when it comes to bus routes and insist all future needs can be met with 30 minute shuttles. They say they want to operate as a business which is wrong to begin with because they provide a goverment service. But no business behaves like they do. A business sees a potential demand and tries to fill it. They know that clientele doesn't appear overnight but needs to be nourished. They expect to lose money for the first three years.

 

The MTA largely ignores potential demand. Where the MTA does not provide adequate bus service, black limousines flourish. There is always a queue of cars outside Kings County Hospital for example because there are areas close by that are inconvenient to reach. But the MTA has not revised the route structure that has been outdated for over the past sixty years. When dollar vans start stealing passengers from bus routes because passengers get tired of constantly waiting 20 minutes for an overcrowded bus, the MTA responds not by increasing service or making existing service more reliabe to get those passengers to return to the bus, but to reduce service further so as to encourage even more dollar vans.

 

The entire rapid transit system was built exactly by putting the cart before the horse. If we waited for development first, the development never would have occurred. The way to lpan is to first build the infrastructure, then the development. First comes the water and sewer lines and then the houses. What if we first built the homes, then added water and sewers a few years later? How do you think that woud work out?

 

Of course financing is a separate issue and the MTA needs government support, but that is another discussion. But instead of doing their job they get bogged down in mismanaged projects like East Side Access for over 60 years, so there is no funding left for anything else.

[B35 via Church]

I took it once from the Javits Center. It was very convenient to just walk into the driveway and get right on the bus. I remember it being very crowded.

When they had events in the Javits Center.... Otherwise, nada..... and obviously, there are more days where there are no events, compared to when there are.... It would be one thing if they had M42's serve it on event days or whatever, but they had every other trip throughout the meat of the day running there....

 

Ridiculous. Of course they do. They won't even do it when it comes to bus routes and insist all future needs can be met with 30 minute shuttles. They say they want to operate as a business which is wrong to begin with because they provide a goverment service. But no business behaves like they do. A business sees a potential demand and tries to fill it. They know that clientele doesn't appear overnight but needs to be nourished. They expect to lose money for the first three years.

 

The MTA largely ignores potential demand. Where the MTA does not provide adequate bus service, black limousines flourish. There is always a queue of cars outside Kings County Hospital for example because there are areas close by that are inconvenient to reach. But the MTA has not revised the route structure that has been outdated for over the past sixty years. When dollar vans start stealing passengers from bus routes because passengers get tired of constantly waiting 20 minutes for an overcrowded bus, the MTA responds not by increasing service or making existing service more reliabe to get those passengers to return to the bus, but to reduce service further so as to encourage even more dollar vans.

 

The entire rapid transit system was built exactly by putting the cart before the horse. If we waited for development first, the development never would have occurred. The way to lpan plan is to first build the infrastructure, then the development. First comes the water and sewer lines and then the houses. What if we first built the homes, then added water and sewers a few years later? How do you think that woud work out?

 

Of course financing is a separate issue and the MTA needs government support, but that is another discussion. But instead of doing their job they get bogged down in mismanaged projects like East Side Access for over 60 years, so there is no funding left for anything else.

LMAO... You're spilling secrets right now.... sssshhhhh.....

 

Seriously though, cab & van services in this city do exploit (sought after) areas where the MTA does a poor job in covering (and continues to ignore the problem on top of it).....The thing about it is, it's areas where cabs & vans make an absolute killing too, not some small gap in service serving a select few amount of people..... I'm inclined to believe that the MTA knows what's going on, and simply refuses to do anything about it.... Which is one of a few reasons why I say they do not care about the riding public.... It's always gonna be about money, but w/ the MTA, there's simply way too much politics involved.....

 

To think the almighty muscle-flexing MTA is succumbing to cab/van service is laughable..... They think that they can continue to keep f***ing with people's commutes for as long as the days are (long), and everybody is gonna continue to put up with that shit.... And then you have one guy on here advocating for a transit utopia .... And it's a wonder why you have an increasing amount of people considering taxi's/dollar cab/van services, personal motor vehicles, and bikes (you see how the city's waxing poetic w/ this whole CitiBike thing) in this city.... This is how the suits think, and if they keep it up, you're gonna continue seeing overall loses in public transportation usage for the years to come.... You don't wait decades to implement a change that would benefit enough of the masses right now because that same demand (for public transit) can evaporate overnight, and some other entity will snatch that shit up.... Luckily w/ the B83 (finally) to Gateway (for example), you didn't have cab/van services running from some station along the , to Gateway.... Had ENY been more of a west indian community, no question about it that would've happened..... Just look at the Jamaica - Green Acres van service that currently exists.....

 

Survival of the fittest.....

[MHV9218]

Writing off things you dislike and the evidence behind them as inaccurate is not exactly an objective analysis of things...

[bobtehpanda]

Ridiculous. Of course they do. They won't even do it when it comes to bus routes and insist all future needs can be met with 30 minute shuttles. They say they want to operate as a business which is wrong to begin with because they provide a goverment service. But no business behaves like they do. A business sees a potential demand and tries to fill it. They know that clientele doesn't appear overnight but needs to be nourished. They expect to lose money for the first three years.

 

The MTA largely ignores potential demand. Where the MTA does not provide adequate bus service, black limousines flourish. There is always a queue of cars outside Kings County Hospital for example because there are areas close by that are inconvenient to reach. But the MTA has not revised the route structure that has been outdated for over the past sixty years. When dollar vans start stealing passengers from bus routes because passengers get tired of constantly waiting 20 minutes for an overcrowded bus, the MTA responds not by increasing service or making existing service more reliabe to get those passengers to return to the bus, but to reduce service further so as to encourage even more dollar vans.

 

The entire rapid transit system was built exactly by putting the cart before the horse. If we waited for development first, the development never would have occurred. The way to lpan is to first build the infrastructure, then the development. First comes the water and sewer lines and then the houses. What if we first built the homes, then added water and sewers a few years later? How do you think that woud work out?

 

Of course financing is a separate issue and the MTA needs government support, but that is another discussion. But instead of doing their job they get bogged down in mismanaged projects like East Side Access for over 60 years, so there is no funding left for anything else.

 

All rapid transit in the city was not putting the cart before the horse; the city took out huge debts (as did the IRT and BMT when they existed) to build out the system. The MTA, as well as the city and state, currently has no funding mechanism for building new lines that other jurisdictions have (no dedicated construction sales tax, very little use of taxes on induced development from new lines, etc.), so there's no stable way to actually study and build a coherent future network. The last time the MTA tried that in 1968, they didn't have the money to do it themselves, and the Legislature managed to kill most of their plans because Shelly Silver wanted an all-or-nothing SAS.

 

The MTA is a government agency with a lot of responsibility but no teeth. Given that everyone is reflexively opposed to the one proposal that has a chance at finally providing stable funding to the Capital Plan (the MTA's dedicated taxes in real estate and sales are way too cyclical). It doesn't take much; a simple penny sales tax is funding $40B of capital expansion in Los Angeles. We just need initiative from other leaders in government (and the MTA improving its atrocious PR wouldn't exactly hurt their case)

[BrooklynBus]

When they had events in the Javits Center.... Otherwise, nada..... and obviously, there are more days where there are no events, compared to when there are.... It would be one thing if they had M42's serve it on event days or whatever, but they had every other trip throughout the meat of the day running there....

 

 

LMAO... You're spilling secrets right now.... sssshhhhh.....

 

Seriously though, cab & van services in this city do exploit (sought after) areas where the MTA does a poor job in covering (and continues to ignore the problem on top of it).....The thing about it is, it's areas where cabs & vans make an absolute killing too, not some small gap in service serving a select few amount of people..... I'm inclined to believe that the MTA knows what's going on, and simply refuses to do anything about it.... Which is one of a few reasons why I say they do not care about the riding public.... It's always gonna be about money, but w/ the MTA, there's simply way too much politics involved.....

 

To think the almighty muscle-flexing MTA is succumbing to cab/van service is laughable..... They think that they can continue to keep f***ing with people's commutes for as long as the days are (long), and everybody is gonna continue to put up with that shit.... And then you have one guy on here advocating for a transit utopia .... And it's a wonder why you have an increasing amount of people considering taxi's/dollar cab/van services, personal motor vehicles, and bikes (you see how the city's waxing poetic w/ this whole CitiBike thing) in this city.... This is how the suits think, and if they keep it up, you're gonna continue seeing overall loses in public transportation usage for the years to come.... You don't wait decades to implement a change that would benefit enough of the masses right now because that same demand (for public transit) can evaporate overnight, and some other entity will snatch that shit up.... Luckily w/ the B83 (finally) to Gateway (for example), you didn't have cab/van services running from some station along the , to Gateway.... Had ENY been more of a west indian community, no question about it that would've happened..... Just look at the Jamaica - Green Acres van service that currently exists.....

 

Survival of the fittest.....

We obviously see things the same way. Not only does the MTA know what is going on with the dollar vans, because they caused them in the first place (and I have back and white evidence from 1975 to prove it), they privately they welcome the dollar vans. Their thinking is as follows: for every passenger we carry we lose X amount of dollars. If we carry Y fewer passengers, we lose X minus the cost of carrying Y passengers because we don't have to carry them anymore. Of course operational costs have to be reduced to reflect the loss of passengers for that statement to be true. They woud lose even more money if they had the same costs. That's why they are very quick to reduce service when they lose passengers and slow to add service when ridership increases. Don't even suggest improving service as a means to encourage ridership. That's a no-no. They try to claim when ridership goes up, that the existing service can already handle the increase in ridership which may or may not be true.

 

And you are correct about the M42. But to run a bus just for events is beyond the thinking of the MTA because caring about the passenger is not what is important to them.

 

 

All rapid transit in the city was not putting the cart before the horse; the city took out huge debts (as did the IRT and BMT when they existed) to build out the system. The MTA, as well as the city and state, currently has no funding mechanism for building new lines that other jurisdictions have (no dedicated construction sales tax, very little use of taxes on induced development from new lines, etc.), so there's no stable way to actually study and build a coherent future network. The last time the MTA tried that in 1968, they didn't have the money to do it themselves, and the Legislature managed to kill most of their plans because Shelly Silver wanted an all-or-nothing SAS.

 

The MTA is a government agency with a lot of responsibility but no teeth. Given that everyone is reflexively opposed to the one proposal that has a chance at finally providing stable funding to the Capital Plan (the MTA's dedicated taxes in real estate and sales are way too cyclical). It doesn't take much; a simple penny sales tax is funding $40B of capital expansion in Los Angeles. We just need initiative from other leaders in government (and the MTA improving its atrocious PR wouldn't exactly hurt their case)

Do you ever hear the MTA petition the legislature or additional funds so they can expand the system or make other improvements? When the Governor steals $30 Million to pay off the state debt for MTA bonds, (not the MTA's responsibility but the state's), the MTA responds with yes it is okay to f*ck us. Our needs are being met. Don't try to resend that the MTA is the victim here. It is the transit riders who are the real victims.

[bobtehpanda]

Do you ever hear the MTA petition the legislature or additional funds so they can expand the system or make other improvements? When the Governor steals $30 Million to pay off the state debt for MTA bonds, (not the MTA's responsibility but the state's), the MTA responds with yes it is okay to f*ck us. Our needs are being met. Don't try to resend that the MTA is the victim here. It is the transit riders who are the real victims.

 

Eliot Sander tried back when the Spitzer Administration was in power; he wanted a full-length SAS to serve as a trunk line for services in Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx, relief lines for the and QBL via the LIRR ROWs, and connecting the to Gun Hill on the WPR line, not to mention a modernization of Nostrand Junction and putting CBTC on every subway line by the end of his 40-year vision; and that was just his plan for the city. No one listened to him, and he got the boot when Paterson succeeded Spitzer. There is nothing for the MTA chairman to gain by pushing their own vision except a pink slip; they'll just get replaced by someone who will toe the line. The MTA has the same problem as the Port Authority does now, but no one is calling for a commission for MTA reform.

[BrooklynBus]

Eliot Sander tried back when the Spitzer Administration was in power; he wanted a full-length SAS to serve as a trunk line for services in Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx, relief lines for the and QBL via the LIRR ROWs, and connecting the to Gun Hill on the WPR line, not to mention a modernization of Nostrand Junction and putting CBTC on every subway line by the end of his 40-year vision; and that was just his plan for the city. No one listened to him, and he got the boot when Paterson succeeded Spitzer. There is nothing for the MTA chairman to gain by pushing their own vision except a pink slip; they'll just get replaced by someone who will toe the line. The MTA has the same problem as the Port Authority does now, but no one is calling for a commission for MTA reform.

The problem is that Eliot Sander who was well intentioned was never the Chairman of the MTA. He was second in command being the chief operating officer or whatever his exact title was. The MTA was chaired at the time by the figurehead Hemmedinger. Did Sander even have Hemmedinger's support whose sole purpose was patronage and a liasion to real estate interests? I doubt it. Hemmedinger was totally silent other than being available to take credit for a groundbreaking of some sort.

[Trainmaster5]

We obviously see things the same way. Not only does the MTA know what is going on with the dollar vans, because they caused them in the first place (and I have back and white evidence from 1975 to prove it), they privately they welcome the dollar vans. Their thinking is as follows: for every passenger we carry we lose X amount of dollars. If we carry Y fewer passengers, we lose X minus the cost of carrying Y passengers because we don't have to carry them anymore. Of course operational costs have to be reduced to reflect the loss of passengers for that statement to be true. They woud lose even more money if they had the same costs. That's why they are very quick to reduce service when they lose passengers and slow to add service when ridership increases. Don't even suggest improving service as a means to encourage ridership. That's a no-no. They try to claim when ridership goes up, that the existing service can already handle the increase in ridership which may or may not be true.

 

And you are correct about the M42. But to run a bus just for events is beyond the thinking of the MTA because caring about the passenger is not what is important to them.

 

 

 

It's obvious,at least to me, that B35 and you understand the (MTA)s reasoning behind service enhancements and service cuts. There has been a lack of vision at transit going back at least 40 years. This includes bus and subway services. I'm not overlooking the financial problems the system has gone through over the years but the financial troubles were largely due to NYC and NY State shortcomings Skipping on to the dollar van issue (in Brooklyn) I watched that industry start up in Spring Creek-Starrett precisely because the refused to increase B20 or B83 service to the , , or , trains where the majority of people wanted to go. The , which obviously never did a survey, decided to funnel people toward Rockaway Parkway station or points west of there. Even today if a rider gets to Broadway-East New York after 1:00 am or so and your final destination is down near Flatlands Avenue you have to use a car service or transfer to the down to the last stop and transfer to the B6, a bus that runs every 60 minutes. This was before the advent of the B82 when we had a B50 down there. I watched people complain to the local politicians and the for one overnight bus running on Pennsylvania Avenue for years. I've moved from the area but I'm willing to bet that nothing has changed. Before I go I must point out that the BRT/BMT and sections of the IRT were proposed and tracks were laid before the neighborhoods were developed or finished in Midwood, Brighton Beach, and especially today's line. The BRT/BMT and the real estate interests seemed to work together back then going back to the trolley days. Carry on.

[rosskin92]

 

The MTA is a government agency with a lot of responsibility but no teeth. Given that everyone is reflexively opposed to the one proposal that has a chance at finally providing stable funding to the Capital Plan (the MTA's dedicated taxes in real estate and sales are way too cyclical). It doesn't take much; a simple penny sales tax is funding $40B of capital expansion in Los Angeles. We just need initiative from other leaders in government (and the MTA improving its atrocious PR wouldn't exactly hurt their case)

 

I disagree.

 

I dont think the MTA ( or anyother transit authority) is in this place because of its own action fully. I think that the constraints on funding in the USA hamper the ability of any transit organization to fund things.

 

 

LA and Portland are examples of progressive policy, but then you have the Nashville BRT that got banned by a state law. Some states prohibit public funding. How backwards is that?

 

I intered for CMAP, the chicago metropolitan agency for planning. Because CMAP is only an aadvisory commission (funded by thr Illinois DOT), they can push things but not implement them. However... We have no problem approving a white elephant higqay through the country while improving and expanding CTA/METRA is grounds for a stoning. The attitudes are changing but too late imo...

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bobtehpanda]

I disagree. I dont think the MTA ( or anyother transit authority) is in this place because of its own action fully. I think that the constraints on funding in the USA hamper the ability of any transit organization to fund things. LA and Portland are examples of progressive policy, but then you have the Nashville BRT that got banned by a state law. Some states prohibit public funding. How backwards is that? I intered for CMAP, the chicago metropolitan agency for planning. Because CMAP is only an aadvisory commission (funded by thr Illinois DOT), they can push things but not implement them. However... We have no problem approving a white elephant higqay through the country while improving and expanding CTA/METRA is grounds for a stoning. The attitudes are changing but too late imo... Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

A good portion of why LA and Portland have been doing so well is because they simply do a much better job than the MTA's marketing department (if it has one). Portland was able to start a discussion about where it wanted to be in the future regarding transit during the '70s. LA, on the other hand, started from a much worse place, but decided to promote itself as cheekily and aggressively as a private company would, and saw ridership surge by a third. It's hard to raise public support for funding an agency that everyone associates negative things with. East of the Mississippi I don't think we have any agency that markets itself to the extent that their Western counterparts do.

 

Fun fact: LA Metro's rebranding actually won rewards from industry groups.

[BrooklynBus]

A good portion of why LA and Portland have been doing so well is because they simply do a much better job than the MTA's marketing department (if it has one). Portland was able to start a discussion about where it wanted to be in the future regarding transit during the '70s. LA, on the other hand, started from a much worse place, but decided to promote itself as cheekily and aggressively as a private company would, and saw ridership surge by a third. It's hard to raise public support for funding an agency that everyone associates negative things with. East of the Mississippi I don't think we have any agency that markets itself to the extent that their Western counterparts do.

 

Fun fact: LA Metro's rebranding actually won rewards from industry groups.

The MTA certainly does have a marketing department. How effective it is like everything else they do is another question. They even have a weekly TV show where the program changes monthly, so they have the ability to promote what they want to promote. The fact that the MTA is associated with negativity is their very own fault because they don't value the opinions of the riding public.

 

They consider themselves the all knowing experts and the public, the unions, and elected officials as a pain in the neck and as the enemy. There is even much infighting within their own departments. Until all that changes and the MTA is willing to work cooperatively with everyone else, and stops all it's internal politics and figheting, they will always be regarded with some negativity. They are not a progressive organization. Individualism and challenging their authority is sur to get you either fired or stuck in a dead end job. They only want their employees to tow the party line, not suggest new ways of doing things.

 

I worked for them in a half dozen departments for 25 years, including working with top executives, so I should have some idea what I am talking about.

[B35 via Church]

The MTA certainly does have a marketing department. How effective it is like everything else they do is another question. They even have a weekly TV show where the program changes monthly, so they have the ability to promote what they want to promote. The fact that the MTA is associated with negativity is their very own fault because they don't value the opinions of the riding public.

 

They consider themselves the all knowing experts and the public, the unions, and elected officials as a pain in the neck and as the enemy. There is even much infighting within their own departments. Until all that changes and the MTA is willing to work cooperatively with everyone else, and stops all it's internal politics and figheting, they will always be regarded with some negativity. They are not a progressive organization. Individualism and challenging their authority is sur to get you either fired or stuck in a dead end job. They only want their employees to tow the party line, not suggest new ways of doing things.

 

I worked for them in a half dozen departments for 25 years, including working with top executives, so I should have some idea what I am talking about.

Monopoly.