But the language is Orwellian. Nobody's going to save any money.
Twenty-one people are going to lose their jobs, and this certainly won't save them any money. Six percent of the people who regularly depend on the buses to get to work will, in all likelihood, lose their jobs, too, since they won't have any alternative transportation... the buses are the last resort. So, who's saving any money here?In order to be a viable business, one-way bus fares would have to be about ten bucks. The shortfall on the current $1.25 fare is made up with municipal assessments and state subsidies. So, basically, most of the cost of providing bus service is paid by the taxpayers.
Oddly enough, however, I know that as a taxpayer, the $1.1 million that this cut in service is going to save certainly won't be finding its way into MY pocket, or anybody else's pocket who pays taxes here.
So, what's the inevitable bottom line going to be in this long, slow decline of the bus service? What's the ultimate end of saving money in this fashion? Shutting it down, I believe, would clearly yield the biggest cost savings of all.
Of course, it's much more politically correct to string this ultimate end out for as long as possible. As a business, it's about as unviable as it can get. As a municipal service, however, the access to public transportation should be increasing, not decreasing. So, which is it going to be?
Should it continue to be "run (sorta) like a business"? If it's to be "run like a business" then the most obvious part of the stituation is that it's completely unviable, and should've gone OUT of business a long time ago. If it's going to be run as a municipal service, then it's time to dispense with this save money baloney that goes hand in hand with "run it like a business" once and for all.
3 comments:
Thank you for saying this! I just dashed off a letter to my district councilor this morning saying much the same thing. Doing this just makes it even less likely that people are going to take the bus, because the bus may not be running when they need it!
The WRTA is run by idiots and I think most people in Worcester see public transportation as a sort of welfare system for people who for some reason have messed their lives up and can't afford a car.
There was talk a couple years ago, right after the strike, of the WRTA being a big part of the infamous "turning Worcester into an 18 hour city" that was getting thrown around so much. What the hell happened to that?
I mean try extending the hours and being more dependable. As a business the WRTA's product is kind of crappy dont you think?
It's either a business or it's a municipal service... the idea that it can be both, or somewhere in between, is merely a dogmatic adherence to some sort of economic theory. Why not apply it to economic reality for a change...
Post a Comment