Comments on: A Solution to Transit Disorganization: Merger http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/03/31/a-solution-to-transit-disorganization-merger/ Sat, 31 Jul 2010 16:27:39 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Jake http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/03/31/a-solution-to-transit-disorganization-merger/#comment-840 Jake Sun, 05 Apr 2009 17:29:42 +0000 http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=1827#comment-840 This kind of reorganization would be most welcome in Chicago. Right now CTA and Metra couldn't coordinate anything if their organizational existence depended on it (eg Metra runs a train line designed for rapid transit service as a commuter line while CTA runs frequent buses all along the route), they compete for expansion funding, and they refuse to work together to make a universal fare card. RTA, Chicago's version of Metrolinx, was theoretically strengthened by new legislation last year, but is finding it nearly impossible to actually exercise its new powers. But Yonah's right - any such reorganization would have to make the agencies *more*, not less, accountable to those it serves. This kind of reorganization would be most welcome in Chicago. Right now CTA and Metra couldn’t coordinate anything if their organizational existence depended on it (eg Metra runs a train line designed for rapid transit service as a commuter line while CTA runs frequent buses all along the route), they compete for expansion funding, and they refuse to work together to make a universal fare card. RTA, Chicago’s version of Metrolinx, was theoretically strengthened by new legislation last year, but is finding it nearly impossible to actually exercise its new powers. But Yonah’s right – any such reorganization would have to make the agencies *more*, not less, accountable to those it serves.

]]> By: Walter Sobchak http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/03/31/a-solution-to-transit-disorganization-merger/#comment-839 Walter Sobchak Sat, 04 Apr 2009 08:17:22 +0000 http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=1827#comment-839 Sounds a lot like the MTA in New York and environs; how's that currently working out? A new tax structure is needed, until then any reorganization is moot. Sounds a lot like the MTA in New York and environs; how’s that currently working out?

A new tax structure is needed, until then any reorganization is moot.

]]> By: Christopher Parker http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/03/31/a-solution-to-transit-disorganization-merger/#comment-838 Christopher Parker Wed, 01 Apr 2009 00:13:22 +0000 http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=1827#comment-838 I take a dim view of this argument. Planners are not prone to like disorganization, but it often comes with a number of advantages. I think good service is more important than a nice organized map. If you have a dysfunctional organization, by all means merge it. But there is a long history of organizational mergers, and by and large they cause more problems with service delivery than they solve. This is also true in the corporate world. If the little scrappy local transit organization is effective and innovative, it would really be a shame to have it merged away into the big system especially if that system (as is often the case) is filled with problems. British rail privatization is often held up as an example of how awful it is when a system fractures. But ridership more than doubled, many new services were tried and all kinds of innovation happened. The ridership numbers tell the story: the greater innovation from many organizations was worth more than the lack of organization of the route map. I grew up in DC, which united all of it's transit lines together under Metrobus around 1973. Decades later the same boundaries and often a strikingly similar route structure can be seen. Same story in Boston, where the MBTA absorbed several systems. I take a dim view of this argument. Planners are not prone to like disorganization, but it often comes with a number of advantages.

I think good service is more important than a nice organized map. If you have a dysfunctional organization, by all means merge it. But there is a long history of organizational mergers, and by and large they cause more problems with service delivery than they solve. This is also true in the corporate world. If the little scrappy local transit organization is effective and innovative, it would really be a shame to have it merged away into the big system especially if that system (as is often the case) is filled with problems.

British rail privatization is often held up as an example of how awful it is when a system fractures. But ridership more than doubled, many new services were tried and all kinds of innovation happened. The ridership numbers tell the story: the greater innovation from many organizations was worth more than the lack of organization of the route map.

I grew up in DC, which united all of it’s transit lines together under Metrobus around 1973. Decades later the same boundaries and often a strikingly similar route structure can be seen. Same story in Boston, where the MBTA absorbed several systems.

]]>