[I wasn't sure I wanted to send a shorter version to the Isthmus letters to the editor until I got some feedback from the experts on the bikies list. Any discussion on this topic would be most interesting. GJP]
Regarding County supervisor Eileen Bruskewitz' jitney trial balloon (Isthmus August 25, page 10, "Transportation for, and by, the people"): How does she propose to maintain transit service levels for people with disabilities, who need a ride during non-peak hours, or to/from less-profitable destinations? If her jitney system cherry-picks the most profitable and easily-serviced component of the transportation market, what transit solutions will exist to serve the rest? I am not familiar with Bruskewitz' attitudes towards public transit, reduced dependence on the automobile, and her solutions for problems such as sprawl, global climate change, etc. She may even be a friend of the causes often discussed on bikies. However, I have some personal experience with a system of jitneys for public transport, and I don't like them. I recently spent 2 years in the Eastern Caribbean as a Peace Corps volunteer relying on a loosely regulated system of privately-owned and operated minibuses (jitneys). Like many less-developed countries, the Eastern Caribbean island nations use variations on a jitney system as the sole public transportation option. In my overseas experience, the service levels were truly awful. Safety, convenience, practicality, comfort, and reliability were terrible. So bad, in fact, that hitch-hiking was a superior method of getting around (despite the obvious personal safety considerations). The only thing going for the jitney was a) it was the only option available and b) it was cheap. Bruskewitz would do well to look into the reality of free enterprise jitney systems work (and don't work) overseas before proposing one here. I wonder if Bruskewitz' fascination with the jitney is clouded by an idealized notion that the invisible hand of the marketplace is always the best solution? Does a private system of jitneys really offer some vague benefit attributed to a free market? I wonder if mass transit and public transportation simply don't lend themselves to the liaise faire perspective? In my overseas experience the jitney owners want to maximize profit by only driving in densely populated, short-trip markets at peak times. These (mostly young) entrepreneurs certainly don't want to invest in handicapped-accessibility or offer money-losing non-peak services. Areas with fewer passengers or longer distances aren't money makers, and the jitney drivers don't go there. Passengers, frustrated with poor service, then stop seeking rides on the jitney minibus, and this further discourages a jitney driver during off-peak hours or in a rural areas (a positive feedback loop occurs). Consequently, the government-mandated routes and schedules are a joke, ignored and a failure. A regulated system where buses (and street cars, taxis and trains) serve all areas on a predictable schedule will encourage more public transit use to the benefit of all who use the system. The cherry picking of high-profit routes by privately-owned jitney drivers removes the base from regulated systems, resulting in poorer service overall. George J. Perkins ------ __o 442 Toepfer Avenue ------- _`\<,_ Madison, WI 53711-1660 ---- (*)/ (*) Peace Corps: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gherkinsforperkins/ BikeAid: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gherkins4perkins/ _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
