Terrell Brown wrote: We need to merge all of our metro area bus systems, had that happened there would be more political pressure to end the strike. The opt out provision dating back to the days of a no longer existing Metropolitan Transit Commission property tax levy killed any possibility of a truly metropolitan area transit system.
It should also be noted that the suburban systems only serve the cream routes, routes that on their own can be profitable. Unfortunately many of the suburbs prefer to rely on the central cities for jobs and culture but refuse to participate in any of the social costs. Mark Anderson responds: Merging a system that works well with one that doesn't so that there is more political support for the poor system is a terrible idea. The suburban bus systems work very well, by all accounts. Having the Met Council run those systems is the a good idea if you want to ruin them. I suspect that the suburban systems run better than the MTC because of their management, not because they have cream routes. But even if they are cream routes, why should they be merged with the lesser routes? I prefer to isolate the routes that truly need subsidies to survive; so we really know what we're subsidizing. Perhaps it's worth it to subsidize 2/3 of the cost of the bus system in order to have a civilized place to live. But at least we know that we're subsidizing the MTC buses only. If you included the suburban bus systems with the MTC, it would appear that we were subsidizing those routes also, even though they require little or no subsidy. Your suggestion is a recipe for even less transparency in government. Terrell Brown continued: Unlike a strike against a profit making business which loses money when a strike causes a shut down, a strike against a government entity doesn't cause a financial loss to the employer. In fact, the government employer may gain in the short run by "saving" thousands of payroll dollars. Mark Anderson: You are correct here. One more example of the inherent inefficiency of government programs. It sounds like the bus system would be a great candidate for privatization. In fact with the suburban bus systems already existent, we already have a competitive environment to launch such a program. Let any transit company who wants to bus anywhere in the Metro. There's no reason we couldn't subsidize the non-cream routes even with privately run systems. We could offer a bonus to companies running routes that have been determined to be important for the Metro but unprofitable without the bonus. Dollar to donuts that we'd end up paying less in subsidy and have a better transit system. Mark V Anderson Bancroft REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
