Metro Transit's leadership problem

Metro Transit and the Metropolitan Council have just finished holding hearings on their proposal to raise transit fares, just as ridership is finally rising. The increase is gas prices has the potential to help us remake our transportation system in a more efficient way. Not surprisingly, Tim Pawlenty and his appointed chair of the Metropolitan Council, Peter Bell, are planning to squander that potential through fare increases.

This shows a typical lack of leadership on the part of the Metropolitan Council. Peter Bell's refusal to stand up to his boss is shown by his excuses for raising fares in an editorial written for the Star Tribune:

The skyrocketing cost of oil has been a mixed blessing for transit. On the positive side, it has helped boost Metro Transit ridership to the highest levels in more than 25 years.

But the fuel costs of Metro Transit and suburban providers have more than doubled since 2005, the last time transit fares were increased. And we buy a lot of fuel. Metro Transit uses nearly 8 million gallons of diesel fuel per year.

Fuel is indeed expensive. Nobody can deny that. However, the rising price of fuel is precisely why the Metro Council should keep fares steady. They have the potential to be a source of help to Twin Cities residents squeezed by gas prices. They are abandoning that responsibility.

Bell continues:

The Metropolitan Council does not want to cut transit service. Indeed, our long-range transit vision calls for expanding service and doubling ridership by 2030. We are off to a good start with the opening of our first light-rail transit (LRT) line in the Hiawatha corridor, the construction of our first commuter rail line in the Northstar corridor and the planning for our second LRT line in the Central corridor.

Even with our proposed fare increase, riders will pay only about 30 percent of transit operating costs. The other 70 percent will come from the taxpayers -- in the form of MVST revenues and legislative appropriations.

If you ask me, this doesn't sound like the rhetoric of a man who wants transit to succeed. Pointing out that transit is "subsidized" is a red herring designed to make transit look like "big, bad government." The truth is that all transportation is subsidized, not just transit. According to the Department of Finance (PDF link), in the 2008-2009 biennium we allocated approximately $5 billion to transportation. The gas tax pays for approximately $1.3 billion. Which means that 74 percent comes from the taxpayers -- in the form of MVST revenues and legislative appropriations. Bell's arguments are typical anti-transit arguments. The numbers show that all transportation is subsidized--so why is it okay for cars, but not for transit?

So what's the real reason behind the fare increases? Well, bossman Tim Pawlenty has already proven he's against transit--in fact, he was willing to sacrifice the Central Corridor as a bargaining chip. Peter Bell hasn't had the cojones to stand up to Pawlenty and ask for real funding for transit. Until Bell decides to stand up to his boss, we'll continue in this vicious cycle of fare increases and declining ridership.

Like this post?
Metro Transit's leadership problem	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?