Scott, thank you. You say “CAB has a better alternative and has presented it to SBCAG. Ignored and faced with growing costs and little ridership, isn't it time to implement CAB's plan?” - that's great! But reading this column, I didn't learn what that plan is. And most people who might be on your side don't want to have to search it out. Attention spans, mine foremost among them, are short. There's too much that is a money drain with no benefit to us taxpayers. I think - and please correct me if I'm wrong - this column should have included your plan rather than just what's wrong with MTD.
Conservatives and Republicans must choose their mountains on which to die on. MTD and public transportation is not one of them. It's just a fact of life. A "20/80" public non-profit income/subsidy model is common across the board. All in all, MTD provides good, reliable, affordable service to the South Coast. I ride MTD regularly. I have few complaints.
I'm confident "Conservative and Republicans" are capable of multi-tasking and able to concurrently climb a number of mountains. As one of the few users of public transportation I appreciate your ride is subsidized to the tune of 80%...I understand and respect your advocacy. No doubt I would also. Regardless, it needs fixing.
Another perspective is needed regarding public transportation instead of running these massive frequently empty behemoths on the streets. Incorporating a private sector (competitive) approach...UBER, Amazon, UPS, FEDEX are examples of efficient delivery systems that were inspired in large part by the failure of the government run US Postal System. (Marborg...are you listening?)
On the flip side however, I have no doubt the significant real estate currently used by MTD would be quickly converted to super high density "affordable" and subsidized housing. Upon further consideration...let's just opt for empty buses and large swaths of unoccupied real estate and count our blessings. "Nevermind" (re: Gilda Radner, circa 1970's). Whew!
Be my guest knocking yourself out on alternatives to public transportation. Even if there were a half-dozen "mountains" we could judiciously juggle at once, finding "solutions" to replace public bus systems across the Fruited Plain would not be in my Top 25. Some things are just a waste of time and resources. It's in the same ballpark as libertarians arguing against public parks.
Difficult to walk through a closed door. Sounds like you're suggesting improving and/or refining public transportation shouldn't even be a topic of discussion. Different strokes... different folks.
Go ahead and address any issue you wish. Woe be it to me to censor anybody. Not my style. If you wish to expend energy discussing issues on the margins of relevancy, do so.
Very eye opening article Scott. It would seem “Public Transportation” is less about providing a cost effective alternative to driving and more about providing Unions with a never ending revenue stream. In the ideal world, I would like to think public transportation provides a valuable resource, reducing the number of cars on our freeways and allowing people to commute to work, while living in less expensive suburbs. Ideally, we could have a rail service such as Metrolink from Oxnard to SB and Santa Maria to SB and In doing so take unrealistic state housing mandates off the table from SB planning.
The reality seems to be fraud and corruption, as we now see with “the train to nowhere” and it’s massive cost overruns, all without any tracks being laid. How is it Newsom’s high speed rail project is not being investigated for criminal prosecution?
A friend of mine who regularly commutes from Goleta to Santa Barbara for work tells me that in the morning his regularly scheduled busses often pass him by because they are filled completely with foreign EF English School students who live in Isla Vista. When I see busses at other times of day they look mostly empty to me. I'd say the schedules are poorly managed.
If you want to see a complete FIASCO....check out Honolulu's fail that is rail. Never voted in, pushed into existence by Mufi, est at start of $3B...last I knew it was at $13B and not 1/2 done. As typical in Hawaii, the good ol boy scratch my back system is alive and very profitable for those playing the game.
Of course, Scott must know that the Interstate and U.S. highway systems, as well as the California State Highway system, are "Publicly Subsidized Transportation." Does he also consider them to be "a failure"? I lived in Europe for almost 10 years and depended on "publicly subsidized transportation" for most of my commuting to work and vacation travel. It seems only the United States struggles to provide its people with universal health care and reliable, dependable, and convenient public transportation, despite that fact that the American people are paying much more for it. This is not a Dem or Rep issue, rather it is a systemic failure and a reflection of our special interest PAC controlled government.
Keep in mind that 80% of California HWY and Road Repairs are funded by taxes. That is a huge subsidy to automobile owners, and automobile manufacturers. Not to mention the environmental damage. There are State fees, weight fees for trucks, a fee for zero emission vehicles. Taxpayers are saddled with massive gasoline taxes to pay for this widespread, and elaborate web of roadways. Serious alternate transportation doesn’t exist. The traffic problems never seem to get fixed. We just keep building roads. I too drive a car. Thank you for my subsidy, I think.
Like others, I'd love to see the Wenz Plan. Anecdotally, I am house and dog sitting for friends on the West side. Last night I took a walk that is much longer than my usual strolls. I found myself near the MTD station downtown and noticed a bus that looked to be headed for the West Side. I hopped on, paid the small fee, and crossed my fingers. The bus was nearly full and it took me right to where I needed to go. Now that I am retired, I have been using MTD for all sorts of adventures. I am sure it can be improved. A good bus service is essential and if you think you can make it better, bring on your plan, Mr. Wenz!
It's interesting to read different perspectives. Here is another that promotes cars as the future of transportation and diminishing mass transit. I ran up against this when I was involved in discussions about Phoenix's light rail system. That was 25 years ago, and naysayers were using the same outdated arguments back then,
For decades, transportation planners have known that moving people takes a multi-prong approach. Mass transit is an important part of the solution, and it takes taxpayer funds to create and operate. Even in Europe, where there is a great reliance on buses and trains, taxpayer funds are used to subsidize.
Mass transit serves a variety of people, many in the lower economic strata and more recently... Gen X,Y, Z, and Alpha. Many in this population do not own cars, are in one-car families, or prefer mass transit, bikes, or ride sharing.
Perhaps the author thinks a system that serves 17,000 DAILY, 19% of the city's population, is worthless. To the people who rely on it to get to work. school and shopping, mass transit is essential and valued.
In a cooperative society, we share and utilize funding to benefit a variety of citizens. For me, this isn't a bad thing; it's what makes a city vital, and if some of my taxes don't go to serve me directly, I'm okay with that. It's not always about the money; it's about helping make a city vital and vibrant for all the people who call Santa Barbara home.
I've spent some time in Melbourne visiting my husband's family and I really appreciate their public transit system. I don't know how it compares to that of Switzerland, but no dense cluster of small housing units was necessary to make it work. We could hop on a speedy train a couple blocks from their family home in the suburbs and arrive in the city center fairly quickly.
These connections have been there almost as long as the suburbs have - the plan was in place before the houses were built. Advanced planning for this kind of infrastructure exemplifies a different mindset.
I doubt that those involved in infrastructure planning view it this way. Ideally, the transportation network (public transit, roads, etc) is laid out (planned) before breaking ground. Public funds (taxes) pay for infrastructure and the plan's goal is a well-functioning municipality. The end result is that the public as a whole is served.
However, it is typical in the US for public transit to be added as an afterthought, with no organized network. In Los Angeles, this occurred due to the influence of the budding auto industry about 100 years ago (I learned this in history class several decades ago). Freeways were favored over plans for public transit, which were diminished or wiped out.
Where rail is added (as an afterthought), forced sales of existing homes occur. The process can destroy a neighborhood or community.
Back to your point regarding "inner city passenger volume support for these hybrid systems (urban + extra urban), that might be carrying the financial burden for the less population dense outer suburbs," I don't know where you're going with this. I do know that people from both sides of the tracks appreciate a well-organized transportation network.
I am not up on BART. My niece used it to get to work (from a suburb) when it was feasible.
Re use of the rail system in the Melbourne suburbs, those trains are crowded in the city and also the suburbs - an indicator of good planning is my guess.
The part about the economic feasibility of offering lines that reach certain locations (or relying on government funds to keep it all afloat) is outside my scope.
Scott, thank you. You say “CAB has a better alternative and has presented it to SBCAG. Ignored and faced with growing costs and little ridership, isn't it time to implement CAB's plan?” - that's great! But reading this column, I didn't learn what that plan is. And most people who might be on your side don't want to have to search it out. Attention spans, mine foremost among them, are short. There's too much that is a money drain with no benefit to us taxpayers. I think - and please correct me if I'm wrong - this column should have included your plan rather than just what's wrong with MTD.
Conservatives and Republicans must choose their mountains on which to die on. MTD and public transportation is not one of them. It's just a fact of life. A "20/80" public non-profit income/subsidy model is common across the board. All in all, MTD provides good, reliable, affordable service to the South Coast. I ride MTD regularly. I have few complaints.
I'm confident "Conservative and Republicans" are capable of multi-tasking and able to concurrently climb a number of mountains. As one of the few users of public transportation I appreciate your ride is subsidized to the tune of 80%...I understand and respect your advocacy. No doubt I would also. Regardless, it needs fixing.
Another perspective is needed regarding public transportation instead of running these massive frequently empty behemoths on the streets. Incorporating a private sector (competitive) approach...UBER, Amazon, UPS, FEDEX are examples of efficient delivery systems that were inspired in large part by the failure of the government run US Postal System. (Marborg...are you listening?)
On the flip side however, I have no doubt the significant real estate currently used by MTD would be quickly converted to super high density "affordable" and subsidized housing. Upon further consideration...let's just opt for empty buses and large swaths of unoccupied real estate and count our blessings. "Nevermind" (re: Gilda Radner, circa 1970's). Whew!
Be my guest knocking yourself out on alternatives to public transportation. Even if there were a half-dozen "mountains" we could judiciously juggle at once, finding "solutions" to replace public bus systems across the Fruited Plain would not be in my Top 25. Some things are just a waste of time and resources. It's in the same ballpark as libertarians arguing against public parks.
Difficult to walk through a closed door. Sounds like you're suggesting improving and/or refining public transportation shouldn't even be a topic of discussion. Different strokes... different folks.
Go ahead and address any issue you wish. Woe be it to me to censor anybody. Not my style. If you wish to expend energy discussing issues on the margins of relevancy, do so.
Very generous...thank you.
Ok liberal
Very eye opening article Scott. It would seem “Public Transportation” is less about providing a cost effective alternative to driving and more about providing Unions with a never ending revenue stream. In the ideal world, I would like to think public transportation provides a valuable resource, reducing the number of cars on our freeways and allowing people to commute to work, while living in less expensive suburbs. Ideally, we could have a rail service such as Metrolink from Oxnard to SB and Santa Maria to SB and In doing so take unrealistic state housing mandates off the table from SB planning.
The reality seems to be fraud and corruption, as we now see with “the train to nowhere” and it’s massive cost overruns, all without any tracks being laid. How is it Newsom’s high speed rail project is not being investigated for criminal prosecution?
A friend of mine who regularly commutes from Goleta to Santa Barbara for work tells me that in the morning his regularly scheduled busses often pass him by because they are filled completely with foreign EF English School students who live in Isla Vista. When I see busses at other times of day they look mostly empty to me. I'd say the schedules are poorly managed.
If you want to see a complete FIASCO....check out Honolulu's fail that is rail. Never voted in, pushed into existence by Mufi, est at start of $3B...last I knew it was at $13B and not 1/2 done. As typical in Hawaii, the good ol boy scratch my back system is alive and very profitable for those playing the game.
Wow, eye popping numbers and insight—especially in the face of a looming bus driver strike. Thank you.
Of course, Scott must know that the Interstate and U.S. highway systems, as well as the California State Highway system, are "Publicly Subsidized Transportation." Does he also consider them to be "a failure"? I lived in Europe for almost 10 years and depended on "publicly subsidized transportation" for most of my commuting to work and vacation travel. It seems only the United States struggles to provide its people with universal health care and reliable, dependable, and convenient public transportation, despite that fact that the American people are paying much more for it. This is not a Dem or Rep issue, rather it is a systemic failure and a reflection of our special interest PAC controlled government.
Keep in mind that 80% of California HWY and Road Repairs are funded by taxes. That is a huge subsidy to automobile owners, and automobile manufacturers. Not to mention the environmental damage. There are State fees, weight fees for trucks, a fee for zero emission vehicles. Taxpayers are saddled with massive gasoline taxes to pay for this widespread, and elaborate web of roadways. Serious alternate transportation doesn’t exist. The traffic problems never seem to get fixed. We just keep building roads. I too drive a car. Thank you for my subsidy, I think.
I read this article titled "The Failure of Publicly Subsidized Transportation"
by Scott Wenz and here-we-go I have a supporting title >
"SB MTD Boondoggle - There are No Riders In the MTD Buses!"
Every time I use to drive in this Town, a real problem in itself, we would pass
an MTD Bus and my better half would say ......... HEY. NO RIDERS IN THERE??!!
So why are we paying for a service no one uses?
We could ask the Bell of Justice to do another FIOA OR CRC but then
again the So-Called-Leaders will provide NOTHING because they
Know Nothing and they See Nothing and they Hear Nothing>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34ag4nkSh7Q&ab_channel=Dutchnoble
The City of Sargent Schultz (S.S. Town) - NOTHING HERE TO SEE!!!
Howard Walther, Member of a Military Family
PS1 - Follow the MTD Money Trail Like LA Fire Aide Money Trial!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLSNHpnHeqc&ab_channel=FoxNewsClips
"This is not Fire Aid this is Fire Fraud ............ sound familiar? Think the S.S. Town
I was hoping this was a place for thinking people.
Like others, I'd love to see the Wenz Plan. Anecdotally, I am house and dog sitting for friends on the West side. Last night I took a walk that is much longer than my usual strolls. I found myself near the MTD station downtown and noticed a bus that looked to be headed for the West Side. I hopped on, paid the small fee, and crossed my fingers. The bus was nearly full and it took me right to where I needed to go. Now that I am retired, I have been using MTD for all sorts of adventures. I am sure it can be improved. A good bus service is essential and if you think you can make it better, bring on your plan, Mr. Wenz!
It's interesting to read different perspectives. Here is another that promotes cars as the future of transportation and diminishing mass transit. I ran up against this when I was involved in discussions about Phoenix's light rail system. That was 25 years ago, and naysayers were using the same outdated arguments back then,
For decades, transportation planners have known that moving people takes a multi-prong approach. Mass transit is an important part of the solution, and it takes taxpayer funds to create and operate. Even in Europe, where there is a great reliance on buses and trains, taxpayer funds are used to subsidize.
Mass transit serves a variety of people, many in the lower economic strata and more recently... Gen X,Y, Z, and Alpha. Many in this population do not own cars, are in one-car families, or prefer mass transit, bikes, or ride sharing.
Perhaps the author thinks a system that serves 17,000 DAILY, 19% of the city's population, is worthless. To the people who rely on it to get to work. school and shopping, mass transit is essential and valued.
In a cooperative society, we share and utilize funding to benefit a variety of citizens. For me, this isn't a bad thing; it's what makes a city vital, and if some of my taxes don't go to serve me directly, I'm okay with that. It's not always about the money; it's about helping make a city vital and vibrant for all the people who call Santa Barbara home.
They should stop being selfish and buy a car
Yes what is the Plan?
Two points:
I've spent some time in Melbourne visiting my husband's family and I really appreciate their public transit system. I don't know how it compares to that of Switzerland, but no dense cluster of small housing units was necessary to make it work. We could hop on a speedy train a couple blocks from their family home in the suburbs and arrive in the city center fairly quickly.
These connections have been there almost as long as the suburbs have - the plan was in place before the houses were built. Advanced planning for this kind of infrastructure exemplifies a different mindset.
I doubt that those involved in infrastructure planning view it this way. Ideally, the transportation network (public transit, roads, etc) is laid out (planned) before breaking ground. Public funds (taxes) pay for infrastructure and the plan's goal is a well-functioning municipality. The end result is that the public as a whole is served.
However, it is typical in the US for public transit to be added as an afterthought, with no organized network. In Los Angeles, this occurred due to the influence of the budding auto industry about 100 years ago (I learned this in history class several decades ago). Freeways were favored over plans for public transit, which were diminished or wiped out.
Where rail is added (as an afterthought), forced sales of existing homes occur. The process can destroy a neighborhood or community.
Back to your point regarding "inner city passenger volume support for these hybrid systems (urban + extra urban), that might be carrying the financial burden for the less population dense outer suburbs," I don't know where you're going with this. I do know that people from both sides of the tracks appreciate a well-organized transportation network.
RE rich/poor, ok, I agree with your point.
I am not up on BART. My niece used it to get to work (from a suburb) when it was feasible.
Re use of the rail system in the Melbourne suburbs, those trains are crowded in the city and also the suburbs - an indicator of good planning is my guess.
The part about the economic feasibility of offering lines that reach certain locations (or relying on government funds to keep it all afloat) is outside my scope.