 |
Re: Governance Models? Centralization has some real problems.
Author: BOB2
Date: 11-15-2019 - 15:14
Espee99 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The real issue is the management of many various
> systems and agencys w/o a single point of control.
> Remove Bart, Caltrain, Muni, Sam Trans, Ac, etc
> and make one agency that can work out the best way
> to combine services and produce a transit product
> that serves the working people. Who BTW no longer
> work in an office and are on the road most of the
> time visiting clients.
I'm not sure of that governance model. I've seen many instances where such "centralization" concentrates too much power, and leads to diversion of resources away, from smaller and/or more cost effective projects, to bigger and more costly projects. The other reality is that these are almost all special districts, created for limited purposes, but governed by members drawn from existing local government, and they are unlikely to give up such powers. And, thus, such grand "reforms" are very difficult to pull off politically.
Checks and balances, with planning and programming decisions at a more centralized level, with the respective systems, vying for funding, based on a prioritization on "benefits", has been a good model. But, has been eroded by "balkanization" with local agencies having their own revenue sources, and thus that "leverage" which can be good in some ways (local project "ownership" and commitment), and bad in others (uncoordinated systems, duplication, and lack of a coherent, efficient, and effective "user" oriented focus or strategy).
Oversized centralized transit operating systems also exhibit higher costs, albeit often with higher productivity, but just as often higher "input" costs, such a labor, or project construction costs, than other "leaner/meaner" operators in the same markets.
And, yes, Pollyanna simplistic assumptions, not based on the actual observed travel behavior, making ludicrous assumptions (like with some of this "complete streets" "true believer" nonsense) will not meet our real "observed" and economically important transportation needs...
I call that the "magic pixie dust", that make all of the traffic "disappear", as we all walk, bicycle, and roller skate to work, or business appointments, or to pick up the kids and take them to piano lessons, or haul six bags of groceries home, et cetera...
-------------------------------------------------------
> The real issue is the management of many various
> systems and agencys w/o a single point of control.
> Remove Bart, Caltrain, Muni, Sam Trans, Ac, etc
> and make one agency that can work out the best way
> to combine services and produce a transit product
> that serves the working people. Who BTW no longer
> work in an office and are on the road most of the
> time visiting clients.
I'm not sure of that governance model. I've seen many instances where such "centralization" concentrates too much power, and leads to diversion of resources away, from smaller and/or more cost effective projects, to bigger and more costly projects. The other reality is that these are almost all special districts, created for limited purposes, but governed by members drawn from existing local government, and they are unlikely to give up such powers. And, thus, such grand "reforms" are very difficult to pull off politically.
Checks and balances, with planning and programming decisions at a more centralized level, with the respective systems, vying for funding, based on a prioritization on "benefits", has been a good model. But, has been eroded by "balkanization" with local agencies having their own revenue sources, and thus that "leverage" which can be good in some ways (local project "ownership" and commitment), and bad in others (uncoordinated systems, duplication, and lack of a coherent, efficient, and effective "user" oriented focus or strategy).
Oversized centralized transit operating systems also exhibit higher costs, albeit often with higher productivity, but just as often higher "input" costs, such a labor, or project construction costs, than other "leaner/meaner" operators in the same markets.
And, yes, Pollyanna simplistic assumptions, not based on the actual observed travel behavior, making ludicrous assumptions (like with some of this "complete streets" "true believer" nonsense) will not meet our real "observed" and economically important transportation needs...
I call that the "magic pixie dust", that make all of the traffic "disappear", as we all walk, bicycle, and roller skate to work, or business appointments, or to pick up the kids and take them to piano lessons, or haul six bags of groceries home, et cetera...
