I used to think like this when lived in Chicago. But in reality, governance issues plague pretty much every region. The MTA actually controls the NYC Transit, LIRR and Metro-North, but can't even make Metro-North and LIRR talk to each other, much less coordinate anything. In Philly, I believe SEPTA's commuter services operate very differently from heavy rail and bus service. There are issues like the way railroad service is regulated differently, different unions, etc. that make this very complex.
I'm not saying that changing the governance wouldn't be a good thing. But is this really the highest bang for the buck we'd get from spending our limited political capital? Maybe, maybe not.
Yeah - I certainly agree that the governance side is only part of the puzzle, and bad leadership/decision-making can ruin transit in any structure (the Eno report acknowledges as much). If the choice is governance reform vs. leadership/operating reforms, I'll take the latter every time.
I *think* we'll have an easier time installing good leaders operating reforms in a newly created structure, rather than try to replace bad leaders/managers 1:1 in the existing structure. But failing to get the operating reform piece done here would be the transit equivalent of fumbling the ball at the 1 yard line.
I think your point about accountability and funding priority is a great one. That board would be majority suburbs while the ridership would be supermajority CTA is something that will have to be resolved in the legislation. But from the rhetoric around the debate, the suburbanites seem to believe the opposite will happen, Chicago will be the sole focus and they'll be left to dry.
Yeah... it's a legitimately hard problem, and there are enough to slice the numbers that everyone can convince themselves either that they're getting short-changed by the current system, or that they'll get shortchanged in the future. Based on the current board situation, I'd be more worried about a shift in the opposite direction. But this should be one of the major benefits of both more appointees from the governor and a farebox recovery ratio -- aligning agency incentives with ridership volume, regardless of jurisdiction.
I still don't think this reform plan is aggressive enough in addressing the governance problems. You need one neck to ring as it were. The mayor (or city council) needs to appoint the majority of board seats
I used to think like this when lived in Chicago. But in reality, governance issues plague pretty much every region. The MTA actually controls the NYC Transit, LIRR and Metro-North, but can't even make Metro-North and LIRR talk to each other, much less coordinate anything. In Philly, I believe SEPTA's commuter services operate very differently from heavy rail and bus service. There are issues like the way railroad service is regulated differently, different unions, etc. that make this very complex.
I'm not saying that changing the governance wouldn't be a good thing. But is this really the highest bang for the buck we'd get from spending our limited political capital? Maybe, maybe not.
Yeah - I certainly agree that the governance side is only part of the puzzle, and bad leadership/decision-making can ruin transit in any structure (the Eno report acknowledges as much). If the choice is governance reform vs. leadership/operating reforms, I'll take the latter every time.
I *think* we'll have an easier time installing good leaders operating reforms in a newly created structure, rather than try to replace bad leaders/managers 1:1 in the existing structure. But failing to get the operating reform piece done here would be the transit equivalent of fumbling the ball at the 1 yard line.
I think your point about accountability and funding priority is a great one. That board would be majority suburbs while the ridership would be supermajority CTA is something that will have to be resolved in the legislation. But from the rhetoric around the debate, the suburbanites seem to believe the opposite will happen, Chicago will be the sole focus and they'll be left to dry.
Yeah... it's a legitimately hard problem, and there are enough to slice the numbers that everyone can convince themselves either that they're getting short-changed by the current system, or that they'll get shortchanged in the future. Based on the current board situation, I'd be more worried about a shift in the opposite direction. But this should be one of the major benefits of both more appointees from the governor and a farebox recovery ratio -- aligning agency incentives with ridership volume, regardless of jurisdiction.
I still don't think this reform plan is aggressive enough in addressing the governance problems. You need one neck to ring as it were. The mayor (or city council) needs to appoint the majority of board seats