I don't know who is behind it, but someone or some group is trying to injure CATA. Ostensibly about overtime pay, it only briefly mentions that it would probably cost more to hire more drivers. It's really just a hit piece like the one about the former finance director, and I don't think the media just suddenly became interested in CATA's finances.
The LSJ seems to run a piece like this every year. I agree that it is meant to get people to think negatively about government waste and poor management directed at CATA. It does highlight an underemployment issue but the way these articles tend to be written is to make the actual employees look like crooks for working a lot of hours.
Well, it looks like regional efforts to impugn CATA's reputation and the new federal government have accomplished what they wanted: to kill this plan.
Funkhouser, who was hired in October to replace the outgoing deputy CEO and also took over as BRT project manager, said the motivation for the about-face is twofold.
First, he said, up to $100 million of expected funding for CATA's BRT was cut from President Donald Trump's proposed budget, which completely eliminated federal funding for dozens of similar projects across the country. While Congress has not indicated how much of the president's budget it plans to adopt, White House support is critical for such projects, which are funded through the Federal Transit Administration.
Second, Funkhouser said, CATA officials recently learned they would need to spend more than $700,000 on more traffic studies before the FTA would advance the project from the environmental assessment phase into one that begins finalizing project design.
Practically, this means we'll continue to have to build oversized amounts of parking for every new project on the corridor.
We have got to do better than this. Local politics are coming to a breaking point, quite honestly. We're on the cusp and our "leaders" keep doing crap to set us back from really breaking onto the national stage as an truly attractive place to live and work.
Thanks for the post - sigh. It really (a long with a bunch of other stuff) makes you feel like the CATA leadership really needs to be shaken up. Also... it feels impossible to do large projects these days. You can't let seven years go by after initial proposal, and you're still studying the problem. And you've spent $6 million. Projects are taking so long that the conditions on the ground that motivated them are literally changing before construction begins.
You know I read, and recommend, the book "Street Fighter", by a New York City transportation commissioner. Something she says is that, for the most part, they did not try to employ this endless charrette model. She also says that there is always enormous pressure to just maintain the status quo. So what they did, is took careful data, and (with some input from the community), did what the data said would work. And it worked. And AFTERWARDS, people loved it. And then the status quo pressure was in their favor instead of against it.
This is not a good thing. I wonder why this relatively small number of people and their views were allowed to have such power in this project. I don't remember a great deal of public input before all of the projects of the 60's and 70's, that saw about a full quarter of our city torn down. They just did it, pretty much. So I can see what the NYC commissioner is talking about. I think there could be a better balance of citizen input and the interest of the greater community. I also can not understand the resistance to any thing bigger and better than it has to be here. My Dad had a word for this thinking "rinkydink"[not a real word] meaning small and not quite up to it, why does Lansing feel that way at times.
Grand Rapids created a BRT line on Division for only around $40 million, so there are cheaper ways to do this. The dramatic reimagining of Michigan and Grand River avenues would have to be scrapped, I'd imagine.
I know in Grand Rapids the rapid bus only has the right of way on select segments, and that there is a prioritized traffic signal. If you incorporated elements like that on Route 1 - along with ticket vending machines, articulated buses, and eliminating redundant stops - you could see a dramatic improvement in service at a more manageable price tag.
I know that this suggestion might not be popular here, but moving the route to Kalamazoo through East Lansing and having the BRT take Circle Drive through campus could also eliminate a lot of complaints naysayers had.
Aside from shortening the trip by making it faster, the entire point of BRT and light rail is as a development tool along commercial corridors. BRT on Kalamazoo - which isn't wide enough a street to do it on, anyway - makes absolutely no sense. And, not giving its dedicated lane essentially defeats the purpose as you simply have a regular bus line with fancy stops, which is why Grand Rapids' was never the one we wanted to model our's after. Most BRT advocates don't even consider a line operating in mixed traffic to be actual BRT.
My idea it to truncated it to Frandor to remove most of the opposition, but it sounds like they want to give up on the idea of BRT entirely. As CATA has said, simply putting more buses on the route doesn't cut it.
I see the former Meridian Township trustee who has been awfully vocal in his criticism from Day One, was basically gloating on the news last night about this. The great thing is that he was defeated this fall when he tried to run for township supervisor. He has been nothing but an anti-progressive force in the region, so I'm glad he's gone.
Anyway, while CATA's management having now turning on this project essentially seals its fate, the actual board still has to vote on whether to scrap the project. There meeting is this upcoming Wednesday, on the 19th. Anyone who wants to share their opinion can go to the meeting or send them an email:
That the CATA Board of Directors hereby resolves to suspend the Bus Rapid Transit ("BRT") Project indefinitely and authorizes the CEO/Executive Director, Sandy L. Draggoo, to take actions to suspend the Project and wind-down Project activities, on such terms and conditions as she deems necessary and are approved by legal counsel.
If the Federal money for this project is cut then this was going to be a mute issue anyways because it certainly won't be financed all from local money. Now the city has to get serious about a major overhaul to Michigan Ave, they have no excuse to hold off anymore.
I mean, with the repaving, they've bought themselves years before they have to come back and completely rebuild it. The chamber stopped complaining the moment after they put down the blacktop, and let's be honest, the only time the city jumps is when the chamber threatens them, which is sad, but that's a whole other issue...
Also, there is no official sign that the Small Starts program at DOT has been cancelled. That's just ostensibly one of the excuses they are using to scrap this. More likely, it'll just get less money so the projects will become even more competitive. They are using the uncertainty of funding as an excuse extrapolating they won't get the money. Really, it's the local opposition killing this off.
If the city waits anymore than a year or two to rebuild and streetscape Michigan Ave it would be a massive mistake that would do a lot to dampen the momentum that has been building. With the way local leadership has been going lately I certainly wouldn't expect them to make the smart decision though.
Comments
I don't know who is behind it, but someone or some group is trying to injure CATA. Ostensibly about overtime pay, it only briefly mentions that it would probably cost more to hire more drivers. It's really just a hit piece like the one about the former finance director, and I don't think the media just suddenly became interested in CATA's finances.
The LSJ seems to run a piece like this every year. I agree that it is meant to get people to think negatively about government waste and poor management directed at CATA. It does highlight an underemployment issue but the way these articles tend to be written is to make the actual employees look like crooks for working a lot of hours.
Well, it looks like regional efforts to impugn CATA's reputation and the new federal government have accomplished what they wanted: to kill this plan.
Practically, this means we'll continue to have to build oversized amounts of parking for every new project on the corridor.
We have got to do better than this. Local politics are coming to a breaking point, quite honestly. We're on the cusp and our "leaders" keep doing crap to set us back from really breaking onto the national stage as an truly attractive place to live and work.
Thanks for the post - sigh. It really (a long with a bunch of other stuff) makes you feel like the CATA leadership really needs to be shaken up. Also... it feels impossible to do large projects these days. You can't let seven years go by after initial proposal, and you're still studying the problem. And you've spent $6 million. Projects are taking so long that the conditions on the ground that motivated them are literally changing before construction begins.
You know I read, and recommend, the book "Street Fighter", by a New York City transportation commissioner. Something she says is that, for the most part, they did not try to employ this endless charrette model. She also says that there is always enormous pressure to just maintain the status quo. So what they did, is took careful data, and (with some input from the community), did what the data said would work. And it worked. And AFTERWARDS, people loved it. And then the status quo pressure was in their favor instead of against it.
This is not a good thing. I wonder why this relatively small number of people and their views were allowed to have such power in this project. I don't remember a great deal of public input before all of the projects of the 60's and 70's, that saw about a full quarter of our city torn down. They just did it, pretty much. So I can see what the NYC commissioner is talking about. I think there could be a better balance of citizen input and the interest of the greater community. I also can not understand the resistance to any thing bigger and better than it has to be here. My Dad had a word for this thinking "rinkydink"[not a real word] meaning small and not quite up to it, why does Lansing feel that way at times.
Grand Rapids created a BRT line on Division for only around $40 million, so there are cheaper ways to do this. The dramatic reimagining of Michigan and Grand River avenues would have to be scrapped, I'd imagine.
I know in Grand Rapids the rapid bus only has the right of way on select segments, and that there is a prioritized traffic signal. If you incorporated elements like that on Route 1 - along with ticket vending machines, articulated buses, and eliminating redundant stops - you could see a dramatic improvement in service at a more manageable price tag.
I know that this suggestion might not be popular here, but moving the route to Kalamazoo through East Lansing and having the BRT take Circle Drive through campus could also eliminate a lot of complaints naysayers had.
Aside from shortening the trip by making it faster, the entire point of BRT and light rail is as a development tool along commercial corridors. BRT on Kalamazoo - which isn't wide enough a street to do it on, anyway - makes absolutely no sense. And, not giving its dedicated lane essentially defeats the purpose as you simply have a regular bus line with fancy stops, which is why Grand Rapids' was never the one we wanted to model our's after. Most BRT advocates don't even consider a line operating in mixed traffic to be actual BRT.
My idea it to truncated it to Frandor to remove most of the opposition, but it sounds like they want to give up on the idea of BRT entirely. As CATA has said, simply putting more buses on the route doesn't cut it.
I see the former Meridian Township trustee who has been awfully vocal in his criticism from Day One, was basically gloating on the news last night about this. The great thing is that he was defeated this fall when he tried to run for township supervisor. He has been nothing but an anti-progressive force in the region, so I'm glad he's gone.
Anyway, while CATA's management having now turning on this project essentially seals its fate, the actual board still has to vote on whether to scrap the project. There meeting is this upcoming Wednesday, on the 19th. Anyone who wants to share their opinion can go to the meeting or send them an email:
cataboard@cata.org
And, here is the agenda item:
April 19th
If the Federal money for this project is cut then this was going to be a mute issue anyways because it certainly won't be financed all from local money. Now the city has to get serious about a major overhaul to Michigan Ave, they have no excuse to hold off anymore.
I mean, with the repaving, they've bought themselves years before they have to come back and completely rebuild it. The chamber stopped complaining the moment after they put down the blacktop, and let's be honest, the only time the city jumps is when the chamber threatens them, which is sad, but that's a whole other issue...
Also, there is no official sign that the Small Starts program at DOT has been cancelled. That's just ostensibly one of the excuses they are using to scrap this. More likely, it'll just get less money so the projects will become even more competitive. They are using the uncertainty of funding as an excuse extrapolating they won't get the money. Really, it's the local opposition killing this off.
If the city waits anymore than a year or two to rebuild and streetscape Michigan Ave it would be a massive mistake that would do a lot to dampen the momentum that has been building. With the way local leadership has been going lately I certainly wouldn't expect them to make the smart decision though.