Who cares about buses? Apparently no one on Smith Hill.
The House Budget, to be voted on Thursday, contains not a penny in new revenue for RIPTA. It also contains no ideas, proposals, or signs that anyone in the House Fiscal staff spent more than a dozen minutes thinking about the agency. This is hardly surprising, since the Governor’s budget didn’t have anything to say about it, either. Despite several years of a funding crisis, RIPTA still struggles to get anyone’s attention.
This, of course, is also hardly surprising. No one in a position of authority actually rides the bus. The Governor doesn’t, the Speaker doesn’t, the Senate President doesn’t, even though the service from Newport to Providence is excellent, with over 60 buses traveling back and forth every day. There aren’t even any members of the RIPTA board who are regular bus riders, besides Anna Liebenow, who has MS and uses a wheelchair. Two current board members have told me they made a point to get on the bus once or twice after their appointment, but that’s not quite the same thing, is it?
This isn’t to say that no one rides the bus. RIPTA provided 26 million rides last year, which works out to serving between twenty and fifty thousand people every day. Over half of them are riding to and from work (like me). Lots of them own cars, which they leave at home to leave more room on the highway and more parking spaces for you.
And, of course, lots of them don’t own cars, or can’t drive, and the bus is their lifeline, the way they get around this state. But who cares about them? In the halls of the state house, RIPTA is widely viewed as a program for poor people. Consequently it is a poor system, and it’s therefore socially acceptable in that world to ignore it. There are a couple of seats on its board designated for people who represent either poor people or disabled ones, and that’s pretty much that.
The House budget does provide for some capital investment to buy new buses, but that’s not RIPTA’s problem. Their problem is that a big part of their budget comes from the gas tax, and when gas prices rise, more people ride the bus and less gas is sold. Since the gas tax is a set number of pennies per gallon of gas (9.25 cents out of the 32 cent per gallon gas tax), when gas prices rise they get more riders at the same time they get less money. It’s a crazy way to fund the system, but that’s nothing new. Now, despite several years of three-dollar gas and full buses — standing room is not unusual on the lines I ride — there has been zero constructive action to fix the problem.
You should understand a couple more things about RIPTA. One is that compared to other similar sized systems, we get very good return for our dollar from the agency. Comparing rides provided per year to expenses, RIPTA comes out very well in head-to-head matchups with its peers around the country. The other is that to my knowledge, except for a one or maybe two subway lines in Japan, there aren’t any public transit systems anywhere in the world that don’t have a subsidy of some kind. Just as there aren’t any road systems who don’t require a subsidy. Public transit is a matter of public infrastructure and should be supported as such. We’re not talking about a mint. RIPTA’s deficit is estimated at about $9 million at this point, a little more than one thousandth of the overall budget.
At the current deficit, and with no change at all, RIPTA has approximately half a year left before they can’t make payroll. This won’t happen, of course. What will happen is service cuts that will be devastating for everyone who relies on the bus. Without buses there will be around 10,000 more cars on Rhode Island roads every day, along with many more people than that cut off from jobs they travel to, or just unable to get around because they can’t afford a car — or because they can’t drive.
So come on, tell your Representative or Senator that we need public transit. (And do it today!) We don’t need more buses without the money to run them. Call Helio Melo, the House Finance chair and tell him that just because he doesn’t ride the bus doesn’t mean that nobody does. Tell Gordon Fox that not everyone can afford a car. Tell Teresa Paiva-Weed that our state will be a cleaner, more pleasant place to live — and drive — with a healthy and well-funded bus system. We need more people on the bus, not fewer, and letting RIPTA choke on gas tax fumes is exactly the wrong direction for our state to be going.
great post Tom, thank you for writing this one up!
I have talked to a lot of people with health problems or/and aging who would use public transit if it were available. Cutting routes and rides means more people forced to drive even when they don’t want to. The cuts affect programs like RIDE that are intended to provide an alternative, cutting service there too.
Rhode Island is getting older, do we really want to leave elderly citizens with no choice but to take their car?
We really shouldn’t be incentivizing senior citizens to live on their own when they can’t perform basic functions anymore. They should be living with family or friends or in an appropriate nursing home setting. The state may have an obligation to provide necessities of life to these people if they really have no one, but providing what is essentially a publicly funded taxi service for these people is just waste and largesse and asking for problems. As one would expect, operating costs for RIDE in Massachusetts have spiraled completely out of control in recent years and the inspector general this year called it a system ripe for fraud and abuse, identifying over $60 million in mismanagement and waste. Same basic problem as SSDI and how the percentage of people on it has more than doubled over the past two decades while by objective measures the population is getting healthier.
“We really shouldn’t be incentivizing senior citizens to live on their own when they can’t perform basic functions anymore.”
Who said anything about basic functions?
“ The state may have an obligation to provide necessities of life”
Yes.
“but providing what is essentially a publicly funded taxi service for these people is just waste”
It’s a necessity of life.
” a system ripe for fraud and abuse”
This is a different argument. You’re saying that public transportation is impossible to administrate, which has nothing to do with the case of the elderly.
“by objective measures the population is getting healthier”
Name these objective measures.
“Who said anything about basic functions?”
Driving is a basic function.
“It’s a necessity of life.”
Having the state chauffeur you around in a car or van at huge taxpayer expense is not a necessity of life. A human being can live without this service.
“You’re saying that public transportation is impossible to administrate, which has nothing to do with the case of the elderly.”
No, the inspector general of Massachusetts and I are saying that these specific types of services are ripe for waste, abuse, and skyrocketing costs. I don’t need you to “paraphrase” me because you misstate my arguments more often than not. My words can speak for themselves.
“Name these objective measures.”
Longevity is up. Nutrition is better. Fewer disabling diseases, such as polio. Fewer workplace injuries. Better disability workplace accommodations.
The majority of SSDI claims used to be medically verifiable disabling diseases, such as cancer and heart disease. The majority of SSDI claims today are muscuoskeletal pain and psychological disorders, such as anxiety. This is not a coincidence – getting people on SSDI has become huge business among boutique law firms and private practitioners. There are firms earning millions of dollars doing nothing else.
“Driving is a basic function” No, it isn’t, and I think you agree that it isn’t.
”A human being can live without this service” See what I mean?
“No, the inspector general of Massachusetts and I are saying”
No. The inspector general is not saying it is impossible to run these services.
”Longevity is up. Nutrition is better” The latter is arguably not true, and living longer means that more people need these services ( though that’s not exactly what an increase in longevity means).
“Fewer disabling diseases, such as polio. Fewer workplace injuries”
But more people.
It’s telling that you look at measures that you think should indicate how many people are disabled, rather than look at how many people are disabled.
“Better disability workplace accommodations” Which have nothing to do with getting to the workplace.
“The majority of SSDI claims today are muscuoskeletal pain and psychological disorders, such as anxiety”
Unless you’re saying all of these claims are fraudelent, so what?
“My words can speak for themselves” This mistaken belief is one of the biggest problems in your life.
“No, it isn’t, and I think you agree that it isn’t.”
Because you know what I think better than I do?
“No. The inspector general is not saying it is impossible to run these services.”
As was clear in my statements before you deliberately distorted them, I never said that running them was “impossible” or that the inspector general said that. I accurately reported what he said, which is that the systems are ripe for waste and abuse and the costs are skyrocketing.
“But more people. It’s telling that you look at measures that you think should indicate how many people are disabled, rather than look at how many people are disabled.”
If you actually read my statement, which you clearly stopped doing a long time ago in your daily ritual of frantically scanning my posts for contention points, I used the word “percentage.” The percentage of people on SSDI has more than doubled (in addition to the number of people). This cannot be explained by population growth.
“Unless you’re saying all of these claims are fraudelent, so what?”
So because I can’t *prove* that *all* of the musculoskeletal pain and anxiety SSDI claims are fraudulent, that means the trend isn’t at all troubling? You really believe it doesn’t suggest that there might be a problem with the system?
It’s perfectly clear that you’re trolling - arguing over nothing, making baseless accusations, insulting, distorting, playing word games, etc.. I’m only responding here to flesh out a public portrait of your dishonesty and remind everyone of the worthlessness of your ”contributions” here.
“Because you know what I think better than I do?”
Because I understand logic and English better than you do.
A basic function is a necessity.
“the systems are ripe for waste and abuse”
‘Ripe’ is not the same as ‘is’.
” and the costs are skyrocketing”
From what to what? And increases in costs matter only if there is no corresponding increase in benefits.
“The percentage of people on SSDI has more than doubled”
So?
You still haven’t provided any evidence that this growth is illegitimate. You’ve merely cast aspersions.
“that means the trend isn’t at all troubling?”
If the trend is troubling, then the proper action is to investigate SSDI claims for fraud, which has nothing to do with eliminating transportation services for disabled people.
“I’m only responding here to flesh out a public portrait of your dishonesty and remind everyone of the worthlessness of your ”contributions” here.”
I think this statement explains every post you’ve ever made on this site. Your attitude towards me is just the same as your attitude toward progressives in general.
You aren’t a progressive, or if you are, then your political philosophy is incidental to your role here. You’re an internet troll who exclusively attacks conservatives and libertarians with the sole purpose of blowing up threads and creating endless arguments about irrelevancies and semantics. My attitude toward you is consistent with that role. If every time you posted a comment, a conservative troll rabidly attacked you by distorting your words and insulting you, then you’d probably have the same attitude.
“You’re an internet troll who exclusively attacks conservatives and libertarians with the sole purpose of blowing up threads and creating endless arguments about irrelevancies and semantics.”
Um…you’re a self-styled libertarian, you’re the most frequent poster on a progressive site, and all of your posts are attacks on progressives.
Your tone is always sneering and dismissive. You constantly insult both the people whose posts you comment on and progressive politics in general.
And what you call semantics the rest of the world calls the difference between truth and falsehood.
To the point, you made spurious claims about public services for the disabled, and, because you cannot back up any of your claims, you have resorted to name-calling, which is your resort every time you find yourself out of facts, logic, or even any coherent position.
You aren’t even arguing for anything here. You won’t come out and say that all transportation services for the elderly and disabled should be eliminated. You have no evidence to support your claims, and you have no policy position to make claims for.
Your entire post is nothing but a means of expressing disgust at some vague notion you have of an ideology you don’t like.
I believe there’s a term for that approach to commentary on the internet.
“all of your posts are attacks on progressives.”
Not true. Just today I posted a comment agreeing with Russ Conway on the topic of sanctions on Iran. When was the last time you gave a libertarian or conservative ground on any topic?
“you cannot back up any of your claims”
Isn’t that what quoting the inspector general of Massachusetts was doing? Backing up my claim?
Your absolutist accusations are just examples of how a thief thinks everyone steals. I don’t mindlessly troll people the way you do just because I disagree with them, and when I do agree with them or they make good points, I say so.
“When was the last time you gave a libertarian or conservative ground on any topic?”
Beats me. I don’t have to give anybody any ground on anything. I can respond to any comment or post I choose, as negatively or positively as I want, so long as I do it in a relatively polite way.
You’re the one who thinks that the only legitimate approach to commenting is some secret blend of pro and con.
“Isn’t that what quoting the inspector general of Massachusetts was doing?”
You didn’t offer any quotes, and you didn’t offer any evidence. You made vague assertions about the effect health trends in the US should have on the population of disabled people. You also made vague assertions about the level of fraud in SSDI claims.
None of this amounts to any kind of evidence whatsoever.
“I don’t mindlessly troll people the way you do just because I disagree with them”
‘Trolling’ for you means ‘disagreeing with me’.
You seem to believe you have special privileges here. Perhaps you believe this because you see your constant sneering at progressives as some kind of public service (which is creepy, to say the least), but the belief is false. Your arguments do not receive special consideration.
Anyone can demand that you produce evidence to back up your claims, and anyone can point out that when the evidence you present is inadequate. This attitude you have that any refutation of your position is tantamount to trolling is inappropriate and borderline abusive.
In short, chill out. The internet is not kindergarten. Throwing a tantrum because someone points out that you’ve gotten things wrong is unacceptable behavior.
The plain fact is that every time you post in a thread, regardless of whom you are arguing with, it turns into a “nuh uh” “uh huh” “nuh uh” “uh huh” back-and-forth argument of attrition. Not some of the time – every single time. You bait people, that’s why it’s called “trolling.” Most of my comments don’t result in that while all of yours do. This is made most evident by the fact that you never write your own, original comments. You exclusively respond to other people’s comments, and they are always antagonistic in nature.
Look at this thread. It was normal until you came in and started with your “nuh uh, you’re stupid, you’re wrong, prove it” zero-effort comments.
If this blog decides that they want to tolerate trolls like you, that’s their decision. But all you’re doing is destroying the quality of the discourse here. You may not like what I say here, but I offer content and discussion while you simply destroy.
” it turns into a “nuh uh” “uh huh” “nuh uh” ”
That’s your way of describing a complex argument. In your view, everyone who disagrees with you should simply agree with you.
It goes like this:
You make some crazy generalization.
I point out that you have no evidence.
You try to offer evidence.
I point out that your evidence is no good.
You call me a troll.
What could I possibly do differently? Accept your crazy generalization? Accept your lousy evidence? Ignore you? I mean, let’s face it, you and the other so-called libertarians here usually take extreme, sometimes insane positions. It’s not a simple thing to deal with a statement like ‘the Great Depression ended in 1946′ or ‘nobody sends overnight letters anymore’.
You people don’t merely say things that are patently false, you say them with a whole host of other things that are also wildly, patently false. It takes a lot of effort to chase down the fifty wrong things you say in every comment.
“you never write your own, original comments”
There are no original comments. Or, rather, the post is the original comment, in which case you don’t write any original comments, either.
“You exclusively respond to other people’s comments”
Not true and perfectly legitimate if it were true.
“Look at this thread. It was normal”
By ‘normal’ you mean ‘no one contested my crazy generalizations or unsound evidence’. It’s true that most commenters treat your posts like the humping of an unneutered dog: they ignore it until it goes away. I don’t–which is my prerogative.
And yours, too, by the way. Which is why it’s so outrageously hypocritical for you to accuse me of baiting you into a long exchange. You are responsible for your own actions.
“If this blog decides”
You mean you’re not the arbiter of truth and justice on RI Future?
Look, your whole position is ludicrous. You have no power. You’re an anomymous commenter who specializes in antagonizing a blog whose ideology he despises. You don’t get to decide what is trolling here simply because you spend so much time sneering at progressives, anonymously, in the comments section.
If you don’t like the way I comment here, then don’t respond or make a formal complaint.
Or keep sniveling. I guess sniveling isn’t against the rules.
May I chime in here? RTW, I find your comments a bit misinformed. Regarding RIDE, my grandmother’s life literally depended on that program. She was diabetic and had to head for dialysis treatment daily, every morning. I remember waking up at 4am so that she could be ready for her 5am pickup from the RIDE bus. The RIDE program was the only program my family could afford in order to get her to her dialysis treatments. My grandmother was not the only one who depended on RIDE as the method of transportation to the dialysis center. The way I remember it, every day, many RIDE buses were parked in front of that center — proof that my grandmother’s life was not the only one that depends on the program.
mtroles, your grandmother’s situation seems very specific and in the small minority of RIDE service recipients. Obviously that’s not the kind of abuse and waste the inspector general is talking about - a much more targeted medical program might be more appropriate. Even taxis and personal driver services are less expensive than RIDE. I’m not going to question the specifics about your family arrangement, but I’m wondering why she wasn’t receiving the treatment somewhere on-site if she required that kind of severe and regular care.
“your grandmother’s situation seems very specific and in the small minority of RIDE service recipients”
Actually, the inspector general said that medical appointments are the highest-frequency destination, with trips to Mass General being especially popular.
Do you have information to the contrary?
“I’m not going to question the specifics about your family arrangement”
Sure you are.
“I’m wondering why she wasn’t receiving the treatment somewhere on-site if she required that kind of severe and regular care”
You could stop wondering and start learning about dialysis.
Newsflash: Not all medical appointments are matters of life and death, and even those that are can often use private transportation. Before RIDE people didn’t just let their loved ones die – they simply drove them to the hospital or made arrangements. Ask Michael Morse on Rescuing Providence what percentage of his ambulance calls are actual medical emergencies.
“Before RIDE people didn’t just let their loved ones die”
They still don’t. RIDE is one way that they don’t.
“Not all medical appointments are matters of life and death”
So? They are matters of health.
You made a claim about mtroles’s story. Do you have any evidence to back up your claim?
The issue of elderly and disabled is something I think of often.
It seems to me that the bus system ought to focus more on boosting the urban cores, with only infrequent ‘commuter’ runs out to the ‘burbs.
Then we can also focus our housing, medical, and other social safety-net stuff along the same paths withing the cities.
The place for ANYONE who doesn’t drive is within the city, it’s more efficient, safer, and cheaper. I’m pretty fed-up with the idea that we should be building subsidized housing out in quiet suburbs. I live in the city, my choice of neighborhood was partly based on how close services were, including bus lines.