Working group info: huge losses

By:  Diane Benjamin

The information below was given to the Connect Transit Working group.  Maybe it was meant to justify losses.  It does show common sense and fiscal responsibility aren’t considered.

00000bl-n

0000000blackburg0000000cedar

0000000minni

0000000moline0000000peoria000000chicago00000ann arbor

24 thoughts on “Working group info: huge losses

  1. Losses are considered “tax subsidies” because fares don’t cover operating expenses. The cities used for comparisons are not apples to apples. Certain factors are conveniently left out of the equation.

    Also, are these figures provided by the consulting group or members of the working group?

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Crunching the numbers provided here, CT doesn’t look that bad by comparison. Unfortunately, the operative words in that sentence are ‘the numbers provided’. We’ve already established that the CT board cannot be trusted since they completely hijacked the working group to address their own concerns rather than those that led to the group being needed in the first place. Given that, we’ll likely never know if ‘the numbers provided’ are truly the best available comparisons, were cherry-picked examples, or were otherwise manipulated to lead to the pre-ordained conclusion that CT needs a bigger pipeline to siphon money out of the taxpayers.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. So this is like comparing stage 3 Cancer with Stage 4 Cancer – yes one is better than the other but celebrating does not make much sense.. you will most likely still die.

    Like

  4. Why isn’t the number for population in BloNo on here? Are they going to make up those numbers later or use a different year? Also the list seems a bit cherry picked. Why didn’t they run the numbers for every community with public transportation with a population between 100K to 200K. Seems to me that information would be readily available and if not the consultants are being paid enough they should be asked to provide it. Is Connects goal Moline where price per person for Transit is $352.00.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Since buses are obviously a huge drain on precious taxpayer dollars, then why continue? Let taxies, Uber, Lyft transport people for a fare.

    Like

  6. What the numbers don’t reflect is if the system is meeting the needs of their community or not. Connect is addressing their goal of serving the affluent in B/N and ignoring the individuals who need transportation.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Bottom line: No matter HOW you “crunch” the numbers spending like this is unsustainable EVEN under Democrats, as after a while, SOMEONE has to pay for all this “FREE” stuff! And it’s bad math like THIS that is MAKING sane people (AND BUSINESS ie:SF) LEAVE Illinois..

    Liked by 1 person

  8. From today’s birdcage liner: “Normal City Council will plot the town’s course to welcome or reject recreational cannabis and separately interact with Connect Transit leaders about misconceptions surrounding the Bloomington-Normal bus system at an extra-long meeting starting 5 p.m. at Uptown Station.” Haha…”MISCONCEPTIONS”??? That’s rich! Did Pamela or Chris write this article?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. This is the kind of stuff that Normal’s new Minister of Propaganda will be working on. Remember their “misconceptions” are the truth. Their hero Joseph Goebbels once remarked that “The truth is the enemy of the state”. The truth is definitely the enemy of both of our socialist administrations. Right Fuhrer Koos? Right Mayor Little Man?

      Liked by 1 person

  9. What public transit should be about is accountability to the taxpayer—making a few clear, concrete, measurable promises and then delivering on them. The program should focus on what we’re getting for the funds we’re spending—not simply whether or not money gets spent and how much there was.

    CT has lost sight of its true mission, providing affordable transportation to the “rider dependent.” The “riders by choice” might take the bus if it was convenient. A measurable goal would be to reduce the cost/ride for the system by increasing access and frequency.

    Liked by 2 people

  10. Just ASTOUNDING! When you look JUST at Chicago, and they LOSE 1/2 BILLION dollars, and that’s happening in EVERY metro area in the country. Imagine WHAT Democrats will spend when they decide they NEED a ride on a moon shuttle or such..

    Liked by 1 person

  11. My 3 cents…..
    1) Do not believe one minute the ridership shown for Bloomington All one has to do is think how many times they have seen more than 5 riders on a bus. Assuming 5 riders, that would mean busses would have to run 400,000 routes in a year/more than 1000 a day.
    2) Any consultant that shows Cedar Rapids being in Michigan as shown here is not very good in checking for accuracy in their report. It is in Iowa, No doubt it also would apply to their methods of getting these numbers and checking for accuracy.
    3) A true comparison would be in the calculation of amount lost per rider to provide this service. Assuming the numbers are correct, which I do not, here ya go…..
    BLN $3.66
    Blacksburg $1.26
    Cedar Rapids $5.31
    MSP .64
    Moline $4.78
    Peoria $5.95
    Chicago $2.76
    Ann Arbor $3.71

    Again Liars figure and selective figures by liars lie. These people seem to think if as your mother advised you against, if your buddy jumps off a cliff then you should too.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. To add to my comments….whoever made this chart to give to the working group, I call Bull shiz
      Go to this website that has the report made by the bus service for 2017….page 18 and you clearly see a loss of more than 12 million, in 2016 around 10.5 million. Also the figures for Minneapolis do not make sense with expenses around 290 million and revenues of 66 million they claim at 37 million dollar loss. This item given to the CT group is not worth the used toilet paper it is written on. Just a bunch of number with hope that nobody takes to time to check it out. LIARS!!!

      Like

  12. A classic tactic designed to show that Connect Transit is not the worst, but rather is doing better than many of its peers. So, therefore, you will conclude that it’s running well and that losing the amount of money its losing is normal, justifiable. Wonder how these communities compare on customer service or ridership feedback ratings? Ridership count methodology? Connect Transit seems to be on the defensive more and more these days, as people begin to question what they hear from local leadership and compare it to what they see (or not see…in the case of empty buses). Noticeably quiet in all this is the local non-profit industrial complex whose beneficiaries have no transportation alternatives. Isn’t it odd they aren’t calling for reforms or questioning the mismanagement, new routes, and big buses?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Another way to say this, “A classic tactic designed to show that Connect Transit is not the worst, but rather is doing better than many of its peers. So, therefore, you will conclude that it’s running well and that losing the amount of money its losing is normal, justifiable. “, is saying, they bankrupted the economy about as cheaply as it can be done?

      Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s