In a post at Seattle Transit Blog we find the veritable epitome of how organizations think:
“The first thing to happen will be productivity improvements that dont reduce revenue hours. The example that kept coming up was reducing layover at the ends of each route. Although cutting layovers will reduce reliability, and possibly lead to labor trouble due to shorter breaks, when the alternative is cutting trips its attractive to planners.”
Lets be perfectly clear- nothing improves reliability like a second chance, and the layovers are that second chance for the transit agency. Problems can be noted, supervisors can be called, and, if the bus reaches the layover late, the cushion of time may still allow it to leave on time for the next run.
The organization, as an organization, doesn’t see and can’t quantify any of this. Unlike any actual person, the organization thinks it’s perfectly all right for drivers to miss lunch or drive for hours without using a bathroom.
Historically, unions have provided the pushback against this penny-wise-pound-foolish thinking, with legislators taking cues from unions. The railroads themselves, a century ago, were perfectly content with systems that killed 7000-10,000 trainmen yearly, and did not adopt safety couplers or other safety appliances that were widely available.
The organization, having used buses so they could add more routes, now leans toward reducing the reliability and safety of those buses to maintain those extra routes. If we were a poor country that might be a painful compromise, but we’re not poor, and it’s just a mistake. The kind of mistake that organizations tend to make.
Comments are closed.