PUBLIC-TRANSIT PLANNING SHOULD INCLUDE SOME USERS

The Cape Girardeau County Commission has named not just one, but two panels to tackle the issue of public transportation. A five-member transit authority, which will wield the real bureaucratic power, was established first. The commission then appointed a nine-member advisory committee to assist the transit authority in formulating policy.

Details on how the transit authority will work remain sketchy at this point, but it could prove useful in improving the often disjointed system of publicly funded transportation services in the county.

However, the advisory board is another matter.

It is another layer of bureaucracy that already has produced years of discussion, recommendations of two transportation study committees and a study report from the Southeast Missouri Regional Planning and Development Commission -- but no improvements in public transportation.

SALSES TAX IS UP TO TRANSIT AUTHORITY

Although state law allows local transit authorities, once duly appointed to ask voters for a 1-cent sales tax to fund operations, the County Commission says it won't push for a tax increase. But that decision will be in the hands of the transit authority, whose members surely appreciate the fact that getting voter approval for a sales tax to fund public transportation would be a tough sell.

The role of the advisory committee is the murkiest part of the deal. The panel includes representatives from the major players in local transit, as well as public and private groups that serve segments of the population most likely to use public transportation.

Commissioners say these groups deserve a voice on transit issues, but putting them on the transit authority might constitute a conflict of interest since some would stand to be affected financially by county transit policy.

That is valid reasoning. However, the commission should have taken that logic a step further.

Since the advisory committee, like the authority, is appointed by the commission, it an official body. Plus, little distinguishes it from the authority. Commissioners even expect the two panels to meet jointly, at least for a time. The committee's creation comes across as a way to put these folks on the transit authority without actually putting them on the transit authority.

USERS NEED TO HAVE DIRECT INPUT

While the transit authority will need the input of groups represented on the advisory committee, there is no need for those groups to be part of the county-sanctioned structure of the operation.

The existence of the committee implies county endorsement of member groups. What about similar organizations that didn't land a seat? Interested parties should work closely with, but not as a part of, the authority just as groups cooperate with other government bodies that address their interests.

The need and purpose of an official advisory committee is questionable, for the moment we're stuck with one.

This raises another important question: If we must have the advisory panel, why are users of public transportation not represented?

The committee's members would use public transportation only infrequently, at best. The desires, needs and habits of transit customers are important factors in determining the direction of the authority's efforts. Yet it appears they are being denied an opportunity to provide direct input.

Commissioners say they aren't opposed to including transit users but don't know any willing to serve. Surely the agencies represented on the advisory committee could make some recommendations.

Without significant input from users that goes beyond a questionnaire or poll, the county runs the risk of developing a plan that sounds great to policy makers but proves unworkable for transit users.

A transit plan that doesn't meet those needs runs the risk of being worse than no plan at all.