Mission, monopoly, and your local transit agency

If your organization doesn't have a declared mission, then your default criteria becomes 'What is best for the organization?'. Which (ironically) is not necessarily what is best for the organization (or its members, employee, beneficiaries) long-term. There are organizations (public and private) that have been captured (or held hostage) by internal stakeholders. In a competitive market, it solves itself, but in a monopolistic context (Amazon, public transit agency) there can be no effective competition. Private companies subject to sufficient disfunction are preyed upon by private equity (Sears, Red Lobster, Joann's).

But for something supported by public subsidy, it would be the height of idiocy to support two competing organizations--especially so for public transit, where networks effects create natural monopolies.

So for a transit agency, it's critical to have governance (a board), representing the interests of the beneficiaries. Of course, for any labor intensive business (and operating transit is), the workforce becomes an important stakeholder. As are the transit dependent--people who don't have the resources (time, attention, human capital) to advocate for themselves. But a transit agency requires a board that can articulate a mission, vision, and goal for the agency and ensure management adheres to it.

Which is hard--there is a constant temptation to use public resources to 'do good'. Jarrett Walker talks a lot of about the coverage vs. frequency, which really gets to the core of the issue--what is a transit agency for? Who should it serve, who is it obligated to provide benefits for. Clarity is essential for agreement. It's not a black-and-white. But your agency should be clear how much resources it intends to dedicate to providing benefits to who.