A scholarly study acknowledging the primary purpose of a bus system
Here we see a difference in the way efficiency is measured, with LeeTran admitting that the passenger perspective is not usually considered! However, if passenger perspectives were in fact considered, this would lead not only to better ways of providing service, but it would also improve FDOT metrics too. For instance, when transfers between buses are increased, as the Pulse Plan advocates, this increases the number of "unlinked passenger trips," which in turn informs such metrics as "passengers trips per dollar spent." So, why should LeeTran continue to ignore customer perspectives? Indeed, increasing transfers will help LeeTran fulfill its own goals, as stated in this FDOT publication:
In its response to the TDP Questions and Answers, LeeTran deflects responsibility of providing superior service to "local policy decisions," "availability of sufficient resources," and "provision (more money,)" but, really, simply a willingness to listen to the perspective of transit patrons and a desire to listen to better ideas might go a long way to improving LeeTran's quality of service! Consider that Tindale-Oliver was paid over $450,000 as a "provision" for their service, but they ignored and refused to collaborate with any aspect of the Pulse Plan! If money can't buy cooperation from a hired consultant, and if local leaders don't hold Tindale accountable to FDOT standards (such as being responsible for articulating alternate plans of transit,) then how can real dialogue be engaged to promote Lee County's transit efficiency? It may actually be the case that spending money causes lack of cooperation, since Tindale acts as LeeTran's "client," and why would a consultant consider or promote anything other than the stated wishes of its client, especially when there are hundreds of thousands of dollars at stake between these agencies?