Possible SEPTA strike (Philadelphia, York: city hall, college, maintenance)

[solibs]

Originally Posted by waltlantz

I like it due to the frequency at which it runs, while being able to carry a large amount of people. I cannot speak for MARC, but the VRE isn't able to gain a larger foothold because it seems to only run on two fixed lines which like the SEPTA were originally used by only frieght after the rail industry collapse . . .

All of the SEPTA RR lines were either former Pennsylvania RR lines which terminated at Suburban Station or former Reading RR lines which terminated at the eponymous Reading Terminal. They were always passenger routes. In the early 80's the two were connected via a new tunnel . . . hence the system we have today and, as far as connectivity goes, is the envy of the transit systems everywhere. Chicago has 3 unconnected terminals. NYC has 2 unconnected terminals, ditto Boston. DC and LA have a single terminus but no through service.

Also as you know Metro is strewn across 3 jusridictions and has to bug the FEDS for primary spending. I believe SEPTA has a better position due to only have to deal with one state government.

This is not an issue. Every region has a Metropolitan Planning Organization (the boards of which are made up of representatives from local governments) that decides how transportation funds get spent. The process is the same for everyone regardless of whether or not the MPO crosses state lines.

But aside from whatever alleged mismanagement on part of SEPTA or it's unions, (youll have to elaborate cause I only have heard second hand accounts) Philly seems like it's in tough barganing position because as opposed to NOVA which is probably the largest money MAKER in the state, Philly despite it's prominence is a large CONSUMER of state money.

Well, one could make the argument that the DC region doesn't make any money - it just takes it in from all over the country and spends it.

Not sure how you get the Philly metro being a consumer of state money. It has 31% of the state population and produces 43% of state GDP. Feel free to prove me wrong but I seriously doubt that Pennsylvania spends more than 43% of its budget in the 5 counties of metro Philly.

On the whole though, even if our metro transit systems right themselves in terms of management, you'll have to deal with legislatures and feds who really (and shorsightedly) only care about roads. Until this changes, it'll always be twice as harder as it needs to be.

I think that may have been the case 10 years ago but it's not anymore. If anything, small city pols from central PA are starting to ask where their transit money is. Besides, the Feds only spend money on transit for capital programs - usually ponying up 50%. The other 50% is normally split between the state and the county/transit agency. Since most transit systems have (or should have) dedicated sources of funding it doesn't leave the state on the hook for much or very often.

Getting back to the strike, it seems like they are in talks. I hope everything goes well, because I don't think a lot of union workers necessarily wanna be *******s during the World Series just to be so, still which side is to be believed is another matter altogether.

I ride my bike to the ballpark most of the time anyway so I'm not worried and yeah, it'll be tough for the 8,000 or so fans that normally take the train to the games but it'll be much tougher for the 1 million people who won't have a ride on Monday if the strike goes down.

In any case, word is that they haven't yet worked out the non-economic stuff (job selection, work rules, etc) and discussion on the wages and bennies will follow.

[waltlantz]

My mention of Philly being a large consumer of state aid come from a mention on a blog Philadelphia-Reflections.com which is run by 70 year veteran of the city.

It's possible that I overestimate the consumption problem. Still you mentioned the METRO, where I was focusing on just the city itself. I believe that the state provides large amounts of money for schools and stuff like the convention center and crime prevention and stuff. It's the same in most other states, they ask WHY DO WE SPEND ALL THIS MONEY WHEN NOTHING GETS BETTER AND THINGS ARE CORRUPT AS HELL??!

I know Philly produces money, maybe more than it consumes, but people in Harrisburg feel that it just EATS their money and doesn't return the favor or service for such money. And with political gerrymandering and (quite frankly stupid) ideological hardening combined with (at times legit, at times not) bias against anything urban related, it's a major issue.



Although I have read that government corruption is NOT just a big city, democratic practice.

As far as funding goes, hmmmmmm. I suppose it depends on the state. New York Citys in a strong barganing position for it's MTA due to the state legislature having almost 2/3 to HALF of the delegation just from the city alone not counting Long Island and Westchester.

Same with Chicago, Cook County, and suburban Lake and Dupage County have easily HALF of the state population.

Compare this with Atlanta which still has only a small foothold in Georgia state delegation. For some crazy reason, Georgia doesn't fund the MARTA rail system for Metro Atlanta, for example!

Pennsylvania's delegation is more equal. It's less lopsided in Philly's favor than it used to be (maybe more like a 1/6th or a 7th in delegation numbers). The suburban counties help especially as they moderate politcally in terms of cooperation of the city, still it seems like there is a distinct rift between the neighboring jurisdictions, not as bad as say Metro Detroit, but still.


This will probably be my last big post on the subject. But I was wondering. Scince I want to move to an older northern city someday (especially Philly), is there something that citizens can do to enact change in their transit systems. Older cities like the NE corridor ones and Chicago are in a better position to strengthen the systems as opposed to other ones who have to build them from scratch.

Maybe pushing for better government Oversight of such corporations via ballot? Or somehow influencing governments to put TRANSIT people in charge of transit systems? This is problem even with Metro where allegedly most of the top brass don't even USE the service!

Sorry if this is rambling, I just wanna see cities do well and while people will always need and have a use for cars, PT is something that needs attention cause it can truly help a city and region (I think more people realize this than they think).

[solibs]

Originally Posted by waltlantz

My mention of Philly being a large consumer of state aid come from a mention on a blog Philadelphia-Reflections.com which is run by 70 year veteran of the city.

It's possible that I overestimate the consumption problem. Still you mentioned the METRO, where I was focusing on just the city itself.

We're talking about SEPTA - it serves the 5 counties of SE PA. PennDOT District 6 serves the same area. It's kind of arbitrary to say "the CITY gets $X from the state." Hundreds of thousands of suburbanites collect their paychecks in the city and almost as many city dwellers collect their paychecks in the 'burbs. We all pay state taxes and then we pay a lot more in local taxes so we can support what we have.

I believe that the state provides large amounts of money for schools and stuff like the convention center and crime prevention and stuff. It's the same in most other states, they ask WHY DO WE SPEND ALL THIS MONEY WHEN NOTHING GETS BETTER AND THINGS ARE CORRUPT AS HELL??!

The state provides a large amount of money for schools . . . and that money comes from the Philadelphia Parking Authority, which the state took over a few years ago. They take our parking money back to Harrisburg then give some back to us. It's a joke. When people from Altoona start parking in Center City they can start complaining about what happens with the money.

The Convention Center? It's called the Pennsylvania Convention Center for a reason. It's owned by the state. There are plenty of people in the city who are absolutely furious about the expansion. Sorry but conventions are just as much about the destination as the space. I don't think you could attract many large-scale, national and international conventions in Scranton.

Crime prevention? That's laughable. Maybe you can show me where the state gives Philadelphia special grants or extra money or something (relative to all of the other police departments in the state) but I've never heard of it.

I know Philly produces money, maybe more than it consumes, but people in Harrisburg feel that it just EATS their money and doesn't return the favor or service for such money. And with political gerrymandering and (quite frankly stupid) ideological hardening combined with (at times legit, at times not) bias against anything urban related, it's a major issue.

Without Philadelphia and Pittsburgh there's not much to separate PA from the rest of Appalachia. In terms of an economy it would be somewhere between West Virginia and upstate New York. So, instead of being held afloat by metro Pitt and metro Philly they'd be propped up by the Feds like Alaska or New Mexico.

Although I have read that government corruption is NOT just a big city, democratic practice.

Corruption is about money and power. When small towns start having $1 billion annual budgets and start awarding $500 million construction contracts then you'll start to see corruption. It has nothing to do with party.

[waltlantz]

Hmm good point, any response to the last part of my post, asking what citizens can do to enact meaningful change in SEPTA?

[waltlantz]

More to the point.

It's getting down to the wire. I sware though, even counting the legitamite claims that SEPTA and TWU have, there will be big blow back from the city, area and nation if this doesn't get resolved. We don't need another egg thrown on our face.

[solibs]

Originally Posted by waltlantz

Hmm good point, any response to the last part of my post, asking what citizens can do to enact meaningful change in SEPTA?

There's really not much Philadelphia residents can do about it. The representatives that the city has on the board are fairly knowledgeable. Unfortunately the city is far outnumbered on the board by the state and suburban counties . . . even though the bulk or the riders and local money come from the city. It's something that Mayor Nutter has been working on making more equitable.

So, if you live in the suburbs you can harass your County Commissioners about making better appointments to the SEPTA board but (in reality those appointments are puppet jobs) the County Commissioners pull the strings. Unless you're going at them with specific complaints I don't really see the good.

There is no organized group of transit riders in Philadelphia - at least in the NYC area you have the Straphangers Campaign and the Tri-State Transportation Campaign. That's really what Philly needs.

[waltlantz]

I have heard about some organization called the Delaware Valley Association of Rail Passengers, but their website hasn't been updated in 2 years.

I dunno, I just think the city is getting shafted and shouldn't be held hostage by a system that could be working a lot better. But then again civil participation and engagement needs a shot in the arm in the city i guess. Why is it that so many suburban representatives are on the board, it's disproportionate and frankly in many far flung suburbs Regional Rail doesn't reach them and buses are at least an afterthought and worse something to be feared (from burbinites perspective).

The only thing I guess you can do is look out for mayoral candidates who support this on the ballot.

[CHIP72]

Originally Posted by waltlantz

I have heard about some organization called the Delaware Valley Association of Rail Passengers, but their website hasn't been updated in 2 years.

FWIW, if you want to contact DVARP semi-formally, go to the message boards at railroad.net and post in the SEPTA forum. The guy who heads DVARP, Dr. Matthew Mitchell, posts regularly in that forum at railroad.net.

[CHIP72]

Originally Posted by kyle19125

I agree, privately held companies (outside of long haul commuter buses) don't work. I was alluding to allowing PATCO and NJ Transit to compete with SEPTA routes, and let the better service win.

The problem with that idea is because all 3 services are publicly-operated services (SEPTA by 5 county governments in SE PA, PATCO by the Delaware River Port Authority, NJT by the state of New Jersey), they all have different mandates. NJT certainly isn't going to run transit service throughout the Philadelphia, PA area (or, to look at the other end of the state, the NYC area in New York state), and PATCO isn't going to run transit service that doesn't have some sort of Delaware River crossing component.

The idea of competing transit services has merit in theory but wouldn't work in practice because the governments that run the various systems have different sets of constituents to serve and aren't going to go very far outside that constituency base when providing service. Ironically, the one area where you do have competing transit service is where there are intercity bus routes (whether they be Greyhound, one of the Trailways providers, BoltBus, Megabus, or a Chinatown bus operator); those operators are all privately-owned. Of course, bus operators don't need to maintain infrastructure either (excluding their stations, and the curbside providers don't even need to do that).

Really, when it comes to what works best for transportation system efficiency, there's a disconnect between what's best from a passenger/service perspective and what's best from a profitability perspective. The airline industry is great example. The legacy carriers (United, American, Delta/Northwest, etc.) all try to maintain comprehensive systems that serve many medium-sized and in some cases small airports. They are often organized into hub-and-spoke systems (which is how many transit system routes are also organized, either that or a grid-like system or a hub-spoke/grid hybrid). Those carriers serve passengers pretty well and give people more options, but they struggle to remain profitable, in large part because those medium/smaller markets require smaller planes which aren't as profitable per passenger. By contrast, the low cost carriers (Southwest, AirTran, etc.) maintain a more linear system that focuses on serving high volume routes and does not focus on connectivity. Those kind of carriers work great if you want to fly from Point A to Point B and the carrier serves both points. However, they don't work so well if you live in a medium-sized or small market (which aren't big enough to get large volumes of passengers, or are too close to larger markets that "steal" potential passengers) and they also don't work well if a point-to-point connection isn't available. Those carriers tend to be much more profitable, but they also are very skeletal in how much service they provide and don't really a convenient benefit a significant percentage of the population.

All of the above illustrates the challenge passenger transportation carriers in all modes face - if you try to maximize the public benefit, profitability (or minimizing loss) often can't be met, and if you try to maximize profitability, public benefit often can't be met.

[solibs]

incredibly well put!

Originally Posted by CHIP72

The problem with that idea is because all 3 services are publicly-operated services (SEPTA by 5 county governments in SE PA, PATCO by the Delaware River Port Authority, NJT by the state of New Jersey), they all have different mandates. NJT certainly isn't going to run transit service throughout the Philadelphia, PA area (or, to look at the other end of the state, the NYC area in New York state), and PATCO isn't going to run transit service that doesn't have some sort of Delaware River crossing component.

The idea of competing transit services has merit in theory but wouldn't work in practice because the governments that run the various systems have different sets of constituents to serve and aren't going to go very far outside that constituency base when providing service. Ironically, the one area where you do have competing transit service is where there are intercity bus routes (whether they be Greyhound, one of the Trailways providers, BoltBus, Megabus, or a Chinatown bus operator); those operators are all privately-owned. Of course, bus operators don't need to maintain infrastructure either (excluding their stations, and the curbside providers don't even need to do that).

Really, when it comes to what works best for transportation system efficiency, there's a disconnect between what's best from a passenger/service perspective and what's best from a profitability perspective. The airline industry is great example. The legacy carriers (United, American, Delta/Northwest, etc.) all try to maintain comprehensive systems that serve many medium-sized and in some cases small airports. They are often organized into hub-and-spoke systems (which is how many transit system routes are also organized, either that or a grid-like system or a hub-spoke/grid hybrid). Those carriers serve passengers pretty well and give people more options, but they struggle to remain profitable, in large part because those medium/smaller markets require smaller planes which aren't as profitable per passenger. By contrast, the low cost carriers (Southwest, AirTran, etc.) maintain a more linear system that focuses on serving high volume routes and does not focus on connectivity. Those kind of carriers work great if you want to fly from Point A to Point B and the carrier serves both points. However, they don't work so well if you live in a medium-sized or small market (which aren't big enough to get large volumes of passengers, or are too close to larger markets that "steal" potential passengers) and they also don't work well if a point-to-point connection isn't available. Those carriers tend to be much more profitable, but they also are very skeletal in how much service they provide and don't really a convenient benefit a significant percentage of the population.

All of the above illustrates the challenge passenger transportation carriers in all modes face - if you try to maximize the public benefit, profitability (or minimizing loss) often can't be met, and if you try to maximize profitability, public benefit often can't be met.