What are YOUR suggestions for improving Pittsburgh's mass transit system. (York: calculation, maintenance)

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by pman

wouldnt most of the shortfall disappear if the local match was increased to 20 pct from the minimum 15 pct?

I'm not sure what shortfall you are referring to. Recently they have actually been reducing the NSC budget, I think largely due to lower construction costs. It had gone over budget in previous years--again largely due to higher construction costs--but in 2009 it got federal stimulus dollars which took care of that.

[pman]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I'm not sure what shortfall you are referring to. Recently they have actually been reducing the NSC budget, I think largely due to lower construction costs. It had gone over budget in previous years--again largely due to higher construction costs--but in 2009 it got federal stimulus dollars which took care of that.

PAT's operating shortfall. It seems to me that raising the drink tax to 10% again would provide most of the money PAT needs, thus raising the local match to around 20%.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by pman

PAT's operating shortfall. It seems to me that raising the drink tax to 10% again would provide most of the money PAT needs, thus raising the local match to around 20%.

Sorry, I thought you were talking about the NSC, given the quote in that post.

It may well be the case that if Allegheny County raised the drink tax back up, AND dedicated those funds to PAT, it would close the gap left by the state cutting its funding. But I don't think that as of right now, PAT's operating budget would be entitled to additional proceeds from an increased drink tax.

Generally, I would be in favor of the County taking on more responsibility for funding PAT, but only if the state also cut the amount of highway funding the County is providing to the state for use elsewhere.

[Rodeno]

a part of the T heading to the airport would be nice, seeing that every city with a light rail system has this, except Pittsburgh... They should extend it out to Oakland, and into the Soutside. Is there a stop on the North Shore near the Stadium?

[BrianTH]

A T extension to the airport would be horribly expensive, and would be using the wrong technology, and there really isn't the need for it given the actual volume of traffic and the fact you can run a decent bus service using the West Busway.

The North Shore Connector will have two stations: one between PNC and Heinz nearer PNC, and one just on the other side of Heinz:

[Copanut]

Tend to agree with Brian, if the Maglev from the airport to downtown was built with mainly Federal money, no problem. But extending the T to the airport makes no sense. It would take at least 1 hour travel time. A taxi can get you downtown in 20 minutes. And not all business men go downtown, a lot of biz is headquartered in the 'burbs.

Bring back the trolleys!

[pman]

Originally Posted by Copanut

Tend to agree with Brian, if the Maglev from the airport to downtown was built with mainly Federal money, no problem. But extending the T to the airport makes no sense. It would take at least 1 hour travel time. A taxi can get you downtown in 20 minutes. And not all business men go downtown, a lot of biz is headquartered in the 'burbs.

Bring back the trolleys!

street running trolleys would worsen PAT's operating problems

[Copanut]

Originally Posted by pman

street running trolleys would worsen PAT's operating problems

You must be young, the trolleys were great.

Great American streetcar scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by pman

street running trolleys would worsen PAT's operating problems

I think this may be a decent opportunity for some PPPs, however. I don't see huge applications for mixed-traffic trolleys in Pittsburgh, but I could see a separated line that went from the Strip through Downtown and into the South Side working, and I think it could run as a revenue-generating service.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Copanut

You must be young, the trolleys were great.

But it is very important to understand how they were financed. They tended not to make enough money from operations to justify building them, but rather made money from associated land development. And today, if you build a trolley and your only source of revenue is fares, you are likely going to take a big loss on the service. This is particularly true with road congestion having become a much more serious problem in many cases than it was back at the height of the trolley era, such that the good cases for mixed-traffic trolleys are going to be limited. That means more investment in separated lanes, and even more capital costs you have to find a way to recover.

That doesn't mean trolleys have no possible application, but you have to find some way to capture the associated increase in land values/uses to help finance them. That is why a PPP might work: the local authority can get financing backed by revenues from the associated land (through taxes, possibly ownership in some cases, and so on), and then you can work out a deal on private operations which in isolation can be expected to make money, which means the operating partner can kick in some more financing.