You think its bad for PAT now, it's about to get A LOT WORSE! (Pittsburgh: 2015, price)

[ML North]

Originally Posted by Goinback2011

I'm not anti-transit. I'm anti being ripped off by pensioners sitting on their asses at home at age 50.

Well the state's actions, which you're rallying behind, are anti-transit and do nothing to address "pensioners sitting on their asses at home at age 50." And what you're advocating would simply send the train further down that track, so maybe you should reconsider your position.

Originally Posted by Goinback2011

I'm interested in your affiliations ML North and BrianTH. Are you or your relatives affiliated with the labor unions?

I can only speak for myself -- I'm a non-represented exempt employee for a private company. Neither myself nor anyone in my family is a member of a union.

[Goinback2011]

BrianTH, I grasp that you want state funding for transit in Pittsburgh, no matter what the legacy costs.

You don't seem to grasp that the legacy costs will continue to increase year after year, requiring more and more skittles from the unicorn in Harrisburg just to keep up with them, let alone to fund acutal transit costs.

Until the legacy cost issue is dealt with, the money issues will never end.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by UKyank

Then just vote to file for bankruptcy as Harrisburg did - something to give the idea some extra push at least

Harrisburg actually had a colorable argument they were authorized to file for bankruptcy under Act 47, and that is what forced Corbett and his legislative allies to pass a new law removing any such possible authorization.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Goinback2011

BrianTH, I grasp that you want state funding for transit in Pittsburgh, no matter what the legacy costs.

Try to grasp this:

(1) I think the state should authorize PAT to trim its legacy costs (potentially including through bankruptcy);

(2) I think the state should either: (A) give Allegheny County its fair share of state transportation funding back, including through transit funding; or (B) stop collecting state transportation revenues from Allegheny County. I think Allegheny County would actually come out WAY ahead if the state chose (B).

If you are attributing to me contrary views, you do not in fact grasp what I have been saying.

You don't seem to grasp that the legacy costs will continue to increase year after year, requiring more and more skittles from the unicorn in Harrisburg just to keep up with them, let alone to fund acutal transit costs. Until the legacy cost issue is dealt with, the money issues will never end.

I grasp the legacy cost problem perfectly well, which is why I stated (1) above. Of course those legacy costs aren't really forcing the state to provide more funding for PAT--rather, they are keeping PAT from providing as much service and from making as many improvements as it should.

I also understand that those "skittles" are being paid for disproportionately by state taxes coming from Allegheny County, which is why I stated (2) above.

I just don't get why it is so hard for you to understand that (1) and (2) don't contradict each other. I also don't get why if you have the concerns that you have expressed, you are supporting the state's current policy track, which does the exact opposite of what you claim to want to achieve (you are de facto supporting cutting the money being spent by PAT on current services while leaving the money being spent by PAT on legacy costs untouched).

Oh well. Anti-transit politicians have repeatedly implied that by cutting state funding for PAT they are actually doing something about PAT's legacy costs. That is a lie, but it is clearly the sort of lie that with repetition and support from like-minded media outlets has proven regrettably effective.

[jay5835]

Originally Posted by Goinback2011

I'm anti being ripped off by pensioners sitting on their asses at home at age 50.

But you're not being ripped off. They earned those pensions according to the terms of the labor agreements they entered into when they started working. This money is owed to them per those contracts. You may not like this, but you're not being ripped off.

[UKyank]

Originally Posted by jay5835

But you're not being ripped off. They earned those pensions according to the terms of the labor agreements they entered into when they started working. This money is owed to them per those contracts. You may not like this, but you're not being ripped off.

In a sense he is, as it is the collective taxpayers whose money is used to support the payments of an extremely poorly negotiated contracts (if they were even negotiated), thus assuming he is a taxpayer in PA he is on the hook for some small amount of the shady contracts.

[ferraris]

Originally Posted by jay5835

But you're not being ripped off. They earned those pensions according to the terms of the labor agreements they entered into when they started working. This money is owed to them per those contracts. You may not like this, but you're not being ripped off.

I think it's fair to say we're being ripped off in the same way that comcast rips me off for TV and internet. Just because it's on the up & up doesn't mean it's not a rip off. However, it does mean that I'm obligated to pay comcast per my service agreement with them.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by UKyank

In a sense he is, as it is the collective taxpayers whose money is used to support the payments of an extremely poorly negotiated contracts (if they were even negotiated), thus assuming he is a taxpayer in PA he is on the hook for some small amount of the shady contracts.

Having to make payments under what turns out to be an ill-advised contract is not the same thing as being "ripped off", or defrauded, or so on.

On the other hand, bankruptcy is designed in part to provide relief from ill-advised contracts, even if there was nothing fraudulent or otherwise illegal about them.

So you don't have to subscribe to any of that heated rhetoric about these labor contracts to think trimming the resulting legacy costs is appropriate.

[robrobrob]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Try to grasp this:

(1) I think the state should authorize PAT to trim its legacy costs (potentially including through bankruptcy);

(2) I think the state should either: (A) give Allegheny County its fair share of state transportation funding back, including through transit funding; or (B) stop collecting state transportation revenues from Allegheny County. I think Allegheny County would actually come out WAY ahead if the state chose (B).

If you are attributing to me contrary views, you do not in fact grasp what I have been saying.



I grasp the legacy cost problem perfectly well, which is why I stated (1) above. Of course those legacy costs aren't really forcing the state to provide more funding for PAT--rather, they are keeping PAT from providing as much service and from making as many improvements as it should.

I also understand that those "skittles" are being paid for disproportionately by state taxes coming from Allegheny County, which is why I stated (2) above.

I just don't get why it is so hard for you to understand that (1) and (2) don't contradict each other. I also don't get why if you have the concerns that you have expressed, you are supporting the state's current policy track, which does the exact opposite of what you claim to want to achieve (you are de facto supporting cutting the money being spent by PAT on current services while leaving the money being spent by PAT on legacy costs untouched).

Oh well. Anti-transit politicians have repeatedly implied that by cutting state funding for PAT they are actually doing something about PAT's legacy costs. That is a lie, but it is clearly the sort of lie that with repetition and support from like-minded media outlets has proven regrettably effective.

I didn't go back and reread all of your posts concerning public transportation but my impression was most of your comments were about increasing state funding for PAT and few focused on trimming legacy costs.

Now, I assume this was because you probably feel, and rightly so, that the state will likely never solve PAT's legacy cost issue. However, I think you have to understand that the vast majority of people opposed to increased state funding for PAT are opposed because of the huge legacy costs that PAT is saddled with. So from a PR perspective, I think if you solve the legacy cost problem more people will support increased public transit funding.

[UKyank]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Having to make payments under what turns out to be an ill-advised contract is not the same thing as being "ripped off", or defrauded, or so on.

Ripped off in the colloquial sense rather then an illegal defrauding.