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

[WhoIsStanwix?]

Originally Posted by h_curtis

Don't you ever look on the expense side of anything? Do you just want to put another bandaid on this issue, so we continually have to try and come up with more money to pay these people that are clearly overpaid and have huge pensions? Expenses mean nothing to you? Just blame the taxing bodies because they haven't raised taxes enough to keep the bandaids coming? We just have different views that is all. People all want to find one big magic pill and all will go away. That pill would be some huge tax increase to pay for this. It is the only huge pill. I break it down and look at all sides. Expenses are the first order of business. The way to cut that, is rid PAT and start over.

It is clear, my view of cutting expenses isn't popular in this forum, so I think I made my view clear. I don't care for all these bandaids. If they are going to look for a new tax, hope it is on Marcellus Shale.

Pardon my ignorance, as I may be wrong, but I didn't see anything about new/more taxes. What I gathered was the solution was expense related, and it was a redistribution of those expenses to something that more closely resembled what existed in the past which was being suggested.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by h_curtis

Don't you ever look on the expense side of anything?

In addition to refusing to look at the commission report, which discussed in detail the cost-savings available to the state, you also refuse to look at information on how PAT has been cutting its costs, and what constraints we are facing when it comes to various other cost-saving notions.

The truth is you aren't interested in the facts on ANY relevant issue, including issues related to expenses. Which is why I will now go back to leaving your ignorant postings unanswered, since really this is all just about you posting whatever nonsense comes into your head so that you will get some sort of attention, even if it is purely negative attention. And I hope others will do the same, and stop giving you your fix.

[Lobick]

Originally Posted by h_curtis

Unlike you, the first thing I look at is expenses.

OK, I'll bite. Since you've looked at PAT's annual reports and financial statements in order to determine your views. What level of expenses (in dollars) do you recommend? (Note: "less" really isn't an answer) How will your recommended levels impact service and, by association, what will the corresponding economic impacts on the region be?

Since you've looked at them this shouldn't be a problem.

Also, what is your response to the assertion that it is cheaper and more cost effective to have one driver make $80k with substantial overtime than to employ 2 drivers to cover the shifts and pay all of their associated benefits?

[gg]

Originally Posted by WhoIsStanwix?

Pardon my ignorance, as I may be wrong, but I didn't see anything about new/more taxes. What I gathered was the solution was expense related, and it was a redistribution of those expenses to something that more closely resembled what existed in the past which was being suggested.

I am looking at the future. If PAT has a shortfall of what I posted earlier, that isn't some little shortfall, that is catastrophic and not only will there be massive cuts, there is going to have to be new taxes or some new fees for our county, state or somewhere. The position of the current state administration is no more new taxes and no tax increases. I agree with them. That being the case, where is the money going to come from? New taxes? That is the only way, but the state is saying no at the moment.

[squarian]

Originally Posted by Lobick

This:

State is liable to wreck transit at any cost

there's something almost quaint about the concept of public transportation...It is one of the most democratizing moments of the day when a lawyer from Shadyside sits next to a fry cook from East Liberty.

Tony Norman may not know this painting, but his notion certainly isn't a new one:

Alfred Morgan painting of the great Victorian Prime Minister Wm E. Gladstone, "The People's William", riding an ordinary "omnibus":




Of course, that was a better time - the young fellow in the sailor suit would be annoying everyone else with his blaring earphones now.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by WhoIsStanwix?

Pardon my ignorance, as I may be wrong, but I didn't see anything about new/more taxes.

Actually, Corbett's commission did recommend a variety of revenue measures. As they documented in detail, the current measures have not been keeping up with inflation, meaning they are bringing in less and less real revenue every year. Of course the costs of operating and maintaining the existing system are not similarly going down, and it further needs various upgrades and expansions to stay competitive.

Note they tried very hard to find as many cost savings as they could before turning to revenues--this is a group of people hand-picked by Corbett, after all. But there just isn't any way to keep the state's transportation system in good repair and competitive while revenues are declining in real terms.

[gg]

Originally Posted by Lobick

OK, I'll bite.

How about your thoughts? The state is saying no to new or higher taxes. Where is this $60+ million next year going to come from? Is cutting costs part of that? It won't be enough, but there is no ONE thing that can fix the issue. A new tax could be a magic pill, but how many new taxes can we keep coming up with? We are already taxed to death.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by squarian

Of course, that was a better time - the young fellow in the sailor suit would be annoying everyone else with his blaring earphones now.

You can tell from the adults' facial expressions he is just yammering on about that damn boat.

[Lobick]

Better earphones than a boombox.

[gg]

Imagine if at the federal level we didn't have such a huge military expense? That could save us all, but fear wins the day. Oh well, the world police has a price and a big price it is.