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

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by robrobrob

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.

First, what we are actually talking about is restoring funding for PAT that the state has cut as a result of the I-80 toll falling through, not increasing PAT's state funding.

Second, the reason we are talking about the state's funding cuts in the context of PAT's announced service cut plan is that the state's funding cuts are the actual proximate cause of those service cuts. That doesn't mean growing legacy costs aren't a real long-term problem for PAT, but they didn't set off this current crisis.

Third, as I keep trying to point out, while I fully support building the public case for changing state law to authorize PAT to do something about its legacy costs, it is very important to understand there is currently no such proposal on the state's agenda, and very little reason to believe the current state government would support such a proposal. Therefore, no one should be presenting trimming PAT's legacy costs as an alternative to restoring its state funding for next year, because there is no realistic chance of that happening on that schedule.

Generally, it really isn't that hard to have multiple thoughts about PAT at the same time. The fact that I am not simultaneously expressing all of those thoughts about PAT in every single post about PAT doesn't mean I don't still have those other thoughts.

Now, I assume this was because you probably feel, and rightly so, that the state will likely never solve PAT's legacy cost issue.

I wouldn't say "never". But a lot of things would have to happen first to make that realistic, and so I would say, as I did above, there is no realistic chance of that happening in time to prevent the looming service cuts triggered by the I-80 toll falling through.

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.

First, it is restoring PAT's state funding, not increasing it, that we are talking about.

Anyway, I certainly understand that a lot of people have fallen for this framing of the issue, as encouraged by certain anti-transit politicians and their allied media outlets. As we discussed above, fundamentally it makes no sense, and in fact if your primary concern is the percentage of PAT's funding that goes to legacy costs, you should be leading the opposition to the current track of state policies.

Nonetheless, I do understand that this has been an effective, if fundamentally nonsensical, rhetorical tactic. Accordingly, as a person who cares about transit, I'd LOVE to solve the legacy cost problem, and I completely agree that if I could wave a magic wand and make that happen, it would do a lot to help rationalize these other policy debates.

Unfortunately--and I think this is something that YOU have to understand--anti-transit politicians and their media allies understand all this just as well as you and I do. And that is a large part of why they will continue to try to block actually doing anything about PAT's legacy costs as long as they can: they would strongly prefer to hold onto this rhetorical weapon with which to bash PAT, rather than actually solve the problem and lose that weapon.

So that is part of why in the absence of magic wands, it is going to take a long struggle to do anything about PAT's legacy costs--as you note, those costs have proven all too useful for anti-transit advocates.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by UKyank

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

I don't have a problem if people just mean they think these were ill-advised contracts.

[Goinback2011]

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.

Read up on the history of these costs. They were not incurred when the pensioners started working for PAT. They were awarded starting in the late 1990's under a corrupt management regime that first awarded these benefits to themselves, then later to union employees. No one was overseeing the process and no one outside PAT caught on until 3 or 4 years ago.

It's classic control fraud. Read up on the term.

[soniqV]

PAT is toast. Has been for a long time. Take her out, she's done. Efforts to save it will just prolong the agony for both taxpayers and riders. Two choices, bankruptcy or keep shoveling money down a black hole. One way or another someone is going to get screwed, either the people who got the unreasonable contracts or the taxpayer. I'll take the former please. Liquidate that debt and start over. Companies do it all the time. It's actually a pretty good system. I'm no expert, but I hear it has something to do with a vague concept of a bygone era called "competition."

[BrianTH]

For all the reasons repeatedly given above, bankruptcy, while maybe a good long term idea, isn't presently an alternative to restoring PAT's state funding.

[gg]

I am so thankful the change of I-80 to a toll road didn't go through. Goodness, how many new tax ideas can one come up with to kill business in our area and throughout the region to cover PAT's failures. I mean there lots of jobs lost from the new drink tax that places like Mr. Smalls almost had to close its door if it wasn't for someone helping them stay afloat. That place is a such a great little venue for up and coming musicians, but it was almost lost because of PAT. The company should be bankrupt and the whole thing should be subbed out to a real company that would handle transportation in our area. Just like how Rt. 28 is being rebuilt. The work is being done by a company from Saxonburg and they actually do work, unlike what you would see from a PennDot crew.

[gg]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

For all the reasons repeatedly given above, bankruptcy, while maybe a good long term idea, isn't presently an alternative to restoring PAT's state funding.

I wish the powers that be would think more "long term", instead of putting bandaids on things at the cost of everyone! How many jobs and companies were lost due to that huge drink tax? Where else do we have to pull money from to make PAT survive and at what expense. These bandaids are costing us plenty. Do you know how much a liquor license cost today? The price obviously is lower than it used to be for good reason. That tells us demand is down due to our propping up PAT.

There are breaking points to all this, you know. The economy isn't very brisk as it is let alone the continual raising of expenses in our region because of PAT. This is on top of the new parking meter crap to AGAIN bail out city pension promises. Might be better if we think long term instead of bandaids that bite us in the you know where.

[Lobick]

Originally Posted by h_curtis

How many jobs and companies were lost due to that huge drink tax?

Honestly, I have no idea. I suspect not that many but you repeatedly state that a ton of jobs were lost. Could you point me in the direction of some evidence either way? I assume you must have seen some given the certainty of your statements and I would like to look at it myself. Thanks.

[gg]

Sure Lubick. Of course places like Hooters or whatever can afford it, but the ma and pa places get hit the hardest. It was sad to hear about Mr. Smalls, but they got lucky for now. Such a cool venue.

Allegheny's poured drink tax ruined businesses, bar owners say - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

Oh just to make sure people realize this is ON TOPIC!!!! This is a byproduct of PAT buses failure to budget correctly. This IS completely ON TOPIC and people DID lose businesses and jobs over this complete failure by PAT.

[squarian]

Originally Posted by soniqV

PAT is toast. Has been for a long time. Take her out, she's done.

Of course this point has been hashed and re-hashed here. But to consider the possibility seriously - what would the timeline be? The Gen Ass has to do the job. In all probability it never will, but supposing it can be brought to act, the legislation would certainly have to have the backing of a governor who is not called Corbett. Therefore 2015 at the earliest, possibly 2019 if Shaler Tom wins a second term (which at the moment I'd call a likely possibility). Realistically, the clock starts when a hypothetical new governor willing to back such a major initiative is sworn into office. Then the legislative process begins - several more years, possibly not in this new man's first term. So now we're looking at 2020 or later - say, 2023. Then some sort of mass transit agency would need to be established, organized and begin to operate - another year or two at least, I should think? So, possibly some time in the middle of the next decade, we can butter your toast.