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

[ML North]

Originally Posted by CFP

If gasoline prices were not near record highs, I would be in agreement with you.
But when a vehicle oriented public transportation service like PAT starts cutting back on services in an environment of near record high gasoline prices, I just find it odd that that factor isn't being discussed more.

Fun discussion nonetheless.

It's important to remember that the primary reason for service cuts is the reduction in state funding provided to PAT (which is why I'm saying that the current state of PAT is a policy problem).

PAT's 2012 budget book can be downloaded here: Port Authority - Budget & Finances

For example, from 2008 to 2011 PAT's operating revenues from ridership have increased from $70.8M to $77.2M and total revenues have increased from $88.7M to $99.1M. During that same period, PAT's expenditures on fuel, tires, and maintenance have increased from $22.9M to $24.4M. PAT's expenditures on salaries, wages, and benefits have increased from $242.8 in 2008 to $261.4M in 2011, an annualized change of 1.86%

From 2008 to 2011 state operating grants to PAT have decreased from $183M to $150M, an annualized change of -4.85%.

So it's quite clear that the current funding crisis and service cuts are overwhelming attributable to the decrease in state aid, or policy decisions (or in this particular case, a lack of policy decisions).

[CFP]

Originally Posted by ML North

From 2008 to 2011 state operating grants to PAT have decreased from $183M to $150M, an annualized change of -4.85%.

So it's quite clear that the current funding crisis and service cuts are overwhelming attributable to the decrease in state aid, or policy decisions (or in this particular case, a lack of policy decisions).

When oil prices went to $147 per barrel the global economy had a massive heart attack. It has been on life support ever since (TARP, QE1, QE2, stimulus package, etc.). Unfortunately when more money is printed to bail out banks & corporations, buy up toxic mortgage backed securities, etc. that money finds its way into the commodity markets, thereby restarting the death cycle of +$100 oil.

The state is cutting funding because they don't have the money because tax revenues are down because there are millions of people out of work because the economy has yet to fully recover from the 2008 crash, and it never will until we can come up with a way of life that doesn't involve burning millions of barrels of oil each and every day.

[ML North]

Originally Posted by CFP

The state is cutting funding because they don't have the money because tax revenues are down because there are millions of people out of work because the economy has yet to fully recover from the 2008 crash, and it never will until we can come up with a way of life that doesn't involve burning millions of barrels of oil each and every day.

That's simply not true. PA state revenue has recovered to pre-recession levels, but the current transit crisis was initiated by a failed attempt to toll I-80, followed by several years of failure in dealing with that problem.

[CFP]

Maybe they're having difficulty tolling Interstate 80 because legislators realize that driving expenses are already too damn high. Already people are driving less than they were just a few years ago. That in itself is unprecedented:

Moving 12-Month Total Vehicle Miles Traveled (M12MTVUSM227NFWA) - FRED - St. Louis Fed

When you add high fuel costs to highway tolls you get a situation where stay-cations replace vacations, and then hotels, restaurants and tourist attractions suffer and fewer state taxes can be collected.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by CFP

I see the chart you are referring to . . . Again, debt levels have indeed come down over the short term, but over the longer term they have been rising.

Thanks for finding this in chart form. I don't see the trend you are claiming to see:



The recent crash has wiped out all increases in the last 30 years.

And the reason for that I believe is the end of cheap oil for buses, cars and planes.

I don't think that explanation is going to make sense of that graph. Real gasoline prices peaked circa 1981, when that series was actually declining. Real gasoline prices were declining in the late 1980s and late 1990s, in both of which periods that series was increasing. And after initially falling during the early recession, real gasoline prices recovered, but this series continued to fall.

So there isn't much apparent correlation between real gasoline prices and this series. I think it is quite likely something else has been going on.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by I_Like_Spam

The private automobile allows the traveler to choose the time and routing of his trip, instead of relying on public transportation schedules. This convenience is why people like it.

Eh, they are also expensive depreciating capital goods, require storage on both ends, have to be operated, and so on. So they've got pluses and minuses, like any other transportation mode.

And I don't really agree with the "nothing inherent" comment, America has always been a nation which has been spread out, the frontier and getting one's own plot of land has been part of American lore and culture since before the Civil War.

Which is why we refused to trade in the horse for the train! Oh wait . . .

I think the truth is Americans are a pragmatic people, who easily adapt to new technology as it comes along.

This scattering makes the problem of public transport so much more difficult of a problem than it would be in a more densely populated kind of continent.

As an aside, much of the country's population lives in areas with densities comparable to Europe. It doesn't make any difference to what transportation I use on a daily basis that distant parts of the nation are mostly empty.

Sure, marketers promoted it, but they wouldn't have been as successful if it wasn't already part of America.

The article is really pretty illuminating on this--the initial inclination of Americans was to resist the automobile, because of the hazard it represented to other users of streets. The marketing was necessary to try to secure primary (and hence nearly exclusive) use of streets for high-speed automobile use, but there were decades of resistance before that victory was secured.

[CFP]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I don't see the trend you are claiming to see:

Trends are when data make higher highs and higher lows (or the opposite) which is what I see in the chart:
http://i49.tinypic.com/351zggl.png

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Real gasoline prices peaked circa 1981, when that series was actually declining.

FRED data doesn't go back that far for gas, but the real crude oil price (denominated in ppi inflation) made an all-time high in 2007:

http://i49.tinypic.com/34s2s7q.png

[ML North]

Originally Posted by CFP

Maybe they're having difficulty tolling Interstate 80 because legislators realize that driving expenses are already too damn high. Already people are driving less than they were just a few years ago. That in itself is unprecedented:

Moving 12-Month Total Vehicle Miles Traveled (M12MTVUSM227NFWA) - FRED - St. Louis Fed

When you add high fuel costs to highway tolls you get a situation where stay-cations replace vacations, and then hotels, restaurants and tourist attractions suffer and fewer state taxes can be collected.

The Feds rejected the tolling of I-80 because of a provision in a piece of legislation called the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) which states that all revenues collected on an interstate must be used only for projects related to that road.

Here's the relevant text of TEA-21 Section 1216(b):

(5) LIMITATIONS ON USE OF REVENUES; AUDITS.—Before the
Secretary may permit a State to participate in the pilot program, the State must enter into an agreement with the Secretary that provides that—
(A) all toll revenues received from operation of the toll
facility will be used only for—
(i) debt service;
(ii) reasonable return on investment of any private
person financing the project; and
(iii) any costs necessary for the improvement of
and the proper operation and maintenance of the toll
facility, including reconstruction, resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation of the toll facility;

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea21/tea21.pdf

And moving forward, the state has actually been provided with a relatively robust list of options for resolving the transportation crisis; however, the current governor has yet to take any of the actions recommended by the group which compiled that list, the Transportation Funding Advisory Commission. So again, the availability and cost of energy has little to do with the present PA transportation funding issues, because it's mostly a policy problem.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by CFP

One more thing: real GDP per capita has not fully recovered during the recovery (because oil prices spiked above $100 a barrel again)

Recoveries from recessions caused by financial crises are typically slow.

And on a year to year percent change basis real GDP per capita has been trending lower since the early '80s when gasoline was only $1.25 a gallon

In real terms, gasoline prices were declining from their peak in 1981 until 1999.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by CFP

The state is cutting funding because they don't have the money because tax revenues are down because there are millions of people out of work

Nope, transportation funding shortfalls are a problem that long predate the recession. The TFAC report is essential reading on this topic:

Pennsylvania Department of Transportation

Edit: Here is the one really essential chart: