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

[Goinback2011]

Until the legacy pension issues are dealt with, PAT is simply a money hole to be looted by the pensioners.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Goinback2011

Until the legacy pension issues are dealt with, PAT is simply a money hole to be looted by the pensioners.

Obviously that is false--PAT is currently providing vital transportation services to many people and businesses in the Pittsburgh Metro.

Generally, if you want to authorize bankruptcy in order to allow PAT to cut its legacy costs in order to fund budget cuts, obviously you should do it in that order (first authorize bankruptcy, then actually get legacy costs savings in bankruptcy, then cut its budget).

Of course I would suggest that last step is not necessarily the best approach, and instead I would suggest PAT use such legacy cost savings, if and when the state ever authorizes them, to fund upgrades and improvements that will further increase PAT's service quality and operating efficiency. Fully funding the TDP, including Rapid Bus, would be a good place to start.

[gg]

Originally Posted by Goinback2011

Until the legacy pension issues are dealt with, PAT is simply a money hole to be looted by the pensioners.

Actually, it is worse than that. It has force many bars to close and in turn many jobs lost, due to the "drink tax" that is only in Allegheny County. Yet another benefits of having a restaurant/bar business in the county. That PAT bus is killing our region in more ways than one.

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

Tax, tax and more tax and they STILL don't have enough money. Who were these people promising those pensions? How can businesses of any kind make such decisions? Sure is one pathetic bunch.

I say bankrupt the whole thing and start over.

[Blackbeauty212]

I find this tidbit particularly interesting

We're getting less bang for more bucks. Those tax stats come from a Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center analysis. This county contributes 12.9 percent of the state's sales tax and 10.7 percent of its personal income tax. Throw in similarly outsized contributions from other taxes, and we're punching well above our weight class.

Allegheny has about 300,000 fewer people than Philadelphia County, but we've amassed a higher aggregate personal income than the state's biggest county every year since 1989. The only county producing more taxable personal income is the state's third most populous, Montgomery, in suburban Philadelphia.

Allegheny County can't match the suburban Philadelphia counties in average income, but what we send to Harrisburg via the state sales tax is more generous. Allegheny County sent $700 million in sales taxes in the last fiscal year. Philadelphia was second, but not particularly close, with $543 million

Read more: Allegheny's angling just for a fair share from state transit aid

[BrianTH]

It is indeed unfortunate that many people are happy to watch the state cut funding for vital transportation services in Allegheny County even as Allegheny County is making disproportionate contributions in state taxes.

[Goinback2011]

Obviously that is false--PAT is currently providing vital transportation services to many people and businesses in the Pittsburgh Metro.

At what point does the burden of legacy costs change the fundamental purpose of PAT? At some point (and I would argue it's now, given the magnitude of cuts needed to fund them), PAT's main purpose is funding pensions for racketeers rather than providing needed transit services. Robbing the state transportation fund to disguise this doesn't change the facts.

[Aqua Teen Carl]

Our company got an e-mail (which distributed to many companies downtown) informing us of the cuts and how it may impact our business. I've been working downtown during many cuts and this is the first time we've got a formal notice. It's going down this time.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Goinback2011

At what point does the burden of legacy costs change the fundamental purpose of PAT?

As long as PAT is still providing vital transportation services, which it is, that is its purpose. Legacy costs remain a problem to be addressed, but merely cutting PAT's funding does nothing to address that problem.

By the way, note that cutting PAT's state funding while not giving it any means under state law to cut its legacy costs just pushes it further in the direction you are lamenting. A cynical person would suggest that anti-transit politicians and their allies are trying to pull off that combination of policies precisely because it could potentially push PAT into a political death spiral and allow them to defund transit entirely (see below for why they would want to do that).

Robbing the state transportation fund to disguise this doesn't change the facts.

Oh please--"robbing"?

The state has ALWAYS funded public transit agencies. It does that for obvious reasons--for good or ill the state has taken on the role of providing funds for transportation, and transit is a vital component of Pennsylvania's transportation system. And the state collects a lot of taxes from Allegheny County for funding transportation, so some of those taxes are returned to Allegheny County for use by PAT as part of the state's traditional role in funding transit.

So in fact "robbing" would be allowing the state to take those taxes out of Allegheny County without demanding that the state return to Allegheny County its fair share in transportation funds, including for PAT. And again, a cynical person would suggest that anti-transit politicians and their allies are trying to deliberately mislead people about the state's traditional role in funding transit, and the taxes Allegheny County has been paying in part for that purpose, in order to "rob" Allegheny County in just that fashion.

Of course all this is incredibly short-sighted. In this recovery from the recession, the Pittsburgh Metro has been making massively disproportionate positive contributions, and its further redevelopment has the potential to continue doing so for a very long time. So cutting these vital transportation services in the Pittsburgh Metro is really trying to kill the goose that is laying the golden eggs, but unfortunately such short-term thinking is dominating certain political dynamics right now.

[BrianTH]

By the way, here is a nice piece from an Allegheny Conference official discussing these issues:

Save the Port Authority: We must invest in public transit or watch our economy wither

In addition to being fact-based, it is also helpful that this piece came from this particular source, since the Allegheny Conference has a long history of being critical of PAT, and in general is a pro-business group, and therefore should have some credibility. A key passage:

Taxpayers will want to be sure that they get value for their dollar. The conference felt the same way in 2005 when the previous management team at the Port Authority approached us for help in securing more state money. Instead, we wanted to make sure that the agency was doing the best it could with the money it had. . . . Since Mr. Bland's arrival as CEO in 2006, and with the support of a revamped governing board and the backing of the Allegheny County executive, the Port Authority has cut its administrative staff. Nonunion workers who remain will no longer have their health care paid for when they retire. Their traditional pension has been replaced by a 401(k)-like defined contribution plan. And the authority took its first steps at addressing its union labor issues with a ground-breaking agreement. As a result, the Port Authority budget is growing at half the rate of inflation once you remove pension and retiree health care legacy costs over which management has no control. The Port Authority has not just cut costs. Since cutting inefficient routes and redesigning its 50-year-old bus-and-rail network to respond better to community needs, the Port Authority is carrying 50 percent more passengers for each hour of service than when Mr. Bland took office. Allegheny Conference research indicates that no big-city transit system has done more to transform itself over the past five years than the Port Authority.

You will frequently find people arguing that before PAT should have its state funding restored, its management should be required to show that it is willing to cut its labor costs and improve its operating efficiency.

Well, since 2006, PAT's management has done exactly that. So it is put up or shut up time: were the people making that argument just coming up with an excuse to cut PAT's state funding, or were they serious about making PAT's state funding conditional on PAT's management adopting new practices?

[robrobrob]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

By the way, here is a nice piece from an Allegheny Conference official discussing these issues:

Save the Port Authority: We must invest in public transit or watch our economy wither

In addition to being fact-based, it is also helpful that this piece came from this particular source, since the Allegheny Conference has a long history of being critical of PAT, and in general is a pro-business group, and therefore should have some credibility. A key passage:



You will frequently find people arguing that before PAT should have its state funding restored, its management should be required to show that it is willing to cut its labor costs and improve its operating efficiency.

Well, since 2006, PAT's management has done exactly that. So it is put up or shut up time: were the people making that argument just coming up with an excuse to cut PAT's state funding, or were they serious about making PAT's state funding conditional on PAT's management adopting new practices?

I think part of the problem is that public transportation advocates complain about each looming cut. However, based on the article that you cited it seems as if the cuts made were needed. However, I do agree that at some point you shouldn't cut anymore.

The article is also slightly misleading because it says that expenses are rising at less than the rate of inflation but doesn't include the cost of retiree benefits but it also said that expenses in 2005 were rising at four times the rate of inflation but that rate included retiree expenses. How about an apples to apples comparison?

I think the reason the public still wants cuts from the unions is that most of the country doesn't have a pension and pays a lot more for health care. I think in light of PAT's current buget problems the public is really saying that PAT's union employees should have their benefits reduced drastically. It is one thing to have a great benefit package if you have tons of cash but since PAT doesn't have tons of cash they shouldn't have a great benefit package.