Port Authority....again..... (Pittsburgh, Oakland, Penn: schools, living in, prices)

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by markson33

I'm all for public transportation. I would love it if Pittsburgh had a system like the Tri-Met in Portland. A real system that would deliver services to almost everyone.

Just an aside, but I would LOVE for Pittsburgh to have the same relationship to the state as Metro:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_(...nal_government)

That's basically a real world example of what I have described as a deal I would accept (a region having control of its own transportation policy and transportation funding).

Its not that I am opposed to spending money on public transportation, but I am opposed to spending money on PAT as it is currently structured.

I'll agree with you that the Metro situation is better than the PAT situation. But that situation is not waiting in the wings to take over. So if you just slash PAT's state funding, what you get is a lot less transit in Pittsburgh, but you don't get a different transit agency instead.

A lot of southern cities have tolls on their main highways. Orlando is one that I am very familiar with. Almost every major highway there is a toll road.

But no city tolls ALL the roads, or even more than a fraction of them. Transit users similarly pay SOME of transit costs through fares, but not all of those costs. So why should transit users as a philosophical principle have to pay ALL of the costs of transit, when we don't make road users pay ALL of the costs of roads?

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by UKyank

I also however have to disagree that the city economy would collapse or even be substantially impacted at all if there likewise was no system.

Well, that makes no sense. Pittsburgh's key roads are already seriously congested at peak times. Meanwhile, many people going to key destinations at peak times are using PAT. That's a pretty straightforward situation: eliminate PAT, congestion will get much worse, and the whole local economy will be negatively impacted. There are other categories of lost benefits, but that one alone should be obvious.

Sorry if its hard to believe PAT when they say that this time they have things fixed and under control and wont be in a huge deficit again in a few years even if the state injected them with some money to prop things up now.

Can we at least be clear on what happened? The state promised a certain level of funding to PAT. Then the state cut that level of funding (which happened because their funding scheme for all transportation in PA, including both roads and transit, fell apart). So, PAT has to cut service levels.

So it isn't that PAT went into a crisis and now is asking for more than the state promised. It is that the state has set off a crisis by cutting PAT's funding.

There are quite efficient mass transit systems in some cities whose efficiency leads it to being relied on by so many people in such a substantial way that it disappearing would deepy effect a city in a negative way, PAT is nowhere near this level of reliance because its never been that good of a system.

Seriously, around half the people commuting Downtown use public transit. Efficient or not, PAT is in fact providing services we need.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by markson33

I don't buy that. It would probably hurt the cities tax coffers more than anything as companies would move to the suburbs.

There are reasons why certain firms collect in central business districts in developed cities worldwide. So if we refuse to provide a functioning CBD, we'll get crushed in the competition for those firms. They won't leave for the suburbs, they'll leave for other cities entirely, those with functional CBDs.

In other words, there is no such thing as suburbs without a city.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by markson33

If 20% of the population uses mass transit and 80% uses highways, clearly the higher priority should be the highways. PAT itself relies heavily on the road system.

Clearly, in that situation you need to spend on both.

No one here is advocating eliminating public roads. But some people are de facto advocating eliminating transit. So only one side is advocating a policy which refuses to recognize that both forms of transportation are vital.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by UKyank

But then you'd get into the whole mess of indirect benefits such as how much do you benefit from a highway when the truck that delivers the food you eat uses it to make deliveries with and things of that nature.

All of which reasoning applies to transit as well. I don't understand why some people (rightly) credit the indirect benefits of road usage, then claim the indirect benefits of transit usage can safely be ignored entirely.

Taking it further, regarding deliveries, a city is going to benefit ton more then a rural area ever will.

This is an aside, but that is completely wrong in a modern economy. Rural areas are not remotely self-sufficient anymore, and transportation in rural areas costs a lot more. That's actually one of the chief economic advantages of cities--low transportation costs.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by markson33

There is no reason to believe that many of the routes PAT currently covers couldn't be covered more efficiently by others.

There is no reason to believe that more than a handful of PAT's routes could be operated at a profit (in fact, that is where PAT came from in the first place--it took over a bunch of failing transportation companies).

So you'd have to give out subsidies. And it turns out, the efficiency of such arrangements really isn't very good at all.

If those of you who use PAT want to support it, that is your prerogative. Those of us who want to see it die should not have to support it any more than we already do.

Societies can't function if everyone opposes everything they don't personally use. And in most contexts, people get this.

[stburr91]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

There is no reason to believe that more than a handful of PAT's routes could be operated at a profit (in fact, that is where PAT came from in the first place--it took over a bunch of failing transportation companies).

That's one of PAT's problems, it needs to find a way to get more of it's routes to operate closer to a profit.

With these cuts, we're going to have to find a way to make the most of what mass transit we'll have left. That means, if PAT can't get to the people, then we're going to have to bring the people to PAT. If funding it's restored soon, this may create a real demand for TOD. Even if funding is restored, part of an overall solution for PAT, is going to be for it to become more efficient, and moving more people, so I think TOD is going to have to be part of PAT's solution.

[Debbie1125]

Originally Posted by squarian

Students, the elderly, and anyone foolish enough to be convicted of a DUI will just have to make do. Anyone else unable to afford a car hasn't worked hard enough and doesn't really deserve one anyway. Private security personnel can be hired at very cost-effective rates to prevent fraudulent use of the shuttles. Without any means of transportation, the proles will be easier to police, and property owners will be safer. Physical mobility will finally be acknowledged for what it is: a privilege accorded to those who have earned it.

I don't drive a car by choice and I beg your pardon, but I've worked hard ever since I graduated. You seem to want all public transportation to vanish because you don't use it.

Your stereotyping of those who don't have a car is terrible. You also have a selfish attitude.

[gg]

There are lots of ways PAT can save money, but I don't think they look very hard. They don't need as many stops as they have. People can walk a block or two, goodness. That will help with brake use and more fuel in the stop and go stuff. Obviously the biggest thing was this huge pension problem that was promised due to the powerful unions. That is killing everyone today. This is what many of our schools will face soon enough. These huge salaries and giant pensions with all medical benefits not having to be paid into will bit most districts soon enough. Oh well, get by today, and never plan for the future. That seems to be the way things are run. What happens when the crap hits the fan? They get a new tax going like the drink tax. What happens then? That industry suffers and places close because people can't afford the extra 10% now lowered to 7%.

[Aqua Teen Carl]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Societies can't function if everyone opposes everything they don't personally use. And in most contexts, people get this.

Hey buddy, I haven't been to elementary school in years. Why should I have to pay for someone else's crotch fruit? I SAY PRIVATIZE IT