Pittsburgh's Public Transit crisis is about to get a lot worse... (tax, assessment)

[squarian]

Originally Posted by pman

they could pay higher wages so people could afford to drive to their jobs.

To quote The Princess Bride: Inconceivable.

[Tinare]

Originally Posted by squarian

Or alternately, with all that cheap suburban land, companies could build barracks near their offices for their maintenance and clerical staff, so they could walk to work.

And then the companies could open stores near the workers barracks and end up collecting their wages back as they buy everything from the company store. Everything old is new again?

[squarian]

Originally Posted by Tinare

And then the companies could open stores near the workers barracks and end up collecting their wages back as they buy everything from the company store. Everything old is new again?

See, now that's a great idea. All we need is a little ingenuity, folks.

[captainmidnight]

Port Authority's public image is pretty poor, IMO.

Most of the public sees new buses, the North Shore Connector, and studies for Rapid Bus and CNG buses as useless and worthless in the face of service cuts. I understand that they have a capital and operational budget and they can't use capital money (funding for North Shore Connector, buses, etc) on operational means (money for service/bus hours and routes) due to a state law. I'm not sure which one, but I have seen it mentioned before.

Also, their SmartCard program will launch next March. It will most likely launch to a dwindling rider base!

Image it is next summer and there is a big concert at Heinz Field and fireworks night at PNC Park on a Saturday and the North Shore Connector is silent due to no T service on weekends because of March service cuts. Imagine the public walking buy the stations, mostly ones who are non-riders, thinking "wow, this useless. Why did they build this again?" Pretty awful.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by robrobrob

One, the General Assembley allocates a dedicted revenue stream. Or, two, the unions will agree to additional cuts.

Being an optimist, I think both are still possible, although maybe not likely, in 2012.

Seems fair, both sides give a little even thought they don't want to give anything.

Just as an aside, it might be useful to remember that one of the "sides" in all this is the people with a stake in PAT's services, and by extension anyone with a stake in the Pittsburgh Metro economy.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by pman

for whatever reason SEPTA doesn't have the same legacy cost problems.

As an aside, that's not really a mystery--there was not the same population loss problem in their service area, plus they have a lot more high operating efficiency infrastructure available.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by WINDCHIMES

Why are they cutting it in the first place?

To summarize:

The state has always funded transit as part of its overall transportation funding.

A while back, the state moved most of its transportation funding from the general fund to a dedicated fund.

Dedicated funds need dedicated revenues. A lot of the relevant revenue rates have been declining in real terms, but the state had a plan to add new revenues with an I-80 toll.

But the federal government then disallowed the I-80 toll, leading to a shortfall in the dedicated transportation fund.

A shortfall in the state's dedicated transportation fund means funding cuts for all relevant transportation, including PAT.

Funding cuts for PAT means it has to cut service and raise fares.

So there you go.

I might note Corbett appointed a Transportation Commission to look into this. It concluded the state needed to come up with new revenues to put into transportation, and recommended several measures to that end. The state legislature wanted to take up those recommendations, but they won't do it without Corbett's support, which he is refusing to supply.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by bmantz65

due to a state law

Federal law too (it is a condition of various grants).

Also, their SmartCard program will launch next March. It will most likely launch to a dwindling rider base!

As an aside, that's a good example of something which will undoubtedly be good for PAT's operating efficiency. The TDP, which this is a part of, contained lots of such plans, and they are still rolling out the parts they can.

[pman]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

As an aside, that's not really a mystery--there was not the same population loss problem in their service area, plus they have a lot more high operating efficiency infrastructure available.

PAT also had a pretty poor reputation within the industry for basic financial management so it seems possible they weren't funding the pension. SEPTA, for all its faults, has always been relatively good with budgeting and making sure it has money for its obligations. I agree with you that PAT seems much improved but poor decision making in the past may also be hurting them.
Still, despite the enormous service cuts to SEPTA in the 80's (particularly on the railroad)...overall population growth in the region has returned ridership to the pre-cut levels. Downtown's success in revitalizing itself as a nightlife destination has also helped fill off peak seats so its not just off peak workers riding transit....something which could still happen here...sometime.

[robrobrob]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Being an optimist, I think both are still possible, although maybe not likely, in 2012.



Just as an aside, it might be useful to remember that one of the "sides" in all this is the people with a stake in PAT's services, and by extension anyone with a stake in the Pittsburgh Metro economy.

Why won't this happen in 2012? I thought the unions had "offered" some "concessions" to Onarato to save jobs/service before the last wave of cuts but Onarato declined because he said it wasn't enough. Why wouldn't they at the least offer the same "concessions" when their contract is up in 2012? This is assuming the "concessions" that they offered were actually concessions. Were they?

Unfortunately, riders don't have a seat at the table. They are clearly the beneficiary of public transportation and are affected by cuts but they have no say in either funding PAT or deciding whether or not the drivers take a cut.

Any chance that a tax intiative for public transportation for county residents could be developed similar to the library initiative that that just passed in the city?