Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As a regular rider of routes used by the college students/staffs , I am happy that the situation exists. A little crowding at times is a small price to pay in order to have more frequent service on the lines that serve Oakland, Sq Hill, Shadyside etc. PAT gets money up front, based, I assume, on enrollment. Imagine how many students/staff seldom or never ride. Those who use their pass get a great deal - unlimited rides for a fee far less costly than the price of a pass. And we who travel those routes get better service because of the additional riders generated by this plan. It's win-win-win.
Is anyone here old enough to remember when we had a private transit system. I believe it was a bunch of small independent bus companies that worked together to provide transit for Pittsburgh and the metro region. I was just a kid so I don't remember much about it. I have talked to some older people who used it and said it was better. Anyone remember?
Before 1964, there were 33 private transit companies serving the area, and they didn't work together. The largest was Pittsburgh Railways, which had an extensive trolley and bus system. Problem was that the vast majority of them were bankrupt. There were no standardized fares and no unified transfer system. If you took the Carnegie bus to Pittsburgh, you had to pay another fare to transfer to a Pittsburgh Railways trolley or bus. The private operators were sinking and begged for a takeover and buyout. The state legislature approved a unified county-wide system in 1959 (I believe) and started the process to buy the independent companies (manyof which were a man and a bus). It took five years to do all that, and PAT began to roll in 1964. By this time, the trolley system was a shambles because Pittsburgh Railways was in and out of bankrupcy since after World War II. They had no capital to expand or maintain the trolley system, and even if they could, the suburban development wasn't geared to public transit. They began to phase out the trolleys and replace them with buses in the 1960s. The only lines they kept were the ones in the Soouth Hills that ran on their own right-of-way. Traffic volume had increased so much on the streets during the 50s and 60s that the trolleys were stuck in the same traffic as everyone else.
I believe PAT was created circa 1964, and before that there were over 30 independent companies. That whole story is quite complex, but to hit the highlights: it has always been very difficult to make money on transit operations alone, but back in the day transit companies basically made their money off real estate--they would own development rights in greenfield situations, or own and operate lucrative station properties, and so forth. So, that was basically how they financed their transit operations. Early (e.g., pre-WWII) private bus routes in turn were actually mostly designed to complement rail (e.g., streetcar or PRR) routes, and so benefited from the same basic economic situation (they were effectively subsidized by real estate profits).
After WWII is when things got really complicated. Lots of pressure--in various forms--was put on companies to convert rail routes to bus routes. Meanwhile, public policy moved to providing real estate developers with free roads, including highways, which meant real estate developers couldn't justify funding rail transit anymore. As rail transit stagnated, even more pressure was brought to convert existing rail routes to buses (including forced transitions, road resurfacings, and so on). But as free roads were being built and expanded all across the metro, the economics weren't actually there anymore to support bus operations, so by 1964 basically all the transit companies were going bankrupt, and they got taken over to form PAT.
Edit: I see Geeo covered a lot of the same ground as I was composing this post.
trolleys were killed by a number of things. some traction companies were owned by local utilities who saw them as reliable demand for their product but an FDR law prohibited electric companies from owning traction companies, and they lost access to cheap power as they then had to buy at market rates. this was also the beginning of a major shift in manufacturing and jobs centers and employment/housing patterns began tochange rapidly, trolleys were a very poor fit in this dynamic, and buses were far more adaptable. most traction companies in many cities had long ago exchanged fare setting power for monopoly rights. as for buses, I'd be surprised if they needed real estate operations to be profitable...however, you'd probably end up with the bulk of service going to poorer communities in a private market, where ridership is strongest. Buenos Aires still has a private oeprator system and it is somewhat chaotic, but in many ways efficient (much more so than anything run by the state down there). there are pros and cons to any set up, I suppose it's feasible to contract out routes and have PAT be more of a regulator and contract out operations like Pabst Brewing....not sure if there are any examples of that out there. Brian is 100% correct that railroads and transit companies profited from real estate (whose value was increased by their services) and in many ways that was a superior set up. today transit isn't funded well and roads are funded by taxpayers, with the value added being captured by local landowners and developers. I read an article about a developer in California and many years ago they were talking about building a highway and he was ready to pay to put in an interchange for his land but the government said "we don't need your money, we'll pay for it." his thought "America truly is a wonderful country." TIF financing at least recognizes this disconnect.
as for buses, I'd be surprised if they needed real estate operations to be profitable...however, you'd probably end up with the bulk of service going to poorer communities in a private market, where ridership is strongest.
Certainly a bus system that is anything as close to as extensive as the old streetcar system requires some sort of subsidy in Pittsburgh--as I noted above, we basically ran that experiment and got that result back before the creation of PAT, and I am pretty sure with relatively higher costs for most big inputs (e.g., diesel) today, the numbers would be even more grim. That subsidy doesn't necessarily have to be from real estate--that just happened to be how it worked here (that real estate was subsidizing rail, and the rail companies were operating most of the buses).
But I agree that even without subsidies, you might still see higher-priced, jitney-like buses serving poorer communities (assuming they weren't regulated out of existence). Of course that is ignoring the fact that ALL road-based transportation in the U.S. gets subsidies in the form of free roads, artificially cheap fuel, and so forth.
Certainly a bus system that is anything as close to as extensive as the old streetcar system requires some sort of subsidy in Pittsburgh--as I noted above, we basically ran that experiment and got that result back before the creation of PAT, and I am pretty sure with relatively higher costs for most big inputs (e.g., diesel) today, the numbers would be even more grim. That subsidy doesn't necessarily have to be from real estate--that just happened to be how it worked here (that real estate was subsidizing rail, and the rail companies were operating most of the buses).
But I agree that even without subsidies, you might still see higher-priced, jitney-like buses serving poorer communities (assuming they weren't regulated out of existence). Of course that is ignoring the fact that ALL road-based transportation in the U.S. gets subsidies in the form of free roads, artificially cheap fuel, and so forth.
is anyone arguing for their local road to be torn up and left as dirt with trolley tracks? no. all roads are not necessarily subsidized even if the system as a whole is. the only way to find out which roads would pay for themselves is to toll everything (an extreme that isn't necessarily desirable either...even dating back to the colonial days, though, there were for profit roads). certainly a private bus system would be noticably smaller, prices would probably vary, and operators would be paid less. as noted, some traction companies were operated by electric companies. this allowed the traction companies to buy power at lower rates since the parent company profited by their operation. I'd imagine there might have been some synergy in running lines as well. the impication being, though, with this and expecially real estate, is that transit, esp well run, captures only a portion of the benefit it provides (not just environmentally, but financially as well). A subway line allows for increased density, but unless the city dedicates some tax revenue back to the transit company from increased values, a TIF, and/or outright development at stations, transit captures relatively little of this value. I'd also point out that bad systems cost taxpayers money and, at best, reward the transit union, maybe big interests like the steelers, and little else. anyways, back to now...
shouldn't this new system be lowering PAT's costs and helping them address the shortfall without eliminating night and weekend service? I thought it was supposed to increase ridership and lower operating costs?
is anyone arguing for their local road to be torn up and left as dirt with trolley tracks? no.
I'm not sure where that question is coming from. If you are referring to the resurfacing issue, they could have resurfaced and kept the tracks in place. I'm not sure that would always have been the right idea in every case--I'm fine with allowing the possibility that some switching from streetcars to buses and cars made sense. But I certainly think in the relevant era they were often way too hasty to eliminate streetcar lines, for a variety of reasons.
Quote:
all roads are not necessarily subsidized even if the system as a whole is. the only way to find out which roads would pay for themselves is to toll everything (an extreme that isn't necessarily desirable either...even dating back to the colonial days, though, there were for profit roads).
I'm not sure it makes sense to talk about roads as discrete units, as opposed to integrated networks. It is true you can make a profit tolling some roads as long as your liabilities are limited to that road, but even then you are really charging users of multiple roads, not just the road you toll, so it isn't clear you are really accounting for all the costs of the system in question.
But in any event, if you aren't tolling the road in question, and all the related costs aren't being paid by other user fees (without offsets), then the road in question is being subsidized. Whether, counterfactually, the road could be operated for a profit is an interesting question, but that doesn't change the fact that when we do subsidize roads, we are thereby subsidizing road-using services.
Quote:
the impication being, though, with this and expecially real estate, is that transit, esp well run, captures only a portion of the benefit it provides (not just environmentally, but financially as well).
Absolutely--as I would put it, transportation has positive externalities, and that is why it makes sense as a matter of public policy to subsidize transit, roads, and so on. This is likely going to be true even if you can rope in more of the private beneficiaries (e.g., land developers) through things like private-public partnerships--there is very likely still going to be at least some justifiable role for a public subsidy to play, since it is practically impossible to identify and include all the many beneficiaries of such projects.
Quote:
shouldn't this new system be lowering PAT's costs and helping them address the shortfall without eliminating night and weekend service? I thought it was supposed to increase ridership and lower operating costs?
If you are referring to the TDP, it is indeed designed to help improve PAT's finances. But it isn't sufficient to address the immediate budget shortfall, and indeed most of it can't be implemented without at least some upfront investment.
Generally, as I noted before, PAT has recently done a number of things to improve its finances (including renegotiating with the union), and I think the TDP is a solid plan to improve their finances further. So it really would be a tragedy if the state cut its funding and undermined all those efforts.
I'm not sure where that question is coming from. If you are referring to the resurfacing issue, they could have resurfaced and kept the tracks in place. I'm not sure that would always have been the right idea in every case--I'm fine with allowing the possibility that some switching from streetcars to buses and cars made sense. But I certainly think in the relevant era they were often way too hasty to eliminate streetcar lines, for a variety of reasons.
in other words, you'd have paved roads in most places anyway (at least in the city). I'd argue that most switching made sense, the "forced switching" certainly accelerated the process but the streetcar era was over. high capital costs, broke agencies, inflexible operations, etc. you're probably right they were too hasty, but one has to put themselves in their shoes, and it probably looked liek the technology was dead at the time. hindsight is 20/20 as they say, and they were probably right most of the time. those cities that buried their streetcars into subways had their transit stay most relevant as it could compete, for larger share of people, with cars in trip time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
I'm not sure it makes sense to talk about roads as discrete units, as opposed to integrated networks. It is true you can make a profit tolling some roads as long as your liabilities are limited to that road, but even then you are really charging users of multiple roads, not just the road you toll, so it isn't clear you are really accounting for all the costs of the system in question.
But in any event, if you aren't tolling the road in question, and all the related costs aren't being paid by other user fees (without offsets), then the road in question is being subsidized. Whether, counterfactually, the road could be operated for a profit is an interesting question, but that doesn't change the fact that when we do subsidize roads, we are thereby subsidizing road-using services.
and the fact that we subsidize roads doesn't necessarily mean that all roads in particular are subsidized. Everyone likes to say "roads are subsidized" and certainly when you have lightly used interstates in unpopulated areas, they are highly subsidized. It's just of limited meaining for this context, except that if highways had user fees, there would be a marginal cost to using them, helping transit be more competitive (splitting tolls) in cost. anyway, it's important, to me, to understand the difference of sayng "road network is subsidized" from saying "the roads in question are subsidized. and to the point above, people are obviously willing to pay for paved roads. to the extent they're willing to pay for transit, I'm not sure they'd vote for streetcars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
Absolutely--as I would put it, transportation has positive externalities, and that is why it makes sense as a matter of public policy to subsidize transit, roads, and so on. This is likely going to be true even if you can rope in more of the private beneficiaries (e.g., land developers) through things like private-public partnerships--there is very likely still going to be at least some justifiable role for a public subsidy to play, since it is practically impossible to identify and include all the many beneficiaries of such projects.
I think a lot of times the public side is always caught up with a magic bullet, one source of revenue. Perhaps many sources of revenue are what's needed. a slice of property tax, a slice of drink taxes (one could argue, effectively, that no drink tax should be used for public transit without night and weekend service), TIF, PPP's, gas tax/toll money, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
If you are referring to the TDP, it is indeed designed to help improve PAT's finances. But it isn't sufficient to address the immediate budget shortfall, and indeed most of it can't be implemented without at least some upfront investment.
Generally, as I noted before, PAT has recently done a number of things to improve its finances (including renegotiating with the union), and I think the TDP is a solid plan to improve their finances further. So it really would be a tragedy if the state cut its funding and undermined all those efforts.
agreed. do you know how much of the shortfall it would address?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
