Top Progressive things PAT could do Now......

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by pman

in other words, you'd have paved roads in most places anyway (at least in the city).

Oh sure--again, I'm not hostile to public subsidies for roads in general. I'd probably have done less urbanized-area highway building, however.

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.

It is really hard to know even with the benefit of hindsight, given how transportation policy intersects with so many other issues. For example, as you point out, even if you switch from streetcars you have more than one way you can go, including to transit running in dedicated ROWs (which could be rail, buses, or more). It is entirely possible that if we had been less hasty to force the switching from streetcars to cars and buses without ROWs, development patterns and thus the economics and politics would have been such that we would have done more switching in the direction of dedicated transit ROWs.

and the fact that we subsidize roads doesn't necessarily mean that all roads in particular are subsidized.

Pretty much all non-tolled roads are going to be subsidized by any reasonable accounting, and that is the vast majority of roads right there. And as I noted, even tolled roads get the benefit of vast feeder systems of subsidized roads. So maybe a few tolled roads are not really subsidized, but that is going to be a very exceptional situation.

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.

That is one possible point, but in general I tend to bring this up just to point out that requiring a transportation project or service to make a profit without subsidies isn't, and shouldn't be, a requirement. Transportation is one of those things that it makes sense to spend public money on, and that applies to both roads and transit. So you really need to get into the details in order to figure out the best projects and services to fund.

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.

Without a referendum it is hard to say (political outcomes otherwise don't necessarily reflect popular will). And for what it is worth, people have recently voted in favor of streetcars some places (including Cincinnati, which is somewhat comparable to Pittsburgh).

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.

I agree in principle: given that the beneficiaries of transportation funding are diverse, it makes sense to have diverse revenue collection. But at a certain point, in practice it tends to make sense just to go with a small increase in your existing broad consumption or income taxes, because you are going to be having roughly the same economic impact either way, and you will spend a lot less on administration and enforcement with such a plan.

agreed. do you know how much of the shortfall it would address?

Do you mean when fully implemented? If so, I think their target was a 10% increase in passengers and a 10-15% reduction in operating costs per passenger, but it would also require some capital costs, and I don't recall seeing a total number for that.

Generally, to figure out the budget implications of all that requires some assumptions. For example, if a 10% increase in passengers led to a 10% increase in revenues, that would be around $10 million more in revenues. Which sounds good, but if it resulted in a 10% increase in expenses, that would mean around another $32 million in expenses, and actually require an increase in their subsidy by $22 million.

However, they are targeting a per passenger reduction in operating costs of 10-15%. If it is 10% it is basically a wash, and so you end up with a net benefit of around $13 million. If it is 15%, you may be able to tack on another $20 million. But again, all this is before capital costs have been accounted for.

So, call it a $13-$30 million operating improvement annually, minus capital costs, if it all goes according to plan. The projected shortfall this year if the state cuts the subsidy is about $50 million, so you are way short already. And again, in the near term you would actually have to make the capital investments necessary to get up to full implementation.

[creepsinc]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

They should also cut off all public funding for roads, and instead sell them to private operators. Let the people who use the road, pay for the road.

You'd have to pay a toll to get out of your driveway, of course.

What the silly person you're responding to doesn't realize is that all over the world, wonderful world-class transportation systems exist that have never turned a profit. Not all worth is measured in monetary profit. We're doomed.

I blame dualistic, binary thought and the two-party system it's spawned. Also, Fox News and MSNBC.

[Geeo]

Public transport is a service, just like police, fire, trash collection, road and bridge maintenance, etc. People do not expect to see a balance sheet for the police department to make sure that they've turned a profit. I see public transportation as a critical need that keeps a city's economy strong. Without it, we would be without a critical service.

[pman]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I agree in principle: given that the beneficiaries of transportation funding are diverse, it makes sense to have diverse revenue collection. But at a certain point, in practice it tends to make sense just to go with a small increase in your existing broad consumption or income taxes, because you are going to be having roughly the same economic impact either way, and you will spend a lot less on administration and enforcement with such a plan.

maybe, but it hasn't made sense to go that route as those are often the most difficult to change. given the failings of current policy (broad based taxes), perhaps diverisification would be a agood alternate tack.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Do you mean when fully implemented? If so, I think their target was a 10% increase in passengers and a 10-15% reduction in operating costs per passenger, but it would also require some capital costs, and I don't recall seeing a total number for that...
However, they are targeting a per passenger reduction in operating costs of 10-15%. If it is 10% it is basically a wash, and so you end up with a net benefit of around $13 million. If it is 15%, you may be able to tack on another $20 million. But again, all this is before capital costs have been accounted for...So, call it a $13-$30 million operating improvement annually, minus capital costs, if it all goes according to plan. The projected shortfall this year if the state cuts the subsidy is about $50 million, so you are way short already. And again, in the near term you would actually have to make the capital investments necessary to get up to full implementation.

thanks, that's what i was wondering. basically, if the capital portion were funded, what would the operating savings be. while that's certainly not an insignificant sum, it's not enough to cover the entire shortfall (though certainly enough to keep night and weekend service on certain routes I'd imagine). I wonder if more aggressive improvements (say, spine line type improvements) would further lower operating costs.

[hornet67]

"Progressive" and "PAT"; now there's two words that don't belong in the same sentence! Similiar to PLCB, and consumer- friendly. efficient, low price, etc.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by pman

maybe, but it hasn't made sense to go that route as those are often the most difficult to change. given the failings of current policy (broad based taxes), perhaps diverisification would be a agood alternate tack.

Some places have been willing to vote for an increased sales tax in order to fund transit. But honestly, I'll take it wherever we can get it.

I wonder if more aggressive improvements (say, spine line type improvements) would further lower operating costs.

Absolutely. Thinking big picture, higher diesel costs, higher labor costs, constant maintenance-and-replacement costs--relying so much on buses even for pretty heavily traveled routes is bound to hurt our operating efficiency. The answers are therefore electrification, automation (or at least longer vehicles), and low-maintenance/replacement technologies. And if you did that right, you could probably get a lot more riders too, possibly with more advantageous (meaning higher, at least at peak) fares.

All of which would likely require serious capital investment, but I think the numbers would work out favorably for many possible projects. So it becomes a financing issue.

By the way, I really do think modern gondolas would be a great technology for Pittsburgh to implement. They use very little energy (all electric), very little labor, are low-maintenance, and they have relatively low capital costs for a rapid transit technology. On top of all that, they can cross rivers and go over hills without the need for expensive bridges and tunnels, and they don't need to take anything away from existing surface transportation routes.

So to me that seems like an ideal technology for Pittsburgh. Again, though, the problem is coming up with the capital financing--oh, and convincing all the powers-that-be that this is a very serious suggestion.

[pman]

I would agree that there's some useful application for gondolas as well as funiculars in Pitt...based on demand. I'd like to see some transit studies that take into account time savings for people but also long term operational savings. I think the current "plan" does that in part, but perhaps an unconstrained plan that goes even further would work. that way you could say "$x billion" upfront would move "y people" saving "z minutes" with a cost savings to both people (gas, time), city (roads), and PAT. you're absolutely right, the more butts per operator the better.