KD news story about PAT competition (Pittsburgh, Warren: hotels, homes, unemployment)

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by greg42

Dunno, it's a tough one. I mean it looks like PAT itself could have raised the fare to $5 and still not covered their costs.

If PAT had both raised the fare to $5 and also cut their schedule back (thereby concentrating ridership) and required monthly payment in advance, they may well have been able to operate at a small profit. However, I don't think the ability to operate at a profit is the correct measure of where public transit makes sense, since so many of the benefits of public transit are not internalized just by the riders.

In a way, perhaps this isn't a bad solution for these farther out places.

Well, it depends on your goals. In the short term, this means transportation costs are going to go up for some people, and more people are going to drive instead (which isn't such a great thing for a variety of reasons). In the long run, people will eventually adjust to the transportation options they have, including when making living decisions. In this case, if this becomes permanent it may be that some people will move into areas where transit would be less expensive (that could be a good thing), and some people may just permanently abandon trying to use transit (likely a bad thing). It also may be that this service isn't sustainable in the long as people move to other options, in which case this won't be a permanent solution at all, just a transition phase.

Although it makes me wonder how much $$ someone like New Castle Transit is losing by running a bus into the city every day.

The outer-county agencies have much higher operating costs than PAT and are providing much larger subsidies. Which is probably good public policy.

[Love2Golf09]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

So here is news about a possible private service substitute for a couple canceled routes:

North Hills may get new bus service

It would cost 54% more and run far less frequently than the PAT services it would be replacing. But State House Majority Leader Mike Turzai thinks you should be grateful for these improvements. And strangely, it appears that PAT is actually supportive of approving these services--according to Turzai, PAT has been standing in the way of such services. Curious.

If you want PAT to keep all their current routes, then you pay for it. The taxpayers are flat broke. There's no more money...anywhere, for anything. We're tapped out. The quicker you understand that your credit card has been cut up the less painful this will be for you. Public transit will be slashed. Public workers will be laid off. Education funds slashed. Infrastructure..what's that? It's all over. Pay for PAT yourself. You don't help me pay for my gas, so why should I subsidize your ride to work? Quit mooching!

[gameguy56]

Originally Posted by Love2Golf09

If you want PAT to keep all their current routes, then you pay for it. The taxpayers are flat broke. There's no more money...anywhere, for anything. We're tapped out. The quicker you understand that your credit card has been cut up the less painful this will be for you. Public transit will be slashed. Public workers will be laid off. Education funds slashed. Infrastructure..what's that? It's all over. Pay for PAT yourself. You don't help me pay for my gas, so why should I subsidize your ride to work? Quit mooching!

I pay for your roads and bridges in your part of town even though I don't live there or use them. Transportation is something that all taxpayers get benefit from.

[Love2Golf09]

Originally Posted by gameguy56

I pay for your roads and bridges in your part of town even though I don't live there or use them. Transportation is something that all taxpayers get benefit from.

And I pay for your roads and bridges in your part of town. We're even. I get zero benefit from PAT and I'm not supporting tax dollars going to bail them out for the 17th time. Wasn't the stimulus supposed to go to this stuff? What did all that money get spent on if our infrastructure still sucks and our gov't agencies are still near bankruptcy? If you want PAT, then pay for it, just like I have to pay for my gas. I don't hear anyone offering to bail me out.

[gameguy56]

Originally Posted by Love2Golf09

And I pay for your roads and bridges in your part of town. We're even. I get zero benefit from PAT and I'm not supporting tax dollars going to bail them out for the 17th time. Wasn't the stimulus supposed to go to this stuff? What did all that money get spent on if our infrastructure still sucks and our gov't agencies are still near bankruptcy? If you want PAT, then pay for it, just like I have to pay for my gas. I don't hear anyone offering to bail me out.

I pay for the transit system in your part of the state, you should pay for the transit system in my part. Even?

[Copanut]

Hey, I work out of my house, shouldn't I get a rebate?

[raubre]

Originally Posted by Love2Golf09

And I pay for your roads and bridges in your part of town. We're even. I get zero benefit from PAT and I'm not supporting tax dollars going to bail them out for the 17th time. Wasn't the stimulus supposed to go to this stuff? What did all that money get spent on if our infrastructure still sucks and our gov't agencies are still near bankruptcy? If you want PAT, then pay for it, just like I have to pay for my gas. I don't hear anyone offering to bail me out.

We still have to pay for the schools your kids go to. If you don't like paying for it, then move. Let me ask you where do you live where you believe you aren't going to be affected by this?

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Love2Golf09

If you want PAT to keep all their current routes, then you pay for it. The taxpayers are flat broke. There's no more money...anywhere, for anything. We're tapped out.

First, that isn't true (that we couldn't raise some additional revenues for the state). Second, cutting funding for PAT is penny-wise and pound-foolish, because PAT creates a lot more wealth than it consumes. So if you have to cut something because you irrationally refuse to consider increasing revenues, it shouldn't be PAT's funding.

What is really going on here is that state transportation policy is a machine that takes money from the large metros and hands it out to the rest of the state. And certain politicians are using the state budget crisis as an excuse to try to increase that effect.

You don't help me pay for my gas, so why should I subsidize your ride to work? Quit mooching!

And I am sure every road you drive on is a toll road, right?

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Love2Golf09

And I pay for your roads and bridges in your part of town. We're even.

The large metros are paying for rural roads. That is the real game. None of us in the large metros are "even", but some people in the large metros are shooting themselves in the foot by being anti-transit, not realizing what the real game is.

I get zero benefit from PAT and I'm not supporting tax dollars going to bail them out for the 17th time.

First, it isn't a "bailout"--the state is trying to cut the funding it previously provided and promised to PAT.

Second, everyone in the Pittsburgh Metro benefits from PAT, where they personally ride it or not.

Wasn't the stimulus supposed to go to this stuff?

No, the stimulus had no money for transit operations.

[Love2Golf09]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

First, that isn't true (that we couldn't raise some additional revenues for the state). Second, cutting funding for PAT is penny-wise and pound-foolish, because PAT creates a lot more wealth than it consumes. So if you have to cut something because you irrationally refuse to consider increasing revenues, it shouldn't be PAT's funding.

What is really going on here is that state transportation policy is a machine that takes money from the large metros and hands it out to the rest of the state. And certain politicians are using the state budget crisis as an excuse to try to increase that effect.



And I am sure every road you drive on is a toll road, right?

Maybe I should have been more clear the first time. WE'RE BROKE! By law, Corbett has to balance the budget, that's nearly $4billion that we're over right now. Why should the state bail out PAT when our infrastructure could use some $$$ too? Our education system could also use some badly needed money. Our in-state tuition rate for college is insane. Our state and municipalities cannot afford the pension plan for their gov't workers. I could go on and on, but I think you get the point. We have a million problems right now and PAT is about 17th on the list of people with their hand out, wanting more money. There isn't enough cash to go around. I don't understand why people like you don't get that. If you think that we could bail out PAT and spend more on every social program and increase infrastructure without raising taxes, then I guess you should have ran for governor, huh? You claim that you'd cut something other than PAT. Well, what would that be? And please don't say Mike Turzai's paycheck. You're infatuated with that guy. I doubt you were complaining much about the past eight years when Fast Eddie was spending us into CH11, right? Now it's time to pay up. Put your partisan politics aside and look at the big picture for once. If you think fiscally everything is rosey, then Chris Matthews is clearly lying to you.