You think its bad for PAT now, it's about to get A LOT WORSE! (Pittsburgh: hotel, tenants)

[pman]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Indeed.

It is very unfortunate some people have such a double-standard for public roads versus public transit. Not that people don't complain about all sorts of things involving public roads, and often with good cause, but you rarely see people saying it would be just fine if some of our major public roads simply shut down, or that they should all be sold to private operators for tolling, and so forth (a few people might argue that sort of stuff, but they are treated as fringe beliefs, and rightly so).

So we overwhelmingly understand that we need our public roads, and the fundamental issue is how to do better with them. The same basic sentiment should apply to public transit.

whats wrong with tolled roads? seems like a fairly hypocritical viewpoint to paint people with different ideas as nutjobs. does it really matter who owns roads so long as theyre paid for? asset sales where assets areunderpriced and sold to cronies are a problem but private construction of roads works in a lot of countries. its unpopular here largely because americans think they have a right to drive anywhere on any road without paying for it

[airwave09]

Originally Posted by pman

whats wrong with tolled roads? seems like a fairly hypocritical viewpoint to paint people with different ideas as nutjobs. does it really matter who owns roads so long as theyre paid for? asset sales where assets areunderpriced and sold to cronies are a problem but private construction of roads works in a lot of countries. its unpopular here largely because americans think they have a right to drive anywhere on any road without paying for it

Maybe tolling the interstates, but anything more than that would be a huge disaster of an inconvenience to people and you would see them up in arms over the prospect.

Actually, I'm surprised that PAT employees and riders haven't raised a huge stink about these cuts yet. That's the only way that you force elected officials to take a stance is through massive amounts of calling, emails, protests, ect.

[squarian]

Originally Posted by pman

whats wrong with tolled roads? seems like a fairly hypocritical viewpoint to paint people with different ideas as nutjobs.

The Benthamite orthodoxy hasn't quite stretched that far yet, that's what.

[squarian]

Originally Posted by airwave09

Maybe tolling the interstates, but anything more than that would be a huge disaster of an inconvenience to people and you would see them up in arms over the prospect.

What inconvenience? You drive on, say, Ohio Blvd or Penn Ave, a camera picks up your plate or a transponder registers your presence, your credit card is charged, and you get an email or text telling you about it - how is that inconvenient?

Actually, I'm surprised that PAT employees and riders haven't raised a huge stink about these cuts yet. That's the only way that you force elected officials to take a stance is through massive amounts of calling, emails, protests, ect.

You mean elected officials here will only respond to pressure from members of public employees unions? Probably right, there.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by pman

whats wrong with tolled roads?

There is something wrong with the idea that ALL roads should be funded with tolls, say starting with the end of your driveway. It would be horribly inefficient and likely would lead to systematic underinvestment in roads.

Of course very few people actually support such a notion, which is my point.

but private construction of roads works in a lot of countries.

I'm not aware of any developed country where ALL roads are privately funded and tolled. Some countries do it more than we do, which may well be a good idea, but that is not the same thing as them doing ALL roads that way.

Again, what I was hypothesizing is such an extreme view that I can understand why you wouldn't pick up on exactly what I wrote. And again, my point is that considerably more people actually do take such an extreme view when it comes to public transit, which is unfortunate.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by squarian

What inconvenience? You drive on, say, Ohio Blvd or Penn Ave, a camera picks up your plate or a transponder registers your presence, your credit card is charged, and you get an email or text telling you about it - how is that inconvenient?

A universal system like that might be more "convenient" than manned toll booths everywhere, but it would still be very expensive to implement. It would also amount to universal tracking of all personal vehicles, and would require every driver to have a registered financial account available for charging.

I think you can imagine the public outcry if that was seriously proposed. It is also a bad idea anyway--drivers are not the only beneficiaries of road use, just as riders are not the only beneficiaries of transit use.

[Goinback2011]

Whether or not the governor decides to dump more money into the PAT money pit this year, those legacy costs will continue to rise and continue to consume a larger percentage of the PAT budget that is not state funded.

Past PAT management and employees robbed the bus company via control fraud. The only way to sto the ongoing looting is to let the fares rise and routes sink to the point where the authority doesn't really function anymore. And no, the county won't be paying the legacy costs at that point, as BrianTH predicts. It's much more likely there will be legislative action for the bankruptcy and restructuring option. A new transit company can be created.

And lest I be accused of being part of the imaginary 'anti-transit' conspiracy, I ride the bus. I'll continue to do so until the fare rise or route cuts make it uneconomic or inconvenient to continue. Then I'll drive. And I'll continue to drive until bankruptcy and restructuring create a new transit company.

[Blackbeauty212]

Originally Posted by Goinback2011

Whether or not the governor decides to dump more money into the PAT money pit this year, those legacy costs will continue to rise and continue to consume a larger percentage of the PAT budget that is not state funded.

Past PAT management and employees robbed the bus company via control fraud. The only way to sto the ongoing looting is to let the fares rise and routes sink to the point where the authority doesn't really function anymore. And no, the county won't be paying the legacy costs at that point, as BrianTH predicts. It's much more likely there will be legislative action for the bankruptcy and restructuring option. A new transit company can be created.

And lest I be accused of being part of the imaginary 'anti-transit' conspiracy, I ride the bus. I'll continue to do so until the fare rise or route cuts make it uneconomic or inconvenient to continue. Then I'll drive. And I'll continue to drive until bankruptcy and restructuring create a new transit company.

Hope your employer doesnt up and move in the interim to a city that can afford to provide basic public transit to its employees.... At that point youll be ready to blame those same politicians you say should just let PAT fail for not doing something and why your now unemployed.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Goinback2011

And no, the county won't be paying the legacy costs at that point, as BrianTH predicts. It's much more likely there will be legislative action for the bankruptcy and restructuring option.

There is no particular reason to believe that is true. Agencies can live on past their original justification for existence being eliminated. See, e.g., the Pittsburgh Stadium Authority:

http://www.pgh-sea.com/StadiumAuthority.htm

And if there was political will to use state law to cut those legacy costs, why not now? Destroying public transit first only means there are fewer people with a powerful direct stake in seeing those legacy costs cut.

So, this argument is that we should destroy public transit in order to save it, on the strength of a political hypothesis which has no particular basis, and indeed is contrary to basic logic. Maybe this argument is nonetheless being offered honestly--stranger things have happened--but it is still clearly the exact sort of thing people who really just want to destroy transit would love for other people to think.

[eschaton]

Man, this thread is getting long.

It bears mentioning why public transit agencies were created to begin with. Essentially private mass transit was failing nationwide in the 1960s as suburbanization kicked into high gear. Many routes had ridership levels too low to feasibly be kept running by private companies on a profit. Without intervention, it's likely many cities would lose mass transit entirely, and in those which kept it, only a few highly-trafficked lines would have survived.

So throughout the country, the move was to create quasi-governmental regional transit agencies. This allowed the unprofitable lines to be subsidized by the profitable ones. But it was never done with the expectation that the transit agencies would turn a profit, or even break even on operations alone. There was an understanding that general public support was worthwhile, as even non-riders gained all sorts of benefits (less traffic, easier/cheaper parking, lower air pollution, etc).

That said, while state aid is essential, the state never should have directly funded PAT, as besides Allegheny and the adjoining counties, it's of no public interest to the state at large. Really, we need a regional transit agency which can plan - and tax - over all of Southwestern Pennsylvania.