You think its bad for PAT now, it's about to get A LOT WORSE! (Harrisburg: reassessment, rated)

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by UKyank

They spend enough time issuing woe is me press releases that they could instead say we have a well laid out plan to fix our legacy cost problem here it is, harrusburg's action is needed, help us get their attention.

Ah, so what you originally said was in fact factually wrong, but now the alleged problem is that PAT hasn't come up with a specific legacy cost plan that it is lobbying for in Harrisburg. Which would be pointless, of course, since even if the state legislature wanted to address this issue, it wouldn't pass PAT's plan into law, it would do something entirely of its own devising.

Seriously, this doesn't even count as a rationalization. You just move the goalposts around with arbitrary requirements that are in no way connected to any realistic and achievable plan involving legacy costs, all to provide an excuse for destroying a vital transportation service.

That's really, really lame.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by robrobrob

I think the OP was pointing out that many if not all of the protests have focused more on the state funding cuts to PAT and not about the passing a bill to alter the legacy costs.

Which is an efficient use of their time, since the legislature has expressed an interest in passing a transportation funding bill, but exactly no interest in addressing PAT's legacy costs.

Let's face it most of the people supporting urban tranist aren't exactly jumping up and down to have retired union workers stripped of their retirement benefits. Maybe I am wrong but for the most part I think urban transit supporters are fairly sympathetic to union workers.

Actually, I think you ARE wrong. In fact we've seen that all over this thread: most of the "pro-transit" people posting here have been supportive of reforms to decrease PAT's legacy costs. Of course there are multiple ways to do that, but I think most current stakeholders in transit understand why in general such reforms would be to their benefit.

Instead, I think what you are expressing is actually a false view pushed by anti-transit people. They want the public to believe that those who care about transit services are really just standing up for unions, and to that end they deny any possibility that people who care about transit could understand they have conflicts of interest with the unions when it comes to legacy costs. But once you actually start talking to real transit advocates, it quickly becomes apparent that is a baseless smear.

[UKyank]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Ah, so what you originally said was in fact factually wrong, but now the alleged problem is that PAT hasn't come up with a specific legacy cost plan that it is lobbying for in Harrisburg. Which would be pointless, of course, since even if the state legislature wanted to address this issue, it wouldn't pass PAT's plan into law, it would do something entirely of its own devising.

Seriously, this doesn't even count as a rationalization. You just move the goalposts around with arbitrary requirements that are in no way connected to any realistic and achievable plan involving legacy costs, all to provide an excuse for destroying a vital transportation service.

That's really, really lame.

What they are doing now is clearly better & producing great results rather then actively fighting to fix their #1 problem or bring a plan to fix it front & center to the publics attention, silly me

[squarian]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Probably not, but they should still be cost-effective relative to the status quo. There is pretty good evidence to that effect from the existing such systems (Romneycare, and similar systems in Europe).

I agree either method would make an impact - and certainly be preferable to the status quo. The point, to my mind, is that PAT's legacy costs are the real problem, health costs in particular.

A large system of collective health insurance, however structured, which significantly reduced PAT's and other public employers' costs would also make it much more acceptable to create a pension sinking fund via legislation to pay the remaining legacy costs and remove them from PAT management's docket, which I believe is also a necessary step.

Honestly, although few people in the U.S. much like to admit this, even single-payer systems aren't all that efficient--they just look efficient relative to our total nightmare of a system. To really control costs, it looks like you need direct provision of core medical services (ala the UK).

This seems to imply there is an absolute standard of health-provision efficiency against which all advanced systems can be measured, but I can't imagine how that would be defined. Obviously absurd to suggest, but the maximum efficiency would be to simply euthanize retirees, Logan's Run style.

There is that, although I think there is a good chance that even if the mandate is struck down, the exchanges will survive.

We'll soon see. I'm utterly incapable of saying which outcome has a good chance or not - the curtain is too thick and too dark.

[gg]

Originally Posted by squarian

A real solution would be one which attacked the problem at its root by reining health care costs, which certainly must account for more than half of that 35% increase. A future state administration might, for example, create a single health insurance policy open to all state residents and require all state and local public authorities to subscribe.

Half of the 35% is healthcare? Is that on record? If so, that is pretty significant and could possibly be addressed somehow.

No one wants to lose ANY bus service. On the flip side, MOST people don't want to keep creating new taxes and keep increasing taxes to fund a potential defunct business. Cutting expenses is needed, but ideally not cutting service. Upping state funding over and over and creating new taxes or raising taxes should't be on the table. These are tough enough times and we just got hit huge with a massive county tax increase and my school tax millage goes up every single year and of course lets not forget these new assessments. People can only shell out more and more money to a breaking point. I think we have reached a breaking point. Therefore, finding ways to cut costs and keep as much service is probably the only real option. Tackling healthcare could provide some fruit. Maybe a huge consolidation and shop it around? Not sure how it is structured.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by UKyank

What they are doing now is clearly better & producing great results rather then actively fighting to fix their #1 problem or bring a plan to fix it front & center to the publics attention, silly me

Yes, you are being silly.

The fact is, nothing PAT does right now is going to "produce great results" with this state legislature when it comes to legacy costs. So that's a transparently nonsensical standard to judge them by.

In other words, your argument is:

(1) What they are doing now on legacy costs isn't producing great results in the state legislature;

(2) Therefore they are to blame for not doing something else [which also has no chance of producing great results in the state legislature];

(3) Therefore, public transit in Allegheny County should be destroyed.

And that's just silly.

[squarian]

Originally Posted by UKyank

They spend enough time issuing woe is me press releases that they could instead say we have a well laid out plan to fix our legacy cost problem here it is, harrusburg's action is needed, help us get their attention.

It would have been better tactics, I agree. A serious, well-constructed plan to restructure its legacy costs may never have stood a chance of passing in the Gen Ass (at the moment), but it would certainly look better and might have won PAT more sympathy than it has at the moment. And if it was a good plan, it might even come to fruition after an election or two.

[UKyank]

(1) correct, doing nothing rarely creates results
(2) in part yes, showing no initiative to lobby Harrisburg or public opinion on how to fix the mess you created that doesn't involve additional funding is lazy at best
(3)relying on a begging campaign year after year will eventually have this result if 1&2's mentality isn't changed.

[squarian]

Originally Posted by h_curtis

Half of the 35% is healthcare? Is that on record?

Only my guesstimate - I have other things to do this afternoon than the wonkery required to dig up the actual figures (though I'm sure somewhere in the 135 pages of this thread someone somehow has provided them anyway). Nonetheless, everything I read about legacy costs nationally suggests that health costs have consumed the lion's share, so I'll be surprised if PAT is any different.

[squarian]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Which is an efficient use of their time, since the legislature has expressed an interest in passing a transportation funding bill, but exactly no interest in addressing PAT's legacy costs.

A very tepid interest, in my view, and one not even guaranteed to focus on transit as opposed to rural roads-n-bridges. I can't see that PAT would stand to lose much by shifting focus to a legacy cost fix - though it would have been better to start the lobbying five years ago.