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

[WhoIsStanwix?]

Originally Posted by stburr91

I don't see how our country can meet it's future transportation needs if we continue on our current path. One of the major problems, is the way transit agencies operate. If we continue to operate them the way we have for the last 50 years, there is no way we will ever meet our transit needs.

We need to look no further than right here at PAT to see the failure of mass transit. PAT is simply not capable of meeting our future transit needs, and soon, won't be able to meet the current needs.

We need to find a way to move more people, for less money than we are currently. We need to reform the mass transit agencies. Addressing legacy and current labor costs, minimum efficiencies standards, implementing new technology, data sharing, and sustainable funding strategies are all needed.

As long as we look at this as simply a funding issue, we will always have funding issues. Until we fix the cause of the problems with mass transit, we will never be able meet our future transit needs.

You did a great job at saying absolutely nothing. There definitely needs to be a re engineering of our mass transit systems, but you did absolutely nothing to identify what might be wrong or any potential solutions. The funding issue is being attacked directly because it's a concrete issue with possible concrete (if only temporary) solutions.

Carry on. Nothing to see here.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by stburr91

We need to find a way to move more people, for less money than we are currently. We need to reform the mass transit agencies. Addressing legacy and current labor costs, minimum efficiencies standards, implementing new technology, data sharing, and sustainable funding strategies are all needed.

I agree, but PAT's TDP was a good start on the efficiencies end. I think our next step should be fully funding its implementation (including Rapid Bus) while we plan for further changes.

And as we discussed above, the legacy costs problem can only be solved at the state level.

[I_Like_Spam]

PAT might consider splitting up, to get a handle on the costs.

There is a huge difference between the needs of commuting suburban passengers just looking to go to town or Oakland for their employment each day- and the all-day largely transit-dependent folks who ride the 54's, 64's, 82's and 88's all day long for not just work but also for trips for shopping, medical appointment, socializing, etc.


Its only the commuter lines that really require "swing shifts" for the drivers, and those routes can and should be run more like the school bus companies as the businesses are very similar.

The all-day and all-evening city routes are a different kind of thing altogether.

[BrianTH]

The TDP consultants went route by route and figured out an optimization strategy, including changing how they handled the longer commuter routes.

[stburr91]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I agree, but PAT's TDP was a good start on the efficiencies end. I think our next step should be fully funding its implementation (including Rapid Bus) while we plan for further changes.

And as we discussed above, the legacy costs problem can only be solved at the state level.

I think what I was suggesting is a federal mandate forcing states to fix the problems facing transit agencies all across the country. PAT isn't the only transit agency that has legacy and labor costs problems, and is lacking efficiencies. We see transit agencies making some improvements in efficiencies when they are forced to because of funding cuts, or budget shortfalls, now we need a way to force them to do better when/if we increase funding.

[squarian]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I think our next step should be fully funding its implementation (including Rapid Bus) while we plan for further changes.

The good ideas in the TDP should certainly be implemented if possible, but presumably by "we" you mean the PAT board and CEO (unless your real name is John A. Brooks or Guy Mattola, that is), since neither the public at large, local media opinion-makers, nor the political apparat have much say in PAT's operations. Voices may be raised in support, but to the extent that PAT's government is subject to public opinion at all, I suspect condemnation will vastly outweigh encouragement.

[squarian]

There definitely needs to be a re engineering of our mass transit systems, but you did absolutely nothing to identify what might be wrong or any potential solutions. The funding issue is being attacked directly because it's a concrete issue with possible concrete (if only temporary) solutions

PAT isn't the only transit agency that has legacy and labor costs problems, and is lacking efficiencies. We see transit agencies making some improvements in efficiencies when they are forced to because of funding cuts, or budget shortfalls, now we need a way to force them to do better when/if we increase funding.

Public services react slowly. This is as true of the services the pro-business Fox-watching laissez-faire neo-liberals like, such as the law courts and the military, as it is of the ones they don't, such as social services and transit. By all means, kick against it - propose the euthanization of all retired public employees, be they master sergeants, school teachers, or bus drivers, and get your congressman to commit on the question.

[BrianTH]

I'd rather see funding and control devolved to MPOs rather than the Feds continuing to work through states.

The TDP wasn't really a reaction to any particular funding crisis. The Pennsylvania Transportation Funding and Reform Commission in 2005-06 had done an audit of PAT and recommended that it improve its operating efficiency. Steve Bland was hired as CEO in 2006, and he more or less immediately started working on the Connect '09 initiative, which would be their first systemwide redesign since PAT was founded. The TDP was a key part of that initiative, and Bland hired well-respected outside consultants to carry it out the studies and work up the plan.

I have to say it is pretty frustrating to me that this history is not better known. Of course there is always more that can be done, but a lot of what people say PAT needs to do it was already in the process of doing.

[stburr91]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

...a lot of what people say PAT needs to do it was already in the process of doing.

I think that illustrates my point about the need for mass transit reform. The improvements in PAT's operating efficiency, and lower labor cost should have been here all along, not implemented only when the budget forced them.

We're either going to demand something be done to fix PAT's problems, or we're going to have continued funding problems indefinitely. We let this go on way too long, and now it looks like the state may be willing to let PAT crash and burn, rather than give it more funding.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by squarian

The good ideas in the TDP should certainly be implemented if possible, but presumably by "we" you mean the PAT board and CEO (unless your real name is John A. Brooks or Guy Mattola, that is), since neither the public at large, local media opinion-makers, nor the political apparat have much say in PAT's operations.

I more meant the many stakeholders in PAT should be supporting providing the funding to carry out the TDP. As far as I know PAT's board and management remain committed to carrying out the TDP to the extent their funding allows.