Port Authority warns of route and job cuts (Pittsburgh, Plum: universities, salaries)

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by PittGrad2009

All Pennsylvanians pay the same rate of state tax-- why are the big cities with big problems entitled to money from the smaller areas?

The state spends FAR more per capita on roads in rural areas than they do on public transit in urban areas. You have the direction of the net money flow the wrong way: it is going from people in the cities to people in the rural areas, not the other way around.

I'm not saying it should go the other way around

Yes, you are, even if you don't realize it. I'm dead serious: if the state cancelled all transportation spending and gave back the relevant taxes, the cities would come out WAY ahead, and the rural areas would be crushed.

I think we should try to subsidize PAT locally before we cry and run to the state

And I assume you would be fine with applying that to ALL transporation spending, right? Not another state dime for roads--that should all be funded locally, right?

If the city can't subsidize because it has no money, and the county can't subsidize because it has no money, and the state can't subsidize because it has no money, and the federal government can't subsidize because it has no money. . .where do you expect it to come from?

Right now we should borrow. Eventually we should increase taxes. "No money" for transportation funding is not a law of the universe, it is caused by a combination of economic mismanagement (or downright theft of public funds) and a refusal to have a rational tax policy.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by raubre

Is it possible that without the union, PAT service would be better? It seems to me that the union is behind most of these problems. Can they be ousted?

Labor costs are NOT behind most of PAT's problems, and again the union has recently been making big concessions. Don't fall for a self-serving myth--the people pointing a finger at the union want you not to notice how transportation funding is being allocated.

[bbrian12]

ok here is my 2cents. i have a problem with gov't bail outs. i dont drive a GM vehicle but i pay for it . i dont have AIG insurance but i pay for it, i dont use the bus but i pay for it, where is my gov't bailout for me?? oh yea i dont need a bail out cause i run my finances within my budget. my paycheck is the same every week, when the money is gone i dont get any more till next payday. so in other words if i dont have any food in my fridge and no money well then guess what... im gonna starve till payday

[bbrian12]

i remember my last job, i drove a box truck that is just as big as a bus and i got to unload it 1 box at a time for 8$ an hour. these lazy bus drivers get 50k+ a year to sit on there a$$es and complain how rough it is. i dont care if you got a ignorant rider and whatever else is wrong. you get paid plenty for it. guess what the cashier at wendys gets minimum wage and gets ignorant customers all day every day

[caroline2]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Labor costs are NOT behind most of PAT's problems, and again the union has recently been making big concessions. Don't fall for a self-serving myth--the people pointing a finger at the union want you not to notice how transportation funding is being allocated.

"Big concessions", such as an 11% raise over 4 years, during the worst recession in almost a century? "Big concessions", such as having to pay 2% of their income towards their very generous retirement package?

Your knee-jerk pro-unionism is making you blind to the fact that people can know the same facts as you yet come to different conclusions. You're welcome to know that $70 million of PAT's budget -- that's right, 22% -- goes to health care alone and still argue that "labor costs are not behind PAT's problems" (!). Other people disagree. Welcome to the world of personal utility functions.

[pman]

are salaries really the issue or is it benefits? SEPTA has struck several times so they won't have to pay for healthcare much less generous pensions. it's benefits and pensions, whose cost sometimes exceeds increases in salary, that are killing most of the state. yeah, it's nice they get "protection" from the union but the reality is, the taxpayer is being asked to foot the bill so public workers can get a better deal than the taxpayers themselves so it's a lot more complicated than your typical public sector worker will allow. public transit is a necessary good and needs to be addressed. if PAT needs to be reorganized so be it, but it shouldn't come at the cost of dismantling the system with no replacement. if you're going to dismantle it, then allow private companies to run service. it may be chaotic, but it works in buenos aires and worked in santiago until recently.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by caroline2

"Big concessions", such as an 11% raise over 4 years, during the worst recession in almost a century? "Big concessions", such as having to pay 2% of their income towards their very generous retirement package?

As the document above reflects, the renegotiations saved $23 million in retirement benefit costs for PAT starting in FY2010, increasing from there going forward. That is indeed a big concession.

Your knee-jerk pro-unionism . . .

Oh, please. Acknowledging that PAT has made significant progress on labor costs and that other factors are contributing much more to the current fiscal situation isn't being "knee-jerk pro-union."

In fact my point is that regardless of what you feel about the union, PAT's labor costs aren't an excuse for the state to short PAT on funding. But self-serving political forces are using "knee-jerk ANTI-unionism" to distract people from what is really going on.

You're welcome to know that $70 million of PAT's budget -- that's right, 22% -- goes to health care alone and still argue that "labor costs are not behind PAT's problems" (!).

There is no doubt PAT has a legacy cost problem, but again, they dramatically cut those costs going forward in recent renegotiations, and these service cuts and fare increases wouldn't have been necessary as a result. I think there is still room to have a healthy debate about what else PAT should be doing about its legacy costs, but it is a factual matter, not a matter of "personal utility functions," that these cuts would not be necessary if the state wasn't threatening to slash its contribution amount.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by bbrian12

i have a problem with gov't bail outs.

Seriously, this makes no sense--how can the government "bail out" a public agency? Is the state "bailing out" its freeways every time PennDOT sends out a road crew to do repairs?

[bbrian12]

pat spends all its money on pensions and tunnels so the state gives them more money, then the federal gives them more money. public or not they get too much free money and spend it foolishly at the cost of my tax dollars.

[BrianTH]

Well I pay state taxes too, and I would like for some of those tax dollars to be spent on PAT, not just on rural roads somewhere.

But maybe I am just not being smart about this--no more bailouts for PennDOT! Not another taxpayer dime for PennDOT until they have no union contracts!

Am I pushing the right buttons now?