BIKEPGH MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVE

« Back to Archive
108

Port Authority pitches 'drastic' cuts in jobs, routes

This is in the Trib today...


PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

Last updated: 9:51 am


Port Authority today announced a plan that would cut service by 35 percent, eliminate about 50 routes and lay off 500 employees in an effort to plug a $47.1 million budget deficit.


"(The cuts) are pretty straightforward, but they're very drastic," said Ritchie, calling the cuts the deepest in the authority's 46-year history.


The plan, scheduled to be discussed at a committee meeting this morning and expected to pass, will go before the authority's board on Friday, Port Authority spokesman Jim Ritchie said.


About 90 communities — from city neighborhoods to suburbs — will be affected by the cuts, Ritchie said. Fifty would lose transit service entirely, and another 40 would face a "severe reduction" in service, he said.


In the city, Banksville and Spring Garden would lose service. Some routes in Marshall-Shadeland and Squirrel Hill also would be cut. The plan calls for eliminating service to Forbes Regional Hospital in Monroeville and to Robinson Towne Center and Settler's Ridge in Robinson, among other locations.


Arlington, Downtown, Oakland, Greenfield, Highland Park, the Hill District, Homewood, Lawrenceville, Lincoln Place, Mt. Washington, Shadyside and Westwood would face significant service loss.


Greg Sylvis, 37, of Bethel Park wasn't pleased to hear about the proposed cuts.


"There's a lot of people who are disabled, a lot of people who rely on the bus," Sylvis said.


Most fares would increase by a quarter — bus rides would range from $2.25 to $3 — but a new "premium" fare of $4 would be introduced for riders on suburban express bus routes and the T, Ritchie said.


Port Authority hoped to plug its budget deficit with money generated by a toll on I-80, but the federal government rejected that proposal, Ritchie said.


"Today is the day when that I-80 decision really hits home," he said. "That is what caused the issues we're facing."


Public comment on the proposal goes from tomorrow until Aug. 31. Port Authority will hold an all-day public hearing at the David L. Lawrence Convention Center on Aug. 19, Ritchie said.


The plan could change after the public-comment period, Ritchie said. The authority's board will vote in September for final approval.


The service changes would go into effect Jan. 9, and the fare increases would start Jan. 1, he said.


greasefoot
2010-07-21 15:09:56

Ha. ha. April 1st was almost 4 months ago.


They haven't even finished implementing the last set of cuts yet. The next round for those are in early September.


dwillen
2010-07-21 15:16:21

Get ready for overflowing parking lots and even more traffic if we don't find funding.


rsprake
2010-07-21 15:17:29

Doom. DOOM!


This is Public Relations 101 in the never-ending war between PAT and the state. Note the language: "severe," "drastic."


It's the end-times, people. Gramma can't get to her knitting club! Ahhhh!


PAT rolls this same story out every time they need to press the state to renew funding. So they scare the pants off everybody until the state relents - usually at the last minute, then everybody has a kissy-huggy photo-op with lots of back slapping about how they "saved public transit" and everybody looks like a hero.


(I respect many, many people rely on public transit to get to work, shopping, doctors - life. I get that. And I don't intend to demean that. I just find the dance between PAT and the state so predictable.)


atleastmykidsloveme
2010-07-21 15:24:36

ALMKLM - I totally agree. Until I figure out my bike commute, I ride the bus daily between my neighborhood and downtown, so this affects me quite a bit.


We got through this on a monthly basis. Remember last month, the headline was "$7 bus fare for suburban routes!"


Unfortunately for everyone, it works every time - which just leads to more bad PR behavior. Multiple of my coworkers have already contacted their state legislators to press them for more transit funding.


pinky
2010-07-21 16:21:15

I've never seen PAT's rhetoric to be so intense. But then, I probably haven't paid enough attention.


If indeed, there are drastic transit cuts? It will be both good news and bad news.


Bad news, for people who depend on PAT for their transportation - or even part of their transportation. Bad news for people who support non-car-oriented transportation.


Good new? How can it be good news?


It could mean an increase in bike use. Some people will be faced with either biking or buying a car - and some of those people can't afford cars.


Rush hour traffic will get worse. Some commuters who previously faced either a half-hour drive versus 45 minutes of riding will now face 40 minutes of driving versus 45 minutes of riding.


I find it appalling that drastic cuts are being considered (Better to drill for more oil? Declare war on antoher middle eastern country?), but I also look forward to having the opportunity to ride on the jail trail and ring my bell for people sitting still on the Parkway.


mick
2010-07-21 16:21:50

No, it's real. I've been in this battle every one of the past 18 years. This almost happened in March 2005, but Rendell pulled out a political hat-rabbit which fended off the wolves until 6/30/05.


The past two years' transit has not been paid for; it's all been bond money from Act 44 in expectation of I-80 tolling.


I could and should write a book about this.


Now you know where I am in this: Make it possible to get absolutely anywhere, absolutely all the time, without use of a car OR the bus, and still live and work in the suburbs.


stuinmccandless
2010-07-21 16:23:06

Stu - you know a lot about transit. Whatever happened to the funds from the drink tax?


pinky
2010-07-21 16:26:26

I am with Stu on this. I think the era of magical last minute reprieves might be behind us. The State no longer has that same magic hat it had in 2005.


swalfoort
2010-07-21 16:27:46

Given how many times PAT has threatened "drastic cuts" and "significant fare hikes" in the past, I pretty much can't bring myself to take this seriously.


They're spending millions on building an unpopular tunnel that as likely as not will be underutilized.


On the bright side, if they do implement these drastic cuts, that should make it less likely that I get run off the road by some jerk PAT bus driver.


jz
2010-07-21 16:30:40

That's not stopping PAT from making an emotional PR play. In the absence of a real substantive PLAN to make fundamental changes to how they operate, this is just a tired PR move.


Threatening punitive rates/cuts doesn't get to the root of the matter (which Stu can describe far better than me). Maybe PAT doesn't get that this is real, maybe PAT does think Rendell has a few hundred million (or whatever the shortfall is) in his pocket.


Either way, PAT is behaving as though the only solution is raising rates/cutting routes.


atleastmykidsloveme
2010-07-21 16:31:53

They just spent buckets of money hiring consultants, holding meetings, and designing a streamlined system with route cuts, which they still have not fully implemented. I assume this new plan was designed to save money. Now they say they are cutting those newly-streamlined routes, which their highly-paid consultants told them would be more profitable? I don't get it.


dwillen
2010-07-21 16:34:54

If these cuts happen I am pretty sure that everyone who does NOT rely on transit will realize just how important those smelly buses are to our region. Bates Street already backs up into the heart of Oakland at rush hour from Parkway traffic... Have fun on your longer car rides in and around the city, folks!


Seriously though, it does sound like typical PAT song and dance, but it admittedly sounds more dire and serious. My best hope for a worst-case scenario is that they implement the cuts and that over time they ramp up service again slowly. Unless there is a magical Harrisburg "hat trick", I think that's the best we in the region can hope for.


This thing is starting to look more disasterous by the day...


impala26
2010-07-21 16:40:04

The poured drink and car rental taxes provide the local match that is required in order for the state to provide the funds it promised.


The problem at hand is that there is a half-billion hole in the state's end of the deal.


stuinmccandless
2010-07-21 16:46:55

Act 44 also required PAT (and SEPTA and every other transit company in the state) update its service. Hence the two-year process to redesign the system. They are not route cuts: Though lots of routes go away, they are replaced by similar, more cost-effective service, exactly what the anti-transit outcry demanded.


There is no profit in public transit. Profitability ended in the 1930s and 1940s. But some in-city routes do actually bring in more than they cost per passenger. My guess is that those are the only ones that will be left.


The tunnel has nothing to do with this. That's capital money; this is operating money. Whether they will have any operating money to run trains under the river come 2012, that's another question. But the tunnel is off-topic.


Next question?


stuinmccandless
2010-07-21 16:55:28

Stu, is there any real short term hope that the situation can be rectified? Or at least, mitigated to an acceptable level, i.e. keep most city routes intact and scrap all suburban routes save for the express peak-hour ones and making a more "true value" fare system reflecting on the significant higher cost for suburban routes?


impala26
2010-07-21 17:04:57

I'm sorry, Stu. I have a lot of respect for your opinions, but to me, "The tunnel is capital money" is a tired old wheeze. It's a shell game. Transit is (and IMO should be) largely subsidized by taxes. (I am not one of the people arguing that a transit system should subsist entirely on fares.) There's a lot of rhetoric surrounding whether taxes come from gasoline taxes, tools, pour taxes, income taxes, tolls, etc. At the 50000-foot level, those things all end up coming out of all of our pockets, either directly or indirectly.


So, while I'm okay with dipping into my pocket to subsidize transit, I want a transit system that is run both efficiently and effectively. When considering whether money is being well-spent, ignoring capital costs to focus exclusively on operating costs is very short-sighted (as is the reverse).


jz
2010-07-21 17:06:02

Yes, PAT's annual charade is rather tiresome.


But why are you wasting energy being annoyed with PAT? The actual problem is broken transportation policy at the state level that denies public transit steady predictable funding.


ahlir
2010-07-21 17:23:56

+1 Ahlir


@impala26: That's what the proposed cuts and fare hikes are.


@JZ: To a large extent you are right; it's all tax money one way or another. But there are two different pots, and the ops side has the biggest problem. Cap side, we have other issues, but they're not as critical.


What makes this complicated are the various laws and constitutional clauses that direct where the money can come from and where it can be spent.


What makes this necessary is that the household budget was planning on a $33K income and now has to do it on $28K. Many fixed costs. It's find the money or do without, and the money isn't there. Only add four zeroes to the end of each number.


stuinmccandless
2010-07-21 17:26:04

How many transit riders are there ? PATs anual budget is $330 million right. So say there's one hundred thousand riders ( people that use it every day). You could give each person $3,300, right?


boazo
2010-07-21 17:33:02

I agree completely that blaming PAT and only PAT for the current funding problems is unreasonable. There's no one person or organization at fault here; it's taken a lot of collective stupidity over many years.


I guess what I'm saying can be reduced to two bullets.


1- PAT threatening drastic cuts and fare hikes unless "something is done" is nothing new. We've been this route many times before, and the world didn't end, and public transit didn't cease to exist. It's totally legit to point out that those threats were not completely empty; in the past, things *were* done. The problem is that PAT employs the hysterical "the world is ending" tone so frequently that it does not produce a sense of urgency. I would not be surprised to learn that many other people are largely ignoring this issue for precisely this reason - they're relatively convinced that the problem will solve itself.


2- "It's find the money or do without, and the money isn't there." I agree completely, but this is where I hate overcompartmentalizing budgets. Looking at a thousand micropictures will show a lot of dirt, but it doesn't produce a good landscape view. The tunnel personally chafes me because I think it offers a poor RoI as compared to other possible expenses. A poor analogy, but the best I can do off the top of my head at the moment, is that this is like switching from a dinner of steak, potato, spinach, and a $100 bottle of wine to a hamburger, fries, and a $100 bottle of wine. I understand that there are laws that restrict how money can be spent, but the same legislature that enacts the state budget is capable of changing state law. (And yes, I totally feel that our legislature itself is a fantastic example of inefficient and unnecessary expenses.)


jz
2010-07-21 17:45:16

If PAT could eliminate $20k of salary, benefits and other labor costs from each employee, then the problem is solved - for this year!


I don't know why this hasn't be implemented, yet?


As far as the expected increases in traffic, let's just whistle past the graveyard on our bikes.


/end sarcasm.


sloaps
2010-07-21 18:00:50

I would not be surprised to learn that many other people are largely ignoring this issue for precisely this reason - they're relatively convinced that the problem will solve itself.


I bet they are the same people who largely ignore every problem and only vote in the presidential election every four years.


rsprake
2010-07-21 18:35:06

The Union would strike...I recall reading that a handful of bus drivers still make over $100k and one driver made $120k last year. The driver average salary is around $80k…Does anyone have the phone number for Truck Masters? I want to pick up my CDL.


greasefoot
2010-07-21 18:35:41

It's a pretty good gig if you can get it. Stressful, but my job is stressful to and I don't have a pension or health care when I retire.


But when you're looking at a $50 million short fall in funding, cutting salaries won't even make a dent.


rsprake
2010-07-21 18:44:40

recall reading that a handful of bus drivers still make over $100k and one driver made $120k last year. The driver average salary is around $80k…


One consequence of this that I don't see discussed - the salaries put the bus drivers in a different economic class than the people who ride buses. Another is that there are bus drivers that hate their job - but could never find another job that pays nearly as well.


mick
2010-07-21 19:02:27

*sigh* That argument again.


Here's what my friend Mike Sypolt (you may have met him at the map unveiling party back in April) said:


"The problem is that the media take the example of a few hard working drivers that make the 80-130k per year. If at top wage, I punched in and out for 40 hours per week at top rate for the entire year, not coming in for any off days, I would make approximately $52,000 per year. But if I worked 80 hours per week for AN ENTIRE YEAR, I would make $130,000 per year as a bus driver. I don’t care how you spin that, 130k is very fair wage for working 11 hours on average EVERY DAY including all Holidays. I seriously doubt that you and I would have what it takes to drive a bus for 11 hours per day for an entire year with no holidays, vacations, or any other such break. Even working 12-16 hours per day with a few vacations and holidays spaced throughout the year would be extremely difficult.


The media would not talk about that. This information does not support their case, so they omit it."


stuinmccandless
2010-07-21 19:50:59

i hate to say it, but


1) biking is not a viable option for every pittsburgher nor should it have to be.


and

2) Bikers also like taking public transit so they can put their feet up, read books, drink coffee and listen to tunes on the way to Ikea, whilst avoiding rain and snow.


Also, I can't think of a great city without proper public transit, so if Pennsylvania wants Pittsburgh to remain in the lurch it can continue to neglecting its transportation infrastructure.


thelivingted
2010-07-22 12:45:29

Stu,


It’s my understanding that the drivers are reaching these wages via overtime but they are not working 80 hours a week as you described. The CDL rules state a driver may not drive more than 70 hours within any period of 8 consecutive days. So an 80 hour work week as you discribed is against the law and not to mention unsafe.


A driver receives overtime if they are called in on a scheduled day off. They also are allotted a large number of paid sick days each year. A group of individuals at Pat have discovered how to manipulate this by taking turns calling in sick so another drivers can be called in for overtime. This has been going on for years and when the Union negotiated the new contact in 2008 they promised they would address this issue but apparently they have not...


greasefoot
2010-07-22 14:35:20

+1 TheLivingTed. Or maybe +3 since I agree mightily with everything he said.


The irony is that transit can only gain market share by _expanding_ service and _reducing_ fares. I can't see why I'd ever want to take a bus when it costs less to drive my car, even with parking. (Though bike is my go-to option for trips downtown, at least in summer.)


I also have heard that costs, especially labor expenses (some related to dodgy behavior and some justifiable), are probably the root of the problem. One of the arguments I remember hearing about a year ago had to do with the union refusing to negotiate on employee contributions for health care. Every non-union employee in Allegheny County is paying a share for her own health insurance, but it's off the table for these folks?


I almost wish this system would hurry up and fail so we can replace it with something that works.


P.S. If bus drivers are really working 11-hour shifts that could explain some of those bus vs cyclist road rage incidents! ;-) But wouldn't it make way more business sense to hire more junior drivers (with lower pay and no "grandfathered" benefits) to fill in the uncovered shifts? This isn't rocket science.


erink
2010-07-22 18:42:00

The Federal government has strict safety regulations for the transportation industry. It does not matter if it’s a bus driver, airline pilot, railroad engineer, or tugboat operator they are not permitted to be behind the wheel for more then 11 hours of operation and are not permitted to exceed 70 hours in an 8-day cycle. If the port authority were violating these rules the media would be reporting how unsafe the buses are…


greasefoot
2010-07-22 18:54:29

Ted is right on all counts. I might want everyone to ride a bike, but for a variety of reasons, that's not a realistic option for everyone, for every purpose.


I'm not sure if he would agree with this, but I'd say by definition a "great city" has a good transit system.


I rode the bus everywhere when I was in high school, and loved it. I have been much less of a transit user in the past year, riding my bike instead. But when I broke a spoke late last night and didn't have a chance to get it fixed before the morning, for instance, I was very glad to have the bus as a backup option today.


I lived in Chapel Hill, NC, for a few years, and their transit system was "free"--well, not free, but fares were 100 percent subsidized by the local government. Most transit systems recover such a small proportion of their expenses from fares that they decided to completely eliminate a minimal fare of a buck or two as a barrier to ridership.


I can't see why I'd ever want to take a bus when it costs less to drive my car, even with parking.


If you calculate driving at 50-55 cents per mile, as AAA and the IRS estimate, it usually doesn't cost less to drive. Only for trips under four miles each way... in which case it makes more sense to bike, right? Especially when you figure in paying directly for parking... as opposed to "free" parking, where you pay indirectly, in the form of higher costs for everything else.


ieverhart
2010-07-22 19:01:24

Ian,


I also lived in Chapel Hill a little while. This recent news has made me miss those free Tarheel blue buses (which I admittedly didn't take full advantage of living just outside of their operating area)


noah-mustion
2010-07-22 19:03:13

You all hit the magic button: Government subsidy.


Most of the funding for public transit in PA comes from Harrisburg. Most of the population of PA is in Philly and Pgh. Most of the representation in Harrisburg is from OUTSIDE OF Philly and Pgh, and therein lies the problem. The reps and senators from rural areas do not want to subsidize public transit.


stuinmccandless
2010-07-22 19:54:19

Cityfolk ought to advocate for proportional representation!


scott
2010-07-22 20:07:33

Ian


Actually wasn't the CHT funded by UNC tuition fees? I was always under that impression when I lived there. Guess I didn't look deep enough.


noah-mustion
2010-07-22 20:11:58

@Scott - Rhetorical question/Devil's Advocate: why should McKean County tax receipts pay for PAT or SEPTA?


atleastmykidsloveme
2010-07-22 20:50:26

Well, let me take that devil's advocate position further. McKean County has virtually no public transit, though theoretically ATA Trans covers a bit of that area. Bradford is a pretty big town, and there are enough little walkable communities between there and county seat Smethport that some sort of transit might be justfiable. Ages ago, there was passenger service up this way, including -- believe it or not -- a steam-powered monorail service [link].


Enter the concept of the Vehicle Miles Traveled tax. Put enough cars in an area, and enough car traffic, and you begin to be able to fund a transit system in that area.


So, right now, those legislators are stuck in a Yeah Why Should I Pay For Pittsburgh Buses way of thinking, and they have a point. But they need to get out of "OldThink", get together with their city brethren, and do what they're elected to do, lead their way out of this mess.


Again, it ain't just transit, and it ain't just cities.


stuinmccandless
2010-07-22 21:12:26

@ ALMKLM: why should McKean County tax receipts pay for PAT or SEPTA?


For one thing, because the residents there go to the tax-free universities here, visit the tax-free museums, and come to the tax-free hospitals here.


For another, they will be really hosed when the price of gas finally goes out of control (and I don't mean $8 a gallon). Residents of that county would rationally want to put off that time as long as possible.


With a statewide tax, the amount paid in by the 45K residents of McKean County that will go to the big cities is minimal.


mick
2010-07-22 21:34:28

To futher the devil's advocatcy, why should my taxes go towards schools when I don't have kids? Yes there is increasing state and federal monies being spent on local schools, why not for transit? School bus / Work bus :-)


marko82
2010-07-22 21:36:40

The Devil's Advocate is a rhetorical tool.


It's not MY position. Just seemed like an obvious follow-up to draw more detail out of the dialogue.


atleastmykidsloveme
2010-07-22 21:55:43

This is NOT my position...unfortunately these are the sentiments of State Sen. Kim Ward...I don't endorse her statements...I know we need funding for transit but I don't think the lame duck governor has the support to pass any type of tax or fee increase...


Sen. Kim Ward of Hempfield issued a statement criticizing elements in Mr. Rendell's backup plan for transportation funding, such as higher fees for drivers' licenses and vehicle registration and a 3.25-cent-per-gallon increase in the state's 31-cent-a-gallon gasoline tax.


She said that the governor wants to pass "the burdensome costs of the mass transit systems in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia to those hard-working men and women in rural Pennsylvania who have no other means of transportation except for their automobile."


Ms. Ward also called for a change in the state's Redevelopment Assistance Capital Program, so that highway and bridge projects could be funded by the bonds -- which can't happen now.


As part of the recently enacted 2010-11 state budget, borrowing of up to $600 million was authorized for new RACP projects. These included Mr. Rendell's call to spend $10 million for a new building to house the papers of deceased Johnstown Congressman John Murtha and another $10 million for a library for U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter in Philadelphia.


Ms. Ward said that "instead of reaching into taxpayers' pockets" for transportation funding, Mr. Rendell "should reach into his own and [change] the permitted uses of the RACP for public transportation infrastructure projects. RACP dollars would be better served as reinvestment in aging roads instead of a library named after Sen. Specter," 


greasefoot
2010-07-23 00:42:23

Burdensome costs... give me a break. Like increasing the measly $36 registration fee is going to break the bank.


rsprake
2010-07-23 01:01:36

Why should my taxes pay for state road maintenance in McKean County? I certainly never use those roads.


ahlir
2010-07-23 01:11:04

Ahlir hinted at what I was going to say - people in rural areas require a lot more money per capita to build roads out to them in their remote areas, and the roads are there primarily so the country folk can get their goods or whatever it is they make out there back into the cities so the city folks can buy it. Country folks could never afford to build the roads that serve them. That's ok, city folks just want their share in the form of public transit.


edmonds59
2010-07-23 01:35:36

Ward's position is untenable anyway. What she claims about transit systems being bloated and inefficient --

If these authorities were businesses, they would have to find ways to cut or to work more efficiently...

-- might have had some relevancy a couple of years ago. But Act 44 required transit agencies to work more efficiently, hence all these TDP changes.


What do Ward and her ilk want to have happen that the TDP is not causing to happen? The whole point of TDP was to address these concerns.


stuinmccandless
2010-07-23 14:22:11

Stu, is there any hope of salvation, even in the short-term? Or is all aboard the doom train for Pittsburgh?


I'm going to be really depressed if this is indeed permanent.


impala26
2010-07-23 20:06:22

Ward, Hempfield. Hey, isn't Hempfield using state police (paid out of taxes collected in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia) for local law enforcement because they don't want to pay for it themselves?


jz
2010-07-23 21:20:32

"If these authorities were businesses, they would have to find ways to cut or to work more efficiently..."


Oh, you mean like farm subsidies?


Farm subsidies in PA: "Ten percent collected 59 percent of all subsidies.

Amounting to $868 million over 15 years.

Top 10%: $13,781 average per year between 1995 and 2009.

Bottom 80%: $679 average per year between 1995 and 2009."

From the national farm subsidy database.


edmonds59
2010-07-23 21:29:23

+1!!! JZ


Someone should remind her of that fact!


greasefoot
2010-07-23 21:31:44

The salvation lies in getting 100+ Republicans in Harrisburg who think like she does to change their minds. Or at least enough that a pro-transit majority can get something passed.


JZ, you're on to something. I still own a house and land in Hempfield (that I lived in from 1984-1992), so I'm definitely sending her a letter, as well as to my own GOP rep and senator (Turzai, Orie).


stuinmccandless
2010-07-24 12:13:55

It's really too bad PAT is cutting transit routes,but maybe something positive will result in the fact that more people will be getting around by walking or cycling, and also the need for having more sharrows and bike trails in our areas.I know a couple others who now bike everywhere due to the last PAT transit strike.If we can build safer roads and more trails,we will have a healthier society.I just got a job in Oakland, and now walk or bike to work.I live 3 miles away and presently will never consider taking PAT transit.I hope this strike has this same kind of thinking for others also.


lenny
2010-07-24 12:47:42

Unfortunately, Lenny, the opposite is likely to happen, that making these cuts is going to put even more cars on the road, making it harder for bikes and pedestrians to get around.


Bikes work pretty well for sub-3-mile trips like yours, but there are a lot of people who live 5 to 15 miles out whose service will be cut altogether, and they aren't going to walk or use bicycles, even in good weather.


And in general transportation cost cutting, trails and bike infrastructure is the first thing cut and last thing reinstated.


stuinmccandless
2010-07-24 13:40:59

My letter to legislators is here.


stuinmccandless
2010-07-24 14:13:59

Here here Stu.


As for highways and bridges, when the 1945 amendment was passed, the reasoning was that their upkeep would be funded through fuel taxes. So, if it is not collecting enough to keep the roads and bridges fixed, either raise the tax, or require PennDOT to economize and streamline like transit is doing


Well said.


rsprake
2010-07-24 15:24:45

There is nothing positive that will occur if transit service gets cut.


salty
2010-07-24 17:10:23

From twitter:


PGHtransit: Port Authority vote on proposed service cuts postponed til Nov to give legislators more time to solve transportation funding crisis.


PGHtransit: This means that if no solution is found, earliest service cuts could go into effect would be March 13, not January 9. (4 minutes ago from web)


dwillen
2010-09-24 16:38:15

Special Session House Bill #8 is currently being pushed by Rep. Evans. It's the only bill in Harrisburg that is providing additional funding for mass transit.


However, the formula that was used for mass transit funding will only provide an additional $50million for operating expenses, yet $500million for capital expenses.


sloaps
2010-09-24 16:53:01

PAT has a $47M hole; $27M of that is directly from the I-80 fiasco. $50M statewide for operating expenses, by the formulas I am aware of, would be roughly $10-15M for PAT.


stuinmccandless
2010-09-24 16:58:34

Is there any money to be made in auctioning off the old equipment, even just for scrap or something?

I realize money for new buses is money in a bucket that cannot be used directly, but there has to be a round-about way to at least glean a bit.


wojty
2010-10-04 19:41:33

Yes, they routinely auction off old buses. Scrap value is usually about $3K/bus. That amount of money would keep one remaining PAT bus running for about a day or so.


The buses to be replaced are the 14-year-old 2600/2700-series Novabuses, and maybe some of the earliest 5000-series low-floors. The lifespan of a bus is 12 years, and the 5000s were new in 1999.


I just hope they can recover the bike racks on the scrapped buses and install them on the much newer 5400s, which will be around for many years to come.


stuinmccandless
2010-10-04 20:12:57

Temporary fix for the cuts...


Rendell says he has found money to avert transit cuts


Thursday, December 02, 2010

By Jon Schmitz, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Gov. Ed Rendell today announced he has found $45 million to enable the Port Authority to avert record-breaking service cuts.


The governor met privately with members of the Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission this morning to ask them to approve reprogramming the money.


After the meeting, Mr. Rendell said the money is coming from an economic development fund that receives $25 million a year in federal grants.


Three projects for which the money had been allocated did not move forward, he said.


"We're not asking for dollars to be taken from highways to be paid into mass transit," Mr. Rendell said. SPC members in July had approved a nonbinding resolution opposing a shift of highway money to transit.


Port Authority has authorized a 35 percent service reduction on March 13, eliminating 47 routes, scaling back others and laying off more than 400 employees because of a funding deficit, mostly because of a state funding shortfall.


A planned fare increase for January is still likely.


"Obviously this is a one-year fix," Mr. Rendell said. "It will give the Legislature and the new governor time" to address the statewide transportation funding crisis.


Port Authority CEO Steve Bland said if the SPC approves the funding it would enable the agency to continue operating its current service.


He said it did not appear to change plans for a January fare increase, but he would let the authority board address it.


quizbot
2010-12-02 15:45:14

Haha. "Oh wow, THERE is my $45,000,000.00."


dwillen
2010-12-02 15:48:24

Amazing what you find under the couch cushions, innit?


reddan
2010-12-02 15:51:13

"We're not asking for dollars to be taken from highways to be paid into mass transit," Mr. Rendell said.


But, but... but that would be nice.


Yesterday I had the opportunity to watch 279N back up solid almost the entire way to 79 from the city. There were cops in the HOV lane pulling over scofflaws, but the HOV lane was mostly empty.


Thing is, 13K goes from up there, where almost all those drivers came from, to the city. So if there are enough drivers to stop traffic for ~20 miles of highway, why aren't there enough riders to fill busses to keep them running? Just confusing. But I'm not that bright.


ejwme
2010-12-02 15:52:53

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10336/1107573-53.stm


some gems in another article:


Mr. Corbett on Tuesday appointed a 27-member transportation committee as part of his transition team. No one from Port Authority was named, and only one committee member, Pasquale T. Deon Sr., chairman of Philadelphia's SEPTA board, is from a public transit agency.


and


Mr. Rendell on previous occasions has gotten approval from the Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission to redirect federal highway money to the transit agency to avoid big service cuts, an action called "flexing."


When the governor suggested that as a possible option this summer, the SPC board overwhelmingly approved a nonbinding resolution opposing it.


erok
2010-12-02 16:24:17

and how many people on his transportation team are walking or cycling advocates?


and how many have ties to the trucking, shipping, or motor vehicle industries?


found this posted on a rail blog:


TRANSPORTATION/INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE


Co-Chair – Vahan Gureghian, CEO of Charter School Management, Inc.

Co-Chair – Brad Mallory, CEO of Michael Baker Corporation

Co-Chair – Pete Tartline


Tony Bartolomeo, President & CEO of Pennoni Associates

Brenda Bratina, Director of Toll Revenue Audit, Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission;

Tom Caramanico, President of McCormick Taylor, Inc.

Randy Cheetham, Regional VP of CSX

Mark Compton, Director of Government Affairs, American Infrastructure

Charles Courtney, McNees, Wallace & Nurick

Walter D’Alessio, Northmarq Capital

Pasquale T. Deon,Sr., Chairman of SEPTA, Turnpike Commissioner

Paul Detwiler, New Enterprise Stone& Lime

Douglas Dick; John Durbin, President, Durbin Associates

Tom Ellis, Special Counsel, Duane Morris

Liz Ferry, Manager, Policy Development, Select Greater Philadelphia

Mike Fesen, Resident VP Public Affairs, Norfolk Southern Corporation

Annette Ganassi, VP of Walmar Enterprises

Steve Haddad, President & CEO of Bieber Transportation Group

Kevin Johnson, President of Traffic Planning and Design

Bob Kinsley, President of Kinsley Construction

Ted Leonard, Executive Director of Pennsylvania AAA

Ross Myers, President of American Infrastructure

Jim Roddey, Principal, McCrory & McDowell, LLC

Bob Shuster

Mark Stine, VP of Legislative Affairs,PA Automotive Association

Jeff Zell, CEO of Jeff Zell Consultants


ejwme
2010-12-02 16:39:11

Thing is, 13K goes from up there, where almost all those drivers came from, to the city. So if there are enough drivers to stop traffic for ~20 miles of highway, why aren't there enough riders to fill busses to keep them running?


Having more passengers on these long-distance routes doesn't actually help keep them running. This is because the fare on most routes doesn't cover the cost of running the service.


According to PAT's 2009 TPD study, average loads on the 13K were already close to each bus's seated capacity. And each trip cost $5.53 per passenger (largely due to the long distance of the route). Fares probably paid for less than half the cost of the trip, with the rest coming mostly from tax revenue. (With some shorter routes, fares cover PAT's costs and it makes money on them, but not the 13K or most other suburban routes.)


If more people took the 13K, PAT would have to deploy more buses, so the $5.53 figure wouldn't change very much. The more passengers, the more tax revenue it would require.


The idea is that spending this tax money is a reasonable way to combat congestion (and to a lesser extent, pollution). Transit subsidies produce shorter commute times for everyone.


steven
2010-12-02 18:56:54

But if more people from the suburbs had to rely on public transportation, they would have to interact with other people with different backgrounds and beliefs, and it would be more difficult for people to maintain their rigid pre-determined world views, and nobody wants that.

I'm convinced that there is a direct correlation between the divided political discourse in this country, and the ability of individuals to sit for a few hours each day in their isolated capsules and guffaw in lonely agreement with whichever radio talking head they choose to agree with.


edmonds59
2010-12-02 19:41:37

None of the people on that infrastructure list tell me pro-transit, pro-bike, pro-pedestrian, just road building and railroads. The biggie will be whoever Gov. Corbett chooses as Secretary of Transportation.


The 13K is the poster child for the sort of service that should be scuttled. Even with a 57-seat bus that stands 18, you cannot even come close to recovering in fares what it costs to operate.


As to the proposed funding flex, don't be too surprised if this gets voted down by the SPC. Even if it passes, it only gains us 3 months of status quo. We're still looking at a very different world for transit come FY12. Chances are excellent that every cut from March goes in place by July 1, and more.


stuinmccandless
2010-12-02 23:56:34

why is allegheny county's transit future determined by a bunch of unelected people from other counties?


Mr. Rendell and Mr. Biehler said they tapped federal transportation money that had been set aside for economic development projects that either did not go forward or did not use their full allotment.


That included $20 million awarded for road improvements for a mall in Cranberry whose developers canceled the project;


$20 Million for a mall. that's about half of what was needed to fill this gap. but that's an ok use of resources.


http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10337/1107837-53.stm


erok
2010-12-03 15:11:52

Stu is correct the SPC may vote this down.


Keep your fingers crossed that the new governor elect doesn’t speaks out against this proposal. If he opposes this reallocation the 66-member commission most likely won’t approve it. The chairman of the SPC has already said he'll vote no on the transfer. He thinks the money could be better spent on other things, such as building bridges that "could be used 24/7 for the next 100 years, not just to postpone this issue for three months."


greasefoot
2010-12-03 15:29:56

again: why is allegheny county's transit future determined by a bunch of unelected people from other counties?


erok
2010-12-03 15:35:17

I'm also very confused about the actual role of the SPC. Their website says they do all kinds of things... But doesn't clarify why they have the power to turn down money to be spent for the benefit of the citizens in the region.


And if 13K costs too much, that doesn't mean it should be cut. It means it should increase fares and (to the extent possible) decrease costs so the two meet in a somewhat acceptable price range. This may not be possible under the current system, but that doesn't mean that it's permanently impossible and the entire concept should be scrapped.


ejwme
2010-12-03 15:38:45

I'm also very confused about the actual role of the SPC


i think that's by design.


erok
2010-12-03 15:46:04

@Stu None of the people on that infrastructure list tell me pro-transit, pro-bike, pro-pedestrian, just road building and railroads


But...


There's big money in railroads! And a long, strong history of of corruption. OLf course, they are represented.




...

Randy Cheetham, Regional VP of CSX

...

Mike Fesen, Resident VP Public Affairs, Norfolk Southern Corporation


Is Triple A still spending money campaigning against decent transportation? I'm guessing so. Does PA AA do the same thing?


...

Ted Leonard, Executive Director of Pennsylvania AAA

...

Mark Stine, VP of Legislative Affairs,PA Automotive Association


Basically,anyone who wants to squeeze a few more nickles out of the travelling public can get on there on there - presumably for buck or two in the right place.


mick
2010-12-03 16:16:00

Not confunsing by design. SPC is the regional forum for transportation decision making. Part of that role is the execution of the formal processes through which federal (and certain state) funds can be spent on projects in the region.


swalfoort
2010-12-03 17:01:13

so, who are the officers/commissioners accountable to?


erok
2010-12-03 17:42:02

The wiki article start out

A metropolitan planning organization (MPO) is a federally-mandated and federally-funded transportation policy-making organization in the United States that is made up of representatives from local government and governmental transportation authorities.


But the list above is composed mainly of corporate representatives, not government types.


mick
2010-12-03 18:01:24

The Governors Transportation Transition team is the list provided above. The list of SPC Commissioners is available at: http://www.spcregion.org/about_comm_every.shtml


3 elected officials plus 2 other representatives from each of the ten member counties, plus added folks from funding agencies, transit authorities, etc.


Accountable to more than 2 million residents of the ten county metro region.


Edit: sorry, Erok and I cross posted at same time!


swalfoort
2010-12-03 18:08:20

and when they make decisions that people don't like, how do you get them off the board?


erok
2010-12-03 18:10:57

the list above is the governor-elect's transpo/infrastructure committee.


The governor-elect likes corporations a lot more than I do.


mick
2010-12-03 18:16:42

The governor-elect likes corporations a lot more than I do.

Shocking!


reddan
2010-12-03 18:21:03

From the Wiki;

"With only a few unique exceptions nationwide (such as the MPO in Portland, Oregon), MPO policy committee members are not elected directly by citizens."

Portland, huh, how coincidental.


edmonds59
2010-12-03 18:33:35

yeah, funny how the two most bike-friendly big cities in the country also have the most transparent mpo's, portland and minneapolis


erok
2010-12-03 19:03:11

$20 Million for a mall. that's about half of what was needed to fill this gap. but that's an ok use of resources.


Facepalm.


ieverhart
2010-12-03 21:32:05

I would rather SPC vote yes on the funds transfer, but that only gets us to June 30. The bigger question is what the Corbett administration plans to do. From where I sit, I do not see anything pleasant coming.


- They *still* think PAT and SEPTA are mismanaged, inefficient, overstaffed, overpaid and corrupt, and nothing is going to change their minds.

- They absolutely intend to bust Local 85, the drivers' union. Getting rid of a few hundred of them beforehand just makes it easier.

- The state is broke. They need to find some way to make up a FOUR BILLION dollar shortfall. Not funding transit at all is a dead-easy decision.

- They have no concern at all for the transit dependent. All our yelling and screaming and picketing and petitions mean absolutely nothing.

- Like I said in my 3,600-word rant, they intend to kill the system in its entirety so that they can bring in the private companies (limo, taxi, van services, etc.) and let them do it. They would just love to get their hands on the few routes that actually make money now, like the EBA or 71C, and take that money for themselves, without a union to get in the way.


Someone PLEASE show me where I'm wrong. I hate being right.


stuinmccandless
2010-12-04 01:46:20

I bought a house near profitable routes on purpose. I was counting on the profitable routes to stay in business even if the county had to close down the unprofitable ones. As I see it, I'm subsidizing suburban freeloaders because (a) I pay just as much county income tax as anyone and (b) I pay above the cost of service for my use of transit. The worst outcome I can see is for PAT to cut service on the profitable routes and continue to bleed money into the unprofitable ones. If the only bus route in town was the East Busway, that would be fine with me.


lyle
2010-12-04 02:05:16

They have no concern at all for the transit dependent.


What do you suppose was the vote share for Onorato and Corbett among those who routinely ride the bus? I have no data, but I think it's safe bet to assume there are precious few Corbett voters riding the buses. And as many Onorato supporters as there might have been, non-voters surely comprise the largest group of riders.


ieverhart
2010-12-04 03:48:09

Any "authority" or "commission" is almost by definition a scam. They are created by real live elected bodies for the purpose of farming out work to folks who have no accountability, and create a market of parasites and a petry dish of corruption.


Money goes into the government, is directed here and there by this commission or that authority, with the requisite consultants, attorneys and consultants sucking off the teet at every stop along the way.


That's what its really all about. Transit? Please. PAT, SEPTA, SPC, etc., they exist primarily to siphon money. The "end user" gets what's left. Maybe.


(Please forgive the rant.)


atleastmykidsloveme
2010-12-04 16:08:50

That will better describe what we're going to, less what we're coming from. Right now, every bid is public, from tunnel diggers to toilet paper. I'm not saying there aren't any parasites or corruption, but I am saying it is nowhere near as rampant as you contend.


These Public-Private Partnerships being touted will have far less accountability and transparency than what we have now. I can almost guarantee poorer service and fares just as high if not higher than we have now.


This comment is written Dec. 4, 2010. Come back in two years and see how right I am.


stuinmccandless
2010-12-04 16:17:52

@Stu - I defer to your expertise, my rant is purely more emotional, I admit. But by design, authorities and commissions lack the basic accountability of elected office-holders. It pushes the responsibility and accountability off the table. And as you can see from the make-up of the governor-elects new commission, it is not exactly representative of all interested parties (ie.: cyclists, peds, etc.)


atleastmykidsloveme
2010-12-04 16:21:25

Here's the rub. The majority of the SPC Commissioners ARE elected. They are elected to County or local officies (many are County Commissioners) and are then appointed to the SPC Commission. Their responsibility and accountability remain within the SPC, as members of the region, but also with their local constituencies.


swalfoort
2010-12-04 17:50:54

sara, they are elected in their region, but have a huuuuuge amount of power over our region. someone in greene county is voting on and controls allegheny county's transit funds. what do they care? someone in cranberry would rather $20 million go to their mall than fund our transit, because we can't take money away from roads and highways


i just looked over the list. i'm able to vote for or against 2 people on it.


erok
2010-12-04 22:12:43

Stu: Like I said in my 3,600-word rant, they intend to kill the system in its entirety so that they can bring in the private companies (limo, taxi, van services, etc.) and let them do it.


I wouldn't mind that, but you can call a cab and, unless you are going to the airport, there is a pretty good chance that it won't come at all and if it does? You may have to wait 2 hours.


I've been really burned just when I had a group of drinkers convinced that we should take a cab to go see a show.


mick
2010-12-14 03:02:46

27/22 isn't by much of a margin.


ejwme
2010-12-14 03:05:33

The good news is that it's only bad news, not horrible news. There's still going to be a 15% cut in March, and maybe another in June, and the fare hike is certain. A lot rides on what Gov. Corbett has in store for mass transit statewide in his FY12 budget proposal, and to what extent the anti-transit House and Senate people decide to decimate the structure that governs PAT and SEPTA.


The dust isn't anywhere near settled yet.


EDIT: Did you notice that the cost of bike racks was singled out during the SPC hearing as one of the stupid expenses PAT was accused of? That's now the 4th time I've heard that specific one in the last few weeks, and portends what we're in for in this legislature.


stuinmccandless
2010-12-14 07:59:42

The 12 absent members couldn't phone it in? Were they stuck in traffic or did they miss their bus?


I don't like this decision, because it gives local politicians cover for another 6 to 18 months.


An asides - usually on cold days there are more transit riders, but yesterday I had never seen so many people driving inbound on Noblestown. At one point, I counted 30 vehicles stopped in traffic behind a PAT bus picking up 3 people. So strange...


sloaps
2010-12-14 10:39:12

stu, can you name who was trashing the bike racks?


also "...over opposition largely from members representing Armstrong, Butler, Fayette, Indiana, Lawrence and Westmoreland counties."


erok
2010-12-14 15:16:06

also

Patricia Kirkpatrick, also from Armstrong...addressing the issue of those who would be harmed by transit cuts, she said her own car didn't start on Sunday and she didn't have transit to fall back on. Nor do other Armstrong County residents.


"You do what you have to do," Ms. Kirkpatrick said.


when a board member makes a comment like that, it makes it clear that he/she doesn't fully understand the issue. again, these people are responsible for making major decisions with little accountability to the outcome of their decisions.


erok
2010-12-14 15:30:13

I checked with my source. I was incorrect; it may not have been an SPC commissioner who said it, but rather someone speaking to them, saying installing bikes on fleet that will be mothballed is example of 'fiscal irresponsibility'.


stuinmccandless
2010-12-15 00:23:49

An article in the Trib says this Federal money will not be available for weeks…


No money will be available until Congress passes a 2010-11 budget, or a measure known as a continuing resolution, that would extend funding levels from the previous fiscal year through the end of September 2011


A spokesman for U.S. Rep. Mike Doyle, D-Forest Hills, said the House passed a continuing resolution last week. The Senate must act on it by Saturday.


http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/pittsburgh/s_713778.html


greasefoot
2010-12-15 17:00:47

I can confirm that it was not an SPC Commissioner who made the comment about bike racks, but a member of the general public who was raising a series of what he thought to be examples of "unnecessary" expenditures of federal highway funds. Edit: I was there, I saw him speak and heard his comment re: bike racks. But, I do not know him by sight, so don't know who he is.


swalfoort
2010-12-15 17:47:41

thanks for the clarification.


erok
2010-12-15 18:35:09