BIKEPGH MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVE

Great. Can't wait for a fare hike. $2.00 is already ridiculous for what has been the worst public transit I've ever used.

All the good solutions to this problem are unpopular.

All the popular (are there really any?) solutions are not good ones.

I would be all for vehicles tolls to enter the golden triangle that directly finance PAT, and other similar, extreme measures. But from a practical standpoint, now that I-80 is out, there isn't much left but to voice which get cut and which do not…

I rely on Port Authority to make it possible for me to bike to work at all (I bring a folder on the T) so I'm in for some advocacy.

Noah, how many cities have you used public transit in? I agree there are some cities that do it better but there are also some that are far worse/uselesser (including where I grew up) and would hate to see the burgh descend to that level.

I heard this morning on the news, that PAT is considering a $7.00 fare for the suburban zone - I think it's technically Zone 2 now that they've made their routing more "efficient."

Makes sense, and is still a good deal. If you're commuting from that distance $14 round trip is still cheaper than driving and parking.

People out there like "market forces" anyway... If it were laissez-faire, then the east busway and most of the urban routes would be about $1.00 fare, the T wouldn't exist and neither would Zone 2.

UPDATE: In the P-G

I agree with sprite. Ours may not be NYC or Boston, but I have been to midrange cities where it was pretty nonexistent. At least 'burghers have some options.

I'd really like to see some partnerships and "out-of-the-box" thinking from Port Authority. It is a shame and completely unnecessary to have Beaver County Transit, Westmoreland County Transit and the like clogging our teeny-tiny downtown streets. If there would only be some way to have either some form of transfer, or better dropping off stations for those commuters coming in from Allegheny County.

Develop a transit station at the North Shore Connector. This would include bike racks and would serve as the drop-off point for all North Hill residents and beyond who would then ride the subway into downtown for free.

Eliminate larger buses that run nearly empty on the weekend. Knowing there are not a lot of dollars to purchase a bunch of smaller and more gas-efficient vehicles, perhaps cutting and combining some of these weekend and off-hour routes that are less used could prove helpful.

We all know that this cannot keep continuing the way it has been. There was close to a lockdown a year and a half ago and with no true benefits to the riders (drivers pay was locked in until 2012).

Any of us who have lived and travelled extensively throughout the country can honestly say we have been on better transit for a lesser cost. Our routes have recently changed, with most of us simply having to call our routes by a different name. There appears to be much waste at Port Authority and am only hoping that as easily as funds could be diverted to the north shore project, that other monies from studies could be shifted to where it is needed most.

I'd say that we have some pretty excellent transit here in Pittsburgh at least compared to many similarly sized cities in the US.

Many of the solutions are in fact unpopular such as increased fares and higher taxes. The $7 long distance bus fare in fact seems pretty reasonable considering that more urban bus routes generate small operating surpluses (farebox revenue - operating cost).

As far as using smaller vehicles, capital expenditures (i.e. bus purchase costs) are significantly funded through federal grants. So there's simply not much room for savings there. Operating costs for a bus are mainly tied to the operator's wage and to a lesser extent the fuel costs. So there is no opportunity for savings on wages and a small opporunity on fuel costs.

Taxing vehicles coming into the golden triangle is possible, but it may be easier to simply tax the parking in that area. Since, how many vehicle go there without parking?

I think we need to look at a combination of higher fares for the most unprofitable routes and other local revenue sources from within the county, i.e. higher taxes to pay to maintain the current level of service that we have.

I like taxing downtown parking, but an argument against it would be "hurting downtown business" since simply taxing the parking will not improve commuting options for the people who think they have to drive (can't bus/bike/walk/carpool). It's like putting bike racks on half the busses unpredictably - decoratively useless to plan your day.

I just did the math on my commute, and it costs me $120/month for my fair share of a commute from Zone 2 to Zone 2 (Penn Hills to Hell [Cranberry]). If they raise the Zone 2 tix to $7, that eliminates busing from my budget ($280/mo) and would virtually force me to camp out on my grandmother's couch weekdays, or get a different job (anyone hiring engineers? I mean OTHER than my current employer?).

Why not hike the vice taxes to help out mass transit? Gasoline. Tobacco. Liquor/booze. HFCs. MSG. Gambling. I mean more than we already do (lord knows we couldn't hike them high enough to affect people's behavior, enough studies have proven that). I have a friend who said gasoline would have to reach $7/gal before he'd think about making any changes in his vehicular habits (suburbanite like me, Jeep driving commuter and joy rider) - to me that means that $6.59 wouldn't be a problem at all, with $0.40 to spare

Sometimes society as a whole behaves like a two year old. If we want dessert (living in/near a nice sized city with lots of amenities and jobs and opportunities to take advantage of), we have to eat our broccoli (pay for mass transit for all the people that make the city so nice and amenity/job/opportunity-full).

I'm up for letter writting, door knocking, phone calling, emailing, and general nuisance-making. Squeaky wheels get grease, we need to make sure the pro-PAT contingent is more irritating than the "Don't tax me bro" contingent.

Operating costs for a bus are mainly tied to the operator's wage and to a lesser extent the fuel costs. So there is no opportunity for savings on wages

This spurred a fantasy of a volunteer driver force. Get licensed (/whatever else) to drive and do a route every however often, maybe offer a benefit like a bus pass. Hey. I said it was a fantasy. But while I'm at it, imagine pgh buses driven by people from the bike pgh scene:0

Other organizations that serve the public and struggle to make ends meet use volunteers (like the library)- I think the transit system should go for it. They could start by using volunteers to drive the routes forfeited by drivers (part of the new plan, the one that lives in my head) who've gotten complaints about bullying cyclists or otherwise putting people's lives in danger.

Another big money saver might be to ditch that port authority police force (or whatever it's called) and let pittsburgh police (actually) go after their employees when they commit crimes. I bet there's a good bit of money being spent there that's not exactly serving the public. Maybe fit a citizen review board in there somewhere. Fill it with cyclists - that'd be fun.

There is more than enough bloat in the defense budget to pay for better public transit without raising taxes. This would require action at the Federal level, but while we're dreaming...

I may be pessimistic, but a 7$ bus fare sounds like a good way to drop by two (I just made up that number) the number of bus suburban commuters, so that in one year, they can just cut all suburbs roads.

What keeps me optimistic in this pg paper is the following quote:

"Even if he could "wave a magic wand" and cut driver pay by a dollar an hour, the savings -- $3 million -- would do little to erase the looming deficit, he said."

So obviously, bus drivers are not going to make any effort in order to save money. Which shows that they are absolutely very confident they are keeping their job next year.

Otherwise, I'd suggest port authority to cut by three or four the number of bus stops, i.e. keep the same number of routes, but don't make the bus stop every 100 feet. That's the main reason why I don't ride the bus anymore. Just make people walk and save some time. Oh, and just open the back door at every stop, when I arrived in Pittsburgh, I could hardly speak English, and apparently, whenever I screamed "open the back door", it sounded like "keep the back door close and go". And don't let people eat their smelly sandwich in the bus.

All that is free.

The authority expects to spend $70 million on health care, $32 million of that for retirees, who outnumber active employees.

What a sweetheart deal a union job is...

Just 1 more reason why it's so important to have bike lanes/bike trails that go from the city to the suburbs!! I'm just one of many who have to rely on public transportation when I go to work.Would Port Authority help bikers by letting us use their HOV lanes??Hell no,because it would take bike riders away from using a Port Authority bus.Port Authority is only out for themselves.I talked to the bus drivers and they tell me how wonderful they,(Port Authority), are by letting us put bikes on their racks.I respond that it's also to their benefit by getting more revenue,(bike riders),for PAT.

@Bikefind

They actually use volunteer drivers in the Netherlands on routes that are not economically viable. From what I've read they tend to be retired persons, etc.

What does and does not constitute economically viable in the Netherlands is a different story though.

Pittsburgh's transit system is quite good for a city of its size. I'd love to have various rail options but there are many places with excellent bus service that are quite affordable.

I'm in favor of instituting all kinds of tolls and charges for bringing a car into downtown/Oakland/other congested areas. But I'm concerned that doing that may "drive" people further into the land of expressways and "free" parking. Where transit is harder to make work, and people would be less inclined to use it, decreasing support...

My parents, just a few days ago, were coming home from Highland Park to Shadyside, and went to dinner in the Waterworks because my dad didn't want to deal with parking hassles in Squirrel Hill, even though it's much less out of the way.

But to answer your question, yes, I'd join a letter-writing campaign.

Does anyone know if the drivers are actually asked for input into improvements, or are they just expected to be dumb robot drivers? If anyone knows where the efficiencies are, I think it would be the drivers. Also tie their wage increases into increases into system income (union would never go for that, so, instead, they'll just lose jobs). Teach drivers a little about public relations, manners, basic stuff any waitress is expected to know.

+1 for not having stops every 100 feet, that is just maddening for everyone.

+1 on canning the private police force.

Stop paying outside consultants to perform expensive analyses as to how to save money, save money by not hiring consultants! Apologies to anyone involved in consulting.

Easy does it out there. PAT cries poor every few years to shake-down the state for more money. There is no dedicated funding stream for PAT, so they have to keep asking, and part of the game is getting in the papers and on TV and threatening $7 fares, and grandma can't get to the doctors.

It's just extortion disguised as a charade meant to freak people out to start letter writing campaigns, etc. to pressure the state to pony-up.

Of course it will go to the 11th-hour, so that at the end the Bland and Rendell can have a happy-happy photo op and news conference announcing they have "saved" public transit in Pittsburgh (and all of those juicy union bus driving jobs).

I understand your cynicism ALMKLM, but funding shortfalls are real and the one who gets the money is the one who makes the best (read: loudest) case to legislators. Now I'm not saying PAT is run efficiently...just that there are a slew of programs that have to beg for funding...non of the others are run real efficiently either for that matter.

The PAT fare hike proposals make complete sense if you consider the costs of operating many suburban routes.

Full data are available (under "Route Evaluations") at http://www.portauthority.org/PAAC/CustomerInfo/RouteChanges/tabid/512/Default.aspx

While you're at it, check out the overview of the Transit Development Plan, at http://www.portauthority.org/paac/portals/1/TDP/OverviewPresentation/index.html

Basically, the people running transit know what they're doing and have what (to me) is an excellent plan going forward. What they need is the funding. The money is there, but it's locked into supporting the priorities of motor traffic. This is what has to change.

same way we can keep the city from going bankrupt. get the damn unions to accept some real and realistic wage and benefit cuts. i'm all for organized labor, but at some point our locals became bloated self perpetuating monsters who were no longer ensuring the safety and fair treatment of their members but simply demanding more for the sake of more.

Wage cuts? Worker wages aren't the problem. Let's not keep depressing the middle and working class in this country.

Why is it that the first thing everyone thinks of is to screw the working class?

Bus drivers are for the moist part conscientious and do a valuable job keeping the the transit system on the road (so to speak). This is something that we all benefit from. Unlike too many others they are fortunate to have a union that looks after their interests. This is not something to begrudge them.

I mean really, let's focus on the main thing that's important for all of us: a rational transportation policy that balances the needs of all citizens.

Oh, so much to say, and so little time to act.

I have been in the transit funding battle every year since 1992. I have been working the transit advocacy beat since 1991. I know this subject inside and out.

Cut to the quick: The anti-transit nay-sayers are wrong; posters above who have it dead-on or pretty close: sprite, sloaps, helen s, Cullen, Tabby, Ahlir. Not that the rest don't have a couple of good ideas.

In PA, we cannot tax gasoline to pay for transit. A 1945 Constitutional amendment made sure of that, back in the day when steel, oil, glass and rubber were the backbone of America, all produced within 100 miles of Pgh, all used in the manufacture and use of cars, and all transit was privately owned and tax-paying. The laws were tipped strongly against transit, putting them all out of business in 20 years, thus causing gov't take-over.

*That* is why nearly every other state in the U.S. has cheaper transit than anywhere in PA.

Port Authority is not mis-managed -- I know what goes on there and has gone on there for almost 20 years. They are simply being strangled by bad laws at the Harrisburg level. Having perhaps the strongest union in the country makes things a tad difficult at times, too.

ACTC, of which I am currently VP (and by Wednesday night will likely be either VP or its president for the next 12 months) is right now kicking off a letter-writing campaign. I will get details up within 24 to 40 hours.

Even old "only sign of life is a highway sign for Pixburg" Cleveland has better, and cheaper, public transit (I'm not lying).

@ stu sounds like something that should be added to the constitutional convention all the candidates for governor said they were in favor of...

Stu, that just makes it sound like we need to rescind a constitutional amendment. When the laws of the land do not look after the people who live in the land, they must be changed. It's sad that an antiquated industries that have since (mostly) left the area have retained a strangle grip on our transportation policies from their local graves.

all of that would require politicians to actually perform in the office we "elected" them into. lolz

Article this morning in the Trib from the PA spokesman was disappointing "...but the problem isn't expenses, it's revenues."

It might be both.

@stu - would like to take part in any type of campaign. I, too, have professional experience in the transit arena and we need better long term solutions than say, a drink tax or a $1 million lease at the Heinz Building.

Even D.C.'s Metro revenues are down, and the Metro receives nearly 80% of their operating budget from user fees (50% for rail, 30% for bus, 5% for access).

Let's not keep depressing the middle and working class in this country.

Amen. Just because you don't have yours anymore doesn't mean everyone else should suffer with you... Companies have been dumping "fringe benefits" for the past three generations, only for the state and federal governments to pick up the slack. Want to get rid of "gubmint run" healthcare and food programs? Pay a living wage.

Davis-Bacon needs revisited, because most of the jobs in this country aren't governed by it any more.

Let me introduce everyone to the white elephant in the room…The Port Authority has dug a $550 million dollar hole in the ground and they call it the North Shore Connector…80% of this project is Federally funded but the Port Authority does not have the remaining 20% needed to finish the project…

Let's not forget the Wabash Tunnel either. They spent hundreds of millions in federal funds to build it, and now have to continue spending their operating budget indefinitely on maintenance. I recall hearing it works out to something like $10 per car *not counting the amortized capital costs*. And I'm not even allowed to ride my bike through it.

Compare with the $10m Hot Metal ped bridge.

Hold off on discussing Wabash. (News afoot.)

North Shore Connector, blame (former mayor) Tom Murphy for having the idea. Actually, I rather like the NSC, but that's a topic for another thread, too.

I cannot emphasize enough that this is a STATE problem, not just local, and a TRANSPORTATION problem, not just transit.

Compare with the $10m Hot Metal ped bridge.

Interesting idea. I wonder how long it will take to reach 1M ped/bik crossings to amortize that down to $10 / each.

We are looking to improve the Port Authority. It does not matter whether rates are raised or not. I can still drive, motorcycle, bicycle, etc. I can afford an increase, however ridiculous it may be.

Port Authority has been part of the problem. I hardly think that all the decisions emanating from the Port Authority Board has been via politicians exclusively.

This is a human problem. One that some people cannot afford to lose. They rely on transit and have no other means of getting around.

But, to portray the Port Authority as an agency with its hands tied behind its back and gag in its mouth is waiving all culpability and essentially watering down the powers of both the Board and Bland.

While I can appreciate activism and volunteering on various committees, I think what we are all trying to figure out is how can we get the Port Authority to turn the corner, so to speak.

So, what can we do? We can look at various projects, studies and exactly what has been happening not only in government, but at the Port Authority as well. Gasoline tax is not the answer (even if the state were to revert an earlier decision), but that too may be for a later time and another forum.

I think what we have here is passionate people who are frustrated at seeing what Pittsburgh can become, but not quite getting there. $7 fares will wreck some peoples budgets. I would love to simply say this is a result exclusively of the Port Authority's bad decisions or that of a politician, but you know what? They are all to blame. And those of us who are fortunate enough to have other options should be working on this to ensure our neighbors, families, and friends can get to work, to school, to the grocery store... all for a reasonable amount of money.

We need to be vocal both at this forum and at public comment periods at the Port Authority, through their committees and the like. Let's focus on getting ideas out there rather than judging past comments as either being more right or correct.

Where do we go from here?

Eisenhower was able to get the Interstate highway system jump started by identifying it as a national security issue. Defense forces needed a way to efficiently move around the country in the event of an emergency event (no, I wasn't actually there).

Now, oil consumption is a national security issue. We are apparently fighting 2 wars based on our "national interest" (oil). Public transit reduces oil consumption, thereby reducing our country's dependence on oil. Transit should be funded as a national security issue. Transit should be funded as a means to increase national productivity by reducing peoples time sitting on highways, millions of man/hours. All the transit systems in the country could be funded from a minor tap into the defense budget. So, who's going to launch that battle? Mr. O?

I think the Port Authority really has done it's part to reduce costs. The TDP made significant changes and PAT reduced its costs by some $60 million. That's a very significant number.

Now the question is how high can suburban fares be raised without everyone switching to their cars. Perhaps the city could increase it's parking tax in the golden triangle to equal the fare hike? Equally important is how much money will the County and State be able to provide.

In some ways time is on our side. The Port Authority has to pass its budget shortly but the cuts won't actually take place until Jan 1. That means a doomsday budget may actually inspire some action among our politicians.

The concur over driving out business ( and more importantly residential) traffic from downtown is a valid one. I don't want to tangent the conversation too much, but merging the city and county is a possible solution as well ( not to mention that it would reduce redundancy and save money for hundreds of other departments too). But i don't want to harp on that when this is about transit.

Stu, i had no idea about the no tax onn gas for transit thing. That is incredibly backwards, and really needs to be changed. I'll be writing wnd calling soon...

I'm all for suburban fare hikes, but east happens when those businesses just move out of the city so transit or biking isn't even an option any longer?

I suppose I should post my testimony to the State House transportation hearing for Friday. I was still working on it when this thread materialized Monday night, and my input had to be in their hands by Tuesday noon. I put it up on the PAT blog, but it bears repeating here.

Changing the Constitution is extremely difficult. It would be a lot easier to pass a new tax, and the leading contender is a Vehicle Miles Traveled tax. More details when I get them.

If you impose a VMT tax instead of increasing the gas tax (difficult though it may be) you will be punishing those who choose to drive fuel-efficient vehicles or ride motorcycles. Maybe I haven't read the details of your specific plan but every VMT tax plan I've heard sounds both incredibly intrusive and regressive in terms of punishing those who are trying to help.

== This is the testimony I sent in. ==

Though there is much to say, I will be brief. I speak as a multi-modal (bus-bike-car) commuter. We are trying to find solutions to two funding problems, not one.

Public transit cannot receive any funding from taxes on fuels or from license or registration fees, as per the Pennsylvania Constitution, Article VIII, Section 11A. Therein, however, lies the solution to highway and bridge funding. That is what those taxes are for.

By my calculation, with roughly 8 million registered vehicles in PA and a $240 million annual need, the highway/bridge need could be met by raising the annual registration fee from $36 to $66. The GOP will simply have to eat its words on not raising taxes or fees, as there is no other responsible way to make up that much money. Maybe they can close roads and bridges, or maybe they can put PennDOT under the same scrutiny and squeezes that transit agencies have been subjected to for years, but I doubt it.

Transit is a tougher nut to crack. One good thing that did come out of Act 44 was responding to the objections of anti-transit legislators by causing PAT and SEPTA and other transit agencies to reinvent their systems, to be more responsive, to clean up their act, so to speak. They did that. Now it's Harrisburg's turn. Just fund it properly, as we pro-transit people have been saying all along. My preference is through a Vehicle Miles Traveled tax. This is inherently fair and self-balancing, as the more vehicle-miles are traveled in any area, the more transit is needed in that area. I believe it is also within the constraints of Article VIII.

In finding fixes to two problems, let's not try to fix three. Stop building new roads that we have to maintain! In particular, kill and keep killed any hope of funding the Mon-Fayette/Southern Beltway project. On the other hand, please do find the puny amounts of money for improvements to bicycle and pedestrian projects which would lessen our need for primarily car-only infrastructure.

In closing, it is simply good public policy to turn away from a cars-first and cars-only mentality. Instead, adopt this approach:

Fix it first, drive it last.

@wojty: Even with a $7 fare the bus is cheap. Let's do the math.

For example, Downtown<->Monroeville is 14 miles, fuel and depreciation (at the $0.55/mi IRS guideline) will be $15.40/day, or $308/mo (20 working days). Let's assume you have a parking lease, at about $250/mo. Your total commuting cost is therefore about $558/mo.

The bus, at $7/ride would cost you $280/mo. Cheap at ~twice the price! And you can take a nap, or read a book. (Maybe someday you'll even have free WiFi!)

Note that reality is more complicated. What if you car-pool, even with just one other person? What if you have an odd schedule, or need to also be elsewhere during the day?

And let's not gloss over the psychology: isn't that car trip "free"? After all you don't have to feed $7 into the dashboard each time you get in.

Maybe I haven't read the details of your specific plan but every VMT tax plan I've heard sounds both incredibly intrusive and regressive in terms of punishing those who are trying to help.

an electric car is still another car on the road - THAT's regressive.

The operator of a passenger vehicle traveling by any means of power on our congested, deteriorated and underfunded roads, tunnels and bridges must provide the necessary funds if the operator will continue to travel in their passenger vehicle.

On the turnpike half of its toll revenue is from passenger vehicles (Class 1), and other half is from heavier vehicles (Class 2 through 9). Therein, is a fee for traveling a certain number of miles on the turnpike: A VMT, if you will.

I proposed a tiered VMT, based on the 9 Classes of vehicles recognized by PennDOT, to Rep. Readshaw. Not sure yet if that dog is gonna hunt...

@stu -Hold off on discussing Wabash. (News afoot.)

North Shore Connector, blame (former mayor) Tom Murphy for having the idea. Actually, I rather like the NSC, but that's a topic for another thread, too

FYI. Tom Murphy had nothing to do with the Port Authority or this Allegheny County Project. It’s all on Dan Onorato…

Like I said this is the big white elephant in the room. The port authority has a huge hole (pun intended) in the 2011 budget and the major capital expenditure is the proposed 2011 completion of the NSC.

I just came from a meeting in which Claudia Allen, Port Authority's CFO, explained the proposed FY11 capital and operating budgets. Funding streams for NSC construction are accounted for.

She herself said, "This is a funding problem, not a spending problem." Nearly every big expense is out of their control. Nor is it strictly PAT; SEPTA has its own issues, as do other PA transit systems. Nor is it just transit, as PennDOT cannot pay for road and bridge repairs.

The big fare hikes that made headlines the last couple of days would only close about 3 of the 50 million they're short. But laying off 500 of its 2,700 employees would do it.

And yes, it was Mayor Murphy who revived the NSC idea in 1997 after the Port Authority board scrapped the 1991 Spine Line proposal that would have built a subway from Downtown to Oakland. The spur north, ending at the then-new Science Center, was part of that original proposal.

Mayor Murphy was a North Side resident.

Allegheny County government is responsible for the Port Authority and it’s budget. The Mayor of the City of Pittsburgh does not now nor has he ever had any type of authority over the Port Authority.

Stu, I hope you realize this is all a budget shell game...the Port Authority has funds allocated to finish the chunnel but not enough to keep services at the current levels...

The Mayor has a bully pulpit to petition the county, state and federal government to allocate funding. He's got a lot more influence over PAT than most of us do.

Wow, Murph must have a strong pimp hand to bully a $550 Million dollar project...

I am still amazed that it only costs $36 for me to have the right to drive my car. That is such a steal.

I’m all for increasing the vehicle registration fees, but only if goes directly to fund transit and they don’t put the money into the state general fund.

It's true. Murphy had everything to do with getting the NSC started. No shell games involved.

The 1991 Spine Line proposal was shelved in early 1996 by the PAT board. Murphy revived the northern tail of the proposal by bankrolling (or having someone bankroll) a $6M feasibility study. It fit his political plans of replacing Three Rivers Stadium with the two we have now. As it was PAT's project before, it became PAT's project after. Them's the facts. Go back and read the headlines from 1997-ish if you don't believe me.

Spine Line was $1.2 billion in 1993 dollars; that's part of what choked it then. The original cost of the NSC part was only about $200M then.

@Greasefoot, please read my testimony, and learn the law. License and registration fees (and fuel taxes) CANNOT be used for transit. State transit money can ONLY be funded out of the General Fund. PennDOT may administer the stream, but the money comes from the G.F.

I am still amazed that it only costs $36 for me to have the right to drive my car. That is such a steal.

Indeed. The city charges me more for living and working in the city (i.e. the occupation tax).

I suspect the state could safely double the registration fee without too much political trouble. Heck, if consumers actually got decent service from the DMV, the state could triple it.

Stu,

I'm aware of how the state law works, that is why I made the statement.

The PA State budget is larger then most third world countries (66.4 billion for 2010). Once any funds from fee increases go into the general fund they will be lost in bureaucracy.

Governor Rendell approved a budget last year he knew was never going to work. This Port Authority “crisis” is the perfect bamboozle to raise state taxes and fees. John Q Public will swallow the pill for all the increases if they think it’s linked to fixing bridges, roads, and mass transit.

http://www.commonwealthfoundation.org/policyblog/detail/why-are-pa-roads-so-bad

Commonwealth Foundation... whatever. Specious arguments, conjecture and hearsay. PA is fourth in spending on surface transportation because we have more, older, inefficient bridges, tunnels, lane miles than nearly every state.

We're in this mess due to bad policy: building out so much that you can't effectively maintain the system. It's like buying acres of grasslands, but on a budget that affords a small riding g mower.

Most times the best decision a politician can make is to do nothing, but you gotta bring home the Bacon or else your selfish and irrational constituents will ring the phone off the hook and fill up the inbox.

wait...why are we comparing our state budget to a 3rd world country's? apples and oranges

I wish I could find the attribution in a hurry, but when this topic first came to my attention in, like, 1992, I was told that PA has more state-maintained roads than all other states north and east of us combined.

Our gas tax might be high, but it's too low, if we want to support having all those roads and bridges. If we don't, then close them.

Still, that's just the highway-bridge side of the argument. We also have to fund transit. They are both chronically underfunded. It is not a bamboozle. It is not a scare. This has been going on under at least nine governors since I've been involved. It's real.

Bottom line, find a half-billion a year. It's called taxes, in one form or another. There is no other responsible way to do it.

Stu Strickland, the voice of reason. Amen brother. The "T-word" seems like political suicide these days, and there's just no reason for it. The people want all these services and yet they're not fully willing to pay for it. You want your frequently-used two-lane rural road in good condition? You better be willing to pay for it, and if not then you either have to deal with it or move elsewhere, it's pretty simple.

Sorry, socialist rant... so sue me.

The state does need to update its policy on large SUV’s. They are considered a station wagon and the registration is only $36 bucks!! I would love to see SUV driver start to pay their fair share…they should be reclassified as trucks or even a new class with the registration fees tippled!

as an suv owner i could not agree more. i think it might also help people realize that their suv IS a truck and should be driven like one. i grew up driving trucks and never understood how stupid you had to be to flip one, when i got an suv i just considered it a truck with a fancier cap and bed. the car companies have tried so hard to make you feel like you are in a car when you are in an suv anymore that i don't know if i will be able to find one thats "trucky" enough for me when my blazer dies. fortunately im pretty sure i will be able to get another decade of of it before i have to worry.

Don't save them. The working man or woman making $8 $10 an hour really cannot afford to get commuted by drivers that make more than 15 dollars an hour. That will never change as long as the bud drivers union is secure in their jobs. The only way to save transportation in this city is to let the Port Authority and all the people who work for it whether driver or executive know that of they cannot deliver their product at a reasonable price then they can be replaced by a company who may be willing to do that. The threat of privatization may be enough for them to really get their shit together and provide a reasonable service at a reasonable price. Because honestly the tax money isn't coming.

This is not a union or worker issue. Jack Wagner's 2007 audit showed a number of findings that make for an informative read:

http://www.auditorgen.state.pa.us/Reports/Performance/Special/PortAuthAllegheny.pdf

The most significant to me is the problem of insanely high executive pay and benefits. The last CEO retired after 10 years on the job and has been collecting over $9k/month as a pension while at his new job...and he is one among many.

Of course, it's easier to blame driver pay...but the easier road is what got us here, an observation which comes naturally to those interested in cause and effect.

Privatizing public transit will not make it cheaper by one penny. Public transit costs money...and is deserving of dedicated state and federal funding.

I recently read that NO transit system operates on the revenue from fares, even the massively used and lauded EU models. I didn't fact-check this, so I don't mind if someone does.

But regardless, most developed countries on earth accept that a functioning public transit system is a necesity for a civilized and livable society. The mythology of American individualism has us trapped in our metal boxes.

Sorry, except for those fortunates who aren't trapped in the metal boxes. Who, in reality are the true individuals.

How would you justify to some person who lives is a rural area who must pay for his car to get himself to work and pay taxes for the road he drives on that he should pay further taxes to subsidize the commute of someone living in the city? I say cut subsidies and let the bus fare reflect the real cost.

And it's already been proven that private run schools are generally better quality and cost less per student than the bloated government ones so it sort of doesn't make sense to say that wouldn't happen with privatized transit. Of course it conflicts with established liberal dogma.

@hermit: Actually, city drivers subsidize rural drivers (and heavily). This is because the bulk of the population lives in metropolitan areas, and they drive the bulk of the miles. Maybe gas taxes should just stay in the county where they are collected (heh).

Subsidizing public transit makes sense for everyone, even car drivers: the more buses on the road the less other traffic and the quicker your car ride. The fewer cars the better the air. Who could object?

This the first time I hear that private school buses are inherently cheaper/better. Do you have an url for that? (Opinion blogs don't count.)

While some places seem to do fine with private bus companies (Edinburgh comes to mind) on the whole it doesn't seem like necessarily the right solution, or the most cost-effective one. After all Pittsburgh had private bus companies until sometime in the sixties.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UawUHbKCzws&feature=PlayList&p=7A395D19BA1DB238&playnext_from=PL&index=0&playnext=1

That's the first part of a 20/20 segment where they document how bad and expensive public schools are vs the privatized ones.

And while I agree that public transportation makes sense for everyone I disagree that anyone should pay for another to go to work. And yeah keeping the taxes in the county they are collected would make sense.

I say cut subsidies and let the bus fare reflect the real cost.

I disagree that anyone should pay for another to go to work.

Let's cut subsidies for all roads, highways, mining, exploration, and securing oil wells in foreign countries, too. I mean, if you want to make things fair, let's make them fair, right? Let every transportation mode compete on a level playing field.

Oh, and let's cut subsidies for rural electric utilities, rural telecoms, rural postal delivery. If people want to live out in the boonies where it's expensive to get stuff, that's fine, but why should I have to subsidize that choice?

But then, I AM totally in favor of paying people to stay off the roads so I experience less congestion. Maybe subsidizing mass transit isn't the perfect solution. Maybe we should institute a market in "congestion credits". On the other hand, that would be tricky to set up, administer and prevent cheating, so maybe simply paying for those buses and trains is the simplest solution.

Actually I agree 100 percent with cutting subsidies for all those things. Exposing the real cost of things can illuminate where real waste is. In fact I'd say make every interstate a toll road and every local road paid only by local taxes. Otherwise you get the waste that comes with people spending money that isn't theirs. In fact I do know some people in rural areas who have to drive to their post office to get their mail. Let everything cost as much as it really costs.

Really if no mode of transportation were subsidized we might have people moving towards an Amish life style living off the land riding horses and bikes. That would be a hundred times more cool and ecologically friendly than encouraging people to be more urban.

I dunno there, @hermit. You pointed us to a TV program, for evidence that private (school) busing is cheaper than public. The closest thing in it to buses was a clip from the film 'Fast Times at Ridgmont High' in which some stoners are tumbling out of a VW microbus.

BTW, there's no empirical evidence that private schools are better than public ones: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0311.pdf

Anyway, can we get back to transportation issues?

Okay, at least you're ideologically consistent. But the elimination of subsidies isn't something you can do piecemeal. It's got to be all or nothing, if you want to let the market do its job.

And you have to find a way to price and regulate the externalities -- pollution, delay, war...

If you eliminate the subsidies for transportation (and other hidden incentives for rural living) I expect you would wind up with a society that looks a lot more like the late 19th century. NYC was more densely populated than it is now.

If you think it's remotely possible to eliminate those subsidies, just start with the USPS. Fight for zoned pricing, so it costs more to mail a letter to Nome than to mail one downtown. Once you've conquered that hill, try cutting down one of the modern variants of the Rural Electrification Act -- insist that telecoms companies should not be subsidized or forced to extend broadband Internet service to Murrysville or Plum.

It all really comes back to land use policy. All those bright shiny suburbs (add Cranberry, Peters, Robinson and Monroeville to Lyle's list) seem to work at the moment because of their relative newness. Tack on 25, 50, 80 years, when all that supporting infrastructure has to be replaced. The customers-per-100-meters-of-cable (or pipe) ratio is simply too low to support it.

Same with the bus stops. Transportation just happens to be the easiest target at the moment. Sure, we can try to recover some costs for public transportation by imposing a $7 fare instead of $2.75 (which brings PAT's deficit projection down to only about $47M from $50M, btw). But it simply costs too much to provide that service. Even $7 is low. $10 per ride is more likely.

And that is exactly what you'd be paying if you privatized those suburban routes. At least that.

Short of bulldozing Cranberry, Monroeville, Peters, etc., I really don't have any *acceptable* solutions, other than plain old taxation. It's not popular, but the alternatives are worse.

I effing hate ideologues. Specious arguments to sustain a position trapped in a belljar while undermining any constructive dialogue to arrive at practical solutions.

Quit fooling yourself that our country can save itself by essentially removing the federal government - taxes, CFR's, etc. That is how the EU functions. I assure you that 4/5 of our states would function as third world countries, as such.

Every developed country or city/state in history had multiple modes of transporting labor and materials, and none of those systems ever functioned without government assistance.

@Lyle: I expect you would wind up with a society that looks a lot more like the late 19th century.

And would anyone care to guess what form of transportation came to be popular right there, right then? (and in other metro areas around the country?)

Don't. Think. Too. Hard.

Hint: It ain't the automobile.

Another hint: It ain't transit, either.

The Incline!

The Duquesne Incline does not now, nor has it ever, received any direct government subsidy for operations from the City of Pittsburgh, County of Allegheny, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, or the Federal Government; nor, does it receive any funds from the recently-established Allegheny Regional Asset District. The Port Authority reimburses the Incline only for PAT patrons who use passes, tickets, tokens, or transfers to ride The Duquesne Incline.

Operation of The Duquesne Incline relies entirely on Incline fares collected, membership fees, donations, and gift shop sales !

The Duquesne incline is leased by PAT to a tax exempt society. The society has no borrowing power for maintenance and upgrades of the incline, so they work with PAT and PennDot for state and federal grants.

The Duquesne Incline is a late 19th century form of transportation and it operates with no from of public funding.

Pat does lease the incline to a tax-exempt non-profit preservation society. In 1962 the incline was closed and the owners decided not to reopen it because the repairs were too expensive. The resident of Duquesne heights refused to accept the loss of the incline raised the money for the repairs and it was re-opened in 1964. Pat is required by state law to own all forms of mass transit in Allegheny County. They lease the Duquesne incline to the non-profit for one dollar a year. Then ceremoniously contribute the dollar back to the non-profit as a donation. That one dollar is all they contribute to operations of the incline.

In San Francisco the Market Street Railway is another non-profit organization that operates 2 historic lines (soon to be 3) that boast 40,000 riders a day. They operate in the same manor with only funds from fares, membership, and donations.

http://streetcar.org/about/

The rub is the tax-exempt status…most of the employee are volunteers or the salaries are low. They don’t have large pension or healthcare obligations and every tax-free dollar goes back into the operations.

My 3,600-word rant explaining where this argument came from, why arguing about it is getting us nowhere, and why likely nothing is going to be done about it. In other words, we're hosed.

I am tired of hearing about service problems. "My bus was late." "The A/C didn't work." "The seat cushions were on the floor." "The driver yelled at me." "It takes me three buses to get to work." This is off topic! This is not going to find $47 million dollars to keep the buses running! If this is the best you can do, then get out of the conversation, and shut up.

If the service wasn't so terrible, I might be less ambivalent about funding. And I don't buy the argument that the service is terrible only because they lack money.

I didn't say that. I did say the ability to provide decent information about the service is because they lack money.

Not being able to tell you that the bus you are waiting for has already gone by or is not yet there is a fundamentally necessary service, and is dependent on acquiring, and operating, a fairly costly information system.

That one specific thing directly leads people to think poorly of service.