“T” Gate

*Disclaimer*  I usually try and be pretty fair, using facts to support my arguments.  This is strictly my opinion.  If at any point you become offended, stop reading and close your browser window.  I’ll be back to the regular old stuff soon enough. 

Enough of this crap. 

It’s getting really ridiculous to see ATU 85 once again shoot the Port Authority, and in turn, themselves in the foot to prove a point.  What that point is, I’m not exactly sure. 

I do know what is being said, however.  The ATU 85 is saying that the Port Authority’s “T” schedules are impossible to follow without violating speed restrictions.  All of this supposedly came about after an external safety audit of PAT operations.

The Port Authority is coming back and saying that the speed limits have not changed in over 12 years. 

I can’t unequivocally say I know that this is the Union’s fault and not PAT’s.  However, judging from the contract “negotiations” of 2008 where the Union threatened to strike because of a minimal increase in healthcare costs, and a lot of the stupidity I have heard roll out of Pat McMahon’s mouth over the past few years, I’m siding with the Port Authority. 

Again, I’m not sure what the real point of ATU 85’s shenanigans are.  If their point is that the 15% service cuts are bad, then address that, pissing off commuters on the T is in no way that my feeble brain can comprehend productive.  All they are doing is adding a disgruntled third party.  A third party that can either support the Port Authority, and in turn ATU 85 or harm the Port Authority and in turn ATU 85. 

In fact, the biggest thing the Union can do to screw itself is to give the taxpayers the impression that they are overpaid and that they underperform.  Right now, it seems like they are right on track to screw themselves.  In the face of extreme budget uncertainty and while they are some of the highest paid transit operators in the Nation, the ATU 85 has decided to go toe to toe with the Port Authority by delaying trains…BRILLIANT!

As I said, I have no idea what this is really about, but I do know what this is accomplishing.  It’s further eroding the faith in public transportation and the Port Authority, by no fault of its own; and could ultimately lead to even GREATER layoffs and service cuts in the future.  

By The Skin of their Teeth…

Whew….I can take a breath for now at least.  Funding is by no means secure for the future, but things look good today.

Here’s to the small victories. 

Check out the article here.

Check out an even more interesting blog post here. 

Very emblematic of the struggle within the state for transportation funding.  The groups that seemingly had little stake in the funding crisis voted “NO” overwhelmingly.  Those in Allegheny County and in areas that had the most to lose voted overwhelmingly “YES”.   It’s more of the classic “My taxes should only go to pay for my roads.  Screw everyone else.”

It’s sad to see that such parochialism exists even within the council.  I’m sure everyone believes they are voting in the best interest of the region (or at least that’s what the point of the SPC is).  However, there are clearly divergent views on what’s important. 

I for one don’t understand how you can let the largest population density in the region (and the economic production that goes along with that) to flounder without proper transportation assets and expect it not to affect more than just Allegheny County.  Washington County realized that, I can’t believe that some of our other neighbors (namely Westmoreland, Butler and Beaver Counties) could not, or chose not to recognize that fact.    

Routes Getting the Axe

Found this on the Port Authority's website this morning.  There's an awful lot of red.

http://www.portauthority.org/paac/portals/0/board/P&D_ServiceReductions_Nov2010.pdf

Make Time

If you’re angry about the Port Authority’s funding being slashed and subsequent slashes to service….make time

If you don’t want to see residents that rely on this public service lose access to service and thereby lose their mobility…make time

If you are upset that the politicians that represent you are spineless and care more about not making a splash amongst potential voters than actually helping their constituents…make time

If you are unhappy that full time funding for transportation in this state was dangled in front of your face like a carrot, only to be pulled away…make time

If you are tired of yahoos from Central Pennsylvania whining about how their taxes go to those big city folk for their fancy buses, when if fact, we big city folk help pay for their roads…make time

You can go and testify, or log on and comment there.  Just like with the Connect '09 initiative, you have a chance to be heard and a chance to make your voice, and your opinions count.  You can be damn sure that I’ll be putting in my two cents.

Really? You're using this?

Poor, poor NSC.  It’s been the regional whipping boy for years now.  It’s taken the leap to the national political stage.  Here’s the article.

I’m no NSC cheerleader, but realize that it’s already near complete and will provide value to the region.  Check out this post for a more detailed opinion.

This is absolutely ridiculous.  Don’t use the NSC as your political pawn to validate your political agenda.  The NSC is not representative of the bailout, and the way in which it is presented is just plain misleading. 

The NSC is such a tiny piece of the overall stimulus package ($62.5 million out of $ 800 odd BILLION dollars).  I could probably find just as many examples of the Stimulus program helping to stimulate job growth as you could find examples like the NSC, but that is not the point of this post.

People constantly argue that the NSC should not have been built, but it was.  If they would have had to stop the project, the 4000 or so jobs related to this project would have been prematurely ended (while the economy was at its worst) and the Port Authority would have inherited tunnels that it could not use but still had to pay for.  You could argue that the cost per rider will be expensive, and it will, but PAT will at least re-coop at least some money through ridership.  If no one is using the tunnels because they could not be completed, then no money is being re-cooped and the tunnels and other related infrastructure would just be sitting there, unused and eating up dwindling Port Authority funding (it still costs money to maintain infrastructure, even if its not in use, especially tunnels that could collapse if not maintained). 

Finally, and here’s the biggest issue I have with this.  You want to blame an administration for the NSC?  Fine, blame the Bush Administration.*  That administration approved the project and funded it to the tune of $348 million (80% of the projected cost at the time of approval).  I could argue that had the Bush administration not agreed to award the money, then the project would not have to be bailed out because it was over budget due to inflation.  I could say that this is another example of the Obama administration having to “bailout” a decision made by the Bush administration.  If you want to look strictly at the numbers of how much each administration has spent on the NSC; the Bush administration spent a lot more on the project than the Obama administration has.  

I am not actually trying to make that statement, but it’s about as accurate as someone saying “look at the NSC, it's bad, it got bailed out by Obama's bailout, Obama’s bailout is bad.”  The point is, the project needed to get finished, and no matter who is in the oval office now, the money probably would have been spent to finish the project.  The funding also just happened to come from Stimulus funding.  If that would not have been available, it probably would have come from somewhere else.

Politics in this country is disgusting.  Nothing can be taken at face value, because nothing is ever presented at face value.  Every “fact” is tilted, twisted and wrung out until it matches an ideology. 

*Blaming the Bush Administration for DOT’s approval of the NSC is just as foolish as directly blaming the Obama Administration for the use of bailout money on the NSC.  I would wager that neither President had direct knowledge of the physical approval for either instance.

I'll Pull My Funding if You Pull Yours

As I stated in my previous post and now that I've had a little time to calm down; I am 100% in support of pulling all state funding from the Port Authority (and SEPTA for that matter) with the caveat that the state no longer maintain any roads or fund any new roads.  Counties and municipalities would be on the hook to maintain all existing roads and fund any new road construction or expansion, to include limited access highways without the help of state funds. 

It’s hard to hypothesize what this would be like because it is unprecedented.  It's even harder to imagine how it would be all funded; not a pretty scenario given our auto-centric society. 

The only real “case study” of this is E-470 in Eastern Colorado.  It’s a Public/Private limited access highway that extends from Meridian, CO southeast of Denver, past Denver International to Broomfield, CO, northeast of Denver.  It’s basically a half moon shaped highway which forms the eastern half of a beltway around Denver.  Its western half was built and is maintained by the State of Colorado. 

E470 is maintained and tolled by a private company and has a public board consisting of the municipalities that the road travels through.  They set toll rates and oversee the operation and finances of the E470 highway. 

As of 2009 the average toll is 31 cents per mile for a two axle vehicle.    The toll is higher if it is a tandem axle vehicle.  The road was built and financed through private bonds and cost approx. $ 1.23 Billion dollars or about $25,751,072.96 per mile ($1.2 billion/46.6 miles)

If we take that $.31 per mile and say we drive five miles back and forth (a total of 10) each day to work.  The total per day would be $3.10.  Driving the route 5 times a week would cost us $ 15.50.  Driving 50 weeks out of the year would cost $775. 

In our current system, a person could avoid tolls altogether by using a publicly funded road that may parallel this limited access highway.  However, if all roads were locally funded, avoiding this toll may not be possible.

Again, this is just a small example using available information.  However, if local municipalities had to pay for new road construction and road maintenance (including limited access) they would be hard pressed to fund those requirements.  Those requirements would make a system such as the E470 highway entirely possible on a larger scale.  In this case, that $775.00 could be and most likely would be MUCH higher. 

Even if a system like the E470 weren’t adopted on a wide scale, communities would have to garner the revenue somehow. In that case, it's likely that local governments would resort to the thing that everyone hates to begin with; taxes.

So, once again, anyone willing to trade privatized transit for privatized roads, I’m all for it.  That way everyone can finally see that no form of human transportation, be it automotive, rail, air, or bus is un-subsidized.  

Not Good at All...

I have to agree with the sentiment of my friend over at Politics and Place on this one.


This is bullshit!


Port Authority has announced MASSIVE cuts.  If you ride transit, you will be affected.  Check out the article. Here are the changes.  Public comment has been scheduled for August 19th.  Be there if you give a crap about transit in Pittsburgh.


Also, talk to your state representative.  They are the root of this problem.  Tell them you think it's unacceptable to place public transit's head on the block to save their own heads at the ballot box.


To my new friend from Hempfield Twp.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander:  You don't want to pay for transit in Pittsburgh and Philly?  Fine, I don't want to pay for your roads.  Not an penny of state funding should go to your hard working, poor, innocent, and abused constituents in Central PA who are road bound.  Let them pay for their own road maintenance and new road building costs.  No state grants; no money for state roads, no nothing. Maybe God and the Tea Party will fix your roads for you.

Are you happy? I'm happy

The big day is here and the results have been released (at least to the Press, oddly enough they're not yet available on the TDP website) It seems as though option two has won out, and that is a good thing.

It's good for alot of reasons, not the least of which is that the fact it was long overdue. Pittsburgh's population distribution and development patterns have changed dramatically over the last 50+ years, and the Port Authority never adapted their service to the changes. This was much needed. Better service will be provided to the now high density areas, and areas that do not have the same transit usage as in past years will see corresponding cuts in service.

Additionally, this should show, to the people who like to use the arguments that mass transit isn't efficient, or that mass transit agencies don't operate efficiently, that the Port Authority is making a good faith effort to both decrease operating costs while increasing service. Talk to any businessperson out there, that's good business thinking.

Finally, this is excellent timing. With transit funding stagnant in Pennsylvania, any way the Port Authority can save money is a good thing.


Public comment will be held from today through September 30th. TELL THEM YOU LIKE IT!

A Perfect Storm for Public Transportation in the United States?

The Good

The last two years have been an exciting time if you are an advocate of public transportation in the United States. Among other things, we have seen a major spike in gasoline prices, and although they seem to have stabilized somewhat have pushed people away from their personal automobiles and towards alternate means of transportation in record numbers. Case in point: Amtrak saw a 14% increase in ridership between July 2007 and July 2008. The poor economy has eroded some that increase, but ridership is still higher than it was at this point in 2007. It's also important to keep in mind that this is with a smaller system than Amtrak has ever had along with stagnant funding. Check out the master list vs. what service is in place today.

Ridership on public transit is up. Way up. In 2008, transit ridership was the highest since 1956! That's big. That's 52 years of highway dominance, out the window in one year.

Additionally, the winner of the 2008 Presidential campaign brought even greater hope by promising to invest in our long neglected transportation system along with our national infrastructure. This promise was highlighted by the symbolic train ride that the President-Elect and Vice President-Elect took from Philadelphia to the inauguration in Washington, D.C.

Things sure are good in the transportation world aren't they? Not so fast. Some big issues in America right now are forming together with the record success of transit to form a perfect storm of sorts that threatens to hamstring transportation development in this country, if not set cause a massive setback.

The Bad

While transit use is up, which is great, funding remains flat. Check out an article here in the Post gazette that touches on the issue. Local transit authorities are faced with increased demands on their infrastructure and calls for service expansion all while dealing with the same funding levels that they dealt with 5 years ago. In some cases, because of the hard economic times funding has even been cut, again, while ridership increased. The system is broken, that's not news. The Gas Tax hasn't increased in 16 years and the Highway Trust fund is broke. You can't get better transit if you don't have the money to pay for it.

The Ugly

The healthcare debate, among others swirling around Washington seem to have caused enough strife to further the notion that our current funding strategy will suffice for another 18 months. The Post Gazette covers it here . It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if the funding system doesn't work now, it will continue to not work for another 18 months. Things will stay about the way they are now. Ridership looks to stay high, and funding will be inadequate which will cause further cutbacks and potential fare increases.

Hope isn't completely lost for a new funding package before the September 30 deadline of the current deal, but an 18 month delay could cause a permanent halt to a funding overhaul and renewed emphasis on transit.

The political tides seem to be shifting. The tremendous support that the Obama administration and their policies enjoyed may be at least wavering. The Senate Committee charged with appropriating the initial $4 billion dollars of HSR funds decided only to appropriate $1.8 billion. While this is not the end of the discussion, the figures initially discussed are already being paired down. This does not bode well for future HSR funding. The same can be said of transit funding. If support for HSR is still high and the money is being cut, imagine what happens when the support dies down, or gas prices come down.

I don't want to be a Negative Nancy here, but in my mind, we as a nation are at a crossroads. The demand for transit is there (and hopefully will continue to rise). What is missing is political will. If we put transportation in the back seat and don't fund it now and fund it properly, our best case scenario is we will have what we have now. Aging infrastructure, too many roads, and not enough alternate forms of transportation. That's the BEST case scenario.

The link between Healthcare and Transportation

While relationships between healthcare and transportation may not seem immediately clear (except for the fact that the people who work for and operate transportation companies/agencies/authorities all generally have healthcare) there are similarities in the debates between the various camps on either side of the issues.

First, let me say that the point of this is not to shout my opinions about Obama's healthcare plan, there are plenty of other blogs where you can find people's opinions about Government healthcare. When reading an article, found by way of The Radical Middle yesterday, I was shocked by some of the ridiculous arguments being made, by both sides on the medical debate. The far left view was that anyone who oposes their idea of Government healthcare is basically a heartless fascist who is just a puppet of big business, while the far right view was that Government healthcare was tantamount to communism and would force poor granny to go in front of a "death panel" that would decide her medical fate.

Both arguments are downright ridiculous, and the people who further these types of arguments should be ashamed of themselves. They turn important policy debate into a turd flinging contest. Their intent is also not to compromise and create the best course of action for everyone but to demean the opposition through the spreading of ridiculous lies and insults.
Where am I going with this you ask? After all, this is not Shadyside Hospital Blog, it's East Busway Blog. My point in this is the same ridiculous, emotional attacks that are clouding the healthcare debate are always present in the transit world, and it's a problem.

When lies, misconceptions and anecdotal arguments are allowed to influence public policy, the outcome is a dumbed down, half-assed version of an ideal policy. A perfect example in Pittsburgh is the hated Allegheny County drink tax. I have made it well known that I support the tax, because I looked at it rationally and to me it makes sense. You've got plenty of drinkers in Allegheny County, and the proceeds from the tax would serve a worthy cause, transit. However, the opposition to the tax was immediate and just plain angry. From radio ads by the owner of the Church Brew Works invoking Abraham Lincoln, to a gentleman who wanted to challenge Dan Onorato to a boxing match because of a tax on his beloved beer.

Most of the opposition was rooted in the fact that people just didn't want to pay more for alcohol, there wasn't a whole lot of rationality to their argument beyond that. The closest thing I saw to a coherent argument was that the tax would cause such an outrage that people would abandon drinking at bars in Allegheny County and flock to neighboring counties (which has happened to an extent, how much however, is not all that significant) which would cause bars to go out of business. However, even that argument which was rooted in rationality was taken to the extreme. Supposedly, the drop in business would lead to some mass bankruptcy in the bar industry, causing huge losses in jobs and revenues.

As it turns out, the "losses" have been minimal. The decrease in drinking at bars has been negligible, and I don't believe there is any quantifiable evidence that the drink tax has caused any bar or restaurant to close and the tax exceeded expectations for revenue. (Check out one of my favorite comment strings from way back on a "discussion" about the effects of the drink tax). My friend "anonymous" may have some valid points, but they are clouded by his insults and condescending tone.

The HSR debate is another example. There are logical arguments why HSR would not or could not work that could be made by reasonable people, and then there are people like this guy. (check out comment number 5). This quote came from Trains for America, and they seem to get more than their fair share of ridiculous, emotion based polarized arguments. You don't like trains? Fine, don't belittle rational discussion with regurgitated garbage you probably picked up off your favorite political radio talk show host.

I know that you find whackos anywhere, and two examples in a blog does not an argument make. However, go onto a news website and look at the comments that follow and article or opinion piece or watch a town hall meeting. It's frightening, not so much what people are saying, but how many people are saying the same crazy things, meaning the lunacy is widespread.

Why this polarized thinking has become so prevalent is another topic for another blog, but it certainly is present in transportation/transit policy debate, and it's damaging our infrastructure and de-railing (pun intended) our future.

Getting Back into the Swing of Things

I read an interesting opinion piece over the weekend about tolls vs. a gas tax as funding sources for "transportation". Check it out here.

I am assuming that by transportation the writer means solely highways because he doesn't really refer to any alternate forms of transportation. Between the author and the commentors, there a lot of misguided arguments. You get everything from the idea that increasing the gas tax alone will help, to the very common misconception among the pro-highway set that, other than vehicle cost/repair/maintenance (including filling up at the pumps) driving is and should always be free.

The events of mid 2008 have shown, in my mind that relying on a gas tax to fund transportation is not a solid bet. As gas prices increased independently of the tax, people drove less, to the tune of 12.9 billion miles. This caused the revenues of the tax to decrease by nearly $71 million. Tolling, I think has worked well, and should be expanded. Pennsylvanians need to know that driving is not free, and tolling provides the perfect method of explanation to the public at large. Ok… you can't toll everything, but I sure wish you could, and it certainly seem more stable than a gas tax. During 2008, the revenue from tolls increased despite the fact that nationally, vehicle miles driven decreased. (The increase was NOT from a fare increase either: the toll revenue increase occurred because the amount of vehicle miles traveled was higher in 2008 than 2007). There are mileage tax plans out there, but I don't even know if I like big brother having the potential of knowing where I am all the time, let alone what Cletus in central Pennsylvania will think of the idea.

I don't have the answer to taxing highway or road usage and the point of this post wasn't to propose an answer. At the risk of generalizing, this submission and the subsequent comments just go to show how ignorant people really are. There is a general misunderstanding of how roads and transit are funded; people still have this concept that "I pay for transit that I don't use and it's therefore a waste but don't have to pay for roads I don't use, and that makes roads more economical".

Another thing to take away is people's general dislike of transportation agencies. The Turnpike Commission gets a bad rap, but unlike PENNDOT was profitable until Act 44 required a $750 million contribution that put their numbers into the tank. There's a reason that Ed Rendell wanted to Toll I-80, it works on I-76.

Check out the Turnpike Commission's webpage here which goes into the details on their finances.

Good Stewardship

I like reading other blogs, it keeps me from having to be original (way too much pressure). I was reading a post about transit profitability here on a great site called "The Transport Politic". The article focuses on the eternal argument between (in my mind) pro transit people (like me) and anti-transit people (Like the Trib).

At the risk of over-simplifying things, generally there are two camps, the group that thinks transit should be funded by the public, and those who think that it should not. Those that think transit should not be funded by the public want transit agencies to "pull their own weight", and attempt operate at a profit, with little or no help from the public. If they fail, so be it. That way, we can use public money on interstate after interstate, and give suburban soccer moms and their Hummer H2's easier mobility through massive urban sprawl.

For what it's worth, here's my take on the argument. Mass transit is not, and should not be treated as a for profit enterprise. Mass transit is a public service, with emphasis on the public. In my mind a public service's main effort should be on supplying whatever service it is that they provide. A for-profit company worries about one thing: profitability(duh). If said company is not profitable, it will do anything, and everything in its power to become profitable, even if it means removing a service from an area entirely, laying off any amount of people and/or closing facilities. In my mind, this could create a conflict of interest, if a for-profit company is running transit, they may cut an "unprofitable service", even though that service may still be a viable public service. This defeats the purpose of providing a public service.

And now, for a BIG CAVEAT....

I learned a great lesson in the Army that I think really relates well to this argument. I had a commander that always used to tell us,
"... just because we're not trying to make money here doesn't mean we shouldn't be good stewards of the taxpayers money"
That statement right there is where transit agencies and governments fail big time! (Can You say Mr. Steelerstahl's little jaunt to the Post Gazette Pavilion with a police SUV and 50 of his best buddies) I think a major source of the argument about making transit agencies for profit companies stems from the lack of stewardship of public money.

While I wouldn't go so far as to suggest the Port Authority be run for profit by a private enterprise, I would agree with those that say that major reform is needed in the Port Authority. They have definitely embraced not operating as a for profit business with open arms, but have not exactly been good stewards of the tax-payers money. All I have to say are "North Shore Connector, highest personnel costs in the country" and you should get the picture.

I do think they are making attempts. I think CEO Steve Bland has the right idea. They have negotiated a less destructive contract with the ATU 85 (although more remains to be done in this area), and they have begun the Connect '09 Initiative in order to refine their route structure which is horribly out of date. These are the types of reforms that should be done. They should not however, throw the Port Authority and the people that rely on its services out the door for the sake of making a buck.