Transportation and the Mayoral Race Part 2

Part 2 will focus on Candidate Carmen Robinson (I was going to do this alphabetically by last name, after the incumbent, but Ms. Robinson was the first to respond to me, and took the time to have a conversation with me about her ideas via e-mail. She deserves some credit for that.)

I posed the same question to Ms. Robinson that I posed to Mr. Ravenstahl, and Mr. Dowd: "What are your plans for transportation infrastructure and transit if elected as mayor?"

Her first answer was:
"Although I have thoughts on transportation and some experience in that industry, I will have to use the "bully pulpit" of the office since transportation is squarely a County Executive and County Council mandate. I didn't say issue because it affects all of us. Currently the office of the Mayor has no influence over Dan Onorato. I will change that!"

She went on to explain what a bully pulpit is, and I didn't include that. As far as an answer, it's pretty vague, but not far from a standard politician answer to a question. She is right that it is a County matter, but it is a big matter for the city. As far as how she would approach using the bully pulpit, she was again, pretty vague.

I sent her a clarification question, relating Luke Ravenstahl's "infrastructure wish list" and asked her if she had any more concrete ideas for improving transit and transportation. She responded by saying she would argue for sub-contracting out certain services. Saying that " If a private company were run the way PAT does, it would be out of business...A competive (sic) bid for sub contractors could give the system the boost it needs"

I certainly agree with her assertion that the Port Authority is not running as efficiently as it could. Again, just because the Port Authority is not a business, doesn't mean that they can't run efficiently and emulate a business. However, I question her plan on sub-contracting and on what scale? East Busway maintenance, for example is already contracted out, and that still sucks pretty bad too.

Even this discussion was pretty broad (but that is to be expected), but if you read between the lines of her discussion on sub-contracting, she has a point. Ms. Robinson is the first candidate to specifically discuss inefficiencies at the Port Authority.
The big question is, will she have the political muscle, and the time to devote to a true solution when there are plenty of other problems, and technically, she would not hold the mantle for transit in Pittsburgh.

Ms. Robinson's website, as with every other candidate website is not detailed, and I'm sure this is purposefully done. She has a section called "What I stand for" which again is very general and does not mention transit or transportation at all.

In my assessment, like the other candidates, transportation and transit are not hot button issues (other than staying away from them) for her. However, I think Ms. Robinson is aware of some of the problems that the Port Authority has, and thus far has been the most willing to admit to those problems. She certainly sounded like she was willing to give Dan Onorato her input on those issues, and from what I have been able to gather up to this point, that is more than our current mayor.

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.