PAT continues in the fiscal death spiral

Pittsburgh PA - Port Authority of Allegheny County (PAT) on Friday approved more service cuts, layoffs as well as a yet to be determined fare hike. This will only further push PAT into the abyss from which it can't escape.

The years of living large under the former executive director, Paul Skoutelas, have caught up to PAT. Wasteful spending practices were honed to perfection under the Skoutelas reign at PAT which left little wiggle room for unexpected emergencies or cost increases which would immediately tilt the delicate balance.

The result of the wasteful practices was a 15% service cut with associated layoffs that went into effect last Sunday. Now an additional 10% of service has been approved for slashing as well as what will be a hefty fare increase.

Of course not all blame is to be laid on Skoutelas' doorstep. The State and local politicians are also to blame for not being willing to fund transit properly. It is hard to fund a wasteful organization properly however but the service shouldn't be destroyed for the people that depend on it just to cover political rear ends.

We as a nation just went through a national "Dump the Pump" promotion of public transit. What is happening in Pittsburgh is the very model of the opposite of what the promotion is all about. PAT is now at the point where it may never recover the lost ridership and what ridership remains will be finding other methods to go where they need to go.

Critics of PAT often cite duplicate service as a wasteful measure. It is true PAT operates what seem to be more duplicate routes than other systems but there is a reason. Pittsburgh has one of the most difficult service areas of any transit system in North America. The hills and valleys with roads that wander along the lay of the land make duplicate service hard to avoid. Roads in this area are designed to funnel into the Point in Downtown through a series of ever narrowing corridors. As buses head out of town, the routes break off a main trunk and head into the various communities tucked away in the geography.

Even with PAT's long overdue plan to overhaul the entire service under the "Connect '09" initiative, they will find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, not to have duplicate service in the majority of the natural geographical corridors.

PAT does need to control its spending. There is no question about this fact. PAT also needs a reliable source of funding it can depend on as well. Reliable funding is something that Pennsylvania has never allowed any public transit system in the state and it is long overdue.

The current fiscal crisis PAT faces effects every transit system in Pennsylvania but primarily the two largest operations, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. The State Legislature is stuck in session until something is done regarding funding the transit systems.

It's much more than just wasteful spending practices that triggered this crisis. Fuel, health care, wages and other operating expenses continue to go up while more and more unfunded government mandates continue to be placed on transit systems. All of this has helped push transit nationwide on to the event horizon of a massive fiscal black hole.

Nowhere is the effect as devastating as it is in Pittsburgh. This region has many areas that appear to be very close to a major transit line, as the crow flies, but can actually be a several miles away by road and sidewalk (if the road even has a sidewalk). This issue makes it much more costly to provide service in Pittsburgh. Something needs to be done to prevent public transit from failing completely here. It will hurt the entire region if PAT is allowed to continue to implode.

I have been critical of the most of the various plans brought up to help fund transit in Pennsylvania. The plans championed by various politicians do little toward actually solving the funding problem and everything to allow the politicians to pick the pockets of the taxpayer. None of the "cures" brought up to date address the problem of the need for a dedicated and dependable source of income for public transit.

The various proposals brought up by the politicians will still require the same method of distributing the funding. This means it has to be added to the state budget and then left open to being slashed for political pet projects and other agencies and groups in the state that are screaming loudly for money.

While I know taxes will have to go up to save transit in Pennsylvania, I will not nor cannot support any tax increase until the politicians allow a truly dedicated source of funding that is distributed equitably and not subject to the political whims of the politicians and activists. The public transit systems also need to continue to clean up their act and eliminate wasteful spending practices if such a funding scheme does happen.

Public transit is important to many people as well as the economy of the region it serves. It can't be allowed to crash and burn however we taxpayers also can't allow new taxes to be placed on the books for transit just to maintain the status quo. Changes are needed before we can accept more taxes for transit. Let's face a fact, PAT isn't the model of fiscal efficiency but it is improving. Those improvements need to continue and the state needs to allow for a truly dedicated funding source that is can be depended on.

Art project rusts while costing city plenty

Ventura CA - In an event that is more common than most think, yet another piece of art that adorns a transit facility is being damaged by the elements and costing the taxpayers much more money than the art is worth.

The City of Ventura built a transit center at the north end of the Pacific View Mall in 2002. This art work, which the city calls a shelter, cost $2 million. Since its installation, the structure has started to rust away. Fingers are being pointed and now is in court, wasting even more taxpayer money.

The city isn't maintaining it and trying to get the contractor to pay for restoration while the contractor insists that the city should pay for it since they didn't maintain it. The artist had final say in what paint and undercoating were to be used and he blew it. The result is a $2 million dollar rusting hulk that will take a few hundred thousand to restore, not including the money spent on the legal proceedings.

Anytime Federal funds are involved, art is mandated. If Federal money isn't involved, the local cultural community whines and complains until they can get art installed. Both scenarios are fully at taxpayer expense.

What few seem to understand is that these artsy-fartsy designs, sculptures and other permanent art work cost millions and the cost is on-going for maintenance. In some instances, the artwork takes priority over the facility itself due to the agreements over the artwork. If the piece doesn't get pristine maintenance, the artist and cultural groups begin hiring lawyers.

I have always had a problem with the rules requiring artwork, especially in transit projects. Most of what I see in these public art projects that cost millions to have is pure junk. I've seen better junk being tossed out on trash day.

Art is an acquired taste as well as one of personal taste yet the cultural community has succeeded in shoving their vision of art on everyone at the taxpayer's expense.

Transit systems are especially hit hard by having to maintain the mandated art due to the threat of expensive legal proceedings if they don't. In addition, if the art isn't maintained, it makes the facility look shabby. There is nothing wrong with a clean facility using easy to maintain materials, especially when the taxpayers are footing the bill.

Here's a solution, if the cultural community insists on art then let them pay for it as well as maintain it on their dime. It will never happen as it is just so much easier to spend your money than it is to spend their money.

The last two paragraphs in the article say it all and are sentiments expressed by the vast majority if the public in every city:

“It’s just rotting away and they paid $2 million,” Comstock said. “Somebody should be paying for the upkeep since they spent so much money on it. It doesn’t make any sense to me. I guess it’s art. They call it art. I don’t understand it.”

Sally Ramos, owner of Allison’s Country Cafe which faces “Bus Home,” echoes Comstock’s sentiments. “I think it was a waste of money. I think they should have built something practical like a structure that people could stand under when it’s raining and not get wet,” Ramos said, then added, “You look at it and just kind of wonder ‘Why?’”

PA Dems out to pick pockets for transit

Harrisburg PA - Higher vehicle fees, higher emission sticker fees, higher tolls, increased fuel taxes, higher taxes on tires, titles, inspections and taxing professional sports are all on the plate with Pennsylvania's tax and spend Democrat legislators.

I have mentioned in the past on the AMCAP Transit Talk discussion board that I truly believe that the Liberal politicians are trying to price the automobile out of existence through taxes and fees and once again, my vision of the future is coming true. Pennsylvania Democrats are trying for everything except congestion pricing at this point to generate money for transit but Governor "Fast Eddie" Rendell wants to tax oil companies at the state level instead.

If these Democratic plans go through, most of the money generated won't go to transit anyway. Pennsylvania's transit funding crisis is simply a convenient excuse for the tax and spend politicians to justify picking the taxpayer's pocket once again.

It's just not in Pennsylvania that such lunacy is taking place. One example is New York City, home of the ultra-Liberal Mayor Bloomberg (who actually was a life-long Democrat who only changed parties since the Dem ticket was too full for him) wants congestion pricing and is promising lower fares if his initiative passes. Yeah right, lower fares. It's not happening in London, the showcase for congestion pricing.

Luckily, the Pennsylvania Legislature is controlled by the Republicans who are resisting raising taxes. Most of these new taxes are dead on arrival when it comes to a vote yet the Dems keep coming up with more ways to raise taxes while offering nothing toward showing any fiscal responsibility.

Trying to tax the automobile out of existence won't help public transit, period. Even if all the tax increase went toward transit, all that would happen is that the status quo would remain in place for a few more years and then we'd be right back in the same exact position we are in now.

It is also a proven fact that taxing automobile ownership doesn't work. Minnesota has such a scheme to fund transit and they are finding that as people abandon their cars for transit, the automobile generated revenues for transit are dropping rapidly, placing the systems in a financial bind. Fares just don't cover the operating expenses of public transit today.

A single dedicated funding source such as a local 1/4% or 1/2% sales tax is a far more equitable method of funding transit rather than nickel and diming every aspect of automobile ownership. Any form of funding should also come with a string attached which is that wasteful spending practices will be punished by the system not being funded.

Much of the funding crisis is the direct result of wasteful spending practices at transit systems for decades. My local system, the Port Authority of Allegheny County (PAT) mastered the technique of wasting money on everything except putting service on the street. Simply taxing the hell out of the taxpayer to pay for transit service by wasteful systems is useless as they'll continue to blow money and have their hand out for more next year.

Transit funding is a complicated issue. The two things that are clear however is that public transit does need to be adequately funded and public transit administrations and unions need to stop wasting money and refocus on the basics. It's like matter and anti-matter with the funding being obliterated by the wasteful practices at many agencies.

The answer to funding isn't to tax the car owner out of existence. It won't solve the transit funding crisis and will only serve to push even more people out of the state. The Pennsylvania Democrat's plan is a disaster in the making and decades of evidence on past political behavior show that much of the money raised will not go to what it is intended for and transit will still be left with inadequate funding.

In Kenosha's tracks?

Kenosha WI / Madison WI - Madison WI Mayor David Cieslewicz and his partner in the pro-rail spin machine, Charlie Hales (streetcar consultant to Cieslewicz), are attempting to use Kenosha's streetcar system as proof that a streetcar system in Madison will work.

The article in the Madison Times had me laughing for quite some time. These 4 paragraphs are pure gold:

"It a boon to tourism," Cieslewicz said. "And tourism is one of the reasons for a streetcar here."

However, on a recent Monday, there wasn't a tourist in sight on Kenosha's downtown lakefront.

The weather was glorious. The sun was glinting off the water. The breeze was mild enough to keep the small crowd gathered at a transit transfer point comfortable in the 80-degree heat without messing up their hair.

But none of that crowd got on the streetcar. They were waiting for buses.

The article then goes into mentioning the empty streetcars that frequently run on Kenosha's tourist line. 50 riders a day is average for a weekend during tourist season. "There are fewer riders in the winter, when Brandup cuts back the hours of service so people don't see empty cars going by as often."



Cieslewicz and Hales then state that streetcars aren't about ridership. Excuse me? Not about ridership? That's one of the reasons Cieslewicz has frequently stated as to why he is trying to ram his streetcar proposal through, it will reduce the traffic congestion in Madison.

Cieslewicz wants his streetcar line for two reasons. One is that he thinks that in time, it will be a positive factor for his legacy and the second is development. Once again, no mention was made of the fact that the bulk of the development which will occur will occur on the taxpayer's dime. Grants, no-pay back loans, tax breaks and other taxpayer funded methods will be used to lure developers to build along the line. It can take 20 years or more before any real development occurs. As I have mentioned before, I'm still waiting for the promised development along the rails in my hometown.

I have to give Madison Mayor David Cieslewicz a Lance for this performance.

Forcing transit on the public

Honolulu HI - The Honolulu Advertiser has a story on the recent Census Bureau study that showed commuters nationwide are not being swayed to hop on board public transit. In the story however, an ill-conceived game plan of sorts has been laid out to show how people can be convinced to abandon their cars and hop on board mass transit.

The basic plan laid out uses a two prong strategy of persuasive as well as coercive tactics. The coercive tactics spelled out in the plan are scary and are aimed at literally taxing the hell out of private autos so that owning one would become completely unaffordable to the general population.

While the Honolulu Advertiser reporter, Jerry Burris, states that to be fair mass transit must be in place first, his goal is to give a template to the pro-rail activists which they can follow to force expensive rail projects to be built.

Nowhere in the article does Mr. Burris state that Honolulu's mass transit system should improve its operations and become more efficient. Nor does Mr. Burris state that mass transit has limitations that just can't be solved. What he does state, more or less, is that the pro-rail supporters have to step it up a notch. In other words, push harder to get rail built.

The problem with Mr. Burris' template is that it just won't work. Simply building transit projects such as LRT or BRT will not get people to switch even if you tax every aspect of car ownership to the max. People will ride transit if it is convenient and takes them where they want to go without a lot of fuss. Often times, what is a 15 minute car ride translates to a 2 hour plus transit trip with multiple transfers. Try hauling a bunch of kids with a few hundred dollars of shopping on a two hour bus ride in crowded conditions. It's obvious to me that Mr. Burris never has.

Mr. Burris also fails to understand that if you get people to give up their cars and on board public transit, you also give up your revenue stream. Less cars entering the city means less in congestion taxes, parking taxes and other taxes that have been levied on the concept of private auto ownership. With reduced revenues, the translation becomes route cuts and fare hikes which then will start the downward spiral that so many transit systems are in today.

I am a transit advocate but I am also well aware that transit has problems that will never be solved. Getting from point A to point B isn't simple on transit and that fact seems lost on many transit advocates. Many transit advocates these days feel that all you have to do build just one more expensive transit project and everyone will suddenly abandon their cars. Where I live, we've had many expensive transit projects built and I'm still waiting for the massive influx of new riders.

The best that can be hoped for is to attract as many choice riders as you can through focusing on the basics of providing service. That point is also lost on the majority of the transit advocates. Your never going to get a 50% share of choice riders, yet alone the much higher percentage they seem to think they'll get even with the coercive tactics suggested in the the article.

Simply building rail lines and marketing the system isn't going to get people to switch. Even taxing the car owners to the point of abandoning their cars won't do it (most will simply move to greener pastures where their money is treated better). The reason these methods won't work is that public transit is incapable of handling the diverse number of destinations that people want and need to go in any form of a timely and efficient manner. Expensive transit projects are not the answer nor is trying to force people onto transit through the leftist tactic of taxing something they don't like into oblivion.

While I agree with Mr. Burris that attitudes toward public transit need to be changed, his suggested methods are not the way to do it. Public transit needs to fix what it has in place already and go back to the basics of providing service. They need to stop building expensive transit projects when they can't efficiently run what they have in place already. A system that has good service at a reasonable rate will attract far more riders than a system that is going bankrupt building transit projects that benefit few.

NYMTA to Disabled Community: Prove it

New York City NY - In a move that the New York Metropolitan Transit Authority (NYMTA) is saying is not related to spiraling costs of paratransit service, the system is now requiring disabled customers to visit a testing center to be certified as being disabled. Doctor notes are no longer accepted.

The move is causing some outrage among many in the disabled community, not so much for the certification itself but in how the certification process is done. Many believe that the NYMTA needs to go to the assisted living facilities rather than have the residents trek down to a testing center.

This change of policy comes at a time when paratransit service nationwide is routinely abused. While the NYMTA claims the move isn't cost related, it really is as paratransit service is extremely expensive to provide and is rapidly draining operating funds.

Some of the abuse of paratransit comes from the ease of being classified as disabled. All you need is a note from your doctor and you can be permanently listed as disabled even for a temporary issue. The NYMTA is attempting to eliminate that rather large loophole.

The NYMTA does need to make a change in its policy however, customers from legitimate assisted living facilities should have the NYMTA examiners go there or certify a doctor at those facilities to make the determination. Other customers not in a registered facility should still be required to make the trek.

I do agree with the NYMTA however that such a certification is needed. The abuse of the much more costly paratransit service has gotten out of hand. I believe that if the NYMTA makes that one change to their policy, the criticism of the new plan will be greatly reduced as well as the abuses of the paratransit system in New York City.

Transit symposium brings up some good points

NYC NY - An article in The Journal News reports on a transportation symposium that was sponsored by the Tri-State Transportation Campaign. The symposium focused on bus rapid transit (BRT) rather than on light rail transit (LRT) and brought up some important points.

I read the article a few times but on the first pass the item that jumped out at me was the first sentence which read, "Bus rapid transit, if planned and built so that it is more than just a cheap version of light rail, could help ease congestion through the Tappan Zee Bridge/Interstate-287 corridor, several experts said at a symposium sponsored by The Tri-State Transportation Campaign".

I couldn't agree more about the concept of not making BRT a cheap version of an LRT line. BRT has the ability of being one of the most flexible modes of transportation available which is obtainable at a fraction of the cost of most other modes of public transport. To turn it into a cheap version of an LRT line severely limits the ability of the buses.

Busways such as those used in Pittsburgh Pennsylvania, for example, are a prime example of how BRT can be flexible. Pittsburgh's busways are designed for the same buses that provide service elsewhere in the service area and don't require specialized equipment. On the opposite extreme is the BRT operation in Eugene Oregon which has limited itself to being an LRT wanna-be with specialized equipment.

Another point brought up is that BRT as an image problem. I agree again. Much of the negative image of BRT is thanks to the pro-rail crowd. By broadly painting bus transportation with terms such as "dirty", "low-class" and other negative connotations, the pro-rail activists have convinced many in the general public that rail is the answer and to ride a bus is slumming it.

What I find amusing are these two paragraphs:

But to build a bus rapid transit system that will attract riders by choice, Alan Hoffman, a principal with the Mission Group, a San Diego planning firm, said buses must get people where they want to go, do it quickly, frequently and with less than a 10-minute wait, and make them feel good about using it - all at once. Without all these elements, BRT is just another dreaded bus.

"We don't want to feel like losers," Hoffman said, adding that "often the experience of transit is a humbling experience."

Why is it that people will wait a half hour for an LRV and feel like winners but if they have to wait 11 minutes for a bus that they feel like losers? Much is the successful stereotyping that the pro-rail crowd as fed to the public.

Don't forget that in the 50's and 60's when rail was rapidly being replaced by buses, the opposite was true. The majority of people complained about having to ride the slow and ancient streetcars and wanted them replaced by buses. They felt like losers when they had to ride a slow streetcar but like winners when they could ride a bus that could bypass many of the problems that slowed the streetcars down.

This point was brought up to me by a friend who sent me the article and he is totally correct. It was completely a mirror image of today in terms of public perception. The only thing that has changed over the years is the flip-flop in the perception of buses and rail vehicles. We'll have another perception flip-flop with the same cities that clamored to get rid of rail in the 50's and 60's and are now clamoring to hop on the rail bandwagon today will be trying to get rid of rail once again in 40 or so years.

Pittsburgh's routes may be changing

Pittsburgh PA - The Port Authority of Allegheny County (PAT) announced yesterday an initiative called "Connect '09" which may bring some sweeping changes to how transit is provided in the Pittsburgh area.

Starting with the introduction of smart card fare collection technology, the Connect '09 initiative is ultimately aimed at overhauling how the entire transit system is structured. Data collected from smart card usage will give PAT a better idea of its customer's riding habits claims PAT Chief Executive, Steve Bland.

One thing that is funny is that many of the things that Bland states have been being said for decades and totally ignored by PAT. Suddenly PAT discovers what needs to be done and acts as though it has never been thought of before. Wrong Steve, much of this has been said from long before PAT even took control of Pittsburgh's public transit system. I know personally that I've been waving the banner claiming PAT needed to look at transit in a new way for decades.

The Connect '09 plan also can be used to integrate the surrounding counties into a single transit system with either a direct agency or as an umbrella agency. That fact was heavily downplayed at the press conference by PennDOT Secretary, Allen Biehler as well as Mr. Bland.

Now before any catcalls about how PAT can afford this, it is being paid for through a Federal grant and has no effect on the service cuts. The cuts would happen with or without this program. One side note however is that the grant only pays for this to be used on the buses and PAT will have to come up with other forms of funding to pay for the implementation of the smart card technology on the rail vehicles.

While Steve Bland has earned himself and PAT a few Lances since his arrival, I must give him a Laurel for finally acknowledging that PAT needs to overhaul its route structure. It took long enough for someone in a position to do something to actually shed light on what us common folk have been pointing out for decades now.

Seattle group forms to fight LRT

Seattle WA - A new advocacy group has formed to oppose Sound Transit's rail expansion plans. Called the Washington Traffic Institute (WTI), the group calls into question the claims made by Sound Transit and other pro-rail advocacy groups as to cost as well as reducing traffic congestion.

I was actually surprised to read about the group in an article in the Seattle Times. Usually these types of groups that go against the "popular flow" get little media coverage.

The WTI was formed to fight the $37 billion Roads and Transit measure that is set for the fall ballot. Sound Transit needs this measure passed to expand its rail transit network.

Although the WTI website is a little spartan currently, it does put up some numbers that show how the costs are skyrocketing and that the costs don't justify the projected ridership numbers. It was a welcome site to me in a world of pro-rail spin which ignores such things.

One of the prime reasons stated by Sound Transit for pushing for the expanded rail transit network is that it will reduce traffic congestion. That is a total fallacy. There is not one study of any LRT line in North America which can show a direct correlation between a rail line and reduced traffic congestion. On the contrary, most studies show even more traffic congestion once a rail line is opened.

That fact is downplayed and often outright ignored by the "damn the costs, full speed ahead" pro-rail crowd in their rush to slap rail lines in as many places as they can. There needs to be more groups like the WTI which want a serious approach to improving the transportation in a city. Rail isn't the answer in the vast majority of the cases yet it is sold as the Saviour of city by the pro-rail crowd.

Rail has become the new way to pick the taxpayer's pockets. As I have often stated in numerous Laurels & Lances articles, rail isn't being used for transportation these days as much as it is being used for political and personal legacy reasons as well as trying to steer development to where the political leaders want it to go.

If cities really want to reduce traffic congestion, they'll fix what they have in place already. Adding more while leaving an existing under performing operation in tact does nothing except create a fiscal black hole that sucks down taxpayer money.

Let's face a simple fact. You are never going to get rid of the private automobile. The best you can hope for is to make transit attractive to the car owners and hope to get some of them to switch. To do that, public transit needs to first go back to the basics of providing service. Bells and whistles such as new rail lines just don't cut it in the long term if the basics of providing service aren't in place or need improvements.

Rail has its place. That is something I don't argue with. Where I have the problem is that rail is being sold to the public as the greatest invention since flush toilets, complete with a long list of dubious claims of positives while the negatives are ignored.

Rail isn't the answer in every situation. In most cases, simple service adjustments on the existing bus system will do far more, and at a much cheaper price, than slapping a rail line down for the sake of having a rail line.

Chastain pounds the rail drums

Kansas City MO - Pro-rail advocate, Clay Chastain, is pounding the drums again to get his rail plan in place in Kansas City. For some strange reason, Chastain seems oblivious to the fact that Kansas City can't just jump ahead of the waiting list for Federal money to build his precious rail line.

Chastain, a Bedford Virginia resident, seems intent on trying to saddle Kansas City Missouri residents with a light rail plan that the city just can't afford. He loves to claim the voters overwhelmingly want his plan when, based on numerous articles and letters to the editor by residents, that really isn't the case.

The truth of the matter is that many Kansas City voters were simply confused, overwhelmed and completely uninformed of what they were voting for. Of the various comments I've seen in KC newspapers and radio/TV sites as well as comments sent to me, many people thought they were voting for KC to look into a rail plan for the future. They were largely unaware that what they were voting for was to implement Chastain's personal legacy rail line immediately.

That really is the voter's fault and they deserve what they get however, the ballot question was reported to also be rather confusing and misleading. That doesn't really surprise me but the voters still should have informed themselves and it was easy to do with all the coverage on the rail proposal.

Chastain's comments in the linked article also give me further proof that this is all about his personal legacy rather than the good of the city. Of the item's listed, "My light rail plan" comes above anything else. He really wants his name on a brass plaque along the line for posterity.

While Chastain does mention that there needs to be a bus funding plan, it falls much further down on his list. Even with his proposed eighth-cent sales tax to cover bus operations, that money will be siphoned off to pay to operate his rail line, complete with gondola ride which in other news stories he insists must be included or he'll sue the city.

Chastain refuses to look at the whole picture. He's so desperate to get his rail plan built that he really doesn't care if he turns the city into a ghost town. Federal money will not be coming to build it as the Feds have already made clear that KC can't jump to the head of the funding line. I doubt the State will rush to pay for it. That means KC residents will have to pick up the entire tab for Chastain's Folly one way or another. By building it or paying to cover the city costs to defend against Chastain's threatened law suits to force the line to be built. Just imagine the sky high taxes and the rush to move to greener pastures where taxes are lower.

Clay, here's a Lance for your "Damn the costs when my legacy is at stake" attitude. You've earned it.