Pittsburgh Transit

Writer wanted

2012-02-16T21:52:00.001-05:00

The more I've thought about it, the more I've wondered whether leaving this blog in its current form was the right thing to do. There are still many pressing issues confronting transit in Pittsburgh today.

The Port Authority of Allegheny County has set up their own blog at http://transitpgh.blogspot.com. This is strikingly similar to this blog at http://pittsburgh-transit.blogspot.com, perhaps because I got here first. But because of the similarities in the name, there is a lot of opportunity to be heard.

I've already said that I will not do the speaking. As much as I have the desire, I don't have the time. But is there someone out there who does? Is there someone who would be willing to use this humble blog as a platform for keeping the public informed on the Port Authority? Who will provide a different voice then the official one we hear?

Is it you?

If you're interested, drop me an email at clarkbhm (at) hotmail (dot) com and we'll see what we can work out.
Thanks!

Support mass transit, even if you don't use it!

2011-01-24T11:26:00.002-05:00

"Clearly, even if you don't ride public transportation, it is still in your best interest to support investment in public transit," said William Millar, president of the American Public Transportation Association. "Better public transportation in your community means less congestion on the roads."

One quick article

2009-05-16T22:05:00.003-04:00

Yeah, I know the blog has been closed for over a year, but I recently read a great article by Stephen Donahue, one of the founders of "Save Our Transit". Well worth the read if you are interested in the Port Authority...

The End of the Road

2007-12-12T00:18:00.000-05:00

A few weeks ago, “The Ill-Tempered Ingénue” blog signed off for good. That blog’s final posting struck close to the heart for me. I hope that author doesn’t mind that I’ve paraphrased so much of her final post below, but with the virtual disappearance of my posts as of late, I think it's time to call it a blog.

Frankly, I have neither the time nor the interest to do justice to this blog. To really get into the blogging thing -- to do it several times a week, to keep up with all of the relevant news and write intelligently about them, to not simply copy and paste news stories into articles, you need to make it a full-time job. And I have a full-time job already.

When I come home, I just want to eat dinner, play with my daughter, talk to my wife, and go to sleep. Sleep is outstanding. I don't get paid to blog. Why am I wasting time doing it for nothing? Why am I up late losing sleep on a freebie? Why am I sorting through articles on a weekend instead of spending time with my family?

I have a virtual file of a hundred or so articles that I’ve been meaning to comment upon over the past several weeks/months, but I just haven’t had the time. I could spend the time sorting them and writing for free, OR I could go and play with my beautiful fifteen month old daughter sitting on the floor across the room. I’ve been making the latter choice lately and honestly, I haven’t regretted it at all.

Additionally, I feel more and more that a blog is a liability, a time bomb waiting to blow some kind of awkward shrapnel into my professional or social life. It has brought me no benefit and poses a daily threat. Here's the problem: If I want to really be honest and be as open and critical as I would like to be, I have to be anonymous and vulnerable. If I write under my own name, I have to keep it clean and safe so as not to hurt my family or offend my employer. In either case I can’t win. Watching the great Blog-Lebo get threatened with a lawsuit over a trivial issue posted in the comments was kind of eye-opening. And honestly, I feel that nothing I have to say is THAT important.

So I'm packing it in. Blogging has become a chore from which I get no pleasure, and I'm not at all sure the world needs another angry, bitter ranter. But it's had some fun moments. I want to thank my half-dozen or so stalwarts for their patience and loyalty. But you know how to get in touch with me. Drop me an e-mail. I'm never too busy for that.

Interested in transit issues? Here are some recommended blogs:

Null Space - An excellent Pittsburgh focused blog that frequently talks about mass-transit issues
Rebuilding Place in the Urban Space - A Washington, DC blog which focuses on mass-transit issues and urban development issues in that city
CommuterPageBlog - Another Washington, DC blog focusing on transit
The Transportationist - A Minneapolis blog focusing on transportation issues

Transit pass crackdown - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

2007-10-18T22:28:00.000-04:00

Transit pass crackdown - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: "Port Authority has charged 162 people over the past five years for access device fraud. Another 56 people have been charged with forgery. In most cases, the penalty is a minimum fine of $1,023 -- the cost of an annual Zone Three pass."

Maglev's alive, but is it well?

2007-10-15T23:56:00.001-04:00

Maglev's alive, but is it well?: "Plans are still alive -- barely -- to develop futuristic, magnetically levitated trains to whisk passengers between Pittsburgh International Airport and Downtown at speeds reaching 240 mph. But whether a high-speed maglev system will ever be built here or anywhere in the United States in the near future remains uncertain. The Federal Railroad Administration is reviewing a draft version of a final environmental impact statement that could position Maglev Inc. to proceed with the first 15 miles of a national demonstration project, proposed to eventually total 47 miles by continuing east to Monroeville and Greensburg."

Riding the bus or T will soon cost more - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

2007-10-15T23:56:00.000-04:00

Riding the bus or T will soon cost more - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: "A fare hike is coming for riders of Port Authority's T and buses. The transit agency's board is expected this week to consider proposals to hike fares starting Jan. 1, and the price options could be higher than the previous 75-cent increase floated by the authority in the summer."

Transit union hits Onorato on budget after he called benefits 'outrageous'

2007-10-15T00:14:00.000-04:00

Transit union hits Onorato on budget after he called benefits 'outrageous':

Allegheny County Chief Executive Dan Onorato's budget remarks may have set the stage for the most contentious labor situation at the Port Authority since 1992, when union workers staged a 28-day strike. 'If he thinks he's going to take [budget problems] out on the backs of workers, he's going to have a fight on his hands,' Patrick McMahon, president and business agent for Amalgamated Transit Union Local 85, said yesterday after reading news articles in which Mr. Onorato called union benefits 'outrageous.'

Drink tax proposals

2007-10-14T23:49:00.000-04:00

One proposal to help pay for transit funding in Allegheny County is to initiate a 10% tax on drinks served in the county.

Onorato budget seeks 200 layoffs, drink tax
from Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Allegheny County Chief Executive Dan Onorato wants to cut $10 million out of next year's budget by eliminating 200 county jobs to avoid raising property taxes.

In his 2008 budget address to County Council yesterday, Mr. Onorato also called for imposing a full 10 percent alcoholic drink tax and a $2-a-day tax on car rentals to pay for transit. He also said he would withhold the county's share of the Port Authority's budget until the authority eliminates excesses from its contracts.

Onorato plans 200 layoffs, 2 new taxes
from Tribune-Review News

Allegheny County's chief executive plans to lay off 200 workers Jan. 1 to help plug a $30 million hole in the 2008 budget. Additional money to erase the deficit would come from taxes on alcoholic drinks and rental cars.

Drink tax prospects worry businesses along Allegheny County border
from Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

With county officials now considering a drink tax to help fund the Port Authority transit system, they also now face the prospect of adding 10 percent to their customers' bills -- a tax their Butler County counterparts, just minutes away in Cranberry, won't have to pay.

Local restaurants balk at transit tab
from Tribune-Review News

Dozens of restaurateurs, wait staff and kitchen workers gathered to protest a proposal to tax poured alcoholic drinks and rental cars.

Video: Drinking tax protest
from Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Allegheny County Council's proposed drink tax drew dozens of speakers to a hearing last night. That tax, coupled with a $2 car rental surcharge designed to pay the county's $26.3 million subsidy for the Port Authority, has drawn the ire of the Pennsylvania Restaurant Association, which staged a rally earlier in the day.

County's hearing on new taxes to draw crowd
from Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Allegheny County Council expects to get an earful tonight at its hearing on taxes it is considering to fund the county's share of the Port Authority budget. At least 41 people have lined up to speak for or against proposals to impose a poured drink tax of up to 10 percent and a $2 increase in the car rental tax.

Drink, car rental taxes no sure bet with Council
from Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Allegheny County Chief Executive Dan Onorato has bet his 2008 budget on County Council adopting new taxes on alcoholic drinks and car rentals to fund mass transit. It's not a sure thing.

Allegheny County Transit Council meeting

2007-09-16T10:40:00.000-04:00

The Allegheny County Transit Council will hold the public forum 'Help Us Help You Out' from 3 to 7 p.m. Wednesday at the Downtown YMCA, 330 Boulevard of the Allies. The transit council needs public input on improving public transportation in Allegheny County. The event will not focus on current issues relating to the status of the Port Authority of Allegheny County, but will be a constructive dialog on how the council can make the system better. Transit riders should come with ideas for better transit. Those who cannot attend should e-mail their suggestions to alleghenycountytransitcouncil@yahoo.com

From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Hotel at the Mt. Lebanon T station?

2007-08-08T23:59:00.000-04:00

Hey, check out Authority, hotel ready to sign deal from the Post-Gazette.

Doesn't this fly in the face of my report from the South Hills TRID meeting from a few weeks ago? My understanding from that meeting was that this parcel of land was included in the planning district. No one ever mentioned that they already had a hotel scheduled to be built...

[Opinion] Letters to the business editor

2007-08-08T23:54:00.000-04:00

Letters to the business editor: "Get off the bus

It was because of people like David Radin that I retired from the Port Authority ('Communication breakdowns can foul commuters' plans,' July 28).

There are signs at every high platform advising of disruptions, and even if there were no signs, the big sign on the front of the car reads 44S to BEECHVIEW. Even if Mr. Radin happened to be blind, every time the doors open an automated voice announces '44S to Beechview.' He wanted a T to Downtown.

Mr. Radin also said he had to ask about the fare, but every station has a site specific sign listing the fares.

Also, if he boarded at a high platform there was an announcement advising patrons of the disruptions. If he would sometimes read the newspaper that publishes his column, he would have seen the detours listed every Sunday since the first of March!

WILLIAM J. GALLIK, Crafton"

[Opinion] Connected: Communication breakdowns can foul commuters' plans

2007-08-08T23:53:00.000-04:00

Connected: Communication breakdowns can foul commuters' plans: "I used to brag to my out-of-town friends about what a great mass transit system we have. I boasted that I could run down to the local light rail train and be Downtown in 20 minutes, ready to work, go to a restaurant or take in a ballgame. But those times have changed. I'm now more embarrassed by the local mass transit. Not because the train and bus schedules have been cut or because the prices have risen, but because I can no longer count on what used to be a reliable source of transit.

It was wonderful when Port Authority Transit updated their T stations with state of the art communications equipment. I could look above my head to find out that the train would be running on reduced schedules during certain periods -- or that PAT would have special enhanced train schedules for certain traffic-producing events. But somewhere along the line, management either forgot how to use their glorious communications channels -- or simply gave up caring to communicate."

Sometimes you just can't win

2007-07-25T20:52:00.000-04:00

Everything was going grand. The legislature had enacted funding for PAT and SEPTA, paid partially by the tolling of I-80. Allegheny County's portion was to be paid partially by taxing rental cars. Things were going great.

Until today.

Two members of the US House of Representatives (not from Pennsylvania) introduced a bill that would "ban local and state governental bodies from enacting new taxes on rental vehicles". (link) Thus, instead of raising the vehicle rental tax of up to $2 per day, the only new revenue source would be a tax on alcohol sales in the county.

Ok, that's not particularly tragic, but it gets worse.

U.S. Reps. Phil English, R-Erie,and John Peterson, R-Centre, to prohibit the use of any federal funds to implement Pennsylvania's just-adopted transportation funding plan, which includes putting up to 10 toll areas on I-80. The congressmen inserted a provision in a House transportation spending bill to prohibit the use of federal funds in erecting or collecting first-time tolls on I-80. Mr. Rendell said he interprets that move to also prohibit federal funds from being used to pay employees to process the state's application to toll the road. (link)

You've got to be kidding me. You're telling me that after many many years of the state government trying to get their act together to fund public transportation in Pennsylvania, we're going to be undone by two of our own Pennsylvania representatives. Two "representatives" with some sort of personal axe to grind would rather see the two largest transit systems in their state go down in flames then tolls be enacted on the interstate.

Luckily, other lawmakers in Congress are planning on opposing the amendment. "I-80 will be a toll route," U.S. Rep. Bob Brady, D-Philadelphia, vowed on Wednesday. (Link)

I just want to know, if this thing goes through and the plan falls apart thanks to our "representatives" what do they propose to fix the problem?

---
PS, Fred Honsberger interviewed John Peterson on the air. (MP3 link)

More on the South Hills TRID meeting

2007-07-19T22:34:00.000-04:00

A full week after I posted on the South Hills TRID meeting, the Post-Gazette has followed up with their report from the meeting, available online at http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07200/802660-55.stm

Report from the South Hills TRID meeting

2007-07-12T22:04:00.000-04:00

Hello readers,

As you may recall, a few days ago, I posted a link to an article informing the public of an upcoming meeting of the South Hills Transit Revitalization Investment District (TRID) Planning Study. As the meeting was held at the Mt. Lebanon Municipal building, a short walk for me, I was able to attend and find out what was going on.

In essence, the communities of Dormont and Mt. Lebanon, working with Allegheny County and the Port Authority are working to plan for new development around three light rail "T" stations: Potomac, Dormont Junction, and Mt. Lebanon. The development is to be transit-oriented; that is it is designed to encourage walking and the use of transit, as well as "take advantage of the markets created by transit". This first meeting was an explanation of the concepts of Transit Oriented Development (TOD) and the use of the TRID for economic development.

Much of the presentation came from DMJM Harris, a consulting firm which specializes in transit issues. The presenter (I forget his name) showed examples of how transit can integrate with the surrounding community in multiple areas: Brookline, MA, Newton, MA, Sacramento, CA, Plano, TX, San Jose, CA, and Portland, OR. These seemed to be focused more on the situations you find at Potomac or Fallowfield stations on the 42S line--light rail integrated into a street setting with shopping available along the way.

The presenter then focused on complex developments that have worked around the nation: the Westside MAX in Portland, Oregon, the apartments at the Mockingbird station in Dallas, Texas, the Holly Avenue Apartments in Pasadena, California, Gateway station in Salt Lake City, Utah, Englewood station in Denver, Colorado and Northpoint station in Boston, Massachusetts. These sites offer a much more complex level of development which would better suit the opportunities that are available at Mt. Lebanon and Dormont stations. My guess is that the goal of the development is to aim at somewhere between the two levels.

I was, however, surprised at the inclusion of two Pittsburgh stations that have had similar development: Negley and East Liberty stations on the East Busway. Reporting on all of the economic development that has happened in the vicinity of those two bus stops may be misleading, in my opinion. I somehow doubt that the placement of the Whole Foods Market (East Liberty) and the expansion of the Giant Eagle Market District (Negley) had much to do with the busway being nearby.

Basically, this was the gist of the presentation. The presenters then welcomed questions from the public. One of the best questions, in my opinion was one that asked why we were developing new properties when there are so many empty storefronts already available. Why indeed! However, the answer is simple, if sad. Businesses don't want to redevelopment existing storefronts. They want something new. They want something modern. They would rather spend the money to build something to meet their needs then to spend the same amount of money modifying existing properties to meet their needs.

However, there was one point that I would have liked to have made, but didn't have the opportunity (fortunately I was able to speak to the main presenter afterwards) and that is the important of having a pedestrian focus. If you're transit oriented then you're going to have lots of pedestrians either coming or going from your station. Thus, it is important that you adequately service those pedestrians.

What kind of things service pedestrians?

Crosswalk signals which facilitate crossing busy roads (and not so busy side-streets);
Sidewalk cuts for those in wheelchairs or parents pushing strollers;
Easy connections from the T station to the main street (walking up stairs to an alley or crossing a parking lot don't always work)
Covered bike racks at the station and around the downtown area (the T doesn't allow bicycles during rush hour and the single bike rack is not covered)
More restaurants and retail space (fewer doctors and dentists on the street level)
Posted schedules at the station and bus stops (especially downtown, but also applicable here)

While we're encouraging pedestrians to "hang out" it would also be nice to have free wireless along the street, more benches, and whatnot.

With a meeting coming in September, I hope to be able to address these and other concerns. What concerns do YOU have that need to be addressed?

New direction for "Pittsburgh Transit"

2007-07-01T22:49:00.000-04:00

So, I've been thinking about the direction this blog should take. Ideally, I would love to write some nice commentary every day or two about things in the Pittsburgh transportation realm. However, reality has told me that this isn't going to happen.

However, even though I haven't written in a long while, I frequently see articles of interest to transit enthusiasts that I think should be shared. Therefore, I'm going to make a concerted effort to begin posting at least the articles which I've found interesting and relevant to the scope of Pittsburgh's ongoing transit crisis.

Pittsburgh's transit is indeed in crisis and these are interesting times. Someone needs to write about them. I would love to do so, but real life has its own way of intervening. However, I hope to be able to provide you with enough news that you'll be aware of what's going on in the area. From time to time, I'll try to contribute with my own commentary.

Thus, my posts will have new labels to distinguish between the two types of posts: "Commentary" if its something I've written, and "article" if its not something I've written. Hopefully, utilizing this method will make the blog much more useful then simply my saying nothing for weeks on end.

Comments or questions? Feel free to drop me a line or leave a note in the comments section!

Rethinking price elasticity for gas and Curitiba

2007-05-21T23:24:00.001-04:00

As always, Chris Briem has some interesting thoughts on the Port Authority on his blog.

Three proposals for fixing transit

2007-05-21T23:08:00.000-04:00

Well not just transit, but highways too. Read on:

Summary: Governor Rendell has decided on three options he would be intereted in enacting in order to get PA out of its transportation funding quagmire.

1. Leasing the turnpike - A proposal from the governor which has been discussed here before but lacking specifics to figure out how it would work. Besides, the plan centers on investing the estimated 12-18 billion dollars with a 9% return. I highly doubt that you can get a consistent 9% return ANYWHERE, especially after expenses are figured in.

2. Create a new public agency to borrow tax-exempt bonds to repair the system - Wahoo! A loan! And who's going to be paying off this loan? Not you, my friends, but your children and grandchildren. Yeah, real responsible way to run the government.

3. Expanding the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission to I-80 and increasing tolls to raise $965 million per year - I've already indicated my preference that this is not the best option.

Thoughts: It still seems like we're going nowhere with this. Why don't we see how other states are handling the situation? Why can't we borrow their ideas instead of constantly reinventing the wheel?

New bus schedules

2007-05-21T22:55:00.000-04:00

As a follow up to my earlier post, the new bus schedules are ready at the Port Authority's website. However, paper "hand schedules" are not yet available.

To distinguish the new schedules from the older ones, the new schedules will have a black and white cover instead of the current blue (or gold) and white cover.

Port Authority to get $1 million in federal grants

2007-05-21T22:47:00.000-04:00

Summary: The Port Authority will receive nearly $1 million in grants for security and training to be directed towards garage security, continuing employee training, emergency drills and busway improvement.

Thoughts: Well, obviously this is a good thing. I don't think anyone would complain about this, especially considering how lax security has been in the past.

Scheduling difficulties

2007-05-08T23:11:00.001-04:00

Apparently, the Port Authority is changing so many schedules so quickly, that they can't keep up. Nobody is certain as to what will actually change because the schedules haven't been produced yet. According to the Post-Gazette, two dozen Port Authority staffers including writers, map makers, computer technicians, and in-the-field workers are trying to implement the changes which will eliminate 29 bus routes and modify 107 others.

From the article:

Seventy-seven of the 89 timetables covering routes in the Port Authority system are being revised, and their maps are being redrawn. The timetables reflect a total of 45,717 bus and trolley trips that drivers will make each week, starting June 17.
Nearly 1.2 million timetables will be printed and delivered or mailed -- about twice the usual number -- to 755 community outlets, in addition to the authority outlets with schedule racks, including T stations. Timetables also will be placed on transit vehicles. Overtime has been approved for workers so that once the schedules are available, they can get them into riders' hands as quickly as possible.
Work orders are being prepared -- and then must be carried out -- to add, delete and change route information and bus stop and T stop signs to coincide with the restructured system. A computer-based master list contains more than 16,000 official transit stops in Allegheny County and parts of neighboring counties. Thousands of stops are affected.
Devices that announce stops are being reprogrammed. On-board informational signs are being printed and then must be posted. Computer technicians are preparing to download route, schedule and other information onto the authority's Web site. Park-n-ride brochures must be tailored to changes. Information on bus shelters must be updated.

That's a lot of changes! I know the Port Authority is working as hard as they can to provide this information to their customers, but people have to be able to plan their lives. If I have no idea if I'll be able to get to work on June 17th, the day the changes go into effect, then I'm in panic mode.

Maybe the Port Authority would better serve their customers by delaying some of the changes until the public is properly notified...

At the precipice

2007-05-05T21:57:00.000-04:00

It suddenly seems more real, doesn't it? It's sunk in that the Port Authority is dead set on slashing routes and jobs in an effort to stay afloat. What if they don't make it? What if there is no dedicated state funding found to support the Port Authority?

According to the Tribune Review, a Port Authority internal audit predicts that within five years:

1,354 authority jobs would be eliminated
Bus and T service would be cut by 42 percent
18.2 million riders annually would be lost
10,000 additional personal vehicles would be driven to Downtown daily

Yet, a solution from Harrisburg is still non-existent.

Health Care costs

The Port Authority's biggest threat? The rising cost of healthcare. From the article, the Port Authority's health care cost doubles about every six years. "Health care is the single biggest challenge that Port Authority is facing for its long-term viability," said Ken Zapinski, a senior vice president of transportation with the Allegheny Conference on Community Development.

The cost of health care for its 2,574 retirees and more than 2,600 employees hit $60.6 million in fiscal 2006 -- a 70 percent increase from $35.6 million in 2001. The cost is projected to double to $121 million in 2012.
Labor agreements determine the level and cost of health care coverage for most authority employees -- 92 percent belong to unions. Current union workers pay 1 percent of their base pay toward health care. Most retirees pay nothing and receive the benefit for life. Getting union concessions to cut health care costs during labor talks next year appears to be non-negotiable, the union head said.
Authority and labor leaders are bracing for what's expected to be hard-fought negotiations. The authority wants employees to pay more, and the union wants to maintain the level of health care it has fought years to protect. "We're not going to sit down and give up retiree health care benefits," said Pat McMahon, president of Amalgamated Transit Union Local 85, which represents the union workers. "That's not going to happen."
The Allegheny Institute for Public Policy last month called on union leaders, who it said have "missed the bus," to strike a deal. "Taxpayers have no moral obligation to provide any more money until this exorbitantly expensive and inefficient system is fixed," the report stated.
The problem is bigger than any other Port Authority issue, officials said. "Absolutely, that's a huge nut and one frankly that we have long term," authority CEO Steve Bland said. "We have some influence over it but because half of the people enrolled are already gone, it's going to be an ongoing issue."
Retiree health benefits for all public employees are locked in under state law and cannot be changed even if union workers agree to pay more in their next contract. Port Authority's agreement expires in June 2008.

It seems that our friends across the state at SEPTA may have a better go at it.

In Philadelphia, workers at the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority do not get health coverage for life. They get either three years under a preferred provider organization (PPO) or 50 months with a health maintenance organization (HMO).

In any event, unless this whole thing is fixed, we can look forward to more cuts in service. Yippee.

I'm sure I'm not alone...

2007-05-04T15:32:00.000-04:00

I'm sure I'm not alone, but I'm sick of the drivers of the T leaving early. This has happened to both me and my wife multiple times since the beginning of the Palm Garden Bridge reconstruction project.

What's supposed to happen is that the 47S/47L T arrives at Willow station a few minutes before the 44S train leaves Overbrook Junction. Thus few minutes allows for an easy transfer (taking about 60 seconds to walk between the two stations). Since everything is out in the open, it's quite easy for you to see when a train has arrived.

Well, what's been happening instead is that the 47S will arrive at Willow station. The transferring passengers will begin walking over to Overbrook, and the 44S train LEAVES EARLY! Yes, that's right. The sole purpose of this train is to provide a connection to the Beechview line from the Overbrook line, yet it purposefully pulls away as those passengers are walking towards it.

Think my clock is wrong? Think again. There are clocks on both the Overbrook Junction and the Willow platforms. The Port Authority has confirmed that these clocks display the "correct" time at all times. Yet, the drivers are still leaving early.

After today's debacle, I sent the following complaint to the Port Authority using their online form (available here):

[Today,] the T that should have left at 2:44 PM pulled away at 2:41 PM as 8-10 passengers connecting from Willow were walking up to the platform. The clock on the platform read 2:41 as he was pulling away. Thus, several passengers had to stand and wait for the next train to arrive as this one left early.

The next train was scheduled to leave at 3:02 PM. However, the time on the platform read 3:00 PM as he pulled from the station (while several people were walking over from Willow). Thus, both T drivers left early from the station.

This has happened 6-8 times over the past month and we do not appreciate the inconvenience. Please ensure that whatever time the drivers are using is properly calibrated to the time on the platform. Also, please ensure that the drivers are not leaving before their scheduled departure time.

Feel free to contact me if you have further questions.

Hopefully this will get a response. When my wife and I complained by telephone earlier this month, they assured us that it would not happen again. Well it has happened again, so we're complaining again. But again, I remind you that if this doesn't get fixed, people will start finding other ways to commute.

Has this happened to anyone out there?

Transit cost overruns

2007-05-03T23:27:00.000-04:00

From Chris Briem's blog post:

Thanks to the Transportationist for noticing this blurb in The Economist about how the semi-privatization of the London Underground has not resulted in any miraculous cost savings. Note the numbers in that article.. the cost overruns for the modernization of the Tube are 750 million pounds sterling... that's just the overrun, equivalent to about $1.5 billion. Thet are spending around $34 billion just to refurbish the system. The lesson for us: public transit is expensive everywhere, there is no silver bullet to cut costs. It puts in perspective the amounts we debate here compared to what others are willing to invest in public transit.

Of course, London has a much more extensive mass transit system the Pittsburgh will ever have. Nevertheless, I think it's interesting that cost overruns are so common. You'd think that eventually the planners would get it right...

Pittsburgh isn't alone

2007-05-03T00:35:00.000-04:00

After all, SEPTA in Philadelphia is suffering from many of the same funding problems that the Port Authority is. Interested? The Philadelphia counterpart to the Pittsburgh Transit blog can be found at http://septawatch.blogspot.com/

Dear Annual Pass Subscriber

2007-04-25T20:30:00.000-04:00

That's the opening of a letter I received in the mail from the Port Authority today. I was quite intrigued. Would they be asking me to write my state legislature about the upcoming service cuts? Were they keeping me informed of different construction projects in the area? Was there something wrong with my pass?

No. I was completely surprised by the actual reason:

April 24, 2007
Dear Annual Pass Subscriber:

By now, I am sure you're aware that Port Authority is planning to cut or eliminate 15 percent of its service beginning in mid-June. While we regret this action, it is necessary to help reduce Port Authority's projected $80 million budget deficit for the upcoming fiscal year.

This much we know.

This letter is to inform you of our refund policy should your route(s) be affected.

In the event your service is cut or eliminated, Port Authority will refund you a pro-rated portion of your remaining subscription begining with the June 2007 pass.

That's an unexpected surprise! The letter goes on to state how the refund would work. Then it states:

You may also wish to explore one of Port Authority's remaining routes to your area for a trial period before deciding whether or not to cancel your subscription. Port Authority will honor refund requests at any time through September 1, 2007. ... Thank you again for your patronage.

Sincerely,
Dante Calderone
Manager of Marketing and Retail Sales

Wow! I am truly shocked! For a budget strapped agency to voluntarily return fares to its customers is amazing. If I recall correctly, when I signed up for the pass, I was told that the annual passes were not refundable. I could live with that as there was no reason that I wouldn't be taking mass transit over the next year (fortunately, I am not as impacted by the cuts as many others).

Yet, I think what the Port Authority seems to get is that they have a duty to the people they serve. These people bought annual passes in good faith, believing that there would be buses to serve them in the future. The Port Authority realizes that if it is changing the terms of the "contract" its not playing fair. So rather then hide behind non-refundable language, the Port Authority has offered to refund the unused portion of the annual passes.

The cynical among you may think that the Port Authority is simply doing this to avoid being sued. That may be the case. But the optimist in me realizes that this is example of the Port Authority being a classy organization doing what is right. Bravo!

Harrisburg fails to act

2007-04-24T23:25:00.000-04:00

I bet that's not the first time that this particular headline has been used.

Yet, Governor Rendell's proposals to provide funding for mass transit (as well as fixing the state's bridges) appears to be going nowhere fast. In fact, no legislator from either party has even stepped forward to introduce the governor's bill which would raise $760 million a year for transit with a 6.17 percent tax on oil company profits.

Ok, well what about his other proposal; leasing the Turnpike to a private operator? That one was supposed to generate $965 million a year for 30 years.

From the article:

The politically powerful Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission has hired influential law firms and financial advisers, as well as a Harrisburg public relations firm and lobbyist Michael Long, longtime aide to ex-Republican Senate leader Bob Jubelirer, to defeat Mr. Rendell's leasing plan.

That's right. A government agency is spending oodles of your tax dollars to defeat the plan. Instead of working with the governor to come up with the best solution, the government agency is hiring lawyers to work against another government agency. This kind of thing is an example of the waste in our state government and should be outright illegal.

Granted, Rendell hasn't helped the issue.

So far he has refused to make public the details of any of the 48 "expressions of interest" he's received from private companies that would pay billions of dollars upfront and then take over operation of the turnpike -- including setting higher tolls -- for at least 30 years.

I can see why the legislature is reluctant to get excited over an issue when the details are being kept from them.

Yet, in the meantime, the Port Authority and SEPTA are floundering, their budgets completely up in the air. This leaves thousands of daily commuters in both Pittsburgh and Philadelphia uncertain about the future of their daily commutes.

While we wait, the legislature isn't exactly coming up with solutions of their own.

Mr. Rendell has said that if legislators don't like his funding plans, they should come up with ones of their own. Some legislators reply that the governor should scrap his unacceptable plans now and come back to them with proposals they can approve.

Why pay to park?

2007-04-23T18:36:00.000-04:00

Sorry for the delay in posting. The outside world sometimes intervenes. This was one of those times.

Anyway, on Saturday, Joe Grata writes about the South Hills Village Parking Garage. The garage is the largest in western Pennsylvania, with seven floors and 2200 spaces, yet it is rather empty, with only 500 cars a day parking there.

Yes, that's right. The Port Authority spends gobs of money (21 million) building a huge parking garage, yet no one uses it. Why? How about this sentence:

Authority officials have said garage patronage remains low partly because 600 free park-n-ride spaces are available at the South Hills Village T station.

Yep, that's right. If you're interested in parking at the South Hills Village station you have a choice. You can either pay for parking (about $1 per day if you have a pass; $2 if you don't) or you can park for FREE. It's no wonder that the garage isn't being fully utilized. A quick way to increase the garage occupancy is obvious; close the free lot!

Yet, the Port Authority isn't interested in simply closing the lot. They're interested in selling or leasing that property out for economic development. That's all great and well, but in the meantime, they're losing around $600 per day by keeping the lot open. With an average of 22 work days per month, that's around $13,000 per month or $158,000 per year.

Shouldn't the Port Authority be seriously exploring ways to increase their revenues by $158,000 per year?

What's worse then losing your job?

2007-04-18T22:59:00.000-04:00

Adding insult to injury, Pennsylvania House Republic Leader Sam Smith praised the Port Authority for taking the steps it took yesterday resulting in hundreds of PAT workers losing their jobs. Imagine the glee; "Yea! Hundreds more unemployed people in my state." What a true leader! What an example.

It's actually quite obvious that Smith doesn't care for the Port Authority. "The state is doing its part'' for these agencies financially, he said. "It's time for local or county agencies to come up with additional funds.''

So what are we supposed to make of this? As Chris Briem kindly pointed out,

Of the 203 state legislative districts:
112 (or 55%) have commuters where less than 1% use public transit.
157 (77%) represent districts where less than 5% of commuters use public transit of any kind.
172 (85%) represent districts where less than 10% of all commuters use public transit.

I'd bet that Smith's home district in Punxsutawney doesn't exactly have buses running all over town.

Smell a problem here? Why should he care what happens to mass transit in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia? They can fall apart for all he cares; the residents of those two towns can't vote him out. Basically, good luck Pittsburghers--don't count on us for anything.

But wait! Who pays taxes in this state? The residents of Allegheny and Philadelphia county make up 22% of the state. However, due to the higher wages in the cities, its safe to assume that they contribute much more then 22% of the states income. Doesn't that count for something?

Additionally, it's a shame that the leader of the house is so unconcerned about an issue affecting his state. This is an issue that affects thousands of commuters and transit employees. But his solution is the not so kind version of "figure it out yourselves".

Not only that, the "state" solution that Governor Rendell has proposed, a 6.17 percent tax on oil company profits which is expected to raise $760 million a year for mass transit, has almost no support among the Republicans in the legislature.

Doing that, he said, will only mean an increase in gasoline costs at the pump, as oil companies pass the tax along to consumers. Many House Republicans come from small towns and rural areas of the state, where most constituents drive cars rather than ride buses, and raising the price of gasoline is the last thing the GOP wants to do.

But Mr. Smith didn't offer any sizable substitute for the governor's plan to aid mass transit. He wouldn't say how much additional money for mass transit the Legislature may provide but said it wouldn't be anything like $760 million a year.

Fine, so he doesn't have a solution. But does he really need to take joy in people losing their jobs?

Port Authority cuts workers

2007-04-17T18:40:00.000-04:00

You know, as much as I complain about the Port Authority's spending practices, it is still painful to see people lose their jobs. As part of the the 15% service reduction, the Port Authority announced today that they will be laying off 267 employees in June.

A total of 203 operators' positions, 118 unionized, non-operating positions, and 53 non-represented positions have been eliminated. The layoffs affect 138 operators, 113 other union employees, and 16 non-union workers.

What's most distressing about this is the sense of permanence about the cuts. Back during the previous funding scares, I don't recall them laying off so many people at once. The Port Authority is cutting routes and doesn't intend to replace them, so therefore, doesn't need as many employees.

Last one out, please turn off the lights...

Posting scheduling information

2007-04-15T00:17:00.000-04:00

A comment to my last post about putting up real time T information was interesting:

Richard Layman said...: First you ought to worry about having maps and schedules at bus stops. I have never seen a transit system provide so little information at bus stops.

I think it's not so bad of a system, many decent bus routes that get you to many places, but you really have to work hard to find the information.

Note that DC could be better with this, but compared to PGH, we're ok.

OTOH, Seattle might be one of the best.

That's actually something that's bothered me for quite some time. I understand if they don't have schedules at the smaller stops, but now having schedules are the larger stations is patently ridiculous. I mean, how hard would it be to post schedules at the T stations downtown? Why is it so difficult to put up schedules at the bus shelters?

And here's the part I don't get... They don't WANT them up. The bus shelter at Forbes and Murray in Squirrel Hill serves multiple routes (61A-B-C-D-F, 59U, 69A, and 501). Yet, in the past, when people have taken it upon themselves to post schedules, they don't last long. The schedules will stay up for no longer then a week before they disappear. I doubt that its the riders taking the schedules because they disappear simultaneously. Someone doesn't WANT the schedules up.

Now why wouldn't the Port Authority want the schedules posted? I can think of only one suggestion: accountability. They don't want to be accountable for their performance. Bus running early? Bus running late? Bus not running at all? If you don't know when the bus is supposed to be there, then you won't complain if its running late.

Going back to the comment, it's true that you have to work hard to find the information. Unfortunately, it is frequently the case where having the information doesn't help. If I know my bus is supposed to be at X street at 5:10, then I expect the bus to be there around 5:10. Given traffic, I don't mind a bit of leeway (5:15 may suffice). However, I don't expect the bus to show up at 5:05. I don't expect the bus to show up at 5:25 (especially if the next bus is at 5:30). Thus, in order to make the 5:10 bus, I have to plan on being out there 10 minutes early (to cover when it runs early). By the time the bus comes, 10 minutes late, I've been standing out there for 20 minutes. This is absolutely unacceptable and I think that this is a major reason that people don't ride the bus.

Instead of addressing this obvious problem, its easier to "hide" the problem by hiding when the bus was actually supposed to arrive. And the best way of doing that is by not posting the schedules in the shelters and stations.

----
I will say that during the temporary closure of the 42S line, the Port Authority has posted the 44S schedules at the high level stations along the route. I doubt that this practice will continue once the Palm Garden Bridge project has been completed.

Real time "T" information

2007-04-12T21:50:00.000-04:00

Real time information is currently offered for riders of the Washington, DC metro system, primarily on the platforms, but also on RSS feeds for PDAs and cell phones. Why can't we add it here in Pittsburgh? Our system is much less complex then DC and we already have the signage in place at all of the high level stops.

Imagine, you arrive at the Wood Street station, ready to go home. Wouldn't it be nice to have the electronic bulletin update you as to when the next T will arrive? What if its running late or, heaven forbid, early? You would know which one was coming and could plan accordingly. Wouldn't it be helpful to know that if this 47S is full, that another one (probably empty) is only two minutes behind?

Even better, if you heard a T pulling into the station, you would know whether or not you needed to rush down the stairs to catch the train. After all, don't you feel silly rushing if its just an inbound train or train service you don't need?

Plus, if you're going between stations downtown, it might help to know that it'd be faster to walk then it would be to wait for the next T. At least you would know how long you have to wait.

Surely the system wouldn't be that difficult to implement... How about it Port Authority?

North Shore Connector Open House

2007-04-11T18:05:00.000-04:00

Have questions or concerns about the North Shore Connector? This might be a good opportunity to talk to the powers that be.

The general public, elected officials, community groups and businesses are invited to attend a public open house on Thursday, April 12, 2007, from 4:30-6 p.m. in the Port Authority Board Room. The Port Authority Board Room is located on the 5th floor of the Heinz 57 Center, 345 Sixth Avenue, in Downtown Pittsburgh.

Representatives from the contractor and the project team, as well Port Authority staff, will be available to answer questions, provide construction information, offer updates on street closures and detours, and address concerns.

I love how the first time I hear about this, it's the day before the event. Fortunately, I heard about it on WDUQ's local news. Neither the Post-Gazette nor the Tribune-Review have mentioned anything about it (that I could find). Hopefully, this posting will give you enough forewarning to get out there and be heard.

If you go, be sure to leave comments letting everyone know how things went...

Palm Garden Bridge reconstruction

2007-04-10T00:03:00.000-04:00

So we're about a month into the reconstruction project to repair the Palm Garden bridge over Highway 51 in the South Hills. As the Port Authority's press release states:

Port Authority’s rehabilitation of the Palm Garden Bridge, which carries the T and South Busway over Route 51, will begin on Sunday, March 4, 2007 and alter T service for approximately six months and bus service for approximately eight months.

The $9.2 million project will replace all rail and pavement on the bridge, which every week carries 1,401 42S South Hills Village via Beechview rail trips and 2,753 bus trips on 15 different routes. The project also includes rehabilitation of the bridge and ramp that carry buses over West Liberty Avenue, which will detour South Busway buses for the additional two months.

It appears (like many of Pennsylvania's other bridges) that the bridge is in very poor condition. It's actually noticable when you're riding the "T" as the condition of the rails goes from very smooth to very rough in the matter of seconds near the Dawn station.

I've been quite inconvenienced by this development. As a commuter on the "T", I take this route to work every day. We have only two choices in the morning, taking a trip south to Overbrook Junction and transferring to Willow, or taking the T into Dormont and catching a 37D bus. Neither is particularly palatable: the bus takes anywhere from 15 to 50 minutes making my commute unpredictable. The transfer through Overbrook adds 10-15 minutes on my trip in each direction; predictable, but not fun.

In any event, it's "only" six months. However, even with this inconvenience, I'm glad that they are addressing the situation. It show's the Port Authority's support for the LRT system going into the future, even if they are cutting the 42M shuttle...

Corrections and additional developments

2007-04-09T23:39:00.000-04:00

Never fear! I haven't left. I was just taking some well deserved time off.

I do have two corrections to make, however. One is good, one is not so good. Two weeks ago, I was complaining about various problems with PAT advertising.

The good correction is that I have seen more bus advertising lately. The "older" bus fleet tends to have ads on them. For some reason, I had just not been seeing them in my area. As an aside, do you think its possible that the newer buses are assigned to more affluent areas?

The not so good correction is that the previous article mentioned that the ACLU dropped their lawsuit against the Port Authority. In truth, it wasn't actually dropped. Even though the headline clearly stated "Ad lawsuit dropped", the ACLU merely withdraw their motion for a temporary restraining order against the Port Authority.

Instead, the recent development is that the lawsuit is not only still pending, but can now move forward.

A federal judge ruled last week that a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania against the Port Authority of Allegheny County can move forward.
The organization filed suit in August, claiming that the transit group would not allow it and the Pittsburgh League of Young Voters to run bus advertisements aimed at convicted felons. The advertisements were to inform convicted state felons that their voting rights were restored immediately upon their release from prison.
The Port Authority denied the request, claiming it doesn't run noncommercial ads.

What is the deal here? Why spend money fighting the lawsuit? Just run the ads and get paid for doing it. After all, it's not like you're advertising something illegal. Doesn't the government have a vested interest in insuring that its citizens exercise their rights to vote? Isn't the Port Authority a government agency?

DROP 30 employees, save $2 million dollars

2007-04-05T22:57:00.000-04:00

Remember my earlier post when I complained about the lavish pensions that the Port Authority was giving out to its employees. Good news (sorta). The Port Authority has curtailed this kind of pension program.

Sure this is good news, but kindof like its good news when the fire department finally extinguishes your house. Sure, they may have saved the crummy 15 inch black and white TV set that you never watch, but your prized possession of Super Bowl MVP bobbleheads is gone forever.

Here, the horse is out of the barn. It's run a long way away and its never coming back. The thirty employees in question

"will be able to cash out lump sums from their DROP accounts, where their pensions have been deposited in special investment programs, and start receiving monthly checks. In addition, they'll receive $500-a-month pension supplements until age 65; lifetime health, dental, vision and prescription insurance; $5,000 life insurance policies; vacation pay; and one-time payments for unused sick leave."

The rules change on July 1st to eliminate some of these perks, resulting in an expected annual savings of "more than $2 million from just the 30 departing employees in DROP." That's only 66,666.67 per employee, you know, a mere drop in the bucket.

Why the hell haven't they considered this before? We're look at an $80 million dollar budget deficit. This seems like an easy fix. What took them so long?

You know what's worse? This has been going on for awhile. As reader ghaziman commented,

"...this news is not new. All the county commissions for the last 20 years knew what the pension system was like. All the board members of Port Authority knew the details of the pension system. It was not a secret. Joe Grata at the Post-Gazette has written extensively about it for years. Action could have been taken two decades ago, but it wasn't on the radar. The bad news is that the pensions and lifetime health care for those already retired will not change. This means that it's going to take at least 10 -15 years (until the retirees start dying), to make a fiscal difference."

And the Tribune-Review reports that this thing goes back to the early 1990s.

So, remember back when the fares when up from $1.25 to $1.60 in 2001? Or when they went up from $1.60 to $1.75 in 2002? All that time that you've been paying higher fares for the benefit of the Port Authority, you've been paying more than you've had to because they failed to roll back these excessive pension payments. Just chew on that for a while...

Riding the short bus?

2007-04-04T20:43:00.000-04:00

Today's post of interest comes from the venerable Chris Briem. Go read his posting titled "a ~~bus~~ fare too far". Don't worry; I'll wait here. {whistle, whistle}

Done? Good. To begin, Chris referred us to an article at the St. Cloud Times. Basically, the premise is that short buses don't make sense for their particular transit situation. I can easily see how this could apply to the Port Authority. The key quote is:

Operating 25-foot buses is impractical unless we double the number of drivers and buses several times during the day. For the minor purchase price difference of about $10,000 between a 30-foot and 35-foot bus with practically no difference in operating costs-per-mile, it's logical and wise to use 35-foot buses.

That's right. There are practically no differences in operating costs-per-mile. You still have to pay for a driver and fuel to operate the bus. These costs are pretty much the same, whether you're operating a short (25-foot bus) or a long (40-foot bus). But there is a big difference in the number of buses on the road. If you have to have two short buses to equal the transportation capacity of one long bus (to keep the numbers simple) then you have to have twice as many drivers and buses on the road.

In summary, when situations which call for one long bus, to operate two short buses will double your costs. When situations call for one short bus (one or two passengers, etc.), there is "practiaclly no difference" between a short bus and a long bus. Considering that you also have to factor in the training of the bus driver to operate several different bus sizes as well as additional maintenance burdens to maintain an even greater diversity of bus types, its simply impractical to operate short buses regularly.

Part 2 of Chris's posting addresses that Pittsburgh has a high percentage of expenditures spent on transportation expenses. Not particularly surprising given the bus fares and the parking taxes in the city. However, I don't think that this will impact the citizens that much--people who live in Pittsburgh aren't going to leave over this issue, people interested in moving to Pittsburgh aren't going to be deterred over this issue. Should we address it? Sure. But indirectly--fixing other things will fix this too.

Part 3 of Chris's posting addresses the proposed increases in the bus fare. My takeaway here is that the Port Authority's costs are being compared to other agencies, but only in a way that puts the Port Authority in the best light. That is, we're not comparing apples to apples (sorry for the terribly overused cliche). Sometimes, like when we're talking about wages for bus drivers, we factor in different costs of living (ie Pittsburgh is cheaper then New York, but more expensive then Birmingham). That's fine.

What's not fine is that when they then compare fare prices to other cities, they use nominal terms. That is, the fare of $1.75, due to the different cost of living, should be $3.52 in New York City (according to the cost of living calculator I used). But when it's time to compare fares with New York City, we say that NYC is more expensive (a $2.00 fare). In actually dollar terms, they are right, $2.00 > $1.75. However, once you factor in cost of living differences, NYC is cheaper then Pittsburgh ($3.52 > $2.00). I hadn't thought of these comparisons and I'm glad that Chris pointed then out.

Chris goes on to talk about a topic I had mentioned in my very first post here: elasticity of demand. Basically, the Port Authority isn't properly accounting for the elasticity of demand when they calculate ridership losses. If the Port Authority raises the fare, then the may lose many more riders then had they simply reduced service.

Are we on the same page here? Are we even on the same bus?

2007-03-30T23:58:00.000-04:00

I found this article of interest on the Dr. Transit blog. Like him, I wish that there was a similar investigation into the Port Authority's board members...

DC1974 sends us a link to this article, "Some run the CTA but rarely ride it," from the Chicago Tribune "Getting Around" column by John Hilkevitch, and writes:

I wish there was this kind of investigation into the transit habits of WMATA board members.

From the article:

CTA board member ridership Rides taken in 2006
Henry Chandler Jr. 129
Carole Brown 53
Nicholas Zagotta 24
Susan Leonis 12
Cynthia Panayotovic 12
Charles Robinson 3 A
lejandro Silva 0
Source: CTA

Not all CTA executives using the system.

The Tribune obtained a list of 95 Chicago Transit Authority executives at the general manager level and above, and seven of its board members to observe whether they ride CTA buses and trains. Of the 95 employees listed, only 35 rode the CTA more than 500 times in 2006.

MOST AND FEWEST CTA RIDES AMONG EXECUTIVES
NAME TITLE AND JOB DESCRIPTION 2006
1. Terry Levin VP, Customer Service & Training 1,434
2. Angela Moore Special Assistant to the President 1,282
3. John Dalton GM, Construction 1,176
4. Bruce Nelson GM, Rail Ops, Cap Proj. Oversight 1,173
5. John Paquet GM, Service Planning 1,053
6. Jeff Sriver GM, Strategic Planning 997
7. David Simmons GM, Capital Grants 957
8. Kevin Stanciel GM, Facilities Development 901
9. Cary Morgen GM, Schedules 889
10. Michael Shiffer VP, Planning 888

86. Robert Degnan GM, System Maintenance Support 49
87. Reginald Lovelace VP, Purchasing 37
88. Sheila Gregory GM, Public Affairs 34
89. William Nolan GM, System Safety & Env. Affairs 31
90. Martin Stack GM, Dispute Resolution & Due Proces 20
91. Ralph Malec Senior Projec Mgr., MMIS 19
92. Michael O'Sullivan GM, Rail Car Heavy Maintenance 16
93. Terry Shinnick GM, Enterprise Systems Services 13
94. Robert Levine GM, Project Control, Construction 5
95. Marina Popovic Deputy General Counsel, Corporate 0
Source: CTA Chicago Tribune

I know that the new president of the system, John Catoe, plans to use the transit system. I know it would also be interesting to know how many elected officials in the region use the transit system at least occasionally.

Advertising goes both ways

2007-03-29T18:13:00.000-04:00

It's funny that I was planning on writing about advertising today, because Chris Briem wrote on "bus-vertisements" today. Chris says:

Does anyone else think it's odd that the Port Authority is using it's ad space in the Pittsburgh City Paper not to explain the proposed restructuring or otherwise market it's service. Instead, the ads in the CP are advertising the advertising opportunity. I do appreciate the value of meta-marketing to other marketing professionals, but it just does not seem to make sense to waste money to keep doing this in the City Paper. Maybe they had already bought the space and did not want to appear hypocritical 'selling' their service in the midst of a major restructuring. But there just has to be a better use of that space.

I know that I have seen several ads in the city paper in a "riding the bus 101" type of ad. The ad would feature a particularly popular route which might appeal to the audience of CP readers (although it seemed to always be the 54C, 59U, 61C, or 71A). But Chris has a point. Very few readers of the City Paper are looking to buy advertising space. They may be interested in buying ads IN the City Paper, but there not looking at the City Paper to determine where to buy ads. Make sense?
---
However, I had originally planned on writing on the OTHER side of advertising. The Port Authority is soliciting ads in the City Paper. But how many ads do you really see on the bus or the T? How about in the stations? The sides of the bus?

Most of the other mass transit systems I've been on (in the US at least) tend to have tons of ads where ever they can find the space. But not the Port Authority. Actually, only recently did I see some non Port Authority/Public service ads in a Port Authority bus (on the inside, towards the roof--I'll call them "overheads" for want of a better term). It actually caught my eye because I realized that I hadn't seen a non-PSA "overhead" in quite some time.

Let's see, what other ad space can I think of? There are small poster size ads in the T towards the front of the cars, but the only headliners are route maps. There are larger posters available in the T stations downtown, although they are frequently dated (advertising a January event in March, for example). Finally, several of the "trolleys" have UPMC ads on them. I think that's about it.

That's about it? What happened here? Isn't the Port Authority losing money hand over fist? Shouldn't they be willing to do whatever they need to do to sell ads and raise money? Let's think about the lost revenue here (keeping in mind that I have no idea how much this ad space actually sells for).

1. Advertising on the sides of the buses

The worst thing about this is that they used to do this all of the time. But how many buses do you see with some foreign words on it? Or someone's name? Or a silly lyric? All nice and smiles; I'm sure that makes Pittsburgh's transit system nicer than some other ones. But what would you rather have, buses that serve your neighborhood or lyrical buses? I remember when I got here, there were multiple ads on several of the buses. They could be "shrink wrapped" with vinyl. They could be poster sized ads on the sides or front. And the ads seemed to be on every bus. However, other then the recent deal with UPMC to place ads on 180 buses and 40 light-rail vehicles for $1.1 million, I haven't seen ANY ads on the outside of Port Authority vehicles. $1.1 million is a great start, but more need to be done.

What's worse is that the Port Authority actively REFUSED to post an ad by the ACLU. That's right, the ACLU and the League of Young Voters wanted to run an advertising campaign regarding voting rights. In fact, the Port Authority preferred to be sued then to run the ads. As the Post-Gazette put it:

Now, taxpayers and fare-paying riders are likely to have to foot the legal bill for the agency's refusal to allow these two groups to tell former lawbreakers that they can vote. The ACLU and Young Voters are seeking damages and attorney's fees, as well as an order forcing the authority to put up the ads.
Get a grip on reality, Port Authority. Put up those ads before you're paying the ACLU and Young Voters for it, instead of the other way around. Advertising on buses shouldn't cost the system money; it should support the bottom line.

The lawsuit was eventually dropped when the ACLU decided that it wouldn't be determined before election day. Nevertheless, the Port Authority not only turned down the opportunity to make a few bucks, but was willing to SPEND money instead.

2. Overhead ads in the bus and the trolley

As I've already touched on, these seem to be in every bus in America that doesn't belong to the Port Authority. The Public Service ads are ok, but they should really only be used if you have no other advertisers willing to pay money. Furthermore, there is enough space on most buses to have both paying ads and PSAs.

3. Advertising at the light rail stations
There appeared to be some progress on this back in 2005 when the Port Authority authorized placing a 30-by-108-inch trial billboard at the Station Square T station. The idea was that it could be expanded to other T stations. Well, there is little to no advertising at other T stations. Besides, this ad campaign was doomed before it even got started.

The proposal restricted ads from being placed in the subways downtown and on the exterior of the light-rail vehicles. We know that the exterior was not a hard and fast rule if you're UPMC, but this was in 2005 and that deal had not yet come to fruition. But you gotta love this quote:

"We've thought about the aesthetics and we're not looking to junk things up," said Tim Frank, the authority's director of creative services. "But we see lots of possibilities for potential clients."

Yeah, I can see that you might not to junk things up. But when you're running out of money, you have to be more flexible than this. Work with your clients to figure out what would be best for both of you. But don't forgo the chance to make money here.

4. Advertising at the bus stops
This one is a bit contentious and I can easily see both arguments. You see, back in 2000, the City of Pittsburgh (not the Port Authority) "awarded a contract to a private company to build and maintain bus shelters citywide at no cost to the city, in exchange for displaying advertising on them."The city would have received 10% of the advertising revenue derived from the shelters, expected to reach over $2 million annually over the life of the 10 year contract. Sounds great, right?

All was not well. It turns out that the advertisements were obstructing drivers' views. Given the public outcry, it's unlikely that the Port Authority will pursue a similar option.

The Point
The point is that the Port Authority isn't doing everything in its power to bring in more money. Why go to court (costing money) instead of running an ad (making money)? Why not run more advertisements on vehicles? The money is there for the taking, but for some reason the Port Authority doesn't want it. Why not?

I'm sure I'm not the only one who is reluctant to open the public purse for the Port Authority if they are "too good" to take advertising money. Am I alone on this?

Commonwealth pretends to care

2007-03-28T23:44:00.000-04:00

Saturday's post indicated that there would be hearings on the problems confronting mass transit. Sure enough, members of a state House subcommittee met with interested members of the public

I had suggested in my post that was a bit late to be holding hearings. It’s not as if this is a new situation which has appeared from the ether. Nevertheless, there were a few tidbits of interest from the meeting. last Monday.

Interesting tidbit #1

“One of the underlying themes from those who appeared before the panel was the quickness with which the Port Authority has proposed to address its expected $80 million deficit in the next budget year through layoffs and service cuts. You can't craft public policy in three months for a problem that has plagued this agency for 20 years," said Gabe Morgan…”

On this one, we’ll be nice to the Port Authority. Almost any business owner can tell you what his most profitable and least profitable things are. It’s in his interests to know these things. If it’s a money loser, he’s going to know about it. He WANTS to know about it so he can stop selling it. One HOPES that the Port Authority is at least aware of this basic information. Hopefully, they know which routes were the biggest money losers. These routes have probably been in danger of being cut for quite some time; this was just a convenient time to do it. But the speed of proposing route cuts shouldn’t at all be surprising.

The better point is the second one. It is mighty difficult to create public policy for a twenty year old problem. Mighty difficult, but not impossible. You don’t have to invent this stuff from scratch, you know. There are hundreds of transit systems across the United States, many of which have the same difficulties as Pittsburgh. Hopefully, the Port Authority has spent at least some time sharing information with these other transit systems in an effort to find the most efficient way of operating things. Having a new CEO helps in this regard; we have someone new who is willing to make a change. It’s a twenty year old problem, but working hard and relying on the help of others, we may be able to create a public policy that will sustain the Port Authority for the foreseeable future.

Interesting tidbit #2

Big city employers were on hand to advocate for the continuing support of public transit. As I indicated in an earlier blog post, if these transit cuts go into place, people will lose their jobs. It’s nice to see some of the big corporations (Eat n Park, PNC, and UPMC were named) stand up for their employees.

Interesting tidbit #3

Well, there is no interesting tidbit number three. I’m sure you can guess what happened at the meeting. (Lots of public commentary, people lamenting, babies crying, gnashing of teeth, etc.) but I really don’t think it’ll matter. It’s not a surprise to Harrisburg that this is happening. Nothing that was said will change any minds on the issue. The question is whether or not the will is there to get the Port Authority the support it needs.

The Commonwealth Strikes Back

2007-03-24T13:57:00.000-04:00

Item: Partially in response to the Port Authority's proposed budget cuts, State Auditor General Jack Wagner called for the restructuring of the Port Authority's Board. Under his plan, the nine-member board would be made up of two appointees by the governor; one each by the president pro tem of the Senate and the speaker of the House; and five by the Allegheny County chief executive, including two at-large and one each from Allegheny County Council, Downtown businesses, and riders with disabilities. Currently the county chief executive appoints all members with the approval of County Council. (Source: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette)

Response: I don't know that it would necessarily do any good. If it would mean that the state legislature would be more likely to send funds our way, then I'm for it. However, if it means that we would have board members who don't even reside in Allegheny County (and as such, never use our mass transit), I'm against it. It's hard to be responsive to the needs of the public if you're a hundred miles away.

Item: Two House Appropriations subcommittees will hold public hearings in the Pittsburgh area next week to gather information about mass transit funding and rising medical costs. In the first hour, local business leaders will discuss "the importance of transit to the economy,'' said Rep. Dwight Evans, D-Philadelphia, chairman of appropriations. Business leaders "will give testimony on the need for employees to get to work and for consumers to get to businesses,'' said Mr. Evans.

Response: Hello? Is this really news? Someone's obviously been asleep at the switch. Given that the Port Authority released their plans to cut service yesterday, why is the state waiting until next week to have hearings on the "importance of transit to the economy." Again, shouldn't this have been done awhile ago, so 2001, so that we could have set up designated funding THEN and not have had to worry about it NOW? Oh, but now its of "great importance" and we're going to have public hearings about it. Why the additional hearings? Just look at the transcripts of the NINE public hearings that the Port Authority has held over the last several months. Why waste time? We know its a problem. We know it needs to be fixed. Stop having hearings and just fix it!

The heart wrenching stories begin

2007-03-24T12:56:00.000-04:00

The heart wrenching stories begin. The Tribune-Review reports "Stranded Allegheny Co. riders fret loss of independence", while the Post-Gazette goes with "Bus riders still finding plenty to worry about with cutbacks".

Overview
It's to be expected I guess. If you didn't hear the news, a committee of the Port Authority recommended that the Board approve its plans to scale back service on several of its routes, resulting in a 15% decline of service, the largest in Port Authority history. However, some good news did come from the hearings. Several of the routes on the chopping block received a reprieve including the critical 28X service to the airport. The 15% reduction is less than the proposed 25% reduction, and the decision to increase fares will be postponed for the time being. (For details on route changes, a PDF file is available here)

The changes are expected to reduce the budget deficit by half. However, this still means a $45 million hole that will need to be filled. As such, the Port Authority would continue to push for dedicated funding from both state and local governments.

And there’s more. If this remaining $45 million isn’t found, the original proposed cuts are back on the table. The Port Authority may decide in June that it won’t have enough money to run the system unless it takes that additional 10% reduction.

Thoughts
So, Friday’s reprieve doesn’t necessarily mean anything. We know for sure which bus routes are definitely out. That’ll help riders plan alternative transportation. We know which bus routes are staying. It leaves 10% of the bus routes in limbo, however. The ultimate decision for those routes won’t be made until June.

Was all of this necessary? It appears that the Port Authority believes that this was the first step needed in order to obtain additional funding from the state. PAT CEO Bland said “Four months ago, the Pennsylvania Transportation Funding and Reform Commission made it clear that any future state funding solutions must be preceded by business reforms and service efficiencies at transit agencies." In that sense, these changes were necessary to show good faith by the Port Authority that it was serious about reducing its expenditures.

The question remains, did it reduce the right expenditures? Cutting 15% of bus services is estimated to lose 4% of the ridership; cutting 25% of bus services reduces 11%. It’s not exactly explained whether the lost revenue from lost riders is exceeded by the expenses associated with those services (that is, hopefully the routes cut were losing gobs of money). But, could these services have been modified significantly to make money? Instead of running full day service, run the buses every two hours during the day. Or, run them during rush hour only. Or run them with smaller buses. How about a surcharge on particular routes to ensure that they are profitable?

Other expenditures cut include the reduction of drivers by 10%, the reduction of maintenance personnel by 10% and reduction of administration and management by 20%. This raise the question, if the Port Authority felt that they can make do with fewer managers, why didn’t they make adjustments awhile ago? Also, workers will have their healthcare contributions increased, their pay frozen for 2007 and 2008, a lengthening of the pension vesting period, and the elimination of “lifetime healthcare” for retirees. I don’t know many other jobs that offer “lifetime healthcare” for retirees-I’m glad that their scraping it.

For those who are interested, Fred Honsburger raised some of these issues on his show on Friday.

Then, the bullet points begin. The Port Authority’s website lists several suggestions that the Port Authority will work “diligently toward achieving” before obtaining funding.

Port Authority continues to work diligently toward achieving the Commission’s suggestions for transit agency actions in advance of funding enhancements. These include (with my comments in blue):

Adjusting system service to reflect market demand. This would be achieved through the service plan advanced today, and a longer-range system development plan to begin during 2007. Why wasn’t this done before? Shouldn’t the Port Authority be constantly tweaking their schedules to make sure they were operating the most efficient routes possible.
Reducing labor/management costs. This would be achieved through the aforementioned changes for non-represented employees and through the collective bargaining process next year.Although reducing costs is a lofty goal, it’s hard to cut someone’s paycheck without making them a bitter employee. Nevertheless, companies do this all the time. The real question is, how did the costs get so high to begin with? Whether they can chop payrolls or not, PAT should work to ensure that in the future, these costs are in line with the rest of the budget.
Increasing revenues by instituting regular fare policies that mirror inflation. In addition to a base fare increase in January 2008, Port Authority’s pending fare proposal includes a provision for annual fare increases of five or 10 cents each July 1, to be determined by the budgetary challenges present at that time. Ok, I can see this. Inflation affects everything, including the government. However, I wouldn’t tie it to the “budgetary challenges present at the time”. Instead, tie it to the government inflation index used to recalculate such things as social security payments. Then, build your budget around your income. Basically, budget yourselves like everyone else.
Implementing Smart Transportation principles in transit projects. Port Authority is already adhering to smart growth and land use principles set forth in the Regional Strategic Transit Visioning Study released last year and is participating in a Transit Revitalization Investment District study. Blah, blah, blah. I’m sure that there is potentially a lot of good stuff there. However, Big Projects Using Capital Letters are frequently ignored. Give us some specifics, please.
Evaluating competitive contracting as well as insourcing opportunities. Port Authority already contracts out its paratransit service and maintenance of its small transit vehicles. Again, why hasn’t this been done before?

I'm sure that there is more to come. Comments are always welcome.

Tomorrow's the big day!

2007-03-22T18:43:00.000-04:00

All of the heart wrenching stories will either disappear, or be dumped on us like a ton of bricks.

Background: The Port Authority will finally disclose how it plans to deal with the projected $80 million budged deficit for the coming fiscal year. As you may have heard, the initial proposal was to eliminate 124 of the 213 bus routes, and raise fares to either a $2.00 flat fare or a $2.50 base fare. See "Port Authority's Proposed Fare and Service Changes" for more detail.After nine public hearings and 22,000 comments on the cuts, the Port Authority's official recommendations will be made to its board. The board will vote on the recommendations at their March 30th meeting.

Any route changes would go into effect on June 17th. Fare changes would not go into effect until January 1st.

The last minute efforts of Dan Onorato won't help much. As the Post-Gazette reports: "state officials have already warned that, even if approved this summer, money will not come in time to delay service cuts, will not be enough to fill the authority's $80 million budget gap and will not be forthcoming without significant corporate reform."

Also of interest, the Port Authorty will decide whether to endorse reforms recommended by Chief Executive Officer Steve Blan, including "consolidating departments, ending generous pension and health care benefits for nonunion and management personnel, freezing salaries, eliminating 56 office positions and possibly moving the headquarters back to Manchester."

Comments: Well, at least we'll be better prepared for what's coming. There have been a decent amount of discussions on the pros and cons of killing various routes (instead of limiting service), eliminating the 28X airport bus, and the number of workers stranded from their jobs. We'll have to see how it plays out.

Favorite quote: Joe Grata at the Post-Gazette is a master at the transit reporting game. My favorite line from his news report:

Mr. Bland is leading by example, having given up his authority-owned car and a deferred compensation package and sacrificing the same early retirement and health care benefits and salary increases as other management employees. "At the end of the day, we all have to deal with reality," he said.

How nice of Mr. Bland. How much did these things cost? Why is he driving an authority-owned car? Why doesn't he take the bus like the rest of us?

Raiding RAD for the Port Authority

2007-03-22T00:37:00.000-04:00

Ahhhh... I hadn't seen this proposal before. According to the Tribune-Review, Dan Onorato suggested that if funds aren't found elsewhere, he may have to dip into the Allegheny Regional Asset District (RAD) funds to help fund the Port Authority's projected $80 million deficit for the 2007-2008 fiscal year. At the same time, Onorato said that he wants to "cut the county's annual $25 million payment to Port Authority and find a new, unspecified 'revenue stream.'"

The RAD tax is a 1% sales tax within Allegheny County, used to support the areas cultural resources, such as libraries, parks, and museums. The $77 million RAD budget also provides debt service on bonds that funded Heinz Field and PNC Park.

Recipients of RAD money are, of course, worried. RAD money supports a variety of different groups who rely on the dedicated funding. They worry that if the Port Authority takes a small amount this year, there is nothing to prevent them from taking ever larger amounts in the future, especially as the RAD recipients already argue over what funding already exists. Is this a good idea? It seems to be politically unpopular and untouchable, but let’s talk through it anyway. The first that comes to mind is tax equity. Allegheny County residents already pay a 7% sales tax instead of the 6% tax in the rest of the state (save Philadelphia County). If Governor Rendell has his way, that tax will go up to 8% next year. Hey, what's another one percent among friends, right?

Nevertheless, who's paying these taxes? Sales taxes are considered to be regressive, that is, low income people tend to pay a greater percentage of their income in sales tax than higher income people, because they tend to spend a higher percentage of their income on consumable items. Thus, in the end, a greater percentage of the income of a poor person is going to support cultural services that they will never be able to afford.

As the RAD tax is currently set up, the working poor are paying to support cultural amenities that only the rich can enjoy. Have you ever seen the price of Steelers tickets? Or the Pittsburgh Symphony? Do you really think that those people who have no choice but to take public transportation will ever have the disposable income to pay for these things? Probably not. Yet, a relatively larger portion of their income is going to pay for these resources.

Instead, wouldn’t it make sense to have this dedicated funding go to the Port Authority? Under some proposals, the base fare would increase from $1.75 to $2.50. That’s around $30/month for someone commuting in both directions every day. That $30/month means a lot to someone making minimum wage and barely scraping by, paycheck to paycheck. $30/month is barely a drop in the bucket so someone who can afford season tickets to the Symphony (costing hundreds of dollars). Yet, whose paying to support what? By having the RAD tax the way it is, the lower income fellow is supporting the higher income fellow. Shouldn’t it be the other way around?

Without fixing the funding problems, the Port Authority will cut routes. Those cut routes will result in lost jobs, because those people won’t have a way to get to work. Is this fair? A member of the working poor will lose their job so that a wealthy person can see the ballet. People will have to walk miles out of their way to reach the nearest bus stop so that someone can see a broadway musical. It is simply adding insult to injury that the taxes that could have been used to fix the Port Authority (which serves thousands a day) are instead being used to prop up civic institutions that serve such a limited audience.

I’m sure I overlooked something here, but I really think Onorato’s on to something. What did I miss?

Port Authority thought for the day

2007-03-19T22:35:00.001-04:00

In his 1/28/2007 "Getting Around" column, Joe Grata points out:

In 1975, John T. Mauro, the executive director of the Port Authority wrote:

"By this stage of the 20th century, with a lengthy history of transit failures to look back on, it would seem that our community and political leaders would have come to understand this one universal fact: The long-term answer to financial problems of public transportation cannot and will not be found in cutbacks in service and in the work force, nor in fare increases.
"These stopgap measures have been tried repeatedly in the past, and they have proved to be regressive and self-defeating. Such steps, if tried again, will certainly lead to the complete downfall of this and other public transport systems."

So why is the Port Authority working to eliminate so much of the system? Make the routes smarter, yes. But don't eliminate them altogether!

Wasteful Port Authority spending - Pensions Edition

2007-03-19T21:00:00.000-04:00

What do you call $5,258 monthly pension check and free health, vision, dental and prescription insurance for ten years paid for by taxpayer money? A few choice words, I'm sure. But that's the package that former Port Authority CEO William W. Millar receives each month, even though he hasn't worked for the Port Authority since 1995. It's not as if he needs it; his current job as the president/CEO of the American Public Transportation Association paid him $348,353 in salary and $110,183 in deferred compensation in 2004. (Source: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette) It gets worse but I'll spare you the details.

With the financial situation of the Port Authority in shambles, why are we paying over $63,000 a year to someone who no longer works there? Especially, for a government employee.

The Post-Gazette also reports that Allegheny County Chief Executive Dan Onorato is on his way to lobby in Harrisburg for more transit funding. "..., the agency is reorganizing its management practices after receiving sharp criticism for its lucrative pension program and other perks." (Source: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette) I bet it makes it hard to lobby for state legislatures to send money our way when the Port Authority is spending so much on pension payments.

Does it have to be this way? $63,000 a year is a lot of bus rides. Before fare hikes and route cuts are implemented, shouldn't the Port Authority take a long, hard look at other areas they can save money?

Waiting for the bus

2007-03-18T11:04:00.000-04:00

Today, I read this post over at the "Ill-Tempered Ingenue" where the writer waited 45 minutes for the 44S light rail train (sometimes called the "trolley") at the Overbrook Junction station. This is for a line that runs every 15 minutes, meaning at least two trains never showed up.

The connection she described is necessary due to the renovation of the Palm Garden Bridge, taking the 42S line out of service. Normally, the 44S runs every 12 minutes during rush hour to provide replacement service for those inconvenienced by the removal of the 42S line. Obviously, something went wrong here. I know that I've had similar experiences before. Buses and trolleys simply never show up, ruining the plans of the riding public.

There are basically two types of mass transit customers: those who have a choice, and those who don't. Those who don't have a choice whether to ride the mass transit include individuals who, for whatever reason, cannot drive themselves to their destination. They may not own a car, be too young, have some sort of disability, etc. The bus is the only way for them to get around. Since they don't have a choice, they'll take the bus no matter what. An economist might describe this as an inelastic good.

The second type of mass transit customer, are those that do have a choice. These are generally people who commute daily by bus or rail, but could drive a car if they had to do so. Maybe they're trying to save money on parking downtown. Maybe they are environmentally minded. But for whatever the reason, they're taking the bus instead of driving. The key is, however, that if the bus becomes inconvenient or burdensome, the customer might simply give up and drive. Their demand for mass transit services is much more elastic then those who don't have a choice.

This is important because this is where the grown of mass transit will come from. "No Choice" passengers will ride the bus, no matter what. Thus, their level is pretty fixed, no matter what the service is like. "Choice" passengers will ride the bus only as long as the service meets their needs. Let these passengers stand out in the snow for long periods of time and many will reconsider mass transit. Considering that "choice" passengers are the only opportunities for passenger growth on established lines, you would think that the Port Authority would want to do more to alleviate problems.

What do you think? Are you now driving to work due to problems taking the bus? Would you take mass transit more often if it was more reliable and predictable?

Welcome!

2007-03-18T01:19:00.000-04:00

Why Pittsburgh Transit? With all of the problems facing the Port Authority of Allegheny County, I felt it was critical to have a centralized source for concerned citizens to learn what's going on around them. Of course, it is important to not only focus on Pittsburgh's mass transit system, but also to explore issues facing the roads, bridges, and tunnels of Pittsburgh and the surrounding area. Know something that others may find useful? Send me a note!