This morning, Gov. Ed Rendell detailed a proposal to local leaders that would provide $45 million in funding to help sustain public transportation service in Allegheny County. The plan would have to be approved by the Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC), which is a regional planning agency that directs the use of transportation funds in the region.
The $45 million would come from unused economic development funds and not from other transportation projects.
The governor made the announcement during a press conference this morning in Downtown Pittsburgh, following a briefing with SPC members.
This would be a temporary fix for Port Authority and would not resolve the State's transportation funding crisis. Port Authority is anxious to have serious discussions with State leaders in the new year about a responsible long-term solution for transit and highway funding.
Port Authority will examine the proposal in the coming weeks and determine how it might impact fares and service. The Authority will not take any action until after the Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission votes on the matter later this month.
We'll continue to keep you updated as these events unfold through the coming weeks.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Good for this year. The same thing will happen again next year. PAT threatens to cut buses.The gov't threatens to hold it. The gov't decides to fund. Puts us riders in a panic
ReplyDeleteI am so sick of these games.
A temporary fix to be sure, but at least the elected officials are aware of the problem - now it's up to us, voters and transit riders to keep the pressure on. Public transit benefits the entire city and region, not just those who ride the bus.
ReplyDeleteThe other day, I was on a completely packed 71D wondering what in the world would happen if there were less buses on the road...
I'm fully aware of the higher tax bracket that many of the Park and Riders fall into, and how it's common practice for politicians to lean more toward meeting their needs. But, it baffles me to see the Port Authority cut access entirely to an area it once deemed as "Lifeline" service (March 2010). The 5 Natrona enables elderly, disabled, and low-income residents of Natrona, Natrona Heights, and Brackenridge access to pharmacies, the grocery store, and one of the areas largest community mental health organizations. If the 5 Natrona is cut, these residents who rely on the bus as their sole means of transportation, will be without access to buy themselves food, while the Park and Ride service, which is designed to help car owners, remains virtually untouched. The Port Authority recognized this area as needing Lifeline service once, and for the aging, disabled, and low-income population of that area, that need has not changed. Please take this into consideration when voting, and even more so when you begin to allocate the emergency funds. Thank you
ReplyDeleteUnless Port Authority changes their operating tactics and huge salaries, government funding is only a bandaid for the real problem.
ReplyDeleteI may not know what I am talking about, but I do not mind higher taxes if the money is going to keep the buses running, what I have a problem with is the pension plans and retirement packages received by Port Authority employees, I have been paying for my own retirement and health care for the last 37 years - why can't other employees, including state employees, they make as much money if not more a year than I do.
ReplyDeleteOver the last several years, Port Authority has instituted a number of reforms designed to cut costs, including increasing employee contributions for health care, instituting salary freezes, eliminating positions and more, resulting in a savings of about $52 M annually since FY2006.
ReplyDeleteState law prohibits any restructuring of pension and healthcare benefits for current retirees.
I stress the importance of a need for a sustainable, predictable, and dedicated fund for transit. If and only if SPC approves this "flexing" of funds on December 13, it only buys us another 2 to 3 months of time to have a proper funding of transit. If the 2011-2012 FY budget is passed and shows reduced funding for Port Authority, cuts will be again on the table.
ReplyDeleteI had said before that this is a statewide funding issue. It not only is statewide, but nationwide. Many governments (local and state) have lower tax income due to the economy, and regardless of how transit is funded, that fund has been reduced in many areas of the country. Even Portland, OR (a very transit friendly place) had to reduce service due to funding. However, their reductions were quite minor in comparison and mostly were tweaks to frequencies and only eliminations of a few low ridership routes. Their funds are based on income taxes locally administered in their transportation district.
The major thing that is different here is that while Port Authority did a major restructuring of routes to improve efficiency, cut costs both in administration and on represented employees, and saved over $50 million, the state has not yet provided a dedicated fund that grows over time that tracks true transit expenses. The funding has been relatively flat since the 1990s.
Our legislators did pass Act 44, which landmark legislation that was intended to provide a long-term funding solution. However, since I-80 tolling would have been a major funding source for Act 44, we need to discuss with the legislators and governor about finding another sustainable funding source to continue to provide long-term funding to Port Authority as well as other transit agencies in Pennsylvania.
If a funding stream is not restored, "these games" of funding and service will continue as they have since Port Authority began in the 1960's. Everyone (riders and non-riders) must contact their legislators and tell them that transit funding is important. Our politicians hold the key to ending the threats of service cuts and hopefully providing funding so that transit can be expanded.
Good...now Port Authority has another year to sit and do nothing to fix the problem. Maybe someone will actually THINK and say "Hey! We have another year to FIX IT!"
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDeleteI don't mind paying the increase if the busses were cleaner, less breakdown. Why don't you provide a bike lane into Pittsburgh for the suburbs to the east, north and south? I would be willing to pay a lesser fee for the bike lane and the fee goes to the port authority to help out people who don't have an automobile and the elerdly that relie on the transportation for Medications, shopping, and Doctors. I am a Port Authority rider 5 days a week. I do not own a car for transportation. I walk 1 1/2 miles to and from the bus stop already. I'm hoping it gets better before it gets worse.
This seems as one of many instances where the Commonwealth will deliver democracy good and hard to the electorate. I caution PAT at accepting funds they possibly cannot fully employ due to existing federal law; As it stands PAT is too big to freely apply federal funding to operating expenses, which is where funding is needed the most. Although, there exist some areas in the operating budget where federal money can be applied, I doubt the sum total is $47 million. As I see it, things must get worse for the region and the Commonwealth - as a whole - to get better.
ReplyDeleteI suggest focusing on regional efforts to assist the least of your transit operators in the rural parts of the Commonwealth, such as, Fayette, Beaver and Armstrong Counties. By pulling them up, by way of cogent policy for instruments of all classes of municipal governments, PAT may find themselves on friendlier terms with current political adversaries and a more sound fiscal outlook.
Please, this is just a band aid to the real problem. Which is Port Authority not managing their money well. Next year, they're going to threaten to cut service and hike fares AGAIN. PAT loves to be oblivious.
ReplyDeleteHey all you politicians. Please get us dedicated funding so we can get off all the stress related meds. PLEASE,PLEASE, HELP ALLEGHENTY COUNTY, WE ARE BEGGING YOU!!!!!!!!!
ReplyDeletePut Port Authority into Chapter 9 Bankruptcy next year and force the unions to renegotiate everything - wages, benefits and
ReplyDeleteretirement. If they refuse, then disband the entire organization and turn it over to private investors.
Port Authority due to having more drivers retired than working due to ridiculously lavish benefits - where they got full benefits
after only 25 years and were able to jack up their benefits by working insane amount of overtime in the last 3 years - is
Unsustainable. Guarantee a minimum over 62 retirement pay (including social security) of the average income for Allegheny County
and no more - something like $45,000 a year or whatever it is.
Its time for the tyranny of public sector unions holding the population hostage to end.
Heck, even FDR said public section unions were a really bad idea. And FDR was pro union - for the private sector. Port Authority
is a monopoly and should be broken up for that reason alone.
No matter how much government money you pour into the gaping maw of PAT it wont be enough. I use Port Authority but its simply not
sustainable as it is. Its a real money pit.
Anonymous at December 5, 11:55am is correct that this is a band aid, but misguided on the real problem. Port Authority IS managing their money well as a result of the TDP making service more efficient and by reducing labor costs on both represented and unrepresented employees. You are right that they are going to threaten to cut service AGAIN because there is no dedicated source for funding. Any other city in the U.S. must rely on funding for transit. The unique issue with Pittsburgh (and the rest of Pennsylvania) is that the funding is not dedicated and is based on what money is available that year.
ReplyDeleteHopefully our politicians see that and finally provide a dedicated funding stream! I don't care if I have to pay an additional tax or fee for it either. Keep that in mind and talk to your legislators and governor when they come back to session next month.
Does this mean the 35% service cut is now temporarily on hold, which should be effective from March, 2010?
ReplyDeletemass transit should of stayed private
ReplyDeleteAnonymous at 11:51 (12/8):
ReplyDeleteWe don't have the money at the moment -- the Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission has to vote whether or not to give it to us. So until the vote (scheduled for 12/13), we can't determine exactly what the impact will be.
(J.G. said...
ReplyDeleteI'm fully aware of the higher tax bracket that many of the Park and Riders fall into, and how it's common practice for politicians to lean more toward meeting their needs. But, it baffles me to see the Port Authority cut access entirely to an area it once deemed as "Lifeline" service (March 2010). The 5 Natrona enables elderly, disabled, and low-income residents of Natrona, Natrona Heights, and Brackenridge access to pharmacies, the grocery store, and one of the areas largest community mental health organizations. If the 5 Natrona is cut, these residents who rely on the bus as their sole means of transportation, will be without access to buy themselves food, while the Park and Ride service, which is designed to help car owners, remains virtually untouched. The Port Authority recognized this area as needing Lifeline service once, and for the aging, disabled, and low-income population of that area, that need has not changed. Please take this into consideration when voting, and even more so when you begin to allocate the emergency funds. Thank you)
It is Port Authority of Allegheny County, Not Westmorland County! Your Transit System should provide you with the services, Allegheny County taxpayers are (GIVING) you.
Instead of cutting out entire routes, and deciding to keep others, it may be just as cost-effective to have one or two mid-morning or mid-day runs utilizing the closest connector bus. The 1 Freeport used to have one extended weekday run that bridged the gap between the 1 Freeport and 5 Natrona routes, at a time of day when the 5 didn't operate. If more of these types of connector-gap runs were done during the mid-morning/mid-day hours, when there is typically lower ridership, it would not excessively burden those route's current riders, and would offer transportation to those potential riders that would otherwise be without public transportation altogether. It may work out to be just as fiscally responsible as keeping a few entire routes intact, but will have the added benefit of servicing way more riders, and expanding that service over several more neighborhoods.
ReplyDeleteLOL "We don't have the money at the moment" and thats what its all about.
ReplyDeleteWords are going back and fort but problems stay there,the ones caused this mess should pay for with the return the many back to the transportation.
ReplyDeleteI don't have a car and need the bus but I say "Let PAT dissolve". Such a wasteful organization that will not change. History repeats itself annually.
ReplyDeleteOK I just read that regional leaders approves the funding, but still there's going to be 15% reduction and of course fare increases will still take place. Pathetic.
ReplyDelete