Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Paper Gets Transit Problems Right—At Long Last
It is interesting to note the change that has occurred in the writings of the transportation reporter and the editorial board at the Post Gazette relative the operations and finances of the Port Authority. PAT has been through the “doomsday scenario” many times in the last decade and we have argued that a major cause of those scenarios is the out-of-line costs of the authority, especially in comparison with other agencies. Our 2005 report pointed out many of these problems, but our Briefs on the topic go back even further.
Here’s what the PG was writing at the beginning of 2005: “in the 1970s, Pittsburgh was No. 1, paying the highest wages in the nation to union bus and trolley operators. Times have changed”. Also upheld were the findings of an organizational review that characterized the authority as “a relatively lean, cost-effective operation”. An editorial opined that it was not as bad as critics thought. “While the level of pay and benefits at the Port Authority deserve attention with an eye toward a healthy bottom line, they aren’t in the stratosphere either”.
That was the tone that prevailed at the paper until very recently. The mentality was that PAT had some problems, but they were not too bad. We pointed out that the paper’s detailed piece on wages had several flaws, including the fact that the data was not adjusted for cost of living. Moreover, our work showed how terribly inefficient Port Authority bus service was compared to most large transit systems. Then too, the paper failed to mention worker and retiree health benefits, the single biggest cause of the escalating crisis at the Port Authority.
Now we come to 2007: the Governor’s Commission on Transportation has released its report and a separate audit of the Port Authority. The County Executive and the Port Authority CEO are committed to drastically reforming the system.
Now look at the paper’s line: “it is a foregone conclusion that the Port Authority needs to be more efficient, bring management and labor costs under control…” That’s quite a change. It was even pointed out that an audit found “employees collecting fares at booths on station platforms…rang up 31 percent of the overtime costs on the [trolley]”. Today’s editorial page stated that “a liberal pension program and other financial squeezes are killing the Port Authority”. While the pensions for management were called “worrisome” two years ago and that the authority was fortunate that it did not have to put money into the union’s pensions, now the PG “cannot agree more” that there are problems with pensions and have even recommended that “the board…rein in pension and health care costs” at the end of the current contract.
Too bad they were late in catching the bus on this one. An earlier realization and publication of the severity of the developing situation that the Institute was working so hard to demonstrate might have helped bring needed changes prior to the enactment of the most recent contract instead of once again jeopardizing the entire system because of out of control costs. Better late than never perhaps. But always being behind the curve on public policy issues of this importance is a detriment to the health of the County and region.
Here’s what the PG was writing at the beginning of 2005: “in the 1970s, Pittsburgh was No. 1, paying the highest wages in the nation to union bus and trolley operators. Times have changed”. Also upheld were the findings of an organizational review that characterized the authority as “a relatively lean, cost-effective operation”. An editorial opined that it was not as bad as critics thought. “While the level of pay and benefits at the Port Authority deserve attention with an eye toward a healthy bottom line, they aren’t in the stratosphere either”.
That was the tone that prevailed at the paper until very recently. The mentality was that PAT had some problems, but they were not too bad. We pointed out that the paper’s detailed piece on wages had several flaws, including the fact that the data was not adjusted for cost of living. Moreover, our work showed how terribly inefficient Port Authority bus service was compared to most large transit systems. Then too, the paper failed to mention worker and retiree health benefits, the single biggest cause of the escalating crisis at the Port Authority.
Now we come to 2007: the Governor’s Commission on Transportation has released its report and a separate audit of the Port Authority. The County Executive and the Port Authority CEO are committed to drastically reforming the system.
Now look at the paper’s line: “it is a foregone conclusion that the Port Authority needs to be more efficient, bring management and labor costs under control…” That’s quite a change. It was even pointed out that an audit found “employees collecting fares at booths on station platforms…rang up 31 percent of the overtime costs on the [trolley]”. Today’s editorial page stated that “a liberal pension program and other financial squeezes are killing the Port Authority”. While the pensions for management were called “worrisome” two years ago and that the authority was fortunate that it did not have to put money into the union’s pensions, now the PG “cannot agree more” that there are problems with pensions and have even recommended that “the board…rein in pension and health care costs” at the end of the current contract.
Too bad they were late in catching the bus on this one. An earlier realization and publication of the severity of the developing situation that the Institute was working so hard to demonstrate might have helped bring needed changes prior to the enactment of the most recent contract instead of once again jeopardizing the entire system because of out of control costs. Better late than never perhaps. But always being behind the curve on public policy issues of this importance is a detriment to the health of the County and region.
