Monday, May 21, 2007
Transit Hindsight is 20/20 and Very Selective
The Post-Gazette’s transportation reporter once again reached into the past this weekend and wrote a feature piece that drew heavily upon the experience of a former PAT executive director. That director now serves as the chief of the country’s major advocate for public transportation.
In his present capacity, the former executive director speaks with credibility as to what the rest of the country does for public transit. He notes several successful systems that have good leadership and good funding. One of those systems he mentioned was Denver, which is interesting because we have noted on many occasions that Denver’s public transit success is, in large part, due to the fact that Denver contracts out a hefty percentage of its bus service. This kept the system going when in-house drivers went on strike last year. Contrast that with the union power at the Port Authority and their ability to shut down the system to force favorable concessions.
The director notes that he tried time and again to secure predictable and dedicated funding and even at one point had an agreement for a local add-on to the state sales tax. Wonder how that idea got hijacked to use for regional assets like the zoo and the aviary.
But the overall tone of the piece is that the state has failed in its role to simply throw more money at public transit. “We made progress in all areas but the funding”. That’s not surprising coming from someone who is clearly biased for public transit. Maybe he meant progress toward the day when the system would go bankrupt. There is no mention of the expansion of retirement and health benefits that occurred under this director’s watch and the consequences of that expansion today. That’s not to say that the director has not weighed in on the benefits before: he did so in a March PG article that noted he still gets over $5,000 a month from PAT. Noting that he did his time and paid into the program, he said “I pay my required share for health care and I've been paying it for a number of years…it is what it is.”
Too bad the state—which has done its part for public transit by allocating a portion of the state sales tax, creating a public transportation assistance fund, convening a Transportation Commission, and helping with capital costs—does not get the same “it is what it is” leeway. The state has done plenty for transit, yet it ends up as the punching bag. The director goes on to point out that cuts are shrinking the system to a non-operable level and that even the County should kick in more. The only party the director forgot was those that ride the bus and pay a fare.
But what is missed all along is that more money would have just exacerbated the problem and the necessary changes would have been glossed over for a lot longer. The attitude of apologists for PAT is not different from the attitude of those that clamored for more money and expanded taxing power for the City of Pittsburgh. Maybe the director and these others failed to read the Governor’s Commission report.
The transportation reporter then ended the piece by interjecting his editorial opinion by labeling the state legislature a “jackass” simply because it won’t do what the reporter, the director, and the transit activists want by just throwing more money around. That’s a real cheap shot and not deserved. The reporter and those of similar stripes need to look at their stubbornness in just directing their anger at the state and maybe think about the effects the pensions, health benefits, and driver pay have had on the service they receive.
In his present capacity, the former executive director speaks with credibility as to what the rest of the country does for public transit. He notes several successful systems that have good leadership and good funding. One of those systems he mentioned was Denver, which is interesting because we have noted on many occasions that Denver’s public transit success is, in large part, due to the fact that Denver contracts out a hefty percentage of its bus service. This kept the system going when in-house drivers went on strike last year. Contrast that with the union power at the Port Authority and their ability to shut down the system to force favorable concessions.
The director notes that he tried time and again to secure predictable and dedicated funding and even at one point had an agreement for a local add-on to the state sales tax. Wonder how that idea got hijacked to use for regional assets like the zoo and the aviary.
But the overall tone of the piece is that the state has failed in its role to simply throw more money at public transit. “We made progress in all areas but the funding”. That’s not surprising coming from someone who is clearly biased for public transit. Maybe he meant progress toward the day when the system would go bankrupt. There is no mention of the expansion of retirement and health benefits that occurred under this director’s watch and the consequences of that expansion today. That’s not to say that the director has not weighed in on the benefits before: he did so in a March PG article that noted he still gets over $5,000 a month from PAT. Noting that he did his time and paid into the program, he said “I pay my required share for health care and I've been paying it for a number of years…it is what it is.”
Too bad the state—which has done its part for public transit by allocating a portion of the state sales tax, creating a public transportation assistance fund, convening a Transportation Commission, and helping with capital costs—does not get the same “it is what it is” leeway. The state has done plenty for transit, yet it ends up as the punching bag. The director goes on to point out that cuts are shrinking the system to a non-operable level and that even the County should kick in more. The only party the director forgot was those that ride the bus and pay a fare.
But what is missed all along is that more money would have just exacerbated the problem and the necessary changes would have been glossed over for a lot longer. The attitude of apologists for PAT is not different from the attitude of those that clamored for more money and expanded taxing power for the City of Pittsburgh. Maybe the director and these others failed to read the Governor’s Commission report.
The transportation reporter then ended the piece by interjecting his editorial opinion by labeling the state legislature a “jackass” simply because it won’t do what the reporter, the director, and the transit activists want by just throwing more money around. That’s a real cheap shot and not deserved. The reporter and those of similar stripes need to look at their stubbornness in just directing their anger at the state and maybe think about the effects the pensions, health benefits, and driver pay have had on the service they receive.
