Tag Archives: PAT

Changes Brought by the Transportation Bill

Posted on by

Act 89 of 2013, otherwise known as the transportation bill, contained major changes that will affect Pennsylvania motorists and taxpayers in the form of higher taxes, fees, and fines. The revenue increases were enacted to greatly expand the amount of funding available for highways and bridges as well as for mass transit. But there were other significant changes that have not received as much attention or commentary as the revenue boosts—the Institute has commented extensively on revenue enhancements in recent Policy Briefs.

 

First, Act 89 established the “Multimodal Transportation Fund”.  This fund will receive revenue allocated from the Turnpike annual payment to the Department of Transportation, dedicated fee collections and funding from the Oil Company Franchise tax. The fund is projected to receive almost $100 million in FY 2014-15, with receipts rising to $144 million in FY 2017-18. These funds will be used to support a variety of eligible projects including:

 

  1. Projects that coordinate local land use with transportation assets to enhance existing communities;
  2. Projects related to streetscape, lighting, sidewalk enhancement and pedestrian safety;
  3. Projects improving connectivity or utilization of existing transportation assets;
  4. Projects related to transit-oriented development.

 

Beyond these projects, money from the fund will also go to programs related to aviation, rail freight, passenger rail, and ports and waterways with a total of $34 million per year dedicated in FY2014-15 and years following. Another $2 million will be appropriated to bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

 

Any money not used by the remaining eligible projects will be transferred to the Commonwealth Financing Authority for use in its programs. All the projects funded under the Multimodal program will be required to provide a 30 percent match of non-federal funds.

 

Second, Act 89 altered the conditions under which prevailing wages must be paid on bridge and highway work. For local highway and bridge projects public work shall mean  construction, reconstruction, demolition, alteration and repair work (other than maintenance) done under contract and paid for in whole or in part out of the funds of a public body if the estimated cost is in excess of $100,000.  Thus, any project within the definition with an estimated cost of less than $100,000 would not be covered under the prevailing wage act.

 

Note that the change applies only to local projects, i.e., counties or municipalities, and does not cover construction projects other than highway or bridges. Thus, the state is not bound by the change in its highway and bridge contracting. Moreover, any construction in the Commonwealth using public funds other than local highways and bridges remains bound by the lower $25,000 exemption from the prevailing wage requirement.  In short, the bulk of all construction projects as measured by dollar value will continue to require prevailing wages. Not much tax money will be saved by this tiny adjustment.

 

Moreover, the arbitrary $100,000 cutoff will almost certainly produce game playing by local government to avoid having contracts reach the $100,000 mark. And that will be met by protests and possibly lawsuits by labor unions and union shop contractors. The prevailing wage act should be repealed, period. There are few, if any, examples of government interference in the market that are more distorting, costly to taxpayers and discriminatory than prevailing wage laws.

 

Third, Act 89 requires the Department of Transportation, in consultation with local governments and local transportation organizations, to study the feasibility of consolidation and mutual cooperation among local transportation organizations.   The aim is to learn whether annual expenses can be reduced without loss of service. The study will look at whether creation of service regions or mutual cooperation pacts can reduce outlays. If study results indicate savings are possible and the parties recommend moving ahead the Department will help the process by waiving match requirements in an amount up to but not exceeding the net savings stemming from the recommended actions. The Department will also make available financial support for a capital project necessary to facilitate a consolidation or mutual cooperation pact.

 

In the case of the Pittsburgh region, consolidation of transit agencies is a non-starter in light of the tremendous differences in pay and benefits packages between the Port Authority and other regional transit agencies and owing to the fact that some of them use privatization of bus service extensively.  However, mutual cooperation opportunities might well present themselves wherein carriers could allow other regional carriers to pick up and drop off passengers in border areas or within each other’s districts where it makes economic sense and enhances service within the communities being served.

 

At present there is a study underway involving the Port Authority and southwest Pennsylvania transit agencies that was mandated by earlier legislation. The study is also looking at privatization of bus service opportunities at the Port Authority, possibly emulating Westmoreland County and Denver, Colorado. That report is scheduled to be completed later this spring or early summer.

 

Finally, and unrelated to Act 89, it is worth noting that in 2007, Act 44 gave the Department authority to conduct performance reviews of all transit agencies in Pennsylvania receiving state funds with reviews to be conducted at regular intervals. After an agency is reviewed, the Department prepares a report identifying any problems, evaluates performance and effectiveness of the use of financial assistance, and recommends follow up actions. The report is sent to the Governor, to the chair and minority chair of the Transportation Committees in the Senate and the House. The report contains a description of the impact on the amount of and future eligibility for financial assistance based on the degree of compliance with the report’s recommendations.

 

This is all well and good but surprisingly after nearly seven years there is as yet no performance review report for the Port Authority and SEPTA.  It is surprising because these two agencies together receive almost 90 percent of base operating allocations for mass transit. Performance reviews of the small agencies are fine but clearly the state’s taxpayers’ interests would be far better served by knowing the effectiveness of the funds expended by the two large transportation organizations. Perhaps it would be prudent for the Transportation Committee chairs inquire as to whether reviews of PAT and SEPTA are forthcoming soon and, if not, why not.

PAT’s Coming Windfall

Posted on by

The long sought after special “funding” stream has become reality for the Port Authority (PAT). A funding stream that had been lobbied for by a number of groups in the Pittsburgh community for many years. With the passage of the transportation bill in November, the wheels have been set in motion to begin substantial additions to funds dedicated to roads and bridges as well as for mass transit in Pennsylvania.  Over the next four and half years through fiscal 2017-2018, funding for roads and bridges in the state are forecast by the Department of Transportation (DOT) to rise to $1.65 billion per year. Meanwhile, additional funding for mass transit is projected to climb to just under $500 million per year by 2017-2018. Projections show the increase in funding for transit at $60 million in the last half of the current fiscal year as the bill’s provisions are implemented and then climbing to $355 million next year and on up to the half billion level over the following two years.

 

So what does this mean for PAT? Based on PAT’s base year operating allocation as a percentage of all base year transit funding—24 percent as determined by the DOT—we can estimate the amount PAT is likely to receive from the newly enhanced allocations specified in the transportation bill.  By the way, the 24 percent figure is very close to the percentage mentioned in the transportation bill for purposes of allocating funds to transit asset improvement. It is very likely that the $30 million in annual supplemental funding agreed to by the Governor has lifted PAT’s share of transit funding out of the 24 percent range.

 

Note that for FY 2013-2014 PAT has budgeted state basic assistance at $163 million along with the Governor’s special allocation of $30 million for a total of $193 million in state money. At that same time, by way of comparison, revenue from fare box collections is budgeted at just $82 million.

 

Meanwhile, for 2014 Allegheny County has forecast $40.5 million in combined drink tax and car rental tax revenue. Of that revenue $30 million has been allocated to cover the required match from the state. That leaves about $10 million which could be used to cover the required match for the $60 million in new state funding that could be forthcoming according to the DOT. Bear in mind that the RAD board is providing $3 million to help cover the $4.5 million match requirement for the Governor’s contribution of $30 million that is over and above the state’s normal formula determined funding.  An important question here would be: In light of the jump in state funding that is coming, will RAD be as favorably disposed to continue granting dollars to an agency some of its members were loath to support in the first place?

 

By way of background, the drink and car rental taxes were authorized by state law in 2007 to generate funds to be used by the County to support mass transit, in particular to produce revenue to meet the state’s 15 percent local match requirement to receive state operating funds.  In short, the new taxes were designed to relieve the pressure on the County budget and to allow the County leadership to avoid having to make serious spending cuts or raise property taxes. As was noted at the time, the two taxes were inappropriate ways to subsidize mass transit but were instituted anyway. The County missed a golden opportunity to generate local revenues for transit support when it earlier adopted a local option sales tax to be used for purposes other than transit. The sales tax is a broad based tax paid by most residents and is therefore a far more equitable way to fund a widely used public service.

 

Assuming the drink and car rental tax revenue will continue to generate revenue in the $40 million range in the near term perhaps growing a million or so per year, by 2018 the revenue might reach $44 million.  The County does have the authority to boost the drink tax percentage to 10 percent from the current 7 percent level. But that will be met with great opposition from owners of restaurants and bars.

 

Will $40 to $44 million be enough to meet the 15 percent matching requirement for the increased state funds in the years ahead or will other funds have to be diverted?  Alternatively, will the state begin to waive the match requirement or lower it? In the current fiscal year, if the state’s $60 million estimate for new transit revenue is correct, PAT will receive about $15 million of that, necessitating a local match of $2.25 million. An amount easily handled by the $10 million surplus of drink tax and car rental tax revenue, unless it is being used for other purposes.

 

In FY 2014-2015, the state expects $355 million in supplemental funding of which PAT’s share will be approximately $85 million—requiring $12.75 million in additional match.  One might reasonably assume that the Governor’s supplemental contribution would go away in light of the increase in new funding. If that happens then the net rise would be only $55 million, needing a match of $8.25 million from the County.  The County could manage that out of projected drink and car rental taxes with or without the RAD funds, assuming the state’s basic operating grants are not increased as well.

 

In short, with $40 million to use as a match, the County can cover $267 million in total state funding, about a $100 million above the recent operating grant level. That presupposes the County is willing to use all of the special tax revenue to fund the match requirement.  It could well be the current surplus in that revenue is being spent on other transit projects and might be hard to shift back to meeting matching needs.

 

On the other hand if, or when, the state supplemental funding rises to the $125 million level and the base year operating grants, augmented by the 5.6 percent annual adjustment factor, continue to rise, the drink and car rental tax as currently constituted will not be enough to cover the match.  But it would be a nice problem for the County and PAT to have.

 

The big question for PAT: What will you do with all that additional funding? It would be reasonable to expect that the unions, having made concessions they were adamantly opposed to, will begin to demand some reinstatement of benefits. And with contracts coming due in a couple of years, management will not be able to cry poor as a result of having been made the beneficiary of large sums of new money.

 

Transit riders and workers should thank all the people who lease and rent cars, Turnpike users, tire buyers, and sales tax payers, fee payers, traffic fine payers and people buying alcoholic drinks in Allegheny County for their very generous support and subsidization of mass transit.

First Appointment to Revamped PAT Board

Posted on by

Under Act 72 of 2013, the size of the Port Authority (PAT) board of directors is to increase and the appointment power to the board is to shift from nine appointed by one official to eleven appointed by six officials. Readers can get details here.

It was announced recently that the first appointment to the new board has been made by the Senate Minority Leader. Per the statute, the term of this appointee is to be a four year term with opportunity to be reappointed twice. Other appointments will have shorter first terms so as to stagger times of reappointment going forward.

While much has been written and discussed about the diminished power of the office of County Executive vis-à-vis the makeup of the board-dropping from nine appointments to six, with four of those being "free" selections and two being drawn from lists submitted by community groups-it is worth mentioning the position of the County’s legislative body, the fifteen member County Council, as it relates to the PAT board.

Prior to Act 72, the Council confirmed appointments and was guaranteed one seat on the board. Earlier versions of the Act would have given appointments to the Council, but that was omitted during the legislative process. Now Council will only confirm the two Executive appointments drawn from lists. There is nothing that prevents any of the appointing officials from choosing a Council member to serve on the board. They are all County residents (required of all appointees with the exception of the Governor’s choice) and would seem to meet the background requirements of having experience in finance, transportation, or economic development as a prerequisite for serving on the board. It could even be possible that now or in the future more than one member of Council could end up on the board.

Major Changes in the Makeup of the Port Authority Board

Posted on by

The Governor has signed legislation that will dramatically alter the board of directors of the Port Authority (PAT).  What was a nine member body with members serving staggered five year terms and appointed solely by the Allegheny County Chief Executive will become an eleven member body with members eventually serving staggered four year terms with appointment power shared by six individuals.

 

 

The idea behind what is now Act 73 of 2013 began germinating a few years ago with recurring financial problems at PAT.  The argument was made that since the state put in a significant portion of PAT’s budget there ought to be state level appointees on the board.  The Auditor General’s 2007 performance audit of PAT called attention to our work (see Policy Brief Volume 7, Number 9) and that of the 2006 Governor’s Transportation Commission’s thoughts on the matter, and pointed out that “taxpayers from across the state have been providing most of the funds to operate [PAT] for many years…the governing structure of [PAT] must be changed to include permanent representation by the state on the behalf of state taxpayers”.  The Authority did not challenge the Auditor General’s argument in its response to the audit, noting that state law determines who serves on the board. 

 

Fast forward six years to this year’s legislative session.  A bill changing the PAT board was introduced in the Senate in early June.  Though the Act went through many changes, these items remained the same from the first proposal:

 

  • A new board would have eleven members.
  • The Governor and the legislative leaders of both chambers would make appointments.
  • Board members would be term limited and would have to possess a background in finance, transportation, or economic development.
  • PENNDOT would be charged with undertaking a study on what benefits consolidation and privatization can have on revenues and expenses.

 

Most of the changes dealt with how to apportion local appointments.  In earlier versions of the bill the County Executive would have had either one or four appointments to the new board.  The Mayor of Pittsburgh, County Council at Large members, and County Council members of the opposite political affiliation of the Executive would have had appointments but those were eliminated as amendments were adopted.  The final version of the Act gives the Executive six appointments in total. Here’s how those appointments will be made: four will be chosen freely by the Executive, and two will be drawn from a list compiled by four community-based organizations and confirmed by County Council.  There is no requirement that a member of County Council serve on the board as the law currently requires, but a member could certainly be appointed. 

 

The terms of current board members end in 60 days, and the law permits any of those members to be reappointed.  Once the new board is seated, the terms will be staggered so that expirations occur at various times.  Board members cannot serve more than three consecutive terms, including the initial appointment.  The table below shows when appointments would be made over the next decade.

 

Appointing Official

Years Making Appointments

Governor

2013, 2017, 2021

Senate Pro Tem and Senate Minority Leader

2013, 2017, 2021

House Speaker and House Minority Leader

2013, 2016, 2020

County Executive-2 free nominations

2013, 2015, 2019

County Executive-2 free nominations

2013, 2016, 2020

County Executive-2 nominations drawn from list and confirmed

by County Council

2013, 2015, 2019

 

Assuming all of the initial 2013 appointments serve for the maximum three terms, the appointees of the Governor and the Senate leaders will have served twelve years, House leadership appointees and two Executive appointees would have served eleven years, and four Executive appointees would have served ten years.

 

A quorum for meetings is six members, but it will require seven members to “take action on behalf of the Authority”.  That means it could require one state level appointee to join with the six County appointees on a decision, or, conversely, two County appointees to join with the state appointees to get business moving forward.   Obviously the point of this requirement is to ensure that the County-level appointees can’t do anything unilaterally without at least one state appointee consenting.

 

The state will exercise significant power on the board in two other ways. First, for adopting by-laws, appointing a CEO, authorizing bonds, borrowing, leases, and contracts in excess of $5 million the two board members appointed by the General Assembly who are not of the same political affiliation of the County Executive can move to table this business to stop it and/or second it to move it forward.  Under current partisan arrangements, that would mean the appointees of the Senate Pro Tem and the House Speaker would get important veto power over these areas. 

 

Second, the Governor’s appointment is the only one that does not have to be a resident of Allegheny County, only a resident of the Commonwealth.  This appointee might come from another part of the region or another part of the state and would provide a broader perspective should indeed the Governor not select someone residing in Allegheny County.

 

A statewide say on PAT business, board members with qualifications, and a study to determine what exactly privatization and consolidation can bring: is a new day dawning for PAT? While not as draconian as it might have been, the just enacted law will certainly offer opportunities to bring professionalism and business acumen to oversight of the Authority.

PAT in RAD Mix Again

Posted on by

"The Port Authority presents today as an eligible applicant with significant regional impact and an urgent and unmet need. Fortunately, revenue growth this year allows RAD to respond to this need on a one year basis without detriment to other program areas. Since this may not be the case next year, we urge state and county leaders to continue their efforts to find alternate, reliable transit funding sources." —Regional Asset District final budget for 2013

Last year, the Port Authority (PAT) asked for and received $3 million from the Regional Asset District as an annual grant. The Authority is making the same request again for 2014. While we know that no comprehensive transportation plan came out of the legislative session, and that PAT passed a budget for 2013-14 that is not yet on the Authority’s website, there are competing outlooks over how long PAT should get money from RAD.

The County Executive-who currently appoints all nine members of the Port Authority and 3 of the 7 members of the RAD board-said last August that he did not want the 2013 disbursement to be "…just a one time grant". An op-ed piece soon after argued against that line of thinking, stating the request "…should be a one-time thing". At least one leader in the arts/cultural community expressed reservations about the precedent the request would make, echoing a state senator who raised similar issues when it was decided that RAD would be able to help the Sports and Exhibition Authority (SEA) for a few years while it waited on gaming money.

Like the County Executive argued that he could think of no bigger regional asset than mass transit, the Executive Director of the SEA likewise opined a handful of years earlier that the convention center met "the definition of a regional asset". Yet the SEA no longer gets RAD money as it now gets gaming money-so it was really a temporary regional asset until a new source of revenue came along. Will that be the same for PAT? Recall that in some versions of the state transportation bill that would be more emphasis on local funding, with possible new and higher revenue options. Who knows if that will make it into a new transportation plan should one be debated in the fall. Is it possible that local officials could make the case that the RAD funded PAT without any hardship to other organizations so that, rather than creating new taxes again the Authority should be made a permanent beneficiary?

Another Version of PAT Board Bill

Posted on by

As the legislative session concluded, the House took action on a Senate bill that would alter the makeup of the Port Authority (PAT) board of directors. As we wrote in mid-June the original legislation would have expanded the board from nine members to eleven and spread around the appointment powers from all by the County Executive to five by state officials and six by locals, including the Mayor of Pittsburgh, the at-large members of County Council, and one by the Executive.

That proposal was amended and passed by the Senate soon after. The altered version gave the Executive four appointments, with two having to come from a list submitted by community organizations. The County Council caucus of the opposite political party would get two appointments. The at-large Council members and the Mayor lost the appointments they had under the original bill.

Then the House passed its version this week. The state would still have five appointments: one by the Governor, four from the legislative leaders of each chamber. The County Executive would have six appointees: two would be drawn from the lists of community group suggestions and those two would have to be confirmed by County Council. With the exception of the Governor’s appointee, all must be residents of Allegheny County and all must have background qualifications in budgeting, finance, mass transit, etc.

Some new wrinkles in the House version: it would take seven members to "take action on behalf of the authority" and the legislative appointees who are not of the same party as the Executive would have significant power over by-laws, the hiring of a CEO, bonds, and contracts greater than $5 million dollars. The PennDOT study on consolidation and privatization would get an additional ninety days to be completed.

With the differing versions it will take more work after the legislative recess to align the reform proposals.

What’s Changed in PAT Board Appointment Bill?

Posted on by

One week ago legislation would have altered the makeup of the Port Authority (PAT) board from one with nine members all appointed by the Chief Executive of Allegheny County to one with eleven members where the Chief Executive would have had one appointment with various other officials from the state, County, and City of Pittsburgh having appointments. That bill has been amended and a new version has passed the Senate and is on its way to the House.

So what’s the same?

  • There will still be 11 board members
  • State officials would make five appointments (the Governor and the leaders of each chamber will each get one appointment)
  • All appointees must have a background in finance, economic development, transportation, or mass transportation
  • Community organizations will provide names for four prospective appointees
  • Members can serve no more than three consecutive terms
  • PENNDOT will conduct a study on privatization and consolidation and report to the state on their findings

And what’s different?

  • Only the Governor’s appointee does not have to be an Allegheny County resident
  • The County Executive would have four appointees, but two must come from the list of recommendations as proposed by community organizations and those two must be confirmed by County Council
  • The Mayor of Pittsburgh would not have an appointment as was proposed in the earlier version of the bill
  • The at-large members of County Council will not have appointments as originally proposed. The County Council caucus of the opposite party affiliation of the Executive will make two appointments from the same list provided by the community organizations

PAT Union Board Seat?

Posted on by

The former head of the transit union at the Port Authority argues in a letter to a local paper that the union should have a seat on the Board of the Authority. Claiming no group has a bigger stake in the success of the Authority, the union therefore deserves board membership. The former leader is apparently in deep denial about the damage the union has done to the Port Authority’s finances and lack of efficiency.

Here is a reasonable proposal. If the union wants a seat on the board, the Legislature should offer to amend the bill now working its way through the Senate that changes the board appointment powers to include a union member-on one condition. In exchange the union will agree to support a bill to eliminate the power of transit workers to strike.

It is unlikely the union will ever agree voluntarily to give up the right to strike since they view the right to strike as a virtual sacrament of the labor movement. Unions struck armament plants during World War II on the grounds that the right to strike was not to be denied for any reason. Almost all states have figured out that strikes by public employees who deliver key, monopoly provided services cannot be allowed. Pennsylvania just cannot seem to grasp that truth.

Port Authority Board Appointment Bill Moves Forward

Posted on by

By a 16 to 10 vote in the Senate Appropriations Committee on June 10th, Senate Bill 700 took another step toward becoming law. Of course, the full Senate has to consider it and, likewise, the House must approve and it is not clear what the reception will be in that body.

 

 

The bill, sponsored and heavily supported by the president pro tem of the Senate, has two key provisions. First, the naming of board members of the Port Authority of Allegheny County (PAT) is changed dramatically. Eleven members will be appointed. One by the Governor, one each by officers of the four legislative caucuses, one by the County Executive, one by the Mayor of Pittsburgh, and four by the at-large members of County Council. The at-large member appointees will be named from a list of nominations by four designated organizations (Allegheny Council of Governments, ACHIEVA, the Southwest Regional Commission and the Allegheny Conference on Community Development). Existing members’ terms would end in 60 days. Existing members would also be eligible to serve in the new regime.

 

The effect of this new appointment scheme will be enormous. By removing all but one of the member appointments from the County Executive and placing five with state government officials, the state assumes more of an oversight role for the Authority. By having four board members appointed by at-large council members from various entities presumably there will be some vetting and possibly a variety of viewpoints represented by the members.

 

Appointments-Current Law and Proposed Law

Component

Current Law

Proposed Law

# of Board Members

9

11

Appointment Power

County Executive

Governor (1), County Executive (1), Mayor of Pittsburgh (1), State Legislative Leaders (4), At-Large County Council Members (4)

Residency Requirements

U.S. Citizen, resident of County

Resident of Commonwealth

Qualifications

None Specified

Experience in Budgeting, Finance, Economic Development, Transportation, Mass Transit

Term Limits

None Specified

Three Consecutive Terms

 

It is worth noting the changes in qualifications.  Under the proposed law, members will have to have expertise or experience in areas important to the management of a large organization and specifically some will have to have experience related to transportation issues.

 

The second key provision is a mandate to PENNDOT to (1) study the possibility of consolidation with other local transportation organizations to determine if revenues could be enhanced or expense reduced and (2) to study the opportunities for privatization that will enhance revenues or lower expenses. A report with findings and recommendations for each study is to be ready within 180 days of the enactment of the bill and provided to the Governor, the General Assembly and PAT. 

 

These study requirements are useful but could be worded better to include such things as improved operational efficiency, lower cost per rider, and better service.  Moreover, it is not enough to recommend consolidation or privatization, there needs to language to require the adoption of recommendations when the analysis strongly supports them. A mandate to privatize some percentage of bus service within three years is a reasonable requirement.

 

Obviously, the County Executive and many loyal supporters of the status quo at PAT will be extremely opposed to these steps. But given the state’s financial support and the chronic financial crisis PAT finds itself in and is unable to resolve on its own, there simply must be some major reform.

 

The steps contained in the legislation are a start but they alone do not adequately address the primary source of the Authority’s long term problems-the right of the transit workers to strike. As long as that situation exists, it is only a matter of time until the threat of a strike will force the board, no matter how the appointments are allocated, to choose to approve a contract it cannot afford or a shutdown of the system and all the attendant difficulties and hardship that entails.

 

Still, there is no gainsaying the fact that this proposal is a game changer. It represents a very strong signal regarding the state government’s exasperation with PAT and its constant demands for more funding while operating one of the most expensive per rider systems in the nation.

 

The only question is whether the House members have the same level of exasperation. Will it concur that substantial change needs to occur at the Port Authority?

Looking at Light Rail Numbers

Posted on by

An article over the weekend about the possible extension of light rail in the future noted that the number of annual trips on the light rail system stood at 7.7 million in 2012, which is an increase of 15% over 2011 totals (6.7 million according to APTA data). At 7.7 million, 2012 ridership would be the highest light rail total back to 1996 (as far as APTA data goes back) besting the previous high during that time frame (7.5 million in 1997).

Of course, we don’t know how much the extension of "free" rides between the North Shore Connector stations and Downtown have boosted totals or the newness of the Connector itself had an effect. APTA does not provide a breakout of the light rail mode’s expenses, revenue, or employees as does the PAT budget: we noted last year the baseline data. There is not yet a modal comparison available for the 12-13 fiscal year nor the 13-14 fiscal year for the Authority. We did calculate the "expense per rider" by dividing total expenses of the light rail system by ridership at $7.08 in 2011. With the boost in ridership in 2012 to 7.7 million if the cost per rider was to stay roughly the same the Authority’s light rail expenses could have risen to no more than $54.8 million.

The APTA data does however separate by quarter; the biggest boost over 2011 ridership came in the second quarter (April, May, and June) when there were 2.0 million unlinked trips. The previous year there were 1.67 million in that quarter.