Comments on: Saving our transit

By: Meridia.

Meridia. — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 04:35:46 +0000

Meridia….

Meridia information gt gt buy meridia. Meridia. Meridia drug….

By: andrea

andrea — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 15:09:23 +0000

I’m not disputing the need for reforms and re-organization in the interests of greater efficiency — I’m merely saying that it doesn’t seem to me that the route cuts are a sensible way to achieve those service reductions. Rather than re-assessing the profoundly inefficient route structure, in which virtually every bus travels downtown, Port Authority is merely proposing to eliminate a few spokes. It may not affect visitors or city residents very much, but it has a tremendous impact on the suburban commuters. And ultimately it doesn’t build efficiency into our system.

By: Anukul

Anukul — Sun, 14 Jan 2007 14:57:08 +0000

You must look at this in the context of the budget crisis situation over the last 10 years and the recent state transportation funding reform commission report. They basically lay out that long term stable predictable funding is needed BUT reform is needed first. The Port Authority needs to use a more systematic process for evaluating, growing, and cutting service; they need a higher percentage of funding to come from the local level; they need to cut and control costs and they need to make some serious headway on labor & benefit costs.

Some of this comes from grumpy republican rural legislators who don’t want to invest in transit; sure, we should smite them with progressive values. But some of that is real. The Port Authority needs strong leadership to balance the needed reform in its service and its labor agreements. Remember, you don’t get leverage with your labor union when Rendell shows up with emergency dysfunctional bailout money every other year.

Read the report:
http://www.dot.state.pa.us/Internet/pdCommissCommitt.nsf/TransCommissHomepage?OpenFrameset&Frame=main&src=HomePageTransFundReformComm?ReadForm
ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/pdf/TFRCReport/04FinalReportExec%20Summary.pdf

http://buskarma.com/news/2007/01/09/service_cuts_fare_increases_and_the_bus_nannies.html

As to Vanna’s comment of assessment of the system, that is what the Port Authority is trying to do and that is where they are actively looking for help. If you want to contribute to the hearings, you should be providing PAAC with advice on how they should be evaluating service (cuts & growth).

I do think you’re being a bit unfair; they are eliminating over 50% of routes but only 25% of service; they are eliminating a lot of special & complex routes that only run inconsistently. They’re proposing eliminating the zone system and moving to a flat fare. These are painful reforms that can’t happen in good times, but improve the system for visitors and first time riders.

Anukul Kapoor
http://buskarma.com/

By: Vanna

Vanna — Sat, 06 Jan 2007 03:16:06 +0000

I think Angry Drunk Bureaucrat has hit the nail on the head with his assessment on the PAT cuts in the third item in this posting:

http://angrydrunkbureaucrat.blogspot.com/2007/01/gambler.html

By: Vanna

Vanna — Sat, 06 Jan 2007 02:56:21 +0000

Me thinks there is something afoot along the lines of creating a regional transit authority, together with new buddy Braken Burns. “at the end of the day…” could be referring to “on down the line after we remake things that we currently are not telling you about”

But I agree with Andrea. The route cuts seem to be pretty jacked up. I need to read through their rationale/rating system mumbo jumbo to get a clearer sense of how they even arrived at them.

On a basic level, I support the concept of downsizing if it actually achieves something in terms of improved efficiency and meeting some goal beyond just cutting X dollars out of the operating budget willy nilly. And I totally disagree with the notion that the transit system must operate as it currently does, with nearly door-to-door service in a lot of areas and in a way that makes downtown a clogged mess of noxious diesel and where pedestrians and cyclists are second-class citizens. If the rally cry of SOT or any group is “don’t cut any routes” then that is simply impractical and short-sighted. (I don’t know this is their rally cry, I just use it as a hypothetical).

But I don’t see that there was an attempt to asses the functionality of the system and the routes at all.

Apparently the existing routes are tied more to seniority among the drivers (i.e. you’ve been around a long time, you get the plum routes where you don’t have to deal with X, Y, or Z) than they are to actually getting people to or from desired locations throughout the county in an efficient manner. And nothing about the system is designed to promote a user-friendly system for visitors, or even user-friendly use for people beyond their known route/destinations.

By: rachel

rachel — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 17:27:47 +0000

Today’s Trib quotes Onorato as saying:
“What we announced Wednesday will happen in June ’07,” Onorato told Pittsburgh Tribune-Review editors and reporters. “At the end of the day, there will be a transit system for Allegheny County. It will just be a different-sized authority than we’re used to having here.”

I can’t believe that Onorato– who claims to be working toward a progressive, regional economy, would be so short-sighted.

How does reducing our mass transit system help us build a regional economy?????