CPI changes

[Vigrass, Bill]

There is a lot of truth to what you wrote.  Most present day general
managers got there because they are good at obtaining funds.  I don't know
of any gm's of rail systems who are technically knowledgeable except for Bob
Schwab, P.E., of PATCO (who resigned effective 7/28/00). A typical GM is
responsible for billions of dollars of investment in a highly technical
physical plant and in fact knows little about it other than what his staff
tells him.  Results vary widely.
BV.  

-----Original Message-----
From: John Swindler [mailto:j_swindler at hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2000 10:52 AM
To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
Subject: Re: CPI changes


Fred W. Schneider III commented:

>My favorite story was his about a transit executive preparing for a board 
>meeting by watching Three Stooges comedies ... it was saying that business 
>reality has no place at all in transit any longer.  Because of the 
>operating subsidies and capital grants, and increasing inefficiency, 
>transit costs have increased 50 times while the CPI has gone up 7 times 
>since 1950.  This is critical to our understanding.

As clarification, it was a recently retired executive director of a large 
multi-modal transit system who claimed that he and the operating managers 
watched Three Stooges comedies before board meetings because YOUR local 
politicans have appointed "Larry, Curly and Moe" to YOUR local transit 
systems' board of directors.  Something to keep in mind next time you read a

newspaper account about how a transit board is spending YOUR tax dollars.

This retired executive also had some interesting comments (which people 
didn't like to hear) about the current state of transit management.  
Essentually, to survive beyond the 1960s, transit had to "get in bed" with 
politicians and labor to secure tax dollars.  The result has been that "the 
price of survival has ruined transit management".

One of his examples was the 1,000 vehicle Pennsylvania bus pool purchase of 
the early 1980s.  The idea was for the state/PennDOT to pool transit bus 
purchases from the state's transit authorities to attract a builder to 
locate in PA.(ie, jobs)  Except PA never even got a reliable bus, insteading

ending up with the Neoplan "Pennliners".  Premature rusting of an A-frame 
craddle in the engine compartment required millions wasted on rebuilding.  
But his real story was that all the transit managers in PA dutifully lined 
up for this bus-pool purchase with one exception.  Bud Weeks at CAT in 
Harrisburg was originally from ATE Management, which was similar to National

City Lines.  Instead, CAT rejected the state money and used local funds to 
overhaul a group of ten-year old GM buses.  Today, you won't find any of 
these "Pennliner" (rustliners?) buses on the streets of PA, but Harrisburg 
still uses many of these now-25 year old GM buses in both peak and off-peak.

To get back on topic, much as many railfans would disagree, ATE and National

City Lines were professional managers.  So was West Penn and probably 
Pittsburgh Railways.  But what about today?????  Yes, we have professional 
fund raisers, and they are needed, but what about the future of light rail 
operations, maintenance and planning?  Or isn't it important anymore because

of the auto???

Just some clarification, further comments and still unanswered questions.

John S.


________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com