[PRCo] Re: PAT's cuts

[Fred Schneider]

Still have not heard from your buddy.   She sure has him on a tight leash.   



On Dec 2, 2010, at 6:45 PM, Jerry Matt Matsick wrote:

> 
> Fred 
> 
> 
> 
> "Excellent Comentary"   Thanks for sharing and have a Joyous Holiday Season! 
> 
> 
> 
> Jerry M 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Fred Schneider" <fwschneider at comcast.net> 
> To: Pittsburgh-Railways at Dementia.Org, "Sue Haney" <shaney7366 at aol.com> 
> Sent: Thursday, December 2, 2010 5:05:02 PM 
> Subject: [PRCo] PAT's cuts 
> 
> http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/r/25995668/detail.html 
> I think this needs to be put into perspective.   The locals always blame the state and federal people for their own problems.   Remember that the trolley fares in Pittsburgh were 35 cents in 1961.   That would suggest that now, a half century later, they should be around $3.50 assuming that riding, fuel, wages, unionization, insurance and all other costs were constant.   Right.   We know they were not.   Economies of scale disappeared.   For one thing, as soon as government sticks their hands in it, we have far more labor than we had previously to do the same job.   (Remember that I'm a retired government employee.  I've seen how they work.)   
> 
> The federal government suggest that transit authorities should keep their farebox recovery rate to 30% of their operating costs.   Since PAT is considering raising the cash fare to $2.30, that suggest that their operating costs are $7.67 per passenger.   Then add in the fixed costs ... that might make PAT's total costs per passenger around $10.00 per passenger .... more or less.   Maybe a lot more because in the old days they paid off the cost of a car barn and used it for years and years and years.   Today, with federal money, we need everything new and we don't pay off the bonds.   We simply issue new bonds to pay off the old bonds.   So the capital costs of transit continue to escalate.   Those costs are hidden.   Remember, the feds say keep operating farebox recovery at 30% of operating costs.   No one mentions capital costs.   In fact, in order to hide operating costs, we shift what used to be normal maintenance into capital by deferring repairs until the vehi!
> cles virtu! 
>  ally fall apart and then we perform mid life overhauls or we buy new equipment long before we should have because the federal and state governments will pick up most of the bill.   
> 
> The point I'm making here is that under transit authority ownership, we quit raising fares every year because it was not politically feasible.   Pittsburgh Railways need to.   If the fares had continued to go up since 1961 ... that 35 cents would probably have been going up a nickel or a dime or a quarter a year in the 1970s (remember those double-diget inflation years) and today you would have $10 transit fares.   But we didn't do it because it would have hurt certain people we wanted to have vote for us.   No politician wants that.   So we hired more people and froze the income and blamed the problem on the state and federal government because they put the gun in our hands. 
> 
> The other thing we need to look at is the map showing which routes PAT plans to axe in March if Tom Corbit doesn't find Republican dollars  (I guess they're different from Democratic dollars   :<)   )  to bail out PAT.   I am not surprised that they want to get rid of a lot of rural routes.    Many of those services that the independent bus companies ran before 1964 just need to go.   They are left over from a different era.   But there are some other observations....some major urban routes are getting chopped: 
> 
> 1.   Service through Millvale would end.   It's an old town that whose people would now have to walk down to the site of the carbarn to catch a Tarentum - Pittsburgh bus.   
> 
> 2.  Atwood Street service in Oakland will end.   The Arlington trolley line is also to be cut.  There is a strange phenomena here.   I remember it in Philadelphia when I worked for the state.   Employees in the state employment offices told us that the black people didn't even know how to get out of their own "hoods" if you wanted to refer them to a job because they never left them.   They were welded to them.   Not saying that in a derogatory way .... simply exploring if that might be why those two routes fail.  Yet 82 Lincoln and 85 Bedford had the same demographic characteristics and were among the best performing in the system.  If someone can give me an unbiased, educated, unprejudiced suggestion, I would love to hear their reasoning. 
> 
> 3.  Braddock and North Braddock are "really nice places to be from" these days.   Notice that the former route 64 trolley and the route next to it on the hill 
> top will disappear.   Why?  Well, partly Edgar Thompson is the only steel mill left and it is a shell of its once proud existence.   And the Westinghouse plant in East Pittsburgh, which required trolleys on Ardmore Boulevard on 1 minute headways during the war, isn't there any longer.   The jobs are gone.  It also might have something related to the phenomena I mentioned in connection with item 2, above.   
> 
> 4.  All of the former West Penn Railways routes in McKeesport would be chopped along with the former Pittsburgh Railways lines from Wilmerding to McKeesport to Glassport and the Noble J. Dick bus line from Large over to Glassport.   Guess what guys.   The tube works isn't in McKeesport any more. 
> There is no US Steel open hearth in Duquesne.   There is no dawntawn in McKeesport.   That big mall on the hill at East McKeesport failed.   Itza nothing. 
> I was actually surprised when I cross the river at Charleroi on Thanksgiving and saw a towboat in the Mon ... first time in years that I'd seen one.   
> 
> 
>