[PRCo] Re: PATrain

[John Swindler]

   PAT had two commuter rail operations.  The P&LE operation was a single rush hour run between the south side P&LE station to College, near Beaver Falls.  I rode it once after a mid-day 'shoppers' trip was added around 1980.  As long as there were federal funds available, the local politicians were in favor of its survival.  But with reduction of federal funds in early 1980s, the P&LE service was doomed, just as the Reading service to Newark, Bethlehem and Pottsville.   The B&O discontinuance was even simpler - Dr. Hunt retired in late 1980s.   Dr Hunt was from McKeesport area and was a county commissioner.  That gave PAT the excuse to kill the train service.  Claiming that costs were the reason was a charade, although it was a legitimate charade in this instance.  Commuter rail is expensive and McKeesport does not send a lot of workers to downtown Pittsburgh.   CheersJohn     
 > Subject: [PRCo] Re: PATrain
> From: fwschneider at comcast.net
> Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2012 15:08:34 -0400
> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org
> 
> I never saw a final report, Jim, but I would suspect the following causes might be instrumental.   One would be the continuing reluctance of PAT management and those of many transit agencies to raise fares to cover expenses and the other problem would be the continuing decline in population in the Pittsburgh area.   When the population ages and the working people move to other states, the riding base declines greatly.
> 
> Let's address profitability first.   As Ed Lybarger pointed out recently in one of these posts, no one ever made money hauling passengers.   We can amplify with a statement that it is patently impossible to make money hauling commuters because it requires a fleet of coaches and engines that are used only for a few hours a day and they are patronized by people who think they deserve a discount because they are frequent customers.   In reality they are the corporation's or the agency's most expensive customers.   The only transit agency I know that understands this concept is Washington (DC) Metropolitan Area Transit Authority which charges a higher fare in the rush hour than the off peak.   It's not a discounted fare in the off peak; it's regular fare in off peak and a premium fare in the rush hour.   
> 
> Profitable doesn't apply.   If it had been profitable, the service would have been continued by the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad in order to reward their stockholders.  PAT was running it because it was not profitable...because the B&O didn't want it.    PAT had previously (in 1964) strung the Pennsy along for a few months promising them a subsidy until the railroad figured it was just hot air from the county; then they took off their money losing commuter trains.   Understand the concept?   
> 
> I am trying to remember the incidents chronologically.   Amtrak took over in long distance trains in 1971 leaving the railroads with the commuter trains.   It would have been about that same time that Maryland DOT agreed to continue the commuter services of the Pennsy and the B&O in the Baltimore-Washington areas.   I was co-editing Headlights magazine for the Electric Railroaders Association at that time and I published a piece on PAT train using a Lybarger picture in Headlights.  (That was when John Swindler said to me, I want you to meet this guy named Lybarger ... I'll bring him around to your home tonight.  It's been 37 years.)    Research shows it was 1975 that B&O took over the faltering B&O run service.  Ed took the picture on February 1, 1975.   I went out a week or two later and took a few additional pictures.   
> 
> Wikipedia notes that the PATrain service cost the taxpayers $2.77 per passenger versus 8 cents per passenger per bus rider in fiscal year 1982-83.   That was 30 years ago during the collapse of the steel industry. Can you imagine how much the subsidy cost would be today with the reluctance of governments to raise fares?  
> 
> After the Penn Lincoln Parkway was reconstructed and people could easily use their own cars again, riding on PATrain dropped from 1800 to 1300 a day or 81.25 people per train.  That's not enough people to fill two coaches on average.   It might have been four coaches in one direction and four empties coming back.   In FY 1982-83 PAT collected $500,000 in fares and spent $1.8 million running the service.  So much for profitability.  Can you imagine your local restaurant owner being dumb enough to run a business that collects 50 cents for every $1.80 he spends?     These are numbers that came from Wikipedia's story.   Most transit agencies publish only operating costs and ignore capital costs.   This could suggest that the published loss ignores the cost of the equipment because the federal government and the local taxpayers funded them.   We might still be paying for the engines and coaches today in U. S. Bonds long after the New Haven scrapped those cars!   
> 
> Public agencies never have the fortitude it takes to raise fares with inflation because it might offend the voting constituency.  The last thing a local politician wants is a protest march or angry letters to the editor over a fare hike.    Inflation has pushed costs up about 7.7 times since PAT took over from Pittsburgh Railways.   That would suggest that the transit fares today should be about $2.30 for a one zone ride if we had the same load factors we had in 1963, maybe $4 for a ride from Drake.  A special transfer should also be somewhere around 4.00.  Again, if the buses were just as full as they were in 1963.   
> 
> However, we know they are not as full as they once were.   A few years back the federal government required that all agencies hold farebox recovery to no-lower than operating costs.   Based on typical fares at that time, it suggested that efficiency had slipped so much that the fares based on operating costs alone should be somewhere in the $7 to $8 range and if we included recovery of expenses for new garages, maintenance that we have capitalized instead of treating as an expense, vehicles, new offices, etc., perhaps the fares could be as high as $12 per passenger today.   The 8 cent subsidy for a bus rider mentioned in the Wikipedia story is long ago ... 20 years into the era of government operation and three decades behind us.   
> 
> Remember that there were something like 28 independent bus companies that were blended into PAT in 1964.   Some were even losing money then. A few were actually making money.   If PAT were to be created today, how many of those private companies would even exist?  How many of their routes would be gone.   Deere Brothers was so profitable in 1964 that they fought to excluded and lost.   Well, between 2000 and 2010 their service area lost people .... Penn Hills lost population.  McCoy Brothers used to serve Churchill and Wilkinsburg --- Churchill has only 3566 people left ... surprises me that it is still a borough ... Wilkinsburg has about half what it once did.   Remember that company that used to compete with trolley route 62 from Trafford to Pittsburgh?   Is there a need for service there today?   But until very recently, PAT was still running empty buses on all those lines even if every teenager, mother and father owned their own automobile.   
> 
> ________
> 
> The other case about population.....
> 
>     McKeesport's population was rapidly dropping.  It was 55,355 in the 1940 census and has dropped to 19,731 in 2010.   I don't have intermediate numbers handy.   
> 
> Many of the towns in the Mon Valley have a similar record.   Homestead is down around 3,000 people.   Versailles Borough is now down to 1515 people (that's a borough?).   
> 
>  The population of Pittsburgh has dropped from 604,000 in 1960 to 305,704 in 2010.   It wasn't just caused by people moving out of the city into the county; the county population peaked at 1,628,587 in 1960 and fell to 1,223,348 in 2010.  
> 
> The steel industry collapsed during the period that PATrain was attempted and the area lost as many as 20,000 jobs at U S Steel in one week in 1982.     Add in the rest of the losses at U. S. Steel, LTV (Jones and Laughlin), Wheeling-Pittsburgh, Bethlehem, Mesta and then the grocery stores, bars, auto dealers, and support industries and you see why the county lost 1.2 million people.   You don't haul people on your trains when they aren't there.   
> 
> Finally, Allegheny County has an aging population.  You haul the elderly out of lottery proceeds.   But you don't transport them to work every day like we took John Swindler's dad from Castle Shannon every night to U S Steel in Homestead.   Today 17.8% of Allegheny County is over age 65.   The comparable number for the US is 12.8%.   You want a young state ... Texas has only 9.9% over age 65 ... that's only about half what the Pittsburgh area has.   
> 
> End of book.
> 
> 
> On Mar 18, 2012, at 12:23 PM, Jim Keener wrote:
> 
> > Are there any reports &c on why PATrain wasn't profitable or useful? 
> > Jim
> > -- 
> > Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
>