[Kylie]

Governor confident agencies will OK plan to shift highway funds

Thursday, March 03, 2005
By Tom Barnes, Post-Gazette Harrisburg Bureau



HARRISBURG -- Gov. Ed Rendell says he's confident that regional planning agencies in the Pittsburgh and Philadelphia areas will vote next week to approve his plan to shift $412 million in federal highway funds to bail out ailing mass transit operations in the state's two largest cities.

Rendell told reporters yesterday that he'll dispatch state Transportation Secretary Allen Biehler to push his plan with recalcitrant members of the Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission, or SPC -- a metropolitan planning organization consisting of 65 officials from 10 southwestern Pennsylvania counties plus the city of Pittsburgh and some state transportation agencies.

Biehler "will talk to them and explain what's at stake here" regarding the urgent need to keep buses, trolleys and commuter trains running in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, Rendell said. "I'm sure they'll eventually go along with it."

The SPC board will hold a special meeting next Thursday to vote on the governor's plan to transfer the funds from regional highway and bridge projects to transit needs between now and Jan. 1, 2007.

Rendell wants immediately to "flex," or reprogram, $25.3 million in federal highway and bridge funds to the Port Authority of Allegheny County to erase an operational deficit for the fiscal year ending June 30. That would let the Port Authority avoid higher fares, which were to take effect this week, and service cuts that had been set for Sunday.

But some SPC members have grumbled that Rendell didn't keep them informed about the funding shift, and have said their counties need the federal money for important road and bridge projects that have been in the pipeline for months or even years.

"I have no clue as to what the SPC board will do next week," said Armstrong County Commissioner Jim Scahill, who's on the board. He said the governor's plan will get much discussion today and tomorrow during an SPC retreat at Nemacolin Woodlands resort in Fayette County.

Scahill said SPC members didn't learn of Rendell's fund-shifting plan until Monday morning, shortly before Rendell went public with it.

"There was no advance warning," he said.

He said he feared that refusing to go along with it could "make us look like the bad guys" by causing bus and trolley riders to face higher fares and less service.

But Rendell said no one should be surprised by his plan, because he's been talking in Harrisburg for the last four weeks about the possibility of shifting some federal road money to erase transit deficits.

Transportation Department spokesman Rich Kirkpatrick couldn't say exactly when Biehler will meet with SPC members to press for the governor's plan, but he said it would be before next Thursday's meeting.

SPC board Chairman Dave Coder, a Greene County commissioner, said earlier this week he will ask the board members to approve the governor's plan "and I'm optimistic they'll approve it."

But several commissioners from outlying counties, such as Lawrence, Indiana and Beaver, seemed reluctant this week. They noted that this would be the third time in 12 months that Rendell has shifted federal road funds to transit, which simply "robs Peter to pay Paul" and delays needed road and bridge repairs.

John Coscia, director of the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission -- the Philadelphia counterpart to SPC -- said he expects his board to approve the Rendell plan at a meeting Wednesday.

His agency consists of representatives from five southeastern Pennsylvania counties and four New Jersey counties.

As to complaints from some SPC members that Rendell didn't tell them about his plan sooner, Rendell said he hadn't made up his mind on how to proceed until Friday.

He said the SPC and the Delaware Valley group were notified Monday morning about the plan, several hours ahead of the general announcement in Philadelphia.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05062/465588.stm

I didn't know exactly where to put this, but I thought I would put it here since the actual article pretains to Pennsylvania, but if it's not appropriate here, I will understand.

Here's an issue where I see both sides of the coin. I'm not entirely sure I agree with Rendell's idea to bail out mass transit like this. If anyone has ever travelled in the state of Pennsylvania, you would know the roads suck. So much so that I believe PA is on a list of 10 worst roads in the US. There is truth to the saying construction is everywhere in this state.

I also see the point of mass transit and how funding can be important. I see that funding is important because prices for buses, trains, and such would rise in order to off set the problems with money. I also see the benefits of mass transit. It is, for the most part, efficient and affordable transportation for those who live in cities and funding is essential; however, even though I see this, I also know I don't live in the city. Granted, most of the populated areas have mass transit, most of the vast area of roads are in areas where mass transit is not available.

My questions are these:

Could there be another way that he could have solved this problem without taking money from the federal road budget?

Should he have done anything at all?

Was taking it from the federal road budget the most prudent way of doing it?

Do other states in the US have problems with mass transit and funding? If so, what did your state gov't do about it?

What about in other countries?

[DRing]

I've traveled on the PA Turnpike a few times and can honestly say it's my least favorite road, period. It's poorly constructed, poorly maintained and the truck drivers are terrible. That said, I think they need to get the money to improve it any reasonable way they can.

[Byrath]

The problem with mass transit is that it only serves a relatively small portion of the people. Even in the heavily populated areas that have mass transit, many cannot reasonably use it. For people like me who work at night, it isn't an option .. unless waiting three hours after work for the first morning bus to come around reasonable. Also, many times it will take one to two hours to travel somewhere via city bus due to exchanges and transfers, when the same trip would take twenty minutes by car. Not a reasonable option in my opinion.
Therefore, I would have to say that it is wrong to divert all those road funds to a program that serves a limited portion of the people.
Mass transit really needs to be very extensive to be effective, I think.

[Voegelin]

The history of mass transit in the USA is it eventually ends up serving the union members who run it, the politicians they elect and not the ridership.

Perhaps PA is different but I doubt it.

[graymouser]

The history of mass transit in the US is of a service that was basically purposefully ruined by underfunding spurred on by urging from the automobile industry and the oil industry in order to sell more of their products. (That's the problem with government by lobbyism; you can't really say "X did this," even though they basically brought the situation to pass.) Commuting used to be a matter of mass transit; now it's a matter of gas-guzzling vehicles.

-Wayne
Commutes, but doesn't like it, and drives a fuel-efficient little car.

[QatzelOk]

Byrath wrote:

Mass transit really needs to be very extensive to be effective, I think.

You're right, of course. But the only way to make it more extensive and serve more people more of the time is to pour a lot more capital investment into it, and reduce a lot of automobile funding and road access. Transit needs to always have priority. Cars are too expensive both environmentally and economically for a post-oil, climate damaged world.

The slower we are to convert from autos to metros, the deeper our post-oil depression will be. The less transit your city has, the less likely that your city will exist in the post-oil, climate-changed world.

Dreaming of cars is like fantasizing about the plague.

He thought of cars
And where, where to drive them
And who to drive them with
But there, there was no one
No one
- Blur

[Voegelin]

The theory that a few corporations--GM, tire and oil companies--killed off mass transit is a myth.

American transportation is based upon the car because the majority of Americans like cars.

Simple as that.

[briansmith]

The history of mass transit in the USA is it eventually ends up serving the union members who run it, the politicians they elect and not the ridership.

Perhaps PA is different but I doubt it.

Nope, Pennsylvania is the same way. There was a huge fit about public transportation funding in Philadelphia and the surrounding counties. SEPTA, the organization that does all this, claimed that it didn't have enough money to keep running on normal schedule. That was supposed to happen in January. They didn't get any more money for three months, and nothing changed. Smell fishy to you? Of course!

So as soon as the Governor sets aside the money for SEPTA so that they won't go under, raise fares, and cut service (which is what they said they were going to do three months prior), SEPTA union workers vote to strike unless they are given full health care coverage.

Their argument? "We deserve full health care coverage. Now that you have extra money, you can pay for it." Surprise surprise - I guess that shortfall wasn't so bad, or otherwise they might be worrying about that money keeping them employed (service cuts) rather than whether they are going to be able to get free, full health care.

Unions used to have a noble purpose. Not anymore.

[graymouser]

The theory that a few corporations--GM, tire and oil companies--killed off mass transit is a myth.

American transportation is based upon the car because the majority of Americans like cars.

Simple as that.

Yes, the shift from railways to the highways with the public highway system in the 1950s, which suburbanized America and was a massive boon for the automotive industry, is simply a coincidence, and it was not at all backed by the industry. Nosireebob.

No myth here, just fact. The auto, tire, and oil corporations backed the shift of government funding away from mass transit and into the highways. It is not coincidental that America's "love affair with cars" happened at the same time the government basically paved the country so that the car companies could sell more of their products, while letting mass transit fall into decline. Now, politicians - who I'm sure don't sneeze at contributions from the automotive industry - rail against its "inefficiency." Essentially, the point is to put more people into cars.

-Wayne
(Whose Geo is in the shop.)

[briansmith]

I'd rather not drive than drive a Geo.

As such, I don't drive. I ride SEPTA, and so I get to not be able to get around next month because bus drivers decided that the money that was sent to them so that I could continue to get around is better served on providing abortions for them.

[Voegelin]

TSaler....government unions should be outlawed. All they do is lobby for more government. Private unions, fine with me. As long as they get no break any other association doesn't get.

Sex is what drove the American automobile industry. Booze and dope too. Who wants to bother with public transportation schedules and a limited selection of accommodations when you and your date can hop in a car, go anywhere and do anything where nobody will ever find you unless you want them to?

[briansmith]

I am not in favor of outlawing unions. What I am in favor of is what I call "new labor," which is based around good-faith negotiations between employers and organized employees in which both sides work together in order to create the best, most fair, and most beneficial situation for both sides.

Right now we have a situation where it's all or nothing. Either the ownership gets its way completely, or labor gets its way completely. Both are destructive and end up hurting the American economy.

The truth is this: the American worker is being surpassed by the Chinese worker and the Indian worker because they are able to do the same work for far less money. When current American workers care only about how much money they are stealing from their employers, thanks to their union, they are destroying an American company and destroying the American economy. In my opinion, this behavior is treasonous.

We need to keep companies in this country, and one way to do that is to relax the current ownership-labor conflict. We desperately need good faith efforts to create a more manageable and beneficial situation. In the past, union workers cared about the company they worked for. It was a factory in their home town, and it employed nearly everyone there. If the factory left, the town would be left in shambles. They cared about the company, and the union made sure that the company took good care of them.

Nowadays the unions, by and large, care only about how much money they can screw the employer out of. Employees don't want to work, they want to ruin the company, and they don't care. What they don't seem to understand is the fact that, by their activity in destroying their employers, they are destroying jobs in America for their children. These jobs will go to China, India, and elsewhere in the world where they can be performed cheaper and with less hassle.

American workers, when they care about their employer and their product, are unmatched. They are still the most productive in the world. But in a changing global economy, we have to be more productive. We're not going to get there by pretending that old, antiquated unions of the industrial age will suffice. We need new, information age unions based on good faith negotiation.

[Voegelin]

Private sector unions are only about 9% of the workforce now and pose no real threat to the economy. Even unions such as the UAW don't have the power they once did. My old union--Steelworkers--has been gutted.

The problem are government unions. The Prison Guard union in California is both militant and growing. Nothing good can come from those who oversee incarcerating citizens having more political power than average citizens.

There are nearly 7 million government workers who are out of the Social Security system. Every dime of their pensions is invested in the markets. They have enormous power on Wall Street. Government union members sit on the boards of Fortune 100 companies. We are approaching the day when the rest of us may be working for the clerk down at the DMV who is in AFSCME or our kids teacher who is in the NEA.

A teacher's union in Canada several years ago bought a controling stake in the largest coal mine in the country. The day when American government unions do the same is not far off.

The above is only part of the power of government unions. The NEA takes in over $250 million a year tax free. It pays no property taxes on its $70 million headquarters in DC. The union has more poltical operatives than the DNC and RNC combined. In 1992, over one third of the delegates to the DNC convention were unionized government teachers. DNC thought that a bit much and has capped their attendence at 25% for the last three conventions.

Note: Which government employee pays into SS depends on the state. Most Federal employees do pay in. Many state and local government employees do not. NEA members in Las Vegas were not in SS in the mid-1990s. NEA members in other states were.

Details are here:

The Office of Research, Evaluation and Statistics, Social Security Administration

[Kylie]

Nope, Pennsylvania is the same way. There was a huge fit about public transportation funding in Philadelphia and the surrounding counties. SEPTA, the organization that does all this, claimed that it didn't have enough money to keep running on normal schedule. That was supposed to happen in January. They didn't get any more money for three months, and nothing changed. Smell fishy to you? Of course!

So as soon as the Governor sets aside the money for SEPTA so that they won't go under, raise fares, and cut service (which is what they said they were going to do three months prior), SEPTA union workers vote to strike unless they are given full health care coverage.

Their argument? "We deserve full health care coverage. Now that you have extra money, you can pay for it." Surprise surprise - I guess that shortfall wasn't so bad, or otherwise they might be worrying about that money keeping them employed (service cuts) rather than whether they are going to be able to get free, full health care.

Unions used to have a noble purpose. Not anymore.

Interesting! I guess that's just one more point against it for me. I have to admit I agree with you about unions, but I won't go into too much detail on that one.

I agree that mass transit is the most efficient way for some to get around, but in places like Pennsylvania, most people don't have that luxury; henceforth, must rely on cars to get from point A to point B. Believe it or not, PA is mostly a rural state with a few urbanized areas (philly included) and buses, taxis, trains, etc. are rare and you have to travel to get to those. Roads are just a more efficient way of travelling, and there are so many unfinished road projects in this state that it's ridiculous, so instead of finishing these projects and which would benefit the most amount of people, they decide to cater to the needs of a few.

I can't wait until they try to get to the hospital and the road to get there is closed due to construction

[Jim G]

I go to school in Philly too, but i live on campus so i don't really have to use SEPTA (public transit) very often. The only exception is when i was tutoring in West Philly; that's right, that's Will Smith's home. Anyways, at my school there was a lot of bitchin' about the proposed fee hike, which was fairly substantial. To be honest, i don't ride it enough for it to have had an effect on me, so i can't comment on how badly it would have affected everyday riders. The fact remains, however, that it would have probably still been the cheapest alternative for them, especially as opposed to owning a car. TSaler, who actually uses it, can probably shed some more light on this.

Anyways, I'm not actually sure how real the threat to raise fees was anyways. As TSaler said, the unionistas, et al. knew that there was going to be money availiable. I used to live in Minnesota (still do in the summers!), and they would make similar threats. They threaten to raise fees for the most vulnerable or cut off popular routes (i'm not sure if the latter is true in philly), thereby gaining support for a bailout. Ok, (kinda) funny story: A couple of years ago, my old school district had a budget deficit they needed to cleanup through either reduced spending or getting enough support for a taxpayer levy. Before the vote, they released a hypothetical budget in which they cut off school bus routes for kindergarteners who lived less than 1.5 miles from the school. Keep in mind, it gets to -30 F in MN (in a good year), and my city had several highways and mainroads to cross. They ended up passing the levy.

bus drivers decided that the money that was sent to them so that I could continue to get around is better served on providing abortions for them.

TSaler, what about the male drivers?; I've seen some of them too. It seems like they're kind of getting the raw deal here. Damn feminism.