The Post-Gazette has stated that the details of the transit agreement last week have been posted online. You can read the agreement here. The union vote on the contract will happen Sunday.
In other news, Onorato likes the new plan, and will release the drink tax money if approved.
In even other news, the Allegheny County drink tax may be cut from 10% to 7%, though that may lead to future property tax increases.
Update 12/3: Full PG story now online with the details. Trib has their story too, and of course they are wondering if the contract includes privatization.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Pittsburgh Transit Blog Roundup
Because some other blogs do it better... here's my occasional look at other what other Pittsburgh blogs have to say about transit.
- I'll definitely keep my eye of the marmot. It's first post is "Bus Stops," an excellent video documentary that looks at the funding crisis of last year. It's a really well-done video, and I look forward to future documentaries. For some insight on how massive the original cuts would have been. take a look at the proposed 25% cuts from last year and the 15% cut that went into affect last June.
- Nathan from ClickNathan uses his web-design skills to make a better interface to the Port Authority Trip Planner. (Compare to Port Authority's interface here.) It's actually optimized for the iPhone, but give it a try on your web browser or mobile device.
- In the Post-Gazette, two local restaurant owners argue against drink tax and provide some funding alternatives for the Port Authority.
- One handed pushups on T platforms. Bad plastic surgery brings riders together. Fried chicken for breakfast. These events and more at one scientist, one yeti, where Lil'schmeggie recalls the top 10 Port Authority moments experienced on buses and trolleys. Some real gems there.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Voter Registration Deadline in PA is March 24th
Just a reminder to Pittsburgh readers of this blog: register to vote in this year's primary on April 22nd. Pennsylvania has a unique opportunity this primary season, as the Democratic nominee for president has not yet been decided. (John McCain has gained the delegates necessary to secure the Republican nomination.)
A reminder of the requirements to vote in Pennsylvania:
So get registered! If you live in Pennsylvania, the forms can be downloaded or filled out online here. You must print the form, sign it, and mail it to your county election office. The same form is also used for changing your residence or party affiliation.
If you don't live in Pennsylvania and want to register in another state, visit DeclareYourself.com.
And if you're registered in Pennsylvania but won't be in your home district on election day, request an absentee ballot here before April 15th. I'd send for one as soon as possible to make sure you have enough time to send it back in time for the completed absentee ballot deadline of April 18th.
Read my posts on the candidates and their stance on transportation:
Obama and McCain
Clinton and (defunct) Huckabee
Of course, transit issues are just one of the big issues this election year. Visit the candidates websites to see their plans:
Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama
John McCain
Remember, register by March 24th and vote on April 22nd. Make your voice heard.
A reminder of the requirements to vote in Pennsylvania:
- You must be a citizen of the United States for at least one month before the next primary, special, municipal, or general election.
- You must be a resident of Pennsylvania and the election district in which the individual desires to register and vote for at least 30 days before the next primary, special, municipal, or general election.
- You must be least 18 years of age on or before the day of the next primary, special, municipal, or general election.
So get registered! If you live in Pennsylvania, the forms can be downloaded or filled out online here. You must print the form, sign it, and mail it to your county election office. The same form is also used for changing your residence or party affiliation.
If you don't live in Pennsylvania and want to register in another state, visit DeclareYourself.com.
And if you're registered in Pennsylvania but won't be in your home district on election day, request an absentee ballot here before April 15th. I'd send for one as soon as possible to make sure you have enough time to send it back in time for the completed absentee ballot deadline of April 18th.
Read my posts on the candidates and their stance on transportation:
Obama and McCain
Clinton and (defunct) Huckabee
Of course, transit issues are just one of the big issues this election year. Visit the candidates websites to see their plans:
Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama
John McCain
Remember, register by March 24th and vote on April 22nd. Make your voice heard.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Transit Strike in Pittsburgh?
Hi there! This post is from March 2008. As of December 2008, a strike has been averted. For the latest info, check out the Labor posts here at Peak Direction.
The Tribune-Review has reported that the Pittsburgh Chamber of Commerce is alerting its members to be ready for a possible Port Authority strike:
WTAE story also. More fighting words between Onorato and ATU president Patrick McMahon from October 2007. And here comes my prediction: Onorato might want to not budge on cutting costs in a new contract, even if it means a crippling strike. It might be the political move that saves his career from the negative reaction to the drink tax. Yes, a strike would be awful and could kill any hopes of the Port Authority aspiring to serve more people. But I just do not see much sympathy for the union in this town given most people's opinion of the Port Authority. (Not properly counting what's in the fare box doesn't help.)
It's times like this where I feel so conflicted about the Port Authority. I want this town to have better transit. However, I also realize the Port Authority has many issues including labor costs and priorities such as the North Shore Connector. However, those who criticize the Port Authority are often the ones who want to cut its funding, restrict its growth, or privatize it. If the police force is doing a bad job, you don't cut their funding, but people see transit differently. The Port Authority needs more money to expand service and make this city truly world-class. Yes, reforms and oversight are needed. But you don't throw the buses out with the bathwater.
Some think that transit has to be 100% solvent, which bothers me to no end. The Interstate System isn't solvent. Our airport and airline system isn't solvent. But we pay for these things even if we don't use them because our economy and the well-being of our citizens depend on them. You don't expect the pipes in your house to be a money maker, you just want them to get things where they need to be.
So I truly hope a contract is settled and the Port Authority can continue running, but I believe the public would be on Onorato's side if push came to shove. Maybe I'm underestimating union solidarity in our steel town.
The last strike was in 1992, and lasted at least 26 days until a court forced the operators back to work. (Wow, that was the same year as the newspaper strike that killed the Pittsburgh Press and allowed the Tribune-Review to rise.) Read about it in the New York Times:
Transit Union Walks Out, And Pittsburghers Walk (3/17/92)
No Subway, No Buses, But Plenty of Sore Feet (4/4/92)
Pittsburgh Judge Orders End To 26-Day-Old Transit Strike (4/11/92)
Perhaps the only good that would come from a transit strike would be a feeling of bosses and car-drivers everywhere realizing "Wow, people really ride those buses." They'll realize when lower-income workers have to call in sick or quit their downtown job. They'll realize it when there's more cars on the Parkway East and Route 51. They'll realize it when parking is $30 downtown due to demand. They'll realize it when their workers are less productive because they had to walk 45 minutes to work. And those bars who abhor the drink tax will have less college students lining up at their doors. Sometimes people need a reminder.
The Tribune-Review has reported that the Pittsburgh Chamber of Commerce is alerting its members to be ready for a possible Port Authority strike:
The Greater Pittsburgh Chamber of Commerce is warning its members to prepare for the possibility that labor strife could force a Port Authority shutdown this summer.
The chamber advised its members in a letter to have a plan ready if talks break down, cutting off bus and T service to 220,000 daily riders, and has scheduled a brainstorming session March 27.
WTAE story also. More fighting words between Onorato and ATU president Patrick McMahon from October 2007. And here comes my prediction: Onorato might want to not budge on cutting costs in a new contract, even if it means a crippling strike. It might be the political move that saves his career from the negative reaction to the drink tax. Yes, a strike would be awful and could kill any hopes of the Port Authority aspiring to serve more people. But I just do not see much sympathy for the union in this town given most people's opinion of the Port Authority. (Not properly counting what's in the fare box doesn't help.)
It's times like this where I feel so conflicted about the Port Authority. I want this town to have better transit. However, I also realize the Port Authority has many issues including labor costs and priorities such as the North Shore Connector. However, those who criticize the Port Authority are often the ones who want to cut its funding, restrict its growth, or privatize it. If the police force is doing a bad job, you don't cut their funding, but people see transit differently. The Port Authority needs more money to expand service and make this city truly world-class. Yes, reforms and oversight are needed. But you don't throw the buses out with the bathwater.
Some think that transit has to be 100% solvent, which bothers me to no end. The Interstate System isn't solvent. Our airport and airline system isn't solvent. But we pay for these things even if we don't use them because our economy and the well-being of our citizens depend on them. You don't expect the pipes in your house to be a money maker, you just want them to get things where they need to be.
So I truly hope a contract is settled and the Port Authority can continue running, but I believe the public would be on Onorato's side if push came to shove. Maybe I'm underestimating union solidarity in our steel town.
The last strike was in 1992, and lasted at least 26 days until a court forced the operators back to work. (Wow, that was the same year as the newspaper strike that killed the Pittsburgh Press and allowed the Tribune-Review to rise.) Read about it in the New York Times:
Transit Union Walks Out, And Pittsburghers Walk (3/17/92)
No Subway, No Buses, But Plenty of Sore Feet (4/4/92)
Pittsburgh Judge Orders End To 26-Day-Old Transit Strike (4/11/92)
Perhaps the only good that would come from a transit strike would be a feeling of bosses and car-drivers everywhere realizing "Wow, people really ride those buses." They'll realize when lower-income workers have to call in sick or quit their downtown job. They'll realize it when there's more cars on the Parkway East and Route 51. They'll realize it when parking is $30 downtown due to demand. They'll realize it when their workers are less productive because they had to walk 45 minutes to work. And those bars who abhor the drink tax will have less college students lining up at their doors. Sometimes people need a reminder.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Election 2008 - Where Obama and McCain Stand on Transit
Continuing our series on the 2008 Presidental Primary, it's time to look at the other major candidates: Democratic candidate Barack Obama and Republican candidate John McCain. For the position of Hillary Clinton and Mike Huckabee on transit, see my previous post.
And a note for any supporters of any of these candidates that may visit this site: if you believe I have portrayed a candidate incorrectly, please contact me with a quote or link to the candidate's website that states otherwise.
Barack Obama
Barack Obama, as an Illinois State Senator, has some history fighting for fair transit in his home of Chicago, for example this 2003 letter about conditions on a Metra commuter line serving black neighborhoods.
In his Energy platform, Obama discusses how to promote transit by offering the same tax breaks drivers have "to make benefits for driving and public transit or ridesharing equal." In addition, he states he wishes to "re-commit federal resources to public mass transportation projects across the country." In his specific Transportation plan recently released, he states the following objectives:
Overall, Obama's plan has more of a social-justice bent to it, making sure that everyone can access a job no matter where they live or whether they can afford a car. Pushing this point further is Obama's Gulf Coast plan that involves improving bus and rail transit in New Orleans and Baton Rouge. The idea of a infrastructure bank is shared by Clinton, who claimed Obama stole her idea. Oh well, I'd rather have stolen good ideas than bad novel ones. He does not give the concrete $1.5B number that Clinton gives to improve transit, but overall it appears he is dedicated to making transit and rail part of the infrastructure improvements this nation desperately needs.
John McCain
I keep searching, but I cannot find anything on his website John McCain has planned for improving mass transportation. The only significant thing I can present is John McCain's record on Amtrak: for privatization and against expansion. The "pork" McCain pledges to cut may be referring to federal funding for transportation projects.
And a note for any supporters of any of these candidates that may visit this site: if you believe I have portrayed a candidate incorrectly, please contact me with a quote or link to the candidate's website that states otherwise.
Barack Obama
Barack Obama, as an Illinois State Senator, has some history fighting for fair transit in his home of Chicago, for example this 2003 letter about conditions on a Metra commuter line serving black neighborhoods.
In his Energy platform, Obama discusses how to promote transit by offering the same tax breaks drivers have "to make benefits for driving and public transit or ridesharing equal." In addition, he states he wishes to "re-commit federal resources to public mass transportation projects across the country." In his specific Transportation plan recently released, he states the following objectives:
- Support Amtrak Funding
- Support Development of High-Speed Freight and Passenger Rail
- Improve Transportation Access to Jobs
Overall, Obama's plan has more of a social-justice bent to it, making sure that everyone can access a job no matter where they live or whether they can afford a car. Pushing this point further is Obama's Gulf Coast plan that involves improving bus and rail transit in New Orleans and Baton Rouge. The idea of a infrastructure bank is shared by Clinton, who claimed Obama stole her idea. Oh well, I'd rather have stolen good ideas than bad novel ones. He does not give the concrete $1.5B number that Clinton gives to improve transit, but overall it appears he is dedicated to making transit and rail part of the infrastructure improvements this nation desperately needs.
John McCain
I keep searching, but I cannot find anything on his website John McCain has planned for improving mass transportation. The only significant thing I can present is John McCain's record on Amtrak: for privatization and against expansion. The "pork" McCain pledges to cut may be referring to federal funding for transportation projects.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Election 2008 - Where Clinton and Huckabee Stand on Transit
Tonight I want to finally begin my series of posts on Presidential candidates and where they stand on transit. Is transit a federal issue? It sure is: federal funding for transit projects is $9 billion dollars a year. So I searched around for what the candidates on both sides have to say about the role the federal government should play in mass transit and the role mass transit plays in our society. Note that this is based purely on the candidates' speeches, interviews, and platforms. Feasibility or sincereness of these plans is outside of my realm.
And a note for any supporters of any of these candidates that may visit this site: if you believe I have portrayed a candidate incorrectly, please contact me with a quote or link to the candidate's website that states otherwise.
Our first post is about Hillary Clinton, Democratic candidate for president and Mike Huckabee, Republican candidate for president. (To see my post about Obama and McCain, click here.)
Hillary Clinton
Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton has the most direct mention of transit on her website:
Increase federal funding for public transit by $1.5 billion per year. Increased public transit usage is arguably the best strategy for ameliorating the energy and environmental costs of transportation. As energy costs rise, more people will rely on public transportation. Today, only 5% of Americans commute by public transit, but doubling that figure could reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 25%. Public transit is also critically important to people who live in urban areas and rely on buses and trains for travel to work and school. Moreover, as the population ages, an increasing number of people will need public transit as their ability to drive diminishes. Hillary will increase federal investment in public transit by $1.5 billion per year to ensure needed capacity expansions and service level improvements.
In addition, she proposes an investment of "an additional $1 billion in intercity passenger rail systems" such as Amtrak. This is all part of her "Rebuild America Plan" that was promoted in the aftermath of the Minnesota Bridge Collapse. This plan appears to be very ambitious, but I personally am glad to see mass transportation being mentioned in our infrastructure crisis.
Other links:
Mike Huckabee also has a plan for renewing our infrastructure. Personally, I'll state I'm a Democratic voter, but his emphasis on the need for our infrastructure to be rebuilt caught me by surprise in a a recent interview. He makes the connection between jobs and economic stimulus with infrastructure expansion. For example, he has a plan to expand I-95 on the East Coast by adding two lanes. Unfortunately, I was watching the video and was waiting for any mention of transit as part of the solution. He does not seem to emphasize that as much as airport and highway expansion.
However, Huckabee does have a plan on his website for infrastructure, and does mention transit:
So we must also look at longer-term ways to grow local economies and our national economy by: first, easing congestion by emphasizing road expansion and mass-transit investment; second, funding strategic capital improvement projects to make more localities attractive to new businesses and workers; and third, rebuilding the infrastructure of our "tools for trade" such as improvements to and expansions of our seaports and airports.
We must link land use and transportation planning. It is folly, for example, to provide rail service to places that don't have the density to make it work.
Properly used, public transportation can reduce congestion and emissions, lower our demand for oil, and improve accessibility.
See also his statement on infrastructure from another debate. Further details on his transit plan are sketchy, but I see he does have some part of his vision for transit. I just personally think adding lanes to highways just leads to more congestion and does not solve any problems relating to the environment. Expanding high speed train service to all parts of the east coast? Now that would be something.
And a note for any supporters of any of these candidates that may visit this site: if you believe I have portrayed a candidate incorrectly, please contact me with a quote or link to the candidate's website that states otherwise.
Our first post is about Hillary Clinton, Democratic candidate for president and Mike Huckabee, Republican candidate for president. (To see my post about Obama and McCain, click here.)
Hillary Clinton
Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton has the most direct mention of transit on her website:
Increase federal funding for public transit by $1.5 billion per year. Increased public transit usage is arguably the best strategy for ameliorating the energy and environmental costs of transportation. As energy costs rise, more people will rely on public transportation. Today, only 5% of Americans commute by public transit, but doubling that figure could reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 25%. Public transit is also critically important to people who live in urban areas and rely on buses and trains for travel to work and school. Moreover, as the population ages, an increasing number of people will need public transit as their ability to drive diminishes. Hillary will increase federal investment in public transit by $1.5 billion per year to ensure needed capacity expansions and service level improvements.
In addition, she proposes an investment of "an additional $1 billion in intercity passenger rail systems" such as Amtrak. This is all part of her "Rebuild America Plan" that was promoted in the aftermath of the Minnesota Bridge Collapse. This plan appears to be very ambitious, but I personally am glad to see mass transportation being mentioned in our infrastructure crisis.
Other links:
- Trains for America discusses Hillary's vote for the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2007, a bill which sadly appears to be stalled
Mike Huckabee also has a plan for renewing our infrastructure. Personally, I'll state I'm a Democratic voter, but his emphasis on the need for our infrastructure to be rebuilt caught me by surprise in a a recent interview. He makes the connection between jobs and economic stimulus with infrastructure expansion. For example, he has a plan to expand I-95 on the East Coast by adding two lanes. Unfortunately, I was watching the video and was waiting for any mention of transit as part of the solution. He does not seem to emphasize that as much as airport and highway expansion.
However, Huckabee does have a plan on his website for infrastructure, and does mention transit:
So we must also look at longer-term ways to grow local economies and our national economy by: first, easing congestion by emphasizing road expansion and mass-transit investment; second, funding strategic capital improvement projects to make more localities attractive to new businesses and workers; and third, rebuilding the infrastructure of our "tools for trade" such as improvements to and expansions of our seaports and airports.
We must link land use and transportation planning. It is folly, for example, to provide rail service to places that don't have the density to make it work.
Properly used, public transportation can reduce congestion and emissions, lower our demand for oil, and improve accessibility.
See also his statement on infrastructure from another debate. Further details on his transit plan are sketchy, but I see he does have some part of his vision for transit. I just personally think adding lanes to highways just leads to more congestion and does not solve any problems relating to the environment. Expanding high speed train service to all parts of the east coast? Now that would be something.
Friday, January 18, 2008
A Drinker-Friendly Port Authority
Yes, the drink tax is a bit controversial:
How can it do that? Well, maybe by catering more to the drinkers that will now be funding it!
Some current reasons why drinkers should ride the bus now:
I think that by adding some later trips with a bit more frequency on Friday and Saturday nights could help bar goers swallow the tax a bit more easily. Of course, there probably are other areas that increases in bus services on weekends could help, but I'm only one man Port Authority. Figure those out for yourself.
- A local bar owner wishes to manufacture County Executive Dan Onorato urinal cakes, evidentially "returning the favor."
- Meanwhile, Jim Mitchell, a local restaurant owner just wants to box him. Mr. Mitchell wins, the drink tax is gone. Mr. Onorato wins, Jim will back off with his lawsuit over a countywide smoking ban. Onorato doesn't seem to be too interested, but it definitely would be quite a scene.
- An attempt to lift the tax was recently voted down, but the restaurants continue to fight.
How can it do that? Well, maybe by catering more to the drinkers that will now be funding it!
Some current reasons why drinkers should ride the bus now:
- Don't have to find a parking space on the South Side!
- Drink up! You aren't driving!
- Low floor buses, so no difficult steps to stumble up!
- You don't have to tip the driver!
- Friday schedules. Right now, buses have separate Monday-Friday, Saturday, and Sunday/Holiday schedules. This does not make sense for buses that would be used by bar goers, since Friday buses to the South Side and the Strip would be more popular due to the weekend. Port Authority knows this, since the 54C route runs much later on Saturdays (Leaving South Side for Oakland, last bus is 12:49a M-F, 2:24a Saturday.) Instead of adding more trips to every weeknight, how about adding them just to Friday nights when they'll be busier? It might even allow for small curtails of service of other nights.
- Move last bus closer to last call. Staying at the bar until they kick you out on a Friday night? Sorry, the last bus left 70 minutes ago. And on Saturday? There's just one departure, at 2:24a. Yep, waiting on East Carson Street at 2:00am for 20 minutes.
- Run short trips for partygoers. Hey, I don't know when the 54C is crowded, but my guess is that between the Strip and the South Side it's way more popular than when it continues to the North Side or Bon Air. On weekends, reduce the length of the route from 1hr to 30min for some trips by making the popular spots of the Strip and South Side as turnaround points. This would allow for some more frequent service.
- Bus info at shelters. These people will be new riders, unfamiliar with the system. Everyone constantly makes calls for schedules and maps at shelters. A 2005 City Paper article showed some of the issues, including the fact that Port Authority does not own the shelters. Perhaps publicizing the number for Let's Go on Bus Stop signs would do the trick?
- Deals with local establishments. Ok, this is not going to happen easily now that the drink tax has made the Port Authority the enemy of bar owners. But hopefully some would be willing to keep some schedules and passes on hand to give to patrons wanting to save on cab fare.
I think that by adding some later trips with a bit more frequency on Friday and Saturday nights could help bar goers swallow the tax a bit more easily. Of course, there probably are other areas that increases in bus services on weekends could help, but I'm only one man Port Authority. Figure those out for yourself.
Sunday, January 6, 2008
A New Year (And More 28X Service!)
Hello there. Once again, sorry for the lack of posts over the holiday. I have a lot of posts on tap for the new year, including:
- Post-Gazette reports on the triple whammy that took affect Jan. 1st: more money for buses, drinks, and rental cars. You know, talking to friends, I'm starting to worry that a tax that people encounter often like a drink tax may turn some off to supporting public transit. I hope I'm wrong.
- On a small note, more 28X service has been added again for returning Pitt and CMU students. And Port Authority put the times online in a PDF this time! Progress!
- The Bias Against Buses
- Automated Bus Information By Phone - In Pittsburgh!
- The 2008 Presidential Candidates on Public Transportation (Clinton and Huckabee, Obama and McCain)
- Post-Gazette reports on the triple whammy that took affect Jan. 1st: more money for buses, drinks, and rental cars. You know, talking to friends, I'm starting to worry that a tax that people encounter often like a drink tax may turn some off to supporting public transit. I hope I'm wrong.
- On a small note, more 28X service has been added again for returning Pitt and CMU students. And Port Authority put the times online in a PDF this time! Progress!
Monday, December 10, 2007
Allegheny County Controller Audit of Port Authority
This morning the Port Authority of Allegheny County released a copy of the Allegheny County Controller's report (pdf) on satisfaction with public transit in Pittsburgh. They also posted their response to the recommendations in the report. Note that the survey, which was distributed in person to riders and was available on the Controller's web site, was taken during the June service cuts with possibilities of further cuts in September that did not happen. If you want to see the frustration that transit riders have, read the comments section at the end. The uncertain future of routes means an uncertain future for people's jobs.
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Pittsburgh Blogs Respond to Drink Tax
Some interesting blog posts about the new drink tax:
- Serendipity discusses why linking drink taxes to transit makes sense for future DUI offenders
- Alik Wedge of Metroblogging Pittsburgh says police officers should take the bus in light of the patrol car shortage. Okay, so that's a joke, but he has some points about the effect of transit on non-riders and why alcohol taxes are better than property ones
- And finally, a good case against the tax that actually has alternatives from Pittsburgh's Future
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Allegheny County Drink, Rental Taxes Pass
It's official: the controversial 10% drink tax and $2 per day rental car tax to fund Port Authority have barely passed: 10-4 for drink tax and 11-4 for rental car tax. (Previous blog posts: 1 2)
P-G and Trib have their stories. Guess which one has a random quote about how terrible it'll be without a matching one from the Port Authority? Port Authority has a response to the events, including explanations of some cost-saving procedures already under way, including some innovating revenue streams. (Again, my idea is still available.)
Anyway, the Trib says which members voted no, with one abstaining from the drink tax vote due to ownership of a liquor license. Expect more from analysts and me in the coming days and weeks.
P-G and Trib have their stories. Guess which one has a random quote about how terrible it'll be without a matching one from the Port Authority? Port Authority has a response to the events, including explanations of some cost-saving procedures already under way, including some innovating revenue streams. (Again, my idea is still available.)
Anyway, the Trib says which members voted no, with one abstaining from the drink tax vote due to ownership of a liquor license. Expect more from analysts and me in the coming days and weeks.
Drink Tax Judgement Day
Tonight will be the vote that decides whether the county will create a Drink Tax and a Rental Car tax to allow for matching funds for the Port Authority. The Auditor General thought it was a great time to mention that the Port Authority really should look at its budget. Thanks Mr. Obvious.
And call the feds: the Trib has an article in support of it. A good article. Wow. Joseph Sabino Mistick lays it out:
P-G's editorial support here. This is the crappy cards we've been dealt. The state says do these taxes or raise property taxes. And Pittsburghers would rather do anything short of wearing a Browns jersey to avoid property tax increases. Stay tuned for updates.
So drink up. At least you'll have a ride home. And don't like the $2 rental car tax? A quarter more (60 cents in January) gets you a ride on the 28X.
UPDATES: I'll compile all the stories related to the new taxes from today into this one post.
-Watch the Council meeting livehere on Allegheny County's website. The agenda is quite long, this one may last into the night.
- Buskarma has some thoughts, including Wagner's interesting timing to state what everyone already knew. Note that he may be running against Onorato for Governor when Rendell is done.
-And why hasn't Save Our Transit been updated since March? I've heard their opinions on the radio so they are still a force.
- The tax has passed. See my story above.
The county? Maybe. But the Port Authority itself? Yeah, real competitive when 25% of service is cut.
I don't believe that Allegheny County needs new taxes, and I think it puts Allegheny County and the Port Authority in a less competitive position with surrounding counties
And call the feds: the Trib has an article in support of it. A good article. Wow. Joseph Sabino Mistick lays it out:
Pick one. The pour tax or the poor tax. The tax on every alcoholic drink that is poured in local taverns and restaurants or an increase in the real estate tax that folks on a fixed income believe will eventually put them in the poorhouse.
P-G's editorial support here. This is the crappy cards we've been dealt. The state says do these taxes or raise property taxes. And Pittsburghers would rather do anything short of wearing a Browns jersey to avoid property tax increases. Stay tuned for updates.
So drink up. At least you'll have a ride home. And don't like the $2 rental car tax? A quarter more (60 cents in January) gets you a ride on the 28X.
UPDATES: I'll compile all the stories related to the new taxes from today into this one post.
-Watch the Council meeting live
- Buskarma has some thoughts, including Wagner's interesting timing to state what everyone already knew. Note that he may be running against Onorato for Governor when Rendell is done.
-And why hasn't Save Our Transit been updated since March? I've heard their opinions on the radio so they are still a force.
- The tax has passed. See my story above.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
The best option for funding transit
The head of the Allegheny Conference on Community Development writes in today's P-G about the proposed drink tax and rental car tax to raise money to support the Port Authority. The ACCD is a private-sector organization to "provide civic leadership to execute a focused agenda for regional improvement," according to their site.
They support the taxes along with the Chamber of Commerce, but the restaurant and bar owners are strongly against it. No word from the rental car industry, I guess because about 6 flights a day come into Pittsburgh Airport now. The restaurant and bar owners have changed their tune, orginally they just said "oppose the tax" without saying what it was for. I imagine some asked them "What, are you against transit? How the hell do people get to your bar one the South Side unless they can get one of the coveted 13 spaces?" So now they say the tax raise won't be used for transit but just for other county operations, which is meant to raise images of Dan Onorato jumping into a money pool like Scrooge McDuck.
The real deal is that the state is offering the county dedicated funding for transit. The caveat: the county must match it. Onorato needs to raise the money or else the Port Authority is back to having to consider even bigger cuts. Options? Property tax or these taxes. Property tax increases will not fly and will violate his largest promise in elections. So I commend Onorato for trying to find the money elsewhere and pledging to not give a dime until Port Authority lowers labor costs. He's now gone to the table to help negotiate concessions, which helps.
As always, a great City Paper article about the mess, including Save Our Transit's call for boycott of establishments who oppose the tax.
They support the taxes along with the Chamber of Commerce, but the restaurant and bar owners are strongly against it. No word from the rental car industry, I guess because about 6 flights a day come into Pittsburgh Airport now. The restaurant and bar owners have changed their tune, orginally they just said "oppose the tax" without saying what it was for. I imagine some asked them "What, are you against transit? How the hell do people get to your bar one the South Side unless they can get one of the coveted 13 spaces?" So now they say the tax raise won't be used for transit but just for other county operations, which is meant to raise images of Dan Onorato jumping into a money pool like Scrooge McDuck.
The real deal is that the state is offering the county dedicated funding for transit. The caveat: the county must match it. Onorato needs to raise the money or else the Port Authority is back to having to consider even bigger cuts. Options? Property tax or these taxes. Property tax increases will not fly and will violate his largest promise in elections. So I commend Onorato for trying to find the money elsewhere and pledging to not give a dime until Port Authority lowers labor costs. He's now gone to the table to help negotiate concessions, which helps.
As always, a great City Paper article about the mess, including Save Our Transit's call for boycott of establishments who oppose the tax.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Rapid Transit to Oakland: Pipe Dream since 1985
Joe Grata (always a great read) of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette writes about County Executive Dan Onorato's plan to link Oakland to Downtown via rapid transit. The Transit Action Team (which consists of local business leaders, government officals, and 3 of the Planeteers) drafted a plan that connects Oakland, Downtown, and the Airport. (pdf of plan)
The plan is very short on details, and of course the naysayers at the Trib are wondering why we don't forget the whole "mass transit" thing and sell the T to Kennywood.
Now why hasn't someone thought of rapid transit in Oakland before? Oh right, they had it all written up and submitted to the government until the Republicans got in to County Council during the 1990s and shoved us the charred remains of the plan (The Dreaded North Shore Connector.) Here's a great City Paper article about the history of the "Spine Line," the connection between Downtown and Oakland. You can also read the submitted proposal from 1993 (pdf) thanks to Chris Briem. The FAQ from the Port Authority has some interesting info also, of course they don't blame the Republicans like the CP article does.
The real question is why does every plan for transit have to include some wacky new technology that is expensive and probably expensive to service? Light rail works. It's in a lot of places. It's a friggen streetcar for crying out loud, and those have existed since the 1800s. But no, we always have to look into magnetic levitation single car driverless electric floating elevated monorail and everyone wonders why the bill comes back for $10 billion dollars.
So we'll keep hoping for better transit. Now if you don't mind, I have a 61C to catch, and the first 4 that pass me by are going to be filled, so I better get a move on.
Also of note: a great series in the P-G from 1999 about the future of Oakland, including ideas from leaders about transit. Some of the ideas discuss turning a parking lot near Hillman Library into a park and having "a grand entrance into Oakland." Sounds a lot like Schenley Plaza.
CORRECTED 11/29: The link now goes to the correct Grata article about Onorato's plan. The previous link referred to the Spine Line being resurrected in the recent mayoral debates. You can read that article here.
Also, I would like to note that the city leadership resurrected the North Shore Connector, not the Republican County Council. Peak Direction regrets the error.
The plan is very short on details, and of course the naysayers at the Trib are wondering why we don't forget the whole "mass transit" thing and sell the T to Kennywood.
Now why hasn't someone thought of rapid transit in Oakland before? Oh right, they had it all written up and submitted to the government until the Republicans got in to County Council during the 1990s and shoved us the charred remains of the plan (The Dreaded North Shore Connector.) Here's a great City Paper article about the history of the "Spine Line," the connection between Downtown and Oakland. You can also read the submitted proposal from 1993 (pdf) thanks to Chris Briem. The FAQ from the Port Authority has some interesting info also, of course they don't blame the Republicans like the CP article does.
The real question is why does every plan for transit have to include some wacky new technology that is expensive and probably expensive to service? Light rail works. It's in a lot of places. It's a friggen streetcar for crying out loud, and those have existed since the 1800s. But no, we always have to look into magnetic levitation single car driverless electric floating elevated monorail and everyone wonders why the bill comes back for $10 billion dollars.
So we'll keep hoping for better transit. Now if you don't mind, I have a 61C to catch, and the first 4 that pass me by are going to be filled, so I better get a move on.
Also of note: a great series in the P-G from 1999 about the future of Oakland, including ideas from leaders about transit. Some of the ideas discuss turning a parking lot near Hillman Library into a park and having "a grand entrance into Oakland." Sounds a lot like Schenley Plaza.
CORRECTED 11/29: The link now goes to the correct Grata article about Onorato's plan. The previous link referred to the Spine Line being resurrected in the recent mayoral debates. You can read that article here.
Also, I would like to note that the city leadership resurrected the North Shore Connector, not the Republican County Council. Peak Direction regrets the error.
Onorato orders transit funding freeze
Onorato orders transit funding freeze: "Allegheny County Chief Executive Dan Onorato yesterday announced he will withhold funds to the Port Authority until it restructures its labor costs, even if the two new taxes he proposed to fund mass transit are approved."
Can he do that? Evidentially the council is not sure. The ATU contract renewal could be pretty interesting. *cough* strike *cough*
UPDATE: ATU President says "If [Mr. Onorato] thinks this collective agreement is so important, he should be at the table, and not his staff."
Can he do that? Evidentially the council is not sure. The ATU contract renewal could be pretty interesting. *cough* strike *cough*
UPDATE: ATU President says "If [Mr. Onorato] thinks this collective agreement is so important, he should be at the table, and not his staff."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
