A PennDOT study of potential consolidation and privatization benefits for the Port Authority of Allegheny County, mandated by state Act 72, must point the way toward reducing taxpayers' mass-transit burden.
The Allegheny Institute for Public Policy notes PennDOT can draw on its Bureau of Public Transportation's prior reports on regional and statewide transit issues. And though PennDOT said in its 2011 annual report that “not exploring consolidation leaves ... transit providers on a path of continued service cuts, deterioration, unsustainable financial conditions, and impending crisis,” its 2009 annual report was worrisomely skeptical of privatization: “Because transit is not profitable, no competition exists.”
The institute says “contracting with a private vendor to provide service on specified routes” would enable “better efficiencies and lower costs through outsourcing.” It suggests a gradual process of freezing hiring, then allowing natural attrition to shrink employee ranks until there's “a meaningfully large service block” that can be put up for cost-saving bids. “Over time the process could lead to 30 percent or more of the bus service being supplied by private firms,” the institute says.
The key question, according to the institute, is how to reduce per-passenger Port Authority costs — long higher than other transit providers'. Taxpayers — who subsidize transit — must demand that the study deliver workable, concrete answers that take both consolidation and privatization seriously.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.