Dedicated Funding Streams 101

You may (like me) have spent the last week gorging on Christmas treats and entertaining travelers stranded in Pittsburgh because of the crippling East Coast snowstorm. However, Pittsburgh City Council has been spending their holidays coming up with last-minute solutions to avoid a potentially disastrous state take-over of the city's pensions at the end of the year.

The latest political buzzword is "Dedicated Funding Stream." The idea is as old as dirt, though. Many of us set aside money every paycheck to contribute to our 401Ks. That's a simple dedicated funding stream. Instead of getting your whole paycheck, plopping it into one big checking account, then deciding how to divvy things up, you set aside a fixed percentage every month to your future retirement that you can't change without lots of annoying paperwork.

Allegheny County's Drink Tax
Back in 2007, County Executive Dan Onorato and his council passed the extraordinarily controversial Drink tax, dedicating 10% of every tipple consumed in the county to pay for the County's share of Port Authority expenses. Now, when it's time to pay Port Authority, the Council doesn't have to slice a piece of the budget pie - that money is already set aside.

City Council's Proposal?
Pittsburgh City Council wants to dedicate future parking rate increase profits to funding the Pittsburgh pensions. I, for one, am a fan of this method. Much like we don't sell our house and put the profits in our 401K and hope for the best, just to get all our savings wiped out in a bad market downturn, we regularly contribute to our future, exercising "Dollar Cost Averaging." If you need an extra reminder why plopping a giant wad of cash onto the problem doesn't fix the problem, you need to only look back to the year 1998 in Pittsburgh. That's when then-Mayor Murphy sold over $250 Million in bonds to shore up the pension fund. All that money has since disappeared in stock market dive after stock market dive while the city continued to contribute the minimum amount possible each year.

What's Next? Will Harrisburg also jump on the dedicated funding stream bandwagon? One can only hope. As it stands now, the Pennsylvania state legislature can barely pass budgets on time while it attempts to divvy up its giant general fund. Most of the time, Port Authority gets the shaft. Let's take the control out of the hands of selfish state legislators and add some transparency to the budgeting process instead of last-minute shady deals to pass the budget. Heck, maybe the Federal government could even learn some lessons here? If I can manage my own budget, surely our governments with their teams of Ph.D. degree-holders and economists should be able to as well.

Downtown Parking Thanksgiving

Mr Benter of the Benter Foundation got fed up with searching for parking downtown, so he directed his foundation to spend $175,000 to develop ParkPGH. Currently, the application-website tells users the availability of parking at 8 downtown garages in the Cultural District.

In January, ParkPGH will add a ninth location, the parking authority garage at Ninth Street and Penn Avenue. At that point, the system will encompass 5,300 spaces -- 25 percent of Downtown garage capacity.

If I'm doing the math correctly, that means there are 21,200 parking spaces available in downtown parking garages.

The system potentially benefits 2 million annual Cultural District visitors and about 150,000 daily Downtown commuters.

So we have 21,2000 parking spaces available downtown for 150,000 daily commuters. That means the vast majority of downtown workers park elsewhere and walk or take public transportation downtown.

On Tuesday night, the Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission narrowly voted to bail out Port Authority with an extra $45 Million they had lying around - on the condition that Port Authority still implements some cuts in March. When Port Authority enacts its slightly less catastrophic 15% compromise service cuts in March, at least all those stranded downtown workers will be able to watch the parking garages fill in real-time on their iPhone.

And to make it a parking trifecta this week, Pittsburgh City Council is fast-tracking a plan to lease our parking garages and bail out the city's own pension fund. The good news? The garages will only be leased for 40 years (instead of 50) and the city will be eligible for profit-sharing from the garages. The bad news? They're still leasing the parking meters and giving up control over parking throughout the city and not ultimately solving the city's long-term pension woes.

So in summary, thanks to Mr Benter for actually getting something done. Thanks to the Southwest Pennsylvania Commission for stepping in where the state repeatedly refuses to tread - even if the money comes with strings attached. And thanks that I'm not a Pittsburgh City Councilor stuck between a rock and a hard place.

$452 Million is TOO Much Money

After weeks of waiting, the final tally has come in. The city needed a minimum of a $300 Million bid for the parking assets in order to pay off the existing parking authority debt and boost the pension fund up to 50% funding.

The city got an offer of $452 Million.

For weeks, city residents were told that these over-arching changes were required. There was no way to separate the parking garages from the parking meters. Every adjustment the administration made to the proposal would highly risk our ability to be competitive. We needed to "keep the deal attactive to potential bidders."

And then what happens??? We end up with way too much money.

So what do I say? Put the project back out to bid for just the parking garages. Give the 7 pre-picked firms the option of re-submitting bids for just the garages. After all, the Metered Parking System Agreement is already separate from the Parking Facilities Agreement. I'm willing to bet that we can get $300 Million for the facilities alone.

Leasing our parking meters for 50 years is simply ridiculous. Letting someone else control where and how much our parking meters cost will be deadly to local businesses and future development. There is free-market competition for the parking garages and the ability for 3rd parties to build more. When it comes to parking meters, there is no such thing.

What about Port Authority's quest for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) which would greatly improve our transportation options in certain corridors but could require elimination of some parking meters? If the parking meters are leased, that becomes an added expense to the project. The city should control its roads. Lease some profitable parking garages downtown, but don't sell out our roads.

Or do you really trust City Council and the Mayor's office with a $150 Million bonus?

Or we can wait until Friday when City Council's study of the parking situation comes to light.

Whatever the case, we know now that either the Mayor had no idea what the parking garages are worth (and still doesn't) or his office was perfectly willing to bully the city into giving away way too much power. Seriously, it's going to cost $2 per hour to park in the struggling neighborhood of Brookline but we're supposed to be happy that the Mayor saved our free Sundays?

3 Important Announcements for this Week in Pittsburgh

1) Today (Tuesday), the parking lease proposals are due. 7 Firms were given the opportunity to submit their bids by 4PM today. Run on over to nullspace to make your proposal guesses now!

2) Thursday, we learn once and for all whether the Civic Arena will be imploded. Who am I kidding? They'll decide to implode it, and then we'll be in for another round of appeals from the "Re-Use the Igloo" folks. Perhaps their best argument so far has been this image:



3) Podcamp Pittsburgh is this weekend. To sweeten the pot, buildasign.com has given me 50 bumper stickers to dole out to my Pittsburgh-crazed groupies. Since I don't have groupies, anyone I see at Podcamp will be eligible for a PghIsACity-themed bumper sticker (while supplies last.)

Made my signs

Pittsburgh Council Wants You

Last week, Pittsburgh City Council wandered around to Downtown, South Side, and Oakland for public hearings. Monday night, they will visit the North Side to share their side of the pension woes and the mayor's attempt at a stop-gap fix at the expense of the citizens.

As it currently stands, Mayor Ravenstahl is ready to give away the bank to the highest bidder. That means tripling most parking meter rates over the next 4 years, meter enforcement till 10PM everyday including Sundays. That means no more free ride in city downtown parking garages.

I attended last week's South Side hearing to voice my opinion and listen to others. The resounding responses? 50 years (the intended lease agreement length) is a very long time. One of the plan stipulations is that the City of Pittsburgh will pay the lessee if a parking space is out of commission for 22 days in a year. One speaker aptly asked "What if we had locked into a plan 50 years ago?" We'd be paying some company a fee for not using those covered-up trolley lines if you ask me.

Residents also fervently proclaimed that leasing the parking garages is bad business. The city is selling low right now because the city is at a disadvantage. And what is the lessee going to do? Make a steep profit off of higher rates that we've been too afraid to implement ourselves for fear of driving away business. Why not raise the rates, put the profit towards the pensions, and cut out the middle man? Pittsburgh City Council is leaning towards a plan that will issue a bond to increase the contents of the pension fund and retain control over the parking situation. They would continue to raise rates, but since the city would still ultimately be in control, they could respond to suffering businesses and residents if the rates became too unwieldy. That sounds like good business to me.

So why am I telling you this? In order to pull off this coup, 5 city council members need to stand up to pressure from Mayor Ravenstahl and our Harrisburg Legislators. City council is only willing to do this if we insist on this plan. So let your city councilors know that you support them standing up to Harrisburg and Mayor Ravenstahl. Let them know that it's bad business to hand away our assets and lose control of our streets. Will this still mean increased parking rates? Yes. But it also means that the increases will be with the success of the city in mind - instead of a big conglomerate that just wants to profit off of our residents in a time of need.

Pay Your Parking Meter

I've gotten one parking ticket in Pittsburgh (for an expired meter) and I was shocked at how low the fee was - $16 in Oakland. It's the same in Downtown and Uptown. Outside of those neighborhoods, you currently pay a measly $11. Most parking enforcement fees settle at $15. Considering you'd be lucky to find parking in a garage in Oakland or Downtown for that price, I'm betting most people find it worth the parking ticket risk, especially when they're running late for a $100 per ticket Penguins game. (But whatever you do, don't park in a handicapped space or you'll be facing fines of $200 and lots of bad karma.)

The city of Pittsburgh has noticed this discrepancy and in the latest round of "what-can-we-tax-next" has settled on parking enforcement fees. So far, they're not seeing much push back, and the preliminary vote is today. Personally, I think Pittsburgh has dropped the ball on this one. The rates haven't been raised since they were decided upon in 1988. Has anything else in this country stayed the same price in those intervening 22 years? Certainly, our meter maids salaries have risen in the meantime putting a crunch on the city's budget. I implore the city to research and find other oversights and to put into place a reasonable plan for increasing general fees with inflation and stay away from silly, divisive taxes on pop. Nobody likes to pay more for services, but unfortunately that's the nature of money.

Perhaps this move will also take some pressure off the leasing of the parking garages fear. If the city is willing to raise rates involving parking and the sky doesn't fall, maybe we will survive a lease of the parking garages.

Luck and Parking

Over a year ago, back in the heart of the recession, when the Pittsburgh parking garages were added to the chopping block, I begged the powers-that-be to hold off instead of risking a fire sale in light of the poor economy. However, it turns out I was wrong. The snail's pace of government has brought us full circle to the tail-end of the recession. Combined with the Pittsburgh's international exposure during the G20, we have managed to wrangle up 7 solvent international companies to bid on lease of the garages. Impressive timing or good luck? I don't know. But full steam ahead to see what the bidders have to offer.

As to whether leasing the garages is a good idea? I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. And with a variety of folks interested, I'd say the odds are pretty good that we can strike a bargain that doesn't immediately screw downtown commuters while giving a much-needed infusion to the pension fund. If Mayor Ravenstahl and Pittsburgh City Council can continue the good cop/bad cop routine for this whole process, we may even come out ahead. How about for a few extra million we let them install those fancy credit-card accepting parking meters like they have in Mt Lebanon? Then no one will have to carry any quarters around unless they're headed to the casino.

2 State Bills You Should Be Paying Attention To

The Pennsylvania State House may not be able to pass a budget, but they can sure screw over the residents of Allegheny County. Yesterday, 2 very important bills passed some of their final tests.

1.) The Property Re-Assessment Bill. The State Supreme Court ordered a re-assessment of Allegheny County. Dan Onorato with the support of lots of other sniveling counties in the state, have pushed the state house and senate to put this court-ordered re-assessment on hold for 18 months. The Senate could have their final vote on this one as early as tomorrow. Then it's in the hands of Rendell.

Sen. Jim Ferlo, D-Highland Park, said he had serious doubts about the bill, which has already passed the House, but voted for it yesterday "to keep the process moving.'' He said it may be unconstitutional for the Legislature to tell counties to ignore court orders on reassessment.

Yes, we are moving forward by not moving anywhere for the next 18 months. Is that enough time for Mr Onorato to get elected governor and think of a smarmy way out of this sticky mess?

2.) The Pension Bill - which also determines Pittsburgh's parking taxes. Here the state wants to take over the city's pension funding as well as any other city or municipality facing less than 50% funded. Pittsburgh's pensions are funded at an abysmal 28%. In theory, it sounds like a great idea to out-source this responsibility because clearly Pittsburgh has been failing at it in an unprecedented manner. But at the same time, is the State really any more responsible with their money? And why the micro-managing? Why does this bill include over-arching wording about the parking tax? It should be either a pension bill or a parking tax bill. Luckily, after the Senate votes on this one, it will be lobbed back to the House.

Handicapped by the State

First of all, it's not a 5-year plan if it depends on changing the state legislature. When is the last time the state legislature changed a law for the benefit of Pittsburgh? Has it ever happened? Yet, "many of its most controversial tenets couldn't happen without changes in state law that only the General Assembly can make."

4 Ways To Break The Law (by Act 47)

1. The Act 47 planners want the city to (currently illegally) not lower the parking tax this year. In 2007, the mayor smartly vetoed when the city council decided to keep the parking tax high, largely because it was against state law. But also because a 40% parking tax rate is ridiculously high.

2. Additionally, Act 47 are depending on major concessions from the fireman's and other city unions. Major concessions that are currently illegal in the state.

3. The Act 47 planners want the city to both tax non-profits (also currently illegal under state law) AND increase donations from non-profits. Not going to happen.

4. Another idea is asking the state to allow us to change the municipal services tax from $52 / year ( a pathetic pittance) to $145 / year. By the way, by state law, this $52 must currently be deducted evenly through paychecks throughout the year. Sounds like it costs more to implement than it currently collects.

So the state-mandated group is recommending time and again to change state law in a 290 page report. And doesn't have any other solutions for us. How about we cut the state budget by Act 47 planners this year?

But ultimately, this plan shows how the state has handicapped the city of Pittsburgh through years and years of enacting restrictive laws. Is it any surprise that the city is in a fiscal crisis when the city of Pittsburgh literally can't decide how much to tax people who work and live in the city? When they try to come up with creative and questionable ways around these limitations (i.e. raising the parking tax to 50%), the state once again puts the smack-down.

Since, I've been living in Pittsburgh, our glorious leaders Onorato and Ravenstahl have been making frequent trips to beg Harrisburg for solutions to their problems, and these requests have fallen on deaf ears. Do we have to file for bankruptcy before Harrisburg listens?

Parking Garages Versus Port Authority

Brian O'Neill makes a very important point about parking garages in his latest editorial:

"Suburban commuters, the people most affected by any uptick in parking rates, have no vote in the mayoral election."

He makes that note near the end of his editorial and then he drops it, but somehow I will make a whole blog post out of this one line because I think he's looking at the tip of the iceberg of this thinly-veiled city versus suburb issue. City dwellers love the idea of leasing the parking garages and dealing with the city pension problem with the profits. Why? Because city dwellers DO NOT USE the parking garages. City dwellers take the bus or walk to work. We were just rated the 10th best walking city in part because a whopping 12% of us walk to work, the most in the nation after Boston. Another 18% take public transportation.

So, how about the city sells/leases the parking garages to the county? The county can manage them for the good of the county residents and then the city doesn't have to be responsible for taking care of suburban commuters at the expense of our city pensions.

Of course, the county doesn't want to buy the parking garages. Why would they? The county [read: Dan Onorato] also wants to contribute as little as is necessary for the upkeep and running of Port Authority. The county [read: Dan Onorato] also wants to keep the status quo of unjust property taxes. And the people that live in the county? They tend to think this is all a city problem, and they bemoan us city-dwellers for continuously voting in inept government that they have no control over. Well, suburban commuters, you do not have a mayoral vote, but you do have control over your government. You choose to not live in the city, you reject consolidation between city and county, and you vote for people like Onorato who undermine your cause by furthering the fractions between city and county despite boasting about the 2 municipality functions he's managed to merge.

And how did the city get in such poor shape? It seems to me that for a long time people thought it was easier to leave the city instead of help fix it. They were right. It was easier in the short-term, but now we're all paying for it - whether through higher taxes or parking rates. The big problem is that right now, the only one who's really profiting from it all is private parking garage owners.

How about the city offers to eliminate the dreaded parking garage tax, offers to keep ineptly running the parking garages (with their incumbent city pension issues and nepotism) and instead institutes a low wage tax on those suburban commuters? Is there any concession on the city's part that would make this palatable? County membership on the Parking Authority board? A citizen watchdog board made up of both city and county residents?

Let's work together to solve these issues. Let's all elect officials who will actually work together instead of giving lip service to a joke of a consolidation plan. Let's make Pittsburgh and the region stronger instead of just tearing each other apart.

And The Winner Is?

Last month, the request for consultants was sent out with a March 20 deadline of applying to be a consultant for stepping the city through the complexities of leasing the parking garages. It's been 6 days since that deadline. Did anybody apply? Maybe I should have. I have a few suggestions.

Recommendation #1: I echo Dowd in demanding that we have a complete and properly staffed Parking Authority board.

Recommendation #2: Don't do it now. The State Auditor is currently questioning the recent attempted "fire sale" of a downtown building. Michael Lamb, our County Auditor will inevitably pipe up with an equally practical audit requesting that we not "fire sale" our parking garages in time of economic downturn. Let's cut this off before we spend oodles of cash on a consultant that will inevitably be the uncle of a big city political contributor.

Needless to say, I didn't discover any information on the Parking Authority's website, but I was delighted to learn that they're currently hiring.

Cleveburgh vs Pittsland

This weekend, I roughly followed the dated 36 hours in Cleveland piece by the New York Times with some yelp help thrown in. I was drawn to the inevitable comparisons between the two struggling rust belt cities. Looking for the city's equivalent of Primanti Brothers left me stuffed at Cleveland's kitschy and charming Sokolowski's.

Oakland = University Circle a little further from downtown but more accessible via RTA
Bloomfield = Little Italy with less Thai food more Italian food
Tremont = a trimmed down Shady Side
Ohio's City's awesome West Side Market = our beloved Strip District
The Flats = Station Square

Deserted downtown = deserted downtown

My first impression of Cleveland in spite of the dirty piles of snow (they get about 20% more snow than Pittsburgh) was very positive. It reminded me of a European city with its wide boulevards, grandiose statuary, and classically styled buildings from the Convention Center to the Library.

The highlights of the weekend were definitely the West Side Market and the Great Lakes Brewery. The West Side Market is another European addition to Cleveland - a giant hall with everything for sale from bratwurst to pierogies to chicken gizzards to cannolis. The Great Lakes Brewery and Bar is an outstanding ambassador of the city. Not only is the beer great, they give hilarious tours of their eco-friendly brewery and have a packed-to-the-gills bar all adjacent to the West Side Market.





As rock music is not my biggest interest (and the $22 price tag a big deterrent), I steered clear of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Instead the Cleveland Museum of Art was a nice cap to my weekend. It's currently under an ambitious re-construction plan with only half of the galleries open to visitors - the rest re-open in June, but you can still check out their crazy collection of medieval armor and swords.

Things we can learn from Cleveland?

• Better bus shelters and bus lanes. They have special lights for their bus lanes which give them an edge over normal motorists. They have bus shelters that remind you more of getting on a light-rail line than anything else.
• Use light-rail judiciously to connect important places. They don't have a large light rail system, but it does connect downtown to the west side to university circle. They also connect their airport directly to a mall downtown which contains a hotel. How sweet is that?
  
• More city hotels - no visitor to the city should have to stay in Greentree unless they really really want to.
• Our own market - we even have the South Side Market House - invite regional butchers, bakers, and farmers to sell their wares in the winter months. Pittsburgh has an eating and cooking culture that can support multiple foodie-areas and being able to step inside the market on a cold day is a wonderful respite.
• More cheap parking - almost every downtown parking lot had super-cheap weekend rates - not just the ones owned by the city of Cleveland.
  

Things Cleveland can learn from Pittsburgh?

• More cohesive neighborhoods. Perhaps this can only come with time, but the only time I really felt I was in a full-fledged neighborhood was in the quaint Little Italy. Everything else just seemed a little too piece-meal - like our currently evolving Penn Ave district.
• A better alternative city paper. Our City Paper blows their Scene out of the water. I understand they have more pages to fill in the live music department but their Scene doesn't talk about politics at all. After the Short List, my favorite part of the City Paper is their off-beat take on local politics.
  
• More ethnic variation - aside from European offerings there was a dearth of international options at the West Side Market. Considering that Cleveland has 7 times the Hispanic population of Pittsburgh, I was disappointed to see only 1 booth of the 180 booths of the West Side Market selling tortillas. The Strip in Pittsburgh is a treasure trove with its Vietnamese, Korean, Chinese, Mexican, Italian, Greek, Middle Eastern, and Eastern European stores.
• More reasonable restaurants. Cleveland has PLENTY of over-priced hoity-toity food and a fair share of super-cheap college eats, but not enough in-between. Without my pre-trip yelp research, I would have been lost for a reasonable dinner in the city.
• Less Blight. Pittsburgh has its fair share of blight in certain areas but on the main route between University Circle and Downtown, there were more abandoned buildings than I could shake a stick at. It would greatly improve a visitor's first impression of Cleveland if some of those eyesores were demolished. How about turning mid-town into a nice big green space filled with cross-country skiing, biking and walking trails?
  

Overall, I had a great weekend in Cleveland. If you haven't been there, hop in your car and drive the scant 2 1/2 hours next weekend. As one Browns fan told me: "You have the Steelers, but we have Great Lakes [brewery]."

Do You Want a Pepsi With That?

Forget those funky bike racks that litter the city of Pittsburgh pretending to be works of art. Instead, Councilman Peduto says we should have ads on our bike racks. That's how you know that biking has hit the mainstream.

Next, we'll have McDonald's billboards on our bike-ways.

And then we'll have the Consol Energy state park with ads on the trail markers.

When does the commodification stop?

Seriously, though, if the city can get "free" bike racks attached to its parking meters. I guess that's cool. Though I have to wonder about a plan that's intended to bring more advertising money into the Parking Authority just in time to lease the parking authority and meters. And are we just one step away from metered bike parking?

Skewer Me Now

As a preface to this post, I thoroughly expect to be mocked and criticized for supporting Ravenstahl's plan here. Please, feel free.

But I'm trying to figure out why Ravenstahl's new idea to lease the parking garages and take any lump sum profit to throw at the pension fund is bad? How is it not a great idea in fact?

Should the city really be involved in the day-to-day running of parking garages?

Chicago leased their parking garages for 99 years and made $563 Million.

According to the 2007 Annual Report, Pittsburgh Parking Authority appeared to make an operating income of $13 Million.

To offset that, we pay into the pension funds upwards of $38 Million per year. I'm going to make a radical assumption that we could cut that down to $25 Million per year (and cut Parking Authority's profits out of the budget) if we could inject a huge amount of cash into the pension funds. Similarly, we have a relatively small amount of debt associated with the Parking Authority - $100 Million. Chicago had $278 Million. Chicago's garages were only bringing in $5 Million per year as opposed to our profit monsters.

Of course, I have a few questions.

1) Why are people so concerned about parking rates going up? I understand parking is difficult to find and expensive in this city. It's supply and demand. Without the city of Pittsburgh subsidizing parking garages, this will turn into a true capitalist arrangement. The city of Pittsburgh will continue lowering their parking tax rate. And if people continue to fill expensive parking garages, they will be expensive. If people are willing to take the subway from Station Square or the up-and-coming North Shore Connector, they'll save money. They'll save even more money if they take the bus. Will businesses really leave the city because rates go up a few dollars? And will rates really go up more than the market can bear?

2) Is this plan really going to fly in the face of a nation-wide recession? Did Ravenstahl pick some really poor timing to ask folks to pony up a few hundred million dollars? Does any business have that ability right now?

If Ravenstahl pulls this off and can get our pensions to a point where we expect them to be healthily funded, then he might actually earn his landslide victory this time around in spite of his ridiculousness.

Less Than $20 Million

According to the Steelers and VisitPittsburgh, the home AFC championship game should bring in $20 million to the city on Sunday. That's on top of the $18 million for last week's game.

And how much extra are these games adding to the drink tax coffers alone? I'm going to make an educated guess and say that if you take the drink tax profits from Steelers Sundays, that alone will easily land you $1 Million per year.

The North Shore Connector is costing the county 3.33% of its total cost - or about $15 million. Even if it balloons to a $600 million project, that's still less than $20 million in local funds.

Don't you think a new subway line is worth 1 home Steelers championship game?

I can go over the Port Authority spiel that this paves the way for future T lines. Or that this will add yet another fringe parking area alleviating traffic and parking woes downtown. Or that this will encourage more development on the North Side which needs some help right about now.

But instead I'll tell you why I think it's not a horrible idea.

When out-of-towners or former Pittsburghers come back to visit in droves, it's for one of two things. The holidays and Steelers games.

Theoretically, we want to give these people a good impression. We want them to think their city is improving. We want them to go back to where they live and say good things about Pittsburgh. We want them to tell their friends, so that when they get a job offer and they're deciding between Houston, Texas and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, they remember that they heard Pittsburgh was sweet. They choose Pittsburgh.

How do we impress these people? We give them slick public transportation where they're going to use it. To the Steelers game and to the airport. Assuming this risky bet works, then those people will get up and move here. Then we'll have some money in our pockets and we can do more practical less flashy things like actually get people between Oakland and Downtown.

And all for less than $20 million.

But the most important thing to realize is that this is just a piece of the puzzle. If we actually want a world-class transportation system (which we do, right?), then this is a necessary piece of that puzzle. Might as well build it first if we have the money and it can attract and impress some people. We just can't stop here. I don't care if it takes another 50-100 years. (I have faith that Pittsburgh and this country will still be around then.) But we need to keep building and planning and thinking big and we will get there.

Round and Round

"Highmark is among companies encouraging workers to consider alternatives [to public transportation]. Of its 4,000 Downtown employees, about 2,400 use public transit, said company spokesman Aaron Billger."

Some people say that public transportation is non-existent in Pittsburgh.

Some people say that the buses don't run often enough.

Some people say that the drivers get paid too much.

Some people say that...

2,400 out of 4,000 = 60%.

60% of the employees at one company use Port Authority.

Sure, public transportation in this city isn't as convenient as you'd like. Sure, it doesn't run enough at night. Sure, whine whine whine.

But public transportation is NOT convenient.
Even in New York City, the paramount of public transportation in this country, "on average, those commuting by public transportation spend 18 more minutes commuting, each way, than those traveling by car."

So why do people in New York City take public transportation? Because insuring and parking a car in New York City is exorbitant. I've slept in New York's Port Authority terminal because I missed the last bus. "I pity the person who gets stuck in Port Authority over night." I've complained a gazillion times about the travesty of Boston's T shutting down BEFORE the bars close.

The bus system in this city exists not to cater to tourists, not to cater to those who'd prefer not to drive. It caters to those who CAN NOT drive. It caters to those who work downtown and don't want to pay exorbitant parking fees if they can even find a parking space. And it caters to those who don't mind a little inconvenience for saving some moola and not driving drunk or having to sit behind the wheel in a traffic jam. Period. Just like any other city in this country.

Yes, the buses can do a better job, and I hope they will. Yes, everyone have a right to complain and a responsibility to voice their complaints. Yes, I have a right to rant. On my blog.

Most importantly, though, there's a little issue of a contract that is plaguing every union in the country and in particular Port Authority. Pensions and health insurance will drive us all to bankruptcy slowly but surely. What will you do on December 1?

Transparency, Oh My

In a city reknowned for its backdoor policy meetings and general nepotism, State Sen. Jim Ferlo is a momentary breath of fresh air. He is suggesting that the URA (Urban Redevelopment Authority) actually post information publicly on its website when awarding new contracts such as who has bid on the projects and what the final bids were. For a little overhead, that proposal could go a long ways toward cooling tempers and letting everyone know what's happening.

In general, I've found that people tend to get pissed when they don't know why something happened even if there's a perfectly good explanation behind it. For instance, even though the highest-paying parking operators did not get picked for re-lease of all the parking lots in Pittsburgh, the one that was picked promised better final rates for consumers. It's easy to pay a high rent when you're planning on gauging those who park at your lot, and as long as the city is making more money, it's fairly reasonable for them to agree to make less money for the relief of taxpayers.

Of course, at the same time, there's a very valid question that employees shouldn't be fighting for cheaper parking in the garages because odds are the only tax people who park in the garages are paying to the city of Pittsburgh is the tax on parking.

Long live the internet and its potential of information overload!

The URA has done a lot of great things for this city. It'd be a shame if the antics of a particular Mr Ford and some questionable wheeling-and-dealing ruined their good reputation. Here's to Jim trying to shift focus back where it belongs.

(reference: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08252/910450-100.stm)