Occasionally my friends ask me where I get my ideas for these columns; I usually respond, “It’s whatever happens to interest me that particular week”. When I woke up last Friday, I realized that I lacked a topic. Then I sat down for breakfast and opened the morning Post Gazette on my laptop. I was immediately accosted with the headline, “TRANSIT TROUBLES, Facing a funding crisis, PRT may eliminate 41 of its 100 routes”. Now, there’s a topic that interests me!
Once I got into the article, it was obvious that this was indeed an appropriate subject. According to PRT (Pittsburgh Regional Transit) executives, their financial situation has deteriorated to the point where they will be forced to make massive cuts, unless their annual subsidy from PennDOT (currently $302 million a year) is dramatically ($150 million per year by 2029) increased. In addition to eliminating forty-one of its one hundred routes, thirty-four more would have service significantly reduced, and fares would be increased (the base fare of $2.75 would become $3.00). A careful reading of the article illustrates the severity of these reductions. Bridgeville is currently served by three bus routes — Routes 31, 38, and 41, a total of sixty-five round trips each day. Last year the three routes transported about 800,000 passengers (about 2,300 per day). Routes 38 and 41 would be eliminated; Route 31 would be subjected to “major service reduction”. Sixty-five daily round trips would be reduced to perhaps two dozen; that is certainly severe enough to warrant one’s concern.
To understand the problem, we must examine PRT’s cost structure. Its budget for 2025 includes $518 million operating costs plus $100 million capital costs. Of this total, farebox revenues pay for $78 million (12.6 %); the balance is subsidized by a number of sources – PennDOT, Allegheny County, Pandemic relief funds, etc. This situation appears to be typical for other comparable cities in this country; in some larger systems with a higher population density this percentage runs as high as 33 %. European systems are closer to 67 %; in Japan fare-box revenues generate a profit. PRT reports that its ridership is currently at two-thirds of its pre-Covid level, a common situation across our country. Certainly the number of folks commuting to work in the inner city has dramatically decreased, as is evident in the massive vacancy problem in office buildings in the Golden Triangle.
Part of Allegheny County’s problem is population density – globally, the most successful urban systems are in cities with ten times the number of residents per square mile that we have. A comparison of our situation with two other cities of comparable size and population density – Indianapolis, Indiana, and Charlotte, North Carolina – yields some interesting data. A much bigger percentage of the population here uses public transit than in either of them, and pays more for a daily pass, although our farebox revenue to operating cost ratio is half theirs. Apparently our costs are significantly higher.
Allegheny County ridership currently is about 33 million trips per year, (28 per County resident per year) compared to over 50 million prior to the Pandemic. In comparison, SEPTA (Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority) in Philadelphia averages about 52 trips per resident per year in their service area; they too are in a difficult financial situation, begging the state for more support. Their population density is about 12,000 persons per square mile: ours is about 1,700.
Should urban mass transit systems be subsidized by the state? Half the people in Pennsylvania are served by SEPTA and PRT; should the other six million people in the state be taxed to support them? Suppose we divide this year’s $117 million shortfall into three parts; one third covered by the state increasing vehicle and driver license fees ($15 apiece), one third by a specific Allegheny County tax ($25 per resident), and one third from increased fares ($2.75 increased to $3.75). This would share the financial burden between three overlapping groups of stakeholders – all the residents of the state, all the residents of the county, and all the users of the system.
A long-term solution must include improving the convenience of the system. Its strength will always be its radial corridors – Light Rail to the south, the East Busway to the east, I-279 to the north, and Ohio River Boulevard and the Parkway to the west. Perhaps we should supplement the radial network with a series of circumferential routes (like the Belt System) producing a spiderweb network, coordinated at each node. Each node would require a major park and ride lot, like the one in Castle Shannon.
Some urban/transit planners simplify the transit problem by focusing on two factors – passengers and destinations. As an example, at one time I rode the “U-Bus” to my office at Pitt. It was a dedicated route originating in Bridgeville and making a limited number of stops. It was comfortable, convenient, and, sadly, discontinued. For me, the public transit alternative was the Light Rail to downtown, a walk of several blocks to a bus line, and then a bus to Oakland. I elected to drive, accepting the costs of operating a car and parking, primarily because of convenience. It is not obvious to me that PRT currently matches its offerings with the need of its clients.
Matching transit routes to destinations assumes that attractive destinations are already available. Some planners believe that destinations will automatically develop near major transit nodes. In Europe and Southeast Asia, there are numerous attractive shops and restaurants clustered around major transit stops; it is not apparent that this has occurred along our light rail system and certainly is not evident along the bus lines.
PRT has an immediate problem that must be solved by generating significant additional funding, accompanied by the long-term problem of providing a level of service that maximizes the ridership in a region with an extremely low population density.