Skip to Navigation
University of Pittsburgh
Print This Page Print this pages

January 6, 2011

Port Authority cuts to be reduced

Proposed major cuts in Port Authority of Allegheny County service will be scaled back thanks to a $45 million infusion of emergency funding from the state.

The cash-strapped transit company was facing a $47 million gap in its operating budget for the current fiscal year, which ends June 30.

In November, the Port Authority approved a plan to raise fares in January and cut services by 35 percent in March, including eliminating 47 routes, as well as laying off some 500 employees. (See Nov. 24 University Times.)

The cuts would have left an estimated 15,000 riders without any service. While the service cuts will be scaled back, the fare increase was not: It went into effect on Jan. 2. The Port Authority  expects to announce details of the smaller service cuts this month.

“We won’t be facing the level of disaster of 35 percent service cuts, but we will have to do some significant downsizing to get this money to last longer,” said Port Authority CEO Steve Bland. He said the transit company is considering spreading the new funding over 18 months to give the state legislature and the incoming governor until July 2012 to address a statewide transportation funding shortfall.

Outgoing Gov. Edward G. Rendell on Dec. 2 asked the Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC) to redirect $45 million in unspent federal funds to the Port Authority. The commission is a 10-county body that has decision-making authority over transportation funds allocated to the region.

The funds are being diverted from a state account for transportation-related projects that were completed under budget, are on hold or were downsized or canceled, Rendell said.

He said he expected the Port Authority to use the money to get through the current fiscal year, but stressed that the funding infusion was a short-term solution to the state’s transportation woes.

On Dec. 13, SPC approved the $45 million bailout 27-22, with most “no” votes coming from rural county commissioners.

—Peter Hart

Filed under: Feature,Volume 43 Issue 9

Leave a Reply