On Sept. 23, we reported on the funds transfer to operations that gave the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) and its riders in and around Philadelphia a two-year reprieve. The agency came close to being forced to implement drastic service cuts, because its ridership and revenue have not recovered to its pre-COVID levels, and the federal relief appropriations that kept transit going in many places during and since the pandemic are running out everywhere.
While cities and their surrounding areas throughout the nation are facing transit catastrophes, there is one other place in Pennsylvania where a similar drama also played out recently. It’s Pittsburgh, the only other city in the Keystone State that has rail transit, and the place where many members of the Railway Age crew (including this writer) are going for this year’s upcoming Light Rail Conference.
Pittsburgh once had much more rail transit than it has today. with streetcars running downtown decades ago. There was also the Drake Shuttle, the remnant of a line, where PCC cars ran until 1999. Today there are three lines running full-service schedules, operated by Pittsburgh Regional Transit (PRT). The most traditional is the Beechview (Red) Line, much of which operates on historic street-running track. The Overbrook (Blue) Line has more of an interurban character and was rebuilt and modernized in 2004. The Library (Silver) Line is further from the city core and runs less frequently than the other two lines. Cars run from the downtown subway on the Overbrook Line before going on to the Library Line. Service was extended from downtown Pittsburgh to the North Side of the city in 2012.
There is other trackage that still exists, although it is not used in regular service. The Allentown Line, a steep and lengthy street-running bypass line in regular service until 2011, has been revived temporarily, due to a major project on the South Beach Line, but its return to service will end soon. There is also a spur to Penn Station, which was eliminated in 1989, but was recently placed back into service during another project. The city also has the Monongahela and Duquesne Inclines: funicular railroads going up and down Mount Washington; the sole survivors of a group of 17 such operations. The service reduction plan did not mention the Duquesne Incline, although it called for minor reductions on the Monongahela Incline. Both date back to the 1870s and are historic transit rarities today.
Drastic Cuts Threatened
The PRT website detailed the cuts that would be put into effect and why the agency planned to implement them if funding did not come through. Out of 100 routes, the Silver Line and 40 bus routes would be eliminated. The Red Line and 34 bus routes would suffer major service reductions, while the Monongahela Incline and 19 bus routes would see minor service reductions. Schedules on only two bus routes would remain unchanged. Only the Blue Line would see an increase in service, because some runs would replace a portion of the Silver Line. No bus route except the 53 would see an increase in service, but it would replace another route that would be eliminated. All routes that survive would end their service day no later than an 11:00 PM curfew.
The PRT site included a link to a map of the routes and the fates that would befall them. A comment with the map said: “This map shows the service cuts which are projected if the state does not provide additional funding for PRT. Almost every route will experience reductions in service, with some facing elimination. Other service impacts may include reduced hours, less frequent service, and shortening the length of routes.” PRT also urged riders to contact their state representatives about transit funding.
The site gave detailed information on remaining service for the lines that would not be eliminated entirely. It gave information about the proposed fare increase (about 9%, as opposed to Philadelphia’s 21.5%), and told riders in detail how they could contact their State representatives. There was a long list of FAQs and a report entitled: “Transit Cuts: What’s at Stake” that included detailed analyses on a number of topics concerning the cuts.
One section of the site concerned the question “How did we get here?” and a detailed answer. Part of that answer included background on how prior funding methods could no longer keep the system going as it was, and said: “Having exhausted federal pandemic relief funding in FY24, Pittsburgh Regional Transit is now facing a structural deficit, meaning expenses, year after year, are greater than the funding that’s brought in, and the difference becomes greater each year.” It also gave some numbers: “With a projected $100 million deficit in FY26, PRT would need a $117 million infusion of state funding – with compounding annual increases – to support current service levels for the next decade. This would allow PRT to cover expenses and account for rising costs.” Elsewhere on the site, PRT issued three warnings. The first was: “There is nothing left to cut from the budget but service.” The second was: “To avoid service cuts and drastic fare increases, the State must approve a budget that would enable PRT to maintain service while implementing modest fare increases. This would allow PRT to implement its Bus Line Redesign, provide the additional service required or the 2026 NFL Draft, and to ensure reliable service for all for the next decade.” The third was: “Without a permanent funding solution, PRT will be forced to take drastic steps to irreversibly shrink the system.”
There was also a report on the methodology used to determine which service would be cut and by how much (download below) and an interactive map showing all transit and paratransit service that would be eliminated or reduced.
Not a Surprise
Financial trouble was brewing for Pittsburgh’s transit as early as six months ago. On March 20, David C. Lester, Editor-in-Chief of our sibling publication Railway Track & Structures (RT&S) reported: “WESA, Pittsburgh’s National Public Radio station, reported this week that Pittsburgh Regional Transit is facing a severe financial crisis that will result in major service cuts to all of its services if it does not receive additional state funding. This includes complete elimination of 40 bus routes along with significant cuts on the agency’s light system (called the ‘T’), reductions in service on other bus routes and its paratransit service.”
The Philadelphia Story, Pittsburgh Style
The same political drama on which we recently reported played out in Pittsburgh, similarly to our description of the Philadelphia situation. The PRT Board approved a 35% service cut overall on June 27, to be implemented if the State did not step up to the plate. Harrisburg did not come up with transit funding, so Gov. Josh Shapiro later authorized PennDOT’s transfer of funds originally destined for the capital side of transit over to the operating side, to keep the state’s transit going for the next two years.
PRT reported the development on its website: “UPDATE: PennDOT has granted PRT approval to use up to $106.7 million in capital funding to support its operating budget. PRT will use this fudinng to plug a $100 million hole in its 2025-26 operating budget and use the remainder – plus a mix of state and local funding, and reserve funds – to stave off the proposed cuts for two years.”
Chris Porter reported that development for WESA on Sept. 16: “The approval came just one day after PRT requested the transfer. PRT’s board must amend its budget later this month accordingly, but the move makes it possible for the transit system to avoid a 35 percent service cut and a fare hike of 9%, both of which were slated to take place next February.” According to the report, PRT CEO Katherine Kellerman said in a statement: “I want to thank PennDOT for its quick review and acceptance of our request. This approval gives us the breathing room we need to protect our riders and keep our region moving.” Porter also explained why special approval was necessary: “Ordinarily, money in the capital fund is earmarked for investments in infrastructure projects. But state law does allow the state’s largest transit agencies to flex money to cover operating expenses. And PRT says that money – along with other local, federal, and reserve funds – would enable it to stave off cuts and fare increases for the agency’s 2026-27 fiscal year.”
Pittsburgh’s Faustian Bargain
Porter also reported: “PRT says the move might delay some capital projects – though not those needed to assure the system’s safety. And transit activists and local officials say it’s little more than a stopgap measure that wouldn’t be necessary if the state provided regular funding for transit.” So, the comments that applied to SEPTA in my previous report apply to Pittsburgh’s transit, too. As with SEPTA, it is difficult to see how PRT had a choice. Delaying capital projects is not good, but the riders suffering a severe loss of mobility would have had strong negative consequences for them and the local economy.
In one regard, Pittsburghers came out better than Philadelphians. They did not have to accept a large fare increase as part of the deal, as SEPTA’s riders did. In addition, when the Railway Age crew and other attendees gather in Pittsburgh, they will be able to concentrate on the intended topics of light rail and similar transit, without the distraction of an impending huge reduction in their host city’s transit.
