Statement
before Glenn A. Walsh
Allegheny County Council:
Port Authority Proposal
To Waste $2
Million Telephone: 412-561-7876
By
Abandonment of Electronic Mail: < gawalsh@planetarium.cc >
Never-Used Rail Yard Internet Web
Site: < https://andrewcarnegie2.tripod.com/transit
>
2004
October 27
Good afternoon. I am Glenn A.
Walsh of
In the 1980s, as part of the
Stage I Light Rail Transit project, the Port Authority of Allegheny County
constructed a seven-track rail car
storage yard, at Penn Station, Downtown, for the storage of light rail
vehicles in the middle of the day. In this way, time and electricity would not have to be wasted moving these
light rail vehicles to South Hills Village after morning rush-hours, and then
back Downtown for afternoon rush-hours.
According to information PAT
provided me, from a Pennsylvania Right-to-Know Law request, the cost to the taxpayers of building this
seven-track rail yard was about $2 million. The problem is that, after more
than 15 years, PAT has never used this
rail yard. And now, with the proposed construction of the Convention Center
rail line, PAT proposes to abandon the
Penn Station rail line and this Mid-Day Rail Yard. If this rail yard is
abandoned, it will mean the complete waste of $2 million of taxpayers’ money.
I addressed
the Port Authority Board regarding this issue on April 23. The PAT Board
Chairman indicated that the Board would consider my comments at the May Board
meeting. This did not happen, and the PAT
Board has never publicly discussed this issue. Instead, I received a letter
from PAT Chief Executive Officer Paul Skoutelas giving me several excuses why
the Port Authority can not keep this rail yard. However, he did not address the fact that abandonment of the rail yard will mean
the complete waste of $2 million of taxpayers’ money!
In June, I
attempted to address the PAT Board, to respond to Mr. Skoutelas’ letter. My second request to
address the PAT Board was denied. When I
claimed that the PAT Board was in violation of the Sunshine Act, I received
a letter from
the PAT legal counsel indicating that there is a loophole in the Sunshine Act that does not require the Port Authority
Board to entertain comment from the public!
In my April 23
address, I proposed ways the Port Authority could use the rail yard, while
still constructing the Convention Center rail line. The Port Authority claims
that physical limitations preclude the future use of the rail yard. It is my
view that the Port Authority has
purposely designed the Convention Center rail line in such a way, so that the
rail yard can not be used—and they can get rid of a $2 million embarrassment
that has never been used.
Of course, I cannot go into
great detail in just five minutes today. Attached to this statement is a copy
of my
statement to the PAT Board on April 23, which includes more details.
This evening, when the Port
Authority comes before you for their annual budget presentation, I am sure the
current financial crisis will be the major topic of discussion. The Port
Authority’s position is that they require some type of dedicated funding
stream, to prevent such crises from recurring each year. And, I agree!
Statement Before Allegheny
County Council 2004
October 27 Page 2 of 2
However, there are a lot of
people in this State, and in the General Assembly, who philosophically oppose
dedicated funding for anybody. They fear that when an agency is guaranteed a
certain amount of money each year, this agency will no longer strictly watch
expenditures. With the proposal of the Port Authority to waste $2 million of
taxpayers’ money by abandoning the Penn Station Rail Yard, I am very
sympathetic to the perceived problems of dedicated funding.
Dedicated funding to the Port
Authority, or other agencies, can be efficient and effective, if there is very
strong public oversight of the agency’s operation—even if that means some
“micromanaging” of the agency by officials representing the interests of the
taxpayers. It is clear to me that the Port Authority bureaucracy will not
restrict expenditures on its own, without such strong public oversight.
As I said, despite assurances
to the contrary by Port Authority Board Chairman John Brooks, the Port
Authority Board has never publicly discussed my April 23 statement. And, I am
no longer permitted to address the PAT Board on this issue. PAT Management has
told the Board that they cannot use the Penn Station Rail Yard, and, defacto,
the Board has rubber-stamped the wishes of PAT Management.
This does not show strong
public oversight of Port Authority finances. I ask that this Council do what is
necessary to install strong public oversight of the Port Authority, which will
assure taxpayers that dedicated transit funding will be properly spent.
I also ask that this Council
investigate the Penn Station Rail Yard matter and prevent the complete waste of $2 million of taxpayers’ money.
Thank you.
gaw
