They’re back at it again: trying to use public dollars to build luxury transportation for wealthy developers.

After a disastrous first attempt at a final public meeting for the Mon Oakland Connector project, the City’s Department of Mobility and Infrastructure, the Universities and the foundations that own Hazelwood Green are holding a second meeting on Thursday, October 29th, 6-8pm.

Residents who live in Hazelwood, Greenfield, the Run, Oakland, and Squirrel Hill, and any taxpayers in the City of Pittsburgh who understand the importance of equity and efficiency in public investments needs to join.

We are asking stakeholders (City residents, organizational representatives, Mon-Oakland corridor neighborhood residents, transit riders, CMU and Pitt students, renters and homeowners) to speak up during the public meeting Q&A portion or in the zoom chat. We ask that you introduce yourself and share why you are a stakeholder, then lay out your concerns or the needs that you see should be uplifted instead of the MOC shuttle roadway.

Instead of investing millions in the Mon Oakland Connector roadway, the City, Universities, and Foundation Partners should invest in a true community-generated transportation plan.

The project will cost about $25 million that that the city will pay to build the road through the park, then the foundation and university partners will pay an additional $16+ million to operate a short-term shuttle.

Instead of sinking millions of dollars into this ineffective project, these entities should fund the community’s Our Money, Our Solutions proposal to extend the 75 bus service into Hazelwood.

Why is the Mon Oakland Connector so bad exactly?

1. The MOC shuttle fails as a transportation project.

The Mon-Oakland Shuttle is projected to carry 180 passengers a day, primarily to two destinations– Carnegie Mellon University and Hazelwood Green, at an extraordinary cost per trip. The Mon-Oakland Connector will also be obsolete almost at its start: The shuttle’s full daily ridership capacity of 180 riders will hardly mitigate the proposed travel demand to Hazelwood Green, which is anticipated to be 20,413 trips by 2028, and 61,000 trips by 2060. That means no relief for Hazelwood, Greenfield and Oakland residents on the increased congestion and air quality issues that will only worsen as Hazelwood Green builds out.

And City residents don’t just need to travel between Hazelwood Green and CMU! By contrast, extending the 75 bus service would create new, direct connections from Hazelwood to the Southside (read: food, jobs), to the whole of Oakland (read: healthcare, jobs), Shadyside, East Liberty, Bakery Square, Morningside and Aspinwall.

The travel time on the 75 between Hazelwood and Oakland would be just as fast as the proposed shuttle. It could be implemented tomorrow. It would serve thousands of residents rather than a few hundred. And because the service would be run by Port Authority, it would be sustainable, affordable, publicly-run and fully accessible. Almono Partners could even pay for the 75 buses to be electric buses, and it would STILL be cheaper than funding the Mon-Oakland shuttle “pilot” phase.

2. Projects like this cause gentrification and displacement.

Yesterday, The City’s Department of Mobility and Infrastructure (DOMI)’s Director Karina Ricks compared the Mon-Oakland Connector to the Atlanta Beltline and Bloomingdale Trail in Chicago. These projects and similar trigger gentrification and displacement in low-income neighborhoods and in neighborhoods with a majority of people of color.

3. The MOC is the single-most expensive transportation corridor investment that the City is making, while the City is experiencing a record $100 million dollar budget shortfall.

The City does not have the resources to address critical resident needs during a on-going public health and economic emergency, let alone fund a luxury microtransit pilot project.

4. The City’s public process for the Mon-Oakland Connector has been abysmal.

The “final” virtual public meeting on the Mon-Oakland Connector shuttle roadway and the shuttle service will also be the first time that the public has seen the shuttle proposal. And this Monday, DOMI’s Director Ricks said in the Post Gazette that “most of the ‘hard engineering’ for the city work has been completed. The public still can have a say on the landscaping, lights and elements that will be included in park recreation areas.

‘There is certainly much on the table for input,’ [Ricks] said. ‘This is the opportunity the neighborhood has to weigh in.'”

Weighing in on “landscaping and lighting” is not what public engagement looks like. For the last five years, residents in Four Mile Run and Hazelwood have raised concerns and questions about the need, the harm and the benefits about running an autonomous shuttle, building a $23 million dollar bike trail, then building a roadway for a manned CMU to Hazelwood Green shuttle through Schenley Park. For more about the City’s evolving project descriptions, and community opposition, check out this WESA piece from March.

5. Building the shuttle roadway through Schenley Park and Sylvan Avenue will diminish our limited City green space and recreational areas, and will likely reduce the efficacy of the Four Mile Run flood remediation effort.

The project calls for the clear cutting of 900 trees, mostly in the Panther Hollow portion of Schenley Park. There has been no published analysis of how adding the non-permeable surface of the shuttle roadway would affect the desperately needed floodwater relief in the corridor. The Mon-Oakland Connector roadway will also substantially diminish the size of the soccer field in Junction Hollow.

6. Running shuttles along the Junction Hollow commuter bike path and next to the playing field puts users at risk.

Many cyclists consider the Mon-Oakland Connector a degradation of the existing connection between Downtown, Oakland and Southside because the MOC will require cyclists to share the commuter path with motorized vehicles.

There are, however, important pedestrian and trail improvements that residents have fought for and won over the course of the last five years, including the pedestrian tunnel to Panther Hollow Lake, and addressing the dangerous “Chute” connection (the Eliza Furnace trail along Second Ave from Swinburne St. to Saline St). These improvements should not be held hostage to the shuttle roadway. Finally, we need to ensure that members of the Hazelwood/Four Mile Run/Panther Hollow/Greenfield community get to stay to enjoy these improvements, and that they are not pushed out to make way for them.

We are Calling You to Action!

We are asking stakeholders (City residents, organizational representatives, Mon-Oakland corridor neighborhood residents, transit riders, CMU and Pitt students, renters and homeowners) to speak up during the public meeting Q&A portion or in the zoom chat. We ask that you introduce yourself and share why you are a stakeholder, then lay out your concerns or the needs that you see should be uplifted instead of the MOC shuttle roadway.

The LAST VIRTUAL PUBLIC MEETING for the Mon Oakland Connector shuttle roadway project is scheduled for Thursday, 10/29, 6-8pm

Transit equity means that public transportation investments must benefit people, not corporate interests.

For more than two years, Pittsburghers for Public Transit has been advocating alongside residents for investment in a community-driven plan –Our Money, Our Solutions – instead of the City’s Mon Oakland Connector (MOC) shuttle roadway to connect Hazelwood and Oakland.

The MOC is a City-led project costing $20+ million of your tax dollars to build a shuttle road through Schenley Park – along what is now a car-free bike path and an expansive playing field used by youth sports groups and others from around the city.

The privately-operated shuttles proposed for the roadway would cost an additional $16+ million of foundation funding for a trial period, and would principally serve to connect CMU & Pitt in Oakland with the new Hazelwood Green development site.

Instead, Our Money, Our Solutions asks that those funds be reallocated to expand existing bus service, sidewalks, and bike paths between Hazelwood, Greenfield, and Oakland. This community-driven plan connects more people to more jobs, grocery stores, healthcare, and amenities than the MOC – all for significantly less money.

1,000+ residents and 25 community organizations from within the project corridor have signed as supporters of the Our Money. Our Solutions. alternative transportation plan. You think that would be enough to move the Mayor and City Council to rethink the MOC…. but sadly, that is not the case.

The City’s Department of Mobility and Infrastructure (DOMI), CMU/Pitt, and the Foundation partners that own Hazelwood Green are plowing ahead with this project – despite the fact that:

• Pittsburgh is facing a$100 million dollar budget shortfall due to the pandemic, meaning the City is lacking resources to address critical resident needs to manage the ongoing pandemic and economic crisis.
• At $20-23 million dollars, this is the single biggest transportation corridor investment that the City of Pittsburgh is contributing to, and the shuttle service is projected to provide 180 passenger trips a day. Contrast that with the Downtown to Oakland Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridor construction, which will provide between 37,000-50,000 passenger trips a day. 
• Expanded bus service will provide faster, more effective, and more affordable connections to and from Oakland and elsewhere for our most vulnerable residents.
• This project will be obsolete almost as soon as it is built. By 2028, Hazelwood Green is anticipating 20,413 total projected trips to that specific site. By contrast, the maximum daily capacity of the shuttle service is less than 1,000 riders. By 2060, Hazelwood Green is anticipating 61,000 total trips to the site.  
• There is no guarantee that the cost of riding these privately-operated shuttles will be affordable to low-income residents for the long term.
• There is no plan to protect renters in Hazelwood and Greenfield from the increased housing costs that large-scale development projects like the MOC inevitably bring.
• People are relying more than ever on our public parks for health and recreation.
• Running shuttles along our commuter bike path and next to our playing field puts users at risk.

We demand that our money be spent on affordable, effective, and equitable public transportation solutions for the residents of Pittsburgh today.

We will not let the Mayor and City Council hand our money and our parks over to developers. Please join us for the next meeting on Wednesday, Oct. 21 from 6 pm to 8 pm, where DOMI will present the latest design plans for the MOC, demand equitable investments.

More ways that you can learn about the Our Money. Our Solutions. transportation plan, the Mon Oakland Connector, and the resident-led fight for transit equity to connect Hazelwood & Oakland:

• RSVP to join the final virtual public meeting for the Mon Oakland Connector project.
• Give feedback now on the MOC via the public input website
• Sign the petition and read the community-generated Our Money. Our Solutions. transportation plan.
• Read the People’s Audit of the Mon Oakland Connector published by Tech4Society & Pittsburghers for Public Transit
• Get up to speed with this WESA article,‘A Moving Target’: Getting To The Heart Of Pittsburgh’s Mon-Oakland Connector Plan and this City Paper article, Report says traditional buses would serve Hazelwood corridor better than autonomous shuttles
• Watch Dean Bog video on The Run in his Neighborhoods series
• Scan through Junction Coalition’s website to read right-to-know requests and an in-depth history of the project and its proponents.

All public utilities and essential services have started assistance programs to support low-income residents survive the pandemic and economic depression.

The Port Authority must follow their lead and implement an emergency low-income fare program now.

Allegheny County residents have been hit hard by COVID-19 and the ensuing economic depression.

The data included in the recently released report, “No Greater Need, No Greater Opportunity: The Time for COVID-19 Fare Relief for Low-Income Pittsburghers is Now”  shows that the majority of people riding transit during COVID-19 are riding to access essential needs like food, jobs, and healthcare. And that the people riding transit are disproportionately Black and Low-income.

Moreover, the data shows that full-fares during an economic depression are harming Black and Low-income Pittsburghers and keeping them stranded from accessing life’s essentials.

Sign the petition now to support a COVID Fare Relief program to support access to food, healthcare, housing and jobs.

---

Volunteer to help connect with transit riders and collect support for this initiative

Allegheny County residents have been hit hard by COVID-19 and the ensuing economic depression. Nearly every other public utility and essential service has programs to ensure all people can access their life-sustaining resources.

Transit is no different.

Port Authority must start an emergency fare relief program now.

Click here to sign the petition for emergency COVID fare relief. And add your name below to help circulate the petition at transit stops. PPE will be provided, and signatures will be collected verbally so there will be no contact or sharing pens. Make sure to come with a full charge on your cellphone and an extra battery if you have it. We will also have paper petitions if you need to use them. Please contact us with any other access needs or questions – info@pittsburghforpublictransit.org

PPT releases a new report that calls on Port Authority to implement a COVID-19 Fare Relief program, for the lives of low-income riders and the health of the transit system.

On a sunny Tuesday, PPT members rallied under the colorful MLK mural near the Wilkinsburg Busway Station to release our new report, “No Greater Need, No Greater Opportunity: The Time for COVID-19 Fare Relief for Low-Income Riders is Now.” This report calls for Port Authority to implement an emergency policy. Noting that the fastest, cheapest way to do so would be to allow SNAP-eligible riders to show their EBT-ACCESS cards in place of fare payment. It analyzes months of pandemic ridership data, and was a collective research effort by more than a dozen PPT volunteers.

This report shows that the majority of people riding transit right now are Black, low-income, and traveling to access essential needs like food, healthcare, and jobs. It also shows that bus lines that run through predominantly Black & low-income neighborhoods saw the largest decreases in ridership when Port Authority re-implemented full-fare payment in June. Fares are keeping low-income riders from taking transit to access essential needs during a global pandemic and economic depression.

But along with the great need for this program, the report demonstrates why a fare relief measure is an important opportunity for the Port Authority. Ridership is at a historic low, between 30-35% of pre-pandemic levels. A COVID Fare Relief program could help stabilize and restore 9% of its ridership immediately. Moreover, because there is excess capacity on buses and a number of unique COVID-related funding sources, there is no more affordable time for this policy to be implemented. The Port Authority’s commitment to redistribute transit service to high-ridership lines during November’s service changes is an important step towards equity, and to help ensure that this policy would not require Port Authority to incur increased operating costs.

For the lives of low-income riders and the health of the transit system, Port Authority must implement an emergency low-income fare now.

Key Findings from Pittsburghers For Public Transit’s new report, “No Greater Need, No Greater Opportunity: The Time for COVID-19 Fare Relief for Low-Income Riders is Now.”

• Black residents and low-income residents represent a disproportionately high percentage of transit ridership during COVID-19.
• Transit routes serving Black neighborhoods have seen steep ridership losses from the reinstatement of full fares.
• Port Authority Transit ridership is at an all-time low (down 65-70%), and an emergency low-income fare program could allow PAAC to quickly regain 9% of its ridership.
• Port Authority can implement the program with little to no increase in operating costs by reallocating service to high-ridership routes (which Port Authority announced it would begin doing in November).
• Unique revenue sources that could cover the estimated annual fare revenue loss of $4M-$8M include: The $141M in CARES Act Funding received by the Port Authority, Cares Act Funding received by the County and/or State, philanthropic partner support for emergency COVID relief efforts.

Roundup of Coverage from Rally & Report Release

• See PPT’s Facebook Live broadcast of the rally and report release.
• “Advocates call for emergency, low-income fare program for Allegheny Co.’s public transit riders“, by Tom Lisi at the Pennsylvania Capital Star
• “Report from transit advocates says reduced fares can increase ridership during pandemic“, by Ryan Deto at the Pittsburgh City Paper
• “Report: Route changes, free fares for low-income bus riders would help Port Authority system“, by Kate Giammarise at the Pittsburgh Post Gazette
• “Advocates Call On Port Authority To Create Low-Income Fare Program“, by Kiley Koscinski at WESA
• DISK Institute Pittsburgh News Line on KDKA Radio 1020

Photos From The Rally!

Pittsburgh PA – On Tuesday, September 22, Pittsburghers for Public Transit (PPT) published a new report detailing why the Port Authority should immediately implement a transit fare relief program for low-income riders titled “No Greater Need, No Greater Opportunity: The Time for COVID-19 Fare Relief for Low-Income Riders is Now.”

This new report lays out how collecting full fares during the pandemic is disproportionately harming Allegheny County’s low-income and Black residents, and preventing these residents from accessing basic needs including groceries, healthcare and jobs. Emergency fare relief is in line with measures being taken by other public utility providers, to ensure that connections to critical services are not cut off in the midst of an unprecedented economic and public health crisis. 

Port Authority has stated that they are interested in a long-term low-income fare program. There is no better time to pilot its implementation. Transit agencies are facing an existential ridership crisis, with no clear pathway to recovering the 65-70% of pre-COVID-19 ridership that has stopped taking transit. Allowing SNAP-eligible riders to show their EBT/ACCESS cards to board could provide an immediate ridership boost without incurring increased operating costs. 

In May, PPT mobilized 31 riders and organizational speakers to call for this COVID-related intervention at Port Authority’s board meeting, when it became clear that the agency was planning to reinstate full fare collection after a 2-month hiatus. 

19 local and state political leaders followed suit with a letter to Port Authority calling for fare relief for low-income riders, and Allegheny County Council passed a Will of Council advocating for the measure.

Key Findings from Pittsburghers For Public Transit’s new report, “No Greater Need, No Greater Opportunity: The Time for COVID-19 Fare Relief for Low-Income Riders is Now.”

• Black residents and low-income residents represent a disproportionately high percentage of transit ridership during COVID-19.
• Transit routes serving Black neighborhoods have seen steep ridership losses from the reinstatement of full fares.
• Port Authority Transit ridership is at an all-time low (down 65-70%), and an emergency low-income fare program could allow PAAC to quickly regain 9% of its ridership.
• Port Authority can implement the program with little to no increase in operating costs by reallocating service to high-ridership routes (which Port Authority announced it would begin doing in November).
• Unique revenue sources that could cover the estimated annual fare revenue loss of $4M-$8M include: The $141M in CARES Act Funding received by the Port Authority, Cares Act Funding received by the County and/or State, philanthropic partner support for emergency COVID relief efforts.

Listening to feedback and moving resources to support core riders, this is what transit equity is all about.

In a massive win that riders have been fighting for since the start of COVID-19, the Port Authority announced on Thursday that it would redistribute service from low ridership lines to better serve riders in high-ridership communities!

This is a huge victory that riders in heavily transit-reliant communities have been calling for since the start of the new COVID capacity limits on buses (10 riders per 35-foot bus, 15 riders per 45-foot bus, and 25 passengers per 60-foot articulated bus or a light rail car). These capacity limits are important safety measures, but without increasing service frequency they leave riders in the most transit-reliant communities at the curb – while buses in low-ridership communities run empty.

The Port Authority’s decision also lays the groundwork for Port Authority to pilot an emergency low-income fare program, which riders have also been calling for since the start of the pandemic. High ridership transit routes during COVID-19 are serving predominantly low-income communities, in many cases without access to alternative means of transportation.

The people who are riding transit during this pandemic are the Port Authority’s core riders. Pittsburghers for Public Transit applauds the Port Authority for supporting these core riders and building greater transit equity.

---

News Roundup:

• KDKA TV: Port Authority Plans To Redistribute Service To Meet Demand
• Post Gazette: Port Authority lays out plans to improve bus service as COVID-19 caused missed trips

COVID has threatened transit riders and our transit system like never before. To get both back on their feet, Port Authority must implement an emergency low-income fare now!

Join PPT to release a new report authored by our members that lays out the case for why Port Authority can’t afford to wait on piloting a low-income fare program. This is exactly the action that riders need during this economic depression, and what Port Authority needs as its ridership hits historic lows. COVID Fare Relief Now!

Rally & Release of New Report
Tuesday, 9/22, 11:15-12:15
Wilkinsburg Busway Station, at South Ave & Hay St.

Masks & Social Distance Required. Event will also be live-streamed with Closed Captioning via this Google Hangout Link: meet.google.com/zzh-fbnz-qwnFor a ride or for any access needs, call PPT at 412-626-7353

#TrustRidersFundTransit is on October 6th is organized by Transit Riders of the US Together (TRUST), an emerging coalition of Transit Rider Unions from across the country

On October 6th, transit riders across the country will call on Congress and their local agencies to #TrustRidersFundTransit! This day to action will pressure elected officials to pass $32B in relief for public transit agencies and give riders a real say in determining how these dollars are used.

Local advocates in 10 cities across the country will tie these national demands to local campaigns to decriminalize public transit, improve rider engagement, and increase service. Check this blog to find out how to get involved with #TrustRidersFundTransit on October 6th

Take local action with Pittsburghers for Public Transit, 4pm 10/6, downtown at Sixth and Smithfield

Help PPT launch a petition for low-income fares on October 6th for the #TrustRidersFundTransit national transit rider day-of-action!

And tweet with the following hashtags to tell your elected officials and local agency to trust riders and fund transit!
#TrustRidersFundTransit
#RideWithUs
#TransitIsEssential

The Port Authority Board of Directors has a public engagement problem.

The Port Authority’s Board of Directors is the Agency’s highest decision-making body. They meet monthly (with the exception of August) to make major decisions about the agency’s finances, governance, performance oversight, technology, planning, and stakeholder engagement. (…yes, pretty much everything that happens at Port Authority must be set in motion by the Board of Directors.)

The Board meetings are open opportunities for the public to give input and feedback to the board. This is a vital component of operations for any public agency: the public must be part of the conversation about the decisions these public servants are making.  

However, without PPT’s work bringing riders to the Board of Director’s table, would you want to take a guess at how many people have given public comment to the board in 2020? The answer is 2. 

Without PPT’s efforts, Port Authority’s Board of Directors would have only heard from 2 people in 2020, the year that has devastated transit riders and the transit system (one a paid staff member of a local community group and the other a retired Port Authority Employee). This is unacceptable for a Public Transit Authority that carried over 200,000 riders/day before the pandemic, and nearly 75,000 riders/day since COVID.

The Port Authority needs to alter its approach on how it conducts its Board meetings if it wants to measure up to peer agencies and its own claimed value of public engagement. Following a big mobilization of riders that PPT organized to speak to the board about the effects of COVID-19 on transit, PPT worked with riders to build this list of recommendations for Port Authority’s decision-making. Many of these practices are in use by other public agencies in Allegheny County. Riders are experts in transit, and can contribute to building a transit system that is truly responsive to everyone’s needs.

---

PPT Recommendations for Improving Port Authority’s Board Engagement Policies // Drafted June-September 2020

Promotion & Accessibility

• Information about the upcoming meetings and the details for registration to speak should be shared monthly via the Port Authority social media outlets. This information should also be advertised on transit vehicles. This should include accessibility information and contact info for requesting accommodations.
• There is currently no information on the online registration pages providing contact information or steps to request accommodations. A contact number, access provisions, and a space for attendees to specify other access needs. 
  • Resource: See the ADA Tool Kit for Local and State Governments on the obligation to provide notice on the public’s rights under the ADA. 
• Port Authority should have closed captioning on the video, and the ability to have ASL video interpretation and audio interpretation in other languages.  This should be explicitly publicized on all media advertising Board meetings along with contact information to request additional accommodations.
  • Best Practice: Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon (TriMet) provides meeting materials in alternative formats, sign language interpretation or other communication aids at meetings upon request at least 48 hours in advance of a meeting. 
• The Board meeting should be streamed online in real-time via social media and on the Port Authority website. 
  • Best Practice: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (METRO) live streams meetings on its website and allows online public comment as the meeting is progressing. 
  • Best Practice: Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority (SORTA), Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (RTA), and Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) livestream their meetings to facebook, youtube, and their websites.
• Avenues other than Board meetings should be available for riders to contact the Board members. 
  • Best Practice: San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency that operates Muni has a phone number and mailing address listed on the website to contact the office of the Board of Directors. In addition, the public can contact the Board via an email address provided on the website regarding items expected to be on the Board’s agenda. 

Scheduling & Attendance

• At least one Board Meeting per quarter should be held after regular work hours to enable robust public participation.
  • Best Practice: SORTA organizes Board Meetings at 8:30 a.m. or 6:00 p.m as per a fixed schedule to allow for greater participation. 
• There should only be one form for signing up to attend and to give testimony. It should be displayed prominently on the Port Authority’s homepage. Registrants should also receive a confirmation email so that they are certain that they have signed up correctly by the deadline.
  • Best Practice:  Due to COVID, Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) is posting Webex link and call-in information on the website for virtual meetings along with the agenda for the Board Committee and Board meetings. Public comments can be made via telephone or email prior to meeting. The registration link for attending provides an option for either attending the meeting or providing a testimony. 
• The public should be able to register to attend and to speak through the Port Authority customer service line. The Port Authority customer service could simply fill out the online registration form on the behalf of the caller.
  • Best practice: Due to COVID,  Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) is allowing the public to register via an online form and phone to provide pre-recorded comments. Once registered MTA provides details about how and when to record the comments. Thirty minutes of comments are played at the beginning of meetings. All comments are delivered to the MTA Board. 

Public Comment & Participation

• Shorten and/or eliminate the pre-registration requirement for public comment. Currently, the only way for the public to speak their comment to the board is to register to speak via a unique link on the Port Authority’s website 5-business days in advance of the Board Meeting, and then attend that meeting the 4th Friday of the month at 9:30am to await the public comment period at the end of the meeting. This is a very high burden for public agencies both locally and nationally and must be changed to allow greater public participation. 
  • Best Practice: Pittsburgh City Council allows citizens 3-minutes of public comment if they register ahead of the meeting, or 1-minutes of comment to anyone in attendance as time allows.
  • Best Practice: Public can make comments at the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit) Board meetings by signing up prior to the start of the meeting as long as the items are on that day’s agenda for final action. Written comments not related to specific agenda items can be placed in a general comments tray available in the Boardroom. 
• People should be able to submit written testimony and video in advance of the meeting, which will be read to the Board and recorded in the notes.
  • Best practice: Due to COVID, Sound Transit is asking public comments to be sent via email. Comments received up to one hour before the meeting will be provided to Board members electronically during the meeting. Comments received after that deadline will be provided to Board members after the meeting.
  • Best Practice: Due to COVID, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) is allowing comments via email, phone, and video selfie that have to be submitted 24 hours in advance of a Board Meeting. 
  • Best Practice: The SEPTA board has coordinated with the Philly Transit Riders Union to allow the Union to submit video testimony prior to the meeting that is then played for the board and recorded in the meeting notes. (Click to 28:10 of this Periscope video to see how this worked at their Operations Budget Hearings earlier this year)
• Public comment should be allowed at the beginning of Board Meetings & Board Committee meetings to allow for consideration of the issues being put before the Board.
  • Best Practice: Numerous local public agencies hear public comment at the start of their agenda; Allegheny County Council, Allegheny County Housing Authority, Allegheny County Board of Health, Pittsburgh City Council, Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority, Urban Redevelopment Authority and many others.
  • Best Practice: RTA Board of Trustee Meetings have public comments on agenda items prior to various committees providing their reports. At present, public comments happen through phone-in with no need for prior registration. 
• Stakeholders should also be able to provide comments and ask clarifying questions at the Board Meetings and Board Committee Meetings.
  • Best Practice: RTA Board of Trustees meetings  allow the public to ask questions or make comments on non-agenda items at the end of the meeting. At present, comments happen through phone-in with no need for prior registration.  
• If there is a petition with a significant number of signatures, the Port Authority Board should hold a public hearing specifically about the petition.
  • Best Practice: City of Pittsburgh Public Hearing guidelines. A public hearing can be called on a topic with the signature of 25 residents. Article from The Incline about how to petition for a public hearing
• Rules and tips for giving public comments should be posted on the same page that you register, including information about the amount of permitted testimony time for individuals versus organizations. The Port Authority’s current Board Presentation Policy needs to be updated, as it includes dead links, and old, inaccurate information. 
  • Best practice: Sound Transit has Rules and Tips for public comments on the same page where information on public comments during Board meetings is provided.
• The Port Authority should remove the restriction that their current Board Presentation Policy places on the number of members from an organization who are allowed to address the board during a single meeting. A citizen may be a member of an organization, but they may not be speaking on the organization’s behalf.

Transparency, Accountability, & Rider Representation

• The Board should keep track of its progress towards addressing rider questions, comments, and concerns. This information should be publicly available and regularly reviewed by the Board.
• Board seats should be filled by people who are regular riders of the Port Authority system, some Board members should be entirely transit reliant.
  • Best Practice: NJ Transit in 2018 updated its bylaws to expand the number of Board members from 8 to 13 to allow for a public member who must be an NJ Transit train, bus or light rail rider and four public members with transportation policy experience.
  • Best Practice: New York State Senate passed legislation requiring transit authorities to seat at least two members who are entirely transit relient. The Assembly is considering similar legislation.
  • Best Practice: The Metropolitan Council (which oversees Metro Transit in Minneapolis-St.Paul) has a Transportation Accessibility Advisory Committee. At least half of the committee members must be certified as being eligible for ADA paratransit and be active users of public transportation in the metro area.
• There should be a number of rider-elected seats on the Board to ensure that rider interests and perspectives are included in decision-making at our public transit agency.
  • Best Practices: In California, both Bay Area Rapid Transit and Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District have Boards of Drectors that are entirely elected by residents of the areas that the transit systems serve.
  • Best Practices: Just like on the Boards of Credit Unions, Co-Ops, and other private companies who have their Boards elected by its stakeholders, Port Authority  must allow its “customers” a say in its leadership.
• There should be an annual published audit of transit usage by each Port Authority Board member, using the data from their CONNECT cards. 
  • Best practice: Board members of the MTA in New York City receive free transit cards and their usage is published every year.
• The Port Authority Board should work with TransitCenter to hold regular training and workshops for its members.
  • Resource: “TransitCenter is working to make transit agencies more accountable, attuned to best practices, and responsive to rider needs.”

More reading about Transit Agency Board reform:

Mobility Lab’s “Transit boards should represent their biggest investors: riders”
TransitCenter’s “Who Rules Transit?”

---

COVID-19 has shown that there has never been a greater need to listen authentically to the people who are riding transit. They are experts on the system and together we can build a system that works for all.