“We’re talking about for less than $5, we’re going to give people a citation up to $300,” Brandi Fisher of the Alliance for Police Accountability said during a presentation about the policy before training began. “We’ve already seen across America where very small incidents can lead to someone’s death.”

from the Post Gazette article by Ed Blazina about our meeting “Don’t Criminalize Transit Riders!”

Sign the petition HERE to voice community concerns about the new “proof of payment” policy proposed for the T.

The current policy for fare enforcement is here.

Port Authority police page is here.

Port Authority is holding BRT community education and feedback meetings in

Oakland: June 19+28
Uptown: June 20
Greenfield and Squirrel Hill: June 27
Downtown: June 28

Come out and give your input on station location, and find out your how bus service in your community will be impacted. Folks that ride the 61a, 61b, 61c, 71a, 71c and 71d could have less frequent service and required transfers.

Residents of Regent Square, Braddock, Elizabeth and Duquesne could lose their one-seat ride to downtown and are encouraged to show up to share concerns.

More details about the meetings here.

PPT sees opportunities here, but still has a lot of questions and concerns.

-What will the schedules look like for the local service on the 61’s and 71’s? How often will they come?

-Why aren’t you having community meetings in the communities that will be getting less frequent service and the places that will lose one-seat rides to downtown (Duquesne, Braddock, Regent Square, Elizabeth)?

-Are transfers going to be free?

-How are you going to handle the curb-to-curb drop off for Access vehicles?

-Where are you going to come up with 230 million dollars in local money, if the federal money is not available?

A coalition of groups concerned about Port Authority’s plan to use armed police officers for fare enforcement is turning up the heat against the policy.

The coalition began gathering signatures on petitions at light-rail stations Wednesday and posted a petition online to collect more signatures. In addition, there will be a public meeting at 6 p.m. June 15 at 1 Smithfield St., Downtown, for people to air concerns about the policy.

“We are responding to concerns from residents,” said Gabriel McMorland, incoming director of the Thomas Merton Center. The coalition also includes Pittsburghers for Public Transit, Casa San Jose and the Alliance for Police Accountability.

The groups say they fear the system could result in racial profiling, a criminal record for not paying a $2.50 fare and problems including possible deportation for undocumented immigrants. They want nonpayment of fares handled as a civil matter enforced by unarmed fare compliance officers, with unpaid citations turned over to a collection agency.

Article by Ed Blazina in Post Gazette 

PPT was recently referenced in a New York Times article about Pittsburgh’s relationship to Uber.

from the article:

In January, Pittsburghers for Public Transit, a nonprofit representing bus drivers and riders, organized a #DeleteUber social media campaign and a street demonstration against the company’s decision to continue airport service when taxi drivers had halted rides to protest the Trump administration’s travel ban.

Molly Nichols, executive director of the group, said Uber had called to ask her to cancel the protest, which ultimately went ahead.

“The warning signs about Uber’s questionable business practices were all over the place, and the mayor should have recognized that and worked harder to create a partnership that was more equitable,” Ms. Nichols said.

She added that there might be longer-term problems from autonomous vehicles, including automation’s effect on Uber’s 4,000 drivers in the city. Parking fees also make up about 15 percent of Pittsburgh’s revenue, and the city has not said how those funds would be replaced if fewer people owned and parked cars and used driverless services instead, she said.”

—

Representatives from PPT, ATU Local 85, and One PA had met with Mayor Peduto in April, and we shared various requests (see below). The Mayor was receptive and invited us to be part of the conversation about how to craft a “social contract” with private autonomous vehicle companies. If you’d like to be involved in this campaign, email: info@pittsburghforpublictransit.org

4.11.17

Dear Mayor Peduto,

In February, Uber CEO Travis Kalanick’s role on the Trump Economic Advisory Council and the company’s questionable response to the travel ban and to the subsequent NY Taxi Alliance drivers’ strike provoked serious concern about Uber’s role in our city. And in just this last month since the Pittsburgh Uber protest, allegations of pervasive sexual harassment of female engineers on the job and Kalanick’s own shameful treatment of drivers have surfaced. These issues are themselves enough to warrant serious reexamination about Uber’s relationship to Pittsburgh. However, we have additional on-going concerns about the company’s business practices and their harmful impacts on workers, riders, taxpayers and our city.

Uber does not disclose the data it is gathering around automated vehicles including safety information; they have flaunted state regulations and oversight in Pennsylvania and elsewhere, and have failed to pay fines owed; they continue to use public infrastructure without substantive financial return for the city; they allege that they have no driver “employees” and so they offer no employee benefits nor are drivers allowed to organize; their plans for automating vehicles will result in massive job losses of their own driver “partners” and good county transit worker jobs; and there are no just transition plans in place. These are just a few of a much larger list of problematic business practices at Uber that have been exposed in recent months.

We appreciate that you have been voicing similar concerns about the company, and that “if they are going to be involved in economic disruption, they have a moral obligation to society,” as you stated to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. We agree that it is appropriate and necessary to require that Uber be made to comply with several demands in exchange for their use of Pittsburgh public infrastructure. We suggest that Uber be required to:

1. Open source their data and algorithms

2. Share profit with the City from any sale of autonomous vehicle technology

3. Make it a condition of any autonomous vehicle technology sale that manufacturing of autonomous vehicle parts must be done in Pittsburgh

4. Create a democratically-controlled just transition fund for their drivers and other jobs that they will be displacing.

In addition, as taxpayers and concerned constituents, we are asking for the City to do the following:

1. Disclose the full extent of Uber’s relationship with the City and County.

2. Reveal all public resources being provided to the company, (for example, tax incentives, use of public roadways, etc.)

3. Analyze the possible impact of automated vehicle technology to the workforce, to traffic and congestion, to the environment, and public transit ridership.

4. Analyze the possible loss of City revenue from parking from automated vehicle technology.

5. Create a publicly-owned fund for workers and city/county residents that is produced by taxation on increased productivity from autonomous vehicles.

6. Evaluate publicly-owned and operated, unionized, accessible, equitable on-demand transit service options.

Pittsburgh was at a similar juncture 40 years ago with the automation of the steel industry; we have an opportunity with the benefit of hindsight to plan instead for a positive transition. A March 12th Post-Gazette article about the driverless future highlights some critical concerns: “‘Left unregulated, the popularity and affordability of driverless cars may have the opposite effect for cities by increasing congestion, encouraging sprawl and exacerbating growing inequalities,’ said Peter Glus of Arcadis in a statement. ‘Additionally, public agencies may face lower transit ridership, resulting in lost revenues from transit tickets, parking fees, traffic fines, and other once-reliable revenue sources.’ The rise of autonomous vehicles could also lead to greater unemployment among professional drivers while those with limited access to technology may not be able to take advantage of the services.”

We look forward to having a productive conversation about how we can ensure that decisions about our transportation systems equitably serve the residents of our City.

Sincerely,

Laura Wiens, aurallaura@gmail.com, Pittsburghers for Public Transit

Erin Kramer, erin@onepa.org, One Pennsylvania

Tom Conroy, tomconroy@hotmail.com, Amalgamated Transit Union Local 85

Port Authority released their fare enforcement policy:

Here is the coalition’s earlier request to meet with the Port Authority about the policy, including our specific requests. We think a policy with such significant impact on riders should be influenced by the public.

May 9^th 2017

Dear Ellen McLean and Jeff Letwin,

We understand that the Port Authority has decided to delay implementation of the proof of payment policy on the T, but this step is not sufficient. Our coalition is asking the agency to halt the implementation of the policy until it has gone through a legitimate public process. A policy with such significant ramifications should be influenced by public input. We expect the policy to include the following:

• The de-criminalization of fare evasion
  • Unpaid citations will not lead to criminal charges or jail time. Instead, a debt collector will be contacted
• The fare inspectors will not be armed police officers
• A model that encourages ridership rather than punishes fare evaders

• Extensive, annual training for fare inspectors and Port Authority police that includes
  • Cultural responsiveness
  • Preventing racial profiling
  • De-escalation
  • Interacting with people with mental health challenges and disabilities

The policy will explicitly state:

• The constitutional rights of all immigrants will be upheld.
• Port Authority police will not inquire about anyone’s immigration status
• The names and information of individuals who are cited will never be shared publicly or with Immigration and Customs Enforcement
• Port Authority police will not grant any ICE requests to detain individuals without a judicial warrant
  • If an individual’s name is run through the system, Port Authority police will not comply with ICE requests to hold an individual
  • If an individual’s name is run through the system and comes up as having an ICE warrant (rather than a judicial warrant), Port Authority police will not hold the individual for ICE

*holding an individual based on ICE’s request without a judicial warrant is unconstitutional

• Internal and external accountability measures must be in place for all fare inspectors and Port Authority police
• Port Authority police policies should be open and available on their website
• Police need to track data and share an annual report to the public (number of stops, reason person was stopped, location, race and age of person stopped, if stop equated with arrest or conviction)
• Port Authority police should not use dogs to attack people
• More inclusiveness and diversity in the Port Authority police’s hiring and promoting practices

We would like to meet and discuss these concerns and requests with you in the next 2 weeks and look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Chandana Cherukupalli, Molly Nichols, DéPree Hopkins, chandana@pittsburghforpublictransit.org, 718-309-0853, Pittsburghers for Public Transit

Christina Castillo, Gabriel McMorland, Christina@thomasmertoncenter.org, Thomas Merton Center

Monica Ruiz, Jeimy Sanchez Ruiz, ruizcsj@gmail.com, Casa San Jose

Brandi Fisher, Brandifisher33@gmail.com, Alliance for Police Accountability

cc:

Chief Executive of Allegheny County Rich Fitzgerald

Port Authority Director of Operations Bill Miller

Port Authority Communications Officer Jim Ritchie

Port Authority Police Chief Matt Porter

Port Authority board member Jennifer Liptak

A huge win for Mifflin Estates! Props to everyone who helped make this happen!

Port Authority says it will restore service to Mifflin Estates, use part surplus to balance proposed budget

by Ed Blazina, Pittsburgh Post Gazette

Starr Magwood has watched for more than five years as her neighbors at Mifflin Estates in West Mifflin have struggled to walk nearly a mile for bus service or nearly two miles to reach a grocery store along mostly narrow roads with no sidewalks.

That likely will end in September, when Port Authority extends service on Route 55 to the complex via Camp Hollow and Lebanon School roads. Nearly five years after eliminating the service due to budget problems, the agency announced Thursday it would extend seven-day service to the complex with 200 families.

“I am absolutely excited,” said Ms. Magwood, spokeswoman for a group that has been lobbying for bus service for more than a year. “Knowing that they will have reliable service coming will put a lot of people at ease.”

Molly Nichols of Pittsburghers for Public Transit, who has been working with the group, praised the residents for their persistence and Port Authority for extending service.

“We’re really happy that Port Authority has found a way to do this,” Ms. Nichols said. “That community really came together to push for this.”

Ms. Magwood called the resumption of service “a start,” noting that Route 55 provides mostly local service and residents will have to transfer to get to Downtown or Oakland. But it will provide direct access to grocery stores and other shopping at Century III Mall or Century Square Shopping Center.

“This was like a forgotten little place,” she said. “Now people will be able to start doing things — going to a doctor’s appointment or the store — without the stress of having to figure out how to get there.”

Amy Silbermann, senior analyst in the Port Authority’s department of planning and evaluation, told a committee meeting Thursday the agency evaluated 136 requests for new service or extensions of existing service. Most were rejected because the agency doesn’t have existing employees or vehicles to increase service at peak times and doesn’t have garage space to accommodate more vehicles.

The agency also will make two other route changes: extending Route 56 to the Penn State Greater Allegheny campus in McKeesport on weekends after weekday service proved popular, and changing Route 74 to provide a more direct connection between Squirrel Hill and Bakery Square.

The agency evaluates requests for service changes once a year as part of its budget process.

The authority’s proposed budget of $419.7 million presented to a board committee Thursday calls for using $4.4 million in surplus funds to balance it.

Pete Schenk, the agency’s chief financial officer, said the agency expects to end the current fiscal year June 30 with a surplus of about $11 million. The proposed budget is up about $22 million over the current year, which required using $1.9 million in surplus to balance it.

The committee also received a proposed capital budget of $133.4 million. That includes buying 70 new, 40-foot diesel buses, expanding a multi-modal station in McKeesport and contributing $2 million to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation’s plan to replace the Kenmawr Avenue Bridge in Rankin to accommodate a possible extension of the Martin Luther King Jr. East Busway.

The board is expected to vote on the budgets next month.

PPT is very pleased to announce that Laura Wiens has accepted our offer to become the PPT Director. She will start in mid-June, and Molly’s last day will be June 30th. Please join us in welcoming Laura in her new role!

Laura has been involved with Pittsburghers for Public Transit since 2013, and is a longtime member of the PPT Coordinating Committee. She is committed to growing Pittsburghers for Public Transit’s role as a beacon for community organizing, transit, and housing justice in the region.

photo credit: WESA, from service celebration rally in 2015

Laura developed her passion for social justice on a Chandler Fellowship while studying community and grassroots radio, and its role in building a powerful, informed public to affect positive change. From 2005-2007, she worked in the post-conflict regions of Chiapas, MX; Cape Town, SA; and Belgrade, Serbia, all of which are contending with the effects of dramatic economic inequality and neoliberalism.

She joined the labor movement in 2007 as a rank and file member of the hospitality Union Unite Here! and moved to Pittsburgh in 2010 to take a position as a labor organizer in the Union. For the last two years, Laura has been the Director of Community Engagement for The Union Edge Radio, and has been responsible for the outreach and growth of the only nationally-syndicated labor talk radio program in the country.

Check out this fundraising video from a couple years ago, where Laura is featured:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HP47I3taxIc

In response to concerns from advocates, Port Authority delays implementation of proof of payment on the T.

Representatives from Casa San Jose, Alliance for Police Accountability, Pghers for Public Transit, the Thomas Merton Center, and the Pennsylvania Interfaith Impact Network at the Port Authority board meeting to share concerns about the proof of payment policy.

For our request to the agency, see below:

Pittsburghers for Public Transit, Casa San Jose, the Thomas Merton Center, and the Alliance for Police Accountability are asking the Port Authority to delay implementing proof of payment on the T, slated to begin July 1st. This request is based on concerns about lack of public process and inadequate information about the policy and its impact on riders.  Text of letter is below:

Ellen McLean, CEO

Jeff Letwin, Chairman of the Board

Port Authority of Allegheny County

345 Sixth Ave

Pittsburgh, PA 15222

April 28^th 2017

Dear Ms. McLean and Mr. Letwin,

We are writing to ask the Port Authority to delay the implementation of a proof of payment system on the light rail, which is slated to begin July 1^st, 2017. This change was approved by the Port Authority board as part of the fare policy in the summer of 2016. However, the only information about this change that was available to riders during the public hearing was as follows: “A second phase that would allow the Authority’s light rail to also switch to a pay-on-enter and cashless proof-of-payment system would begin in the second half of 2017.”

At the time, Pittsburghers for Public Transit shared concerns about the proof of payment by providing the following statement: “Proof of payment on the rail involves having more police on the trains, and we are very concerned about how the policing and enforcement will happen. Measures would need to be in place to ensure that the enforcement does not target or profile certain routes or populations of riders. We know this has been an issue in other cities, and expect a detailed and thorough plan—along with extensive training for the police (including implicit bias training)—to make sure that does not happen in Pittsburgh.”

In the past couple months, various organizations have publicly shared concerns and asked questions, and we have yet to receive sufficient information about this policy, how it will be implemented and enforced, and the impact it will have on riders and the public at large.

The change is going into effect in just 2 months, and all we currently know is this:

• Off-board fare collectors will no longer hold their positions and additional Port Authority police have been hired for the enforcement.
• The Port Authority police are working on their policy of enforcement, but the policy has not been shared with the public.
• If someone fails to pay a fare, the person’s name will be run through criminal records to see whether there are outstanding warrants.
• The agency will collect the cost of the fare, while the fine of up to 300 dollars will go to the municipality where the evasion occurred.
• Multiple infractions can lead to up to 30 days in jail, at the discretion of a district judge.

We have been told there are plans for a public education campaign, but the change is happening in just 2 months; this is not nearly enough time for the policies to be adequately vetted by the public. The agency will not be able to adequately acknowledge concerns from riders, especially about the enforcement, penalties, and increased policing.

We know proof of payment systems are on the rise throughout the country, especially for how they improve the operations of the system by allowing riders to board more quickly. There are also many instances of racial profiling, and there are many questions about the relationship between fare inspectors and immigration and customs enforcement. Public transit is not a border checkpoint. We have looked at other agencies across the country, and the San Francisco MTA stands out as a model Pittsburgh could aim to replicate. The agency underwent an extensive process to determine their policy and came up with the following.

They adopted local ordinances for establishing administrative penalties for transit violations. This allowed them to de-criminalize fare evasion. While we understand that riders need to understand there will be some consequence if they do not pay their fare, should that consequence include getting brought into the criminal justice system and facing possible jail time? In San Francisco, their ultimate goal is increasing ridership and making the system run more smoothly. They have un-armed fare inspectors who check for fare evasion. If someone has failed to pay, they escort them off the bus or train and show them how to pay their fare. Or they may issue a ticket. If this ticket is not paid, a third-party vendor is assigned to collect the debt. The processing overall mirrors that of parking violations. No one ends up in jail for not paying a transit fare.

The SFMTA have shared many benefits to decriminalization including: reducing the burden on the criminal court system, more convenient and flexible payment, and protest options. In addition, the revenue is retained by the issuing agency. Their policy also does not allow fare inspectors to share the names or addresses of those who received tickets with any other agency, including ICE. And the fare inspectors are trained in de-escalation to avoid un-needed conflict with riders.

The Port Authority and the public are not ready for this change to occur in just 2 months. There should be more time for sharing the policies, refining them according to public input, and ensuring that the system in place works best for the transit system and the community overall.

Our requests are the following:

• Fare inspectors should not be armed police officers
• Extensive training for fare inspectors that includes:
  • Implicit bias training
  • Preventing racial profiling
  • De-escalation
  • Interacting with people with mental health challenges and disabilities
• A model that encourages ridership rather than punishes fare evaders
• De-criminalization of fare evasion
• The constitutional rights of all immigrants must be upheld
• Port Authority police will not inquire about anyone’s immigration status
• The names and information of individuals who are cited will never be shared with Immigration and Customs Enforcement
• External accountability measures must be in place for fare inspectors (whether they are Port Authority police, or not)

Sincerely,

Chandana Cherukupalli, chandana@pittsburghforpublictransit.org, 718-309-0853, Pittsburghers for Public Transit

Christina Castillo, Christina@thomasmertoncenter.org, Thomas Merton Center

Monica Ruiz, ruizcsj@gmail.com, Casa San Jose

Brandi Fisher, Brandifisher33@gmail.com, Alliance for Police Accountability

cc:

Chief Executive of Allegheny County Rich Fitzgerald

Port Authority Communications Officer Jim Ritchie

Port Authority Police Chief Matt Porter

Media Release: Position on Bus Rapid Transit, April 5, 2017

Pittsburghers for Public Transit sees opportunities with the Bus Rapid Transit project proposal, but we also have many concerns and unanswered questions—about both the project and the public process.

60,000 transit riders are in the corridor between Downtown, Uptown, Oakland, and beyond each day. There is no question that infrastructure and service changes could benefit a lot of riders, but there are also some riders who could be negatively impacted. And there are some questions about if this project is where we should prioritize transportation investments. From the information we have right now, we acknowledge the following opportunities:

• Dedicated bus lanes
• Traffic signal prioritization for buses
• Faster rides on some routes
• Improved bus stations
• Improved pedestrian access
• Electric vehicles
• Bike lanes

However, we are also very concerned about the following:

• Required transfers (between 3,000 and 7,000)
• Increased costs, especially if transfers are not free
• Changes to local service, including less frequency
• Fewer drop-off points for Access vehicles
• Elimination of stops, which affects people with mobility challenges
• Impacts of development; need upfront commitment there will be no displacement and adequate affordable housing as part of any development

While we acknowledge the value of the many presentations given to community groups in the past couple weeks, we have not seen adequate outreach among the most affected riders, namely those whose local service would change and those who would now require transfers. In the process of selecting a “locally preferred alternative” riders need to know the precise impact each option would have on their commutes. The City and Port Authority are asking for feedback on the 4 different options without laying out the impact on the local routes for each option. For example, if a rider currently takes a 61A into town from Braddock, how exactly would their commute be different?  Riders are also given 4 choices for service, but where is the room for other options the community might want?

After talking to a few hundred riders at bus stops downtown recently, we were surprised at how few of those who ride the 61s and 71s had heard anything about the Bus Rapid Transit project. We think the agency could do a better job getting the word out to riders, and we encourage riders to make sure their voices are heard, by taking the survey at www.portauthority.org or sending their comments to brt@portauthority.org. Riders can also attend the public meeting Wed April 5th in Oakland at Alumni Hall, 4227 Fifth Ave, 12-2 pm, and 4-7 pm