Turnpike Commission Cutting Work Force
Following traffic and revenue declines, the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission announced it will be reducing its staff size starting with a "voluntary departure program", with layoffs to be next.
Curiously, one of the Turnpike Commission's lines against a Turnpike lease was that an "evil, for-profit" company would cut workers., while they would protect them. We have noted the Turnpike Commission's bloated payroll in the past, so cutting staff is certainly part of being more efficient - but I doubt we will see cuts in the number of politically appointed managers (nearly 1 per mile of roadway now), expenses for bond lawyers, perks for Joe Brimmeier, and the like.
Two more questions:
- Will the 25% increase in Turnpike tolls in January exacerbate ridership declines?
- Sam Smith raises the question of whether the Turnpike Commission be allowed to go deeper into debt at a time when they are unable to meet their current operating costs? As we have pointed out, the borrowing plan under Act 44 creates a massive amount of new debt, and the Turnpike Commission is continuing to borrow based both on revenue growth and on the presumption of tolling I-80.
1 comment:
Aren't you touching on the snarky here? So the Commission is finally taking cost reduction steps and you want to phrase it in terms of the misbegotten lease plan? At least your commentary touched on the idea that those jobs could have been saved through reduction in the level of corruption.
Regarding the two questions:
1) Perhaps increased ridership declines are factored in to the toll increase? It may be that revenue will still increase with a decreased ridership. Certainly maintenance costs will be reduced if ridership declines. Do we have the figures used to compute the toll increase, and, if not, why not?
2) A good question, Mr. Smith, and, by extension, what happens if the Turnpike Commission bankrupts itself? You could probably find support for legislative action prohibiting the Commission from additional borrowing (I think that's what the question is getting at), but would it stick?
Which prompts me to ask my own question: Is not the Turnpike Commission itself an early example of a Public-Private Partnership? One that has perhaps gotten a bit too cuddly with its Public side, I think, but still an independent business unit operating a gevernmental asset. What does this mean in terms of support for PPPs in general?
Post a Comment