Privatized

==PAT's value to the community is to be questioned.==
==Audit PAT ==
Costs per bus route and the incomes generated by fares per route are unknown.
==PAT, another authority worthy of taking apart.==
Privatization is one way, among many, that could occur with PAT. 
== Planks: ==
* One can't break up PAT, as PAT is already broken. PAT could be taken apart. To take apart PAT is to pick up the pieces of a floundering authority operation.
* Get PAT out of all roles and oversight dealing with rail. PAT has been and will always be a bus company. Rail service can be a competitor to bus travel. The operation of a rail line might not be in PAT's best interest as PAT is pushing buses. However, PAT's best intests and those of the people are different. 
Having viable options (bus, train, car) gives people more freedoms and can lead to more prosperity. 
===Private route operators welcomed.===
A break up of PAT is It makes
good sense to get them OUT of the rail business. 
More thoughts:
The Pittsburgh Penguins are a private team. However, they still got a
big windfall from the public treasury.
The river taxi service was operated by a private individual. However,
he got subsidizations from the public agency. (I don't know the
details.)
The Ultra Violet Loop, a bus route project, was started with a school
bus and some donor money -- trust funds, etc. That proof of concept
got folks involved. Then, with pressure, the route became a PAT
operation for a year or so. Later, much later and too late, IMHO, PAT
pulled the plug on the UV Loop bus line. The route cost a good bit of
money and didn't pull its weight. Ridership was very low.
Point being, privatization efforts might still come to mean a private
firm that operates but gets subsidization support from the public
agency / public treasury.
Privatization isn't a guaranteed home run solution.
Privatization could be worse if accountability isn't in the mix too.
But, I agree, in a true sense of privatization, we'll have ultimate
accountability. However, around here, we'll have to be clear as lots
of government money goes to the private sector in handouts of various
kinds.
We'll still need accountability to see if the private efforts are NOT
being subsidized.
Another example, more in parks, is the Schenley Golf Course. It was
"privatized" to CMU. However, they run the program until they need a
new tractor to mow the grass and a new roof for the clubhouse. Then
the golf course goes to the city to get capital improvements. That is
a quasi private operation. The city councilmen don't get phone calls
when the course is a mess. But, they do when a big purchase is needed.
For example, some around here (not me, but for sake of discussion)
might do a privatization deal like this: Hire a private transit
company to take this expensive bus routes off of the hands of PAT. Cut
the service. Raise the fees. Break the union. Pay the drivers less.
The new firm can handle its own garage and bus ads.. BUT, I'd not put
it past PAT to say as well, "Here is a bus fleet and a bus drivers to
make ends meet for the new firm for the next five years." Goofy story,
but oh so possible. Pittsburgh subsidized department stores. Tossing
public money at new ventures, either private or public, is the typical
course of action.
We have to stay alert. And, we have to be thorough in the discussions.