Pittsburgh Regional Transit officials heard testimony at the last of three public hearings that addressed proposed system-wide service cuts and fare increases. According to a PRT release, more than 80 people signed up to speak across two comment sessions at a hearing June 12 at the David L. Lawrence Convention Center, adding to more than 4,000 comments already submitted online, by mail, and at prior hearings.
Testimony from riders, local government officials, hospitals, community organizations, and other stakeholders highlighted the broad impacts that potential transit cuts could have on access to employment, education, affordable housing, and medical care, as well as on larger economic development and community well-being.
The region’s transit agency faces what it describes as a funding crisis, projecting a budget shortfall of more than $100 million beginning in the next fiscal year. Pennsylvania has not increased public transportation funding since enacting Act 89 a decade ago, and with federal pandemic relief funds dwindling, PRT and other transit agencies say they’ll be forced to make drastic service cuts without an infusion in next year’s state budget, which has a June 30 deadline.
Without new funding, PRT’s proposed changes would reduce 35% of overall service — including a 62% reduction in ADA services like ACCESS, a paratransit service for the elderly and people with disabilities — eliminate 41 bus routes, end service after 11 p.m., and impose a 25-cent fare hike to $3, making PRT’s fare the fifth highest in the country. Changes would be implemented beginning in February 2026.
At the June 12 hearing, Teaira Collins, a Pittsburgh native who recently moved to the Four Mile Run section of Greenfield, spoke about the decline in bus service she’s witnessed. Collins told PRT board members and staff that she has relied on public transit since a car accident caused her to lose hearing in one ear.
“Everyone keeps talking about how this was the most livable city,” Collins said. “It was. It’s not no more.”
“Who are you guys really working for?” she added. “Are you looking to take care of people who live in Pennsylvania or Pittsburgh, or are you looking to impress the people that are coming?”
Speakers repeatedly emphasized how cuts would impact access to necessities, work, family, and medical appointments.
Some of the most vulnerable transit riders, including seniors and people with disabilities, highlighted how public transit connects them to the larger social world, echoing Collins that, for those without the option to drive, even small changes to the region’s system could lead to social isolation and job loss.
Patti Murphy of Bethel Park cited a statistic by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that more than one in four adults nationwide have a disability, telling PRT, “What you’re proposing would be an embarrassment, unacceptable and, sadly, deadly to our communities.”
Amelie Colletti, who is visually impaired and uses a guide dog, said she commutes daily on the bus and the Silver Line train, a route up for elimination. Colletti said she decided to live in the region “because I could continue being independent. I want to hold onto that as long as possible.”
“If we get landlocked, we won’t be able to do the things that we need to do to thrive as a city and to be as inclusive as possible,” she told PRT.
Many speakers explained the downstream effects of the cuts, which range from poorer healthcare and educational outcomes to fewer cultural amenities.
Daniel Patel of Bloomfield, who worked as a social worker at Allegheny General Hospital, said lack of transportation was “almost always one of the most persistent and difficult barriers” for patients accessing healthcare, leading to worse and costlier health outcomes.
Describing public transit as a “foundational element of a healthy, equitable, and flourishing city,” Patel warned that failing to fund it “will ultimately cost the city and state far more than any short-term savings these cuts may offer.”
Dr. Elizabeth Piccione, a cardiologist and president of UPMC Passavant Hospital in McCandless, told PRT that the proposed cuts would “make it impossible” for both staff and patients to access the hospital using public transit.
“A hospital is only as accessible as the transportation that leads to it,” she said. Piccione recalled how several patients told her a lack of affordable transit would force them to choose between getting to necessary medical treatment and buying groceries.
“That’s not a choice anyone should have to make,” she said. “Transit isn’t a convenience. It’s a lifeline.”
Megan Patton, director of pupil transportation at Pittsburgh Public Schools, said reliable public transit “remains a key factor to ensuring students succeed.”
Matt Lohr, who works at the box office at the Pittsburgh Cultural Trust, which he described as “part of the vital lifeblood” of the city, said many of his coworkers rely on public transit, and that cuts could impact their ability to put on performances.
“I’m here to remind you that those shows that you come down to see, they don’t float down perfect on gossamer like on a cloud,” Lohr said. “If you just come down and all the theaters are just locked up tight, [that’s] because the people behind the scenes that make those shows happen just can’t make it into work anymore.”
Derek Dawson of VisitPittsburgh, the region’s tourism marketing agency, commented that cuts could impact Pittsburgh’s $6 billion tourism industry, affecting both workers and visitors. Nonprofit representatives from Bike Pittsburgh, Elizabeth Seton Center in Brookline, and the Boys and Girls Clubs of Western Pennsylvania all described how their organizations’ missions rely on accessible public transit.
Jim Ritchie, PRT’s Chief Communications Officer, tells Pittsburgh City Paper that the agency’s hearings have highlighted the “significance” of the region’s public transit system.
“The reach is really deep, and unfortunately, we don’t want to find out the negative impact of that,” Ritchie says. “If you cut so much, we’ll start to feel that as a community, as a region, and that’s hard to unravel afterward. It’s far better to solve it now.”
“We feel like the message is there, and people know what is needed,” he says, stating that PRT is “starting to see some activity” from state legislators toward increasing transit funding. “It’s more than just the people in this room fighting for this. There’s a small army out there really trying to make it happen.”
Currently, there are several competing transit funding proposals in the Pennsylvania state legislature. Allegheny County state House Democrats Aerion Abney and Jessica Benham recently proposed taxing ride-share trips and increasing car rental fees to fund public transit, part of a platform by the statewide coalition Transit for All PA!
While Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro’s proposed budget allocates a greater portion of the state’s sales tax revenue toward transit, other state leaders have advocated combining regional transit systems or privatizing them.
PRT’s public comment period is open through Wed., June 18 at 5 p.m.
This article appears in Jun 11-17, 2025.
