Public Comment

Transit advocates have pressed Pennsylvania lawmakers to include transit funding in the 2026–27 state budget, while SEPTA’s proposed FY2027 materials described a major state-of-good-repair backlog and capital funding pressures. The dispute is whether state funding should prioritize avoiding fare hikes and service cuts, fixing aging assets, supporting rural and disabled riders, or forcing governance and efficiency reforms before adding money. Transit funding is not just a city issue if workers, disabled riders, students, and older adults rely on it across the state.

What should Pennsylvania protect first in the next transit funding deal?

Overall results

1
57% support · excluded by 6%
7

Reform conditions should be specific enough to matter and realistic enough not to become an excuse for inaction.

7

Employers need reliable transit, but they also need confidence that agencies are using money well.

2
51% support · excluded by 7%
7

Once service is cut, riders leave, revenue falls, and the system can spiral downward.

7

For people who cannot drive, transit cuts are not inconvenience. They are lost access to work, care, and groceries.

3
46% support · excluded by 2%
4

If agencies always come back needing more, lawmakers should force deeper operating changes first.

4
46% support · excluded by 6%
7

Reliability comes from boring maintenance: vehicles, tracks, signals, bridges, and stations.

7

Taxpayers deserve to know that new money fixes the existing system before politicians announce shiny projects.

About the author