Nearly all the news stories and broadcasts in recent weeks reporting on Pennsylvania's mass transit woes have depicted the problem as a funding crisis - not enough money being allocated to mass transit, particularly PAT in Pittsburgh and SEPTA in Philadelphia. Just this week, Gov. Ed Rendell said he would shift $68 million in federal highway funds to state transit agencies to avert fare hikes and service cuts on low-ridership routes.

While conventional wisdom in Harrisburg, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia is that not enough money is being spent for public transportation, there is another perspective - public transit costs have gotten out of line.

In a press release from the Commonwealth Foundation, an independent policy organization based in Harrisburg, the issues of costs and cost-control were raised. The Commonwealth Foundation statement also rightly suggested that "it will only be a matter of time before they are back in Harrisburg begging for more money."

More important than the prediction of future money woes for PAT and SEPTA is the idea that costs, not funding, are at the root of the state's public transportation systems.

Public transportation expert Wendell Cox, of Cox Consultancy in Illinois, noted in the Commonwealth statement that if the costs of operating PAT and SEPTA had been held to the rate of inflation between 1983 and 2002, the two agencies would have operating costs $245 million below what they are today. That difference would more than cover this fiscal year's combined PAT and SEPTA deficits of $60 million and any budgetary shortages of the past several years.

Cox was part of a presentation to Pennsylvania legislators that reported how transit problems were being solved in San Diego, Los Angeles, Denver and Las Vegas through "competitive contracting."

While competitive contracting is not the same as privatization, it is similar in that certain services, including maintenance, operations, technology and security, can be purchased from private companies by the public transit agencies. The public transit authorities would maintain control, but the services would be bid out to private companies - while still allowing current public workers to also bid on the contracts.

According to various reports, such competitive bidding of public transportation has reduced costs between 20 percent and 51 percent where it's been implemented, with a 35 percent cost reduction being the average.

Competitive bidding has been saving money and improving service in several public transportation systems for two decades. In 1980, San Diego began the process of competitive bidding for public bus service, and today about half of the city's bus service is provided through competitively bid contracts.

In Denver, it was in 1988 that the Colorado Legislature required the Denver regional transit agency to competitively bid 20 percent of its service. In response to saving an estimated $200 million over 10 years, Colorado lawmakers in 2000 boosted the level of mandated competitive bidding to 35 percent.

It is discouraging that other cities and states are decades ahead of Pennsylvania when it comes to saving taxpayers' money by introducing some level of competitive bidding for public transportation services.

Lawmakers in Harrisburg should counter Rendell's plans to shift federal highway money to public transportation with the requirement that in the coming fiscal year 25 percent of state public transportation services be awarded on a competitive basis. And five years from now, if Pittsburgh's and Philadelphia's experiences mirror those of San Diego and Denver, higher levels of competitive bidding should be required.

It is irresponsible for lawmakers to talk only of finding new funding sources when other U.S. and European cities have been saving millions of taxpayers' dollars through competitive bidding, while at the same time improving service and boosting ridership.