1983 SEPTA Regional Rail strike
Additionally, according to historian Jake Berman, the strike derailed the planned implementation of several reforms designed to increase efficiency on the Regional Rail system that would have included automated fare collection and level boarding, among other things.
Conrail was a corporation created by the US government in 1976 to take over operations for six railroad companies based in the Northeastern United States that had recently gone bankrupt.
[1] In the case of SEPTA, the authority had to take over 12 rail lines in five counties within the Greater Philadelphia area, a system that had a daily ridership of about 50,000 people.
[4] Regarding pay, the unions were seeking for SEPTA to implement a deferred raise that they had previously negotiated with Conrail and to maintain the existing wage scales.
[1] SEPTA also pointed out that it was one of only a few major public transit agencies that lacked the ability to directly tax its constituents and that fare increases between 1979 and 1981 had led to a 20 percent decline in ridership.
[1] Around the end of November, both sides submitted their "final best offers" to the emergency board, which had until December 8 to issue a nonbinding recommendation to the two parties.
[3] Vice President Al Archual of the Brotherhood of Railway and Airline Clerks, whose union represented about 800 employees affected by the takeover,[6] called SEPTA's decision a "farce".
[3] Shortly after the announcement, commuters of the regional rail system filed a class action lawsuit against SEPTA, with Judge Abraham Gafni of the Pennsylvania courts of common pleas ordering the authority to continue train operations.
[6] David Cohen of the Philadelphia City Council stated that negotiations were still "touch and go", adding, "The unions appreciate our concern that, if the commuter rail system is shut down, we are not sure that it can be reopened in the form we presently have".
[6] Cohen also stated that he and City Council President Joseph E. Coleman were seeking for Judge Bernard Goodheart to appoint an official who could "assure that round-the-clock negotiations" continued.
[4] Despite the disruptions, traffic on arterial highways in the area was not as bad as city officials had expected, possibly due in part to staggered work hours and successful carpool initiatives.
[14] On March 23, the 12 unions voted unanimously to reject what The New York Times called "a 30-day cooling-off period" that had been proposed by a judge, opting instead to continue with strike actions.
[20] According to a mid-April 1983 article in The Philadelphia Inquirer, the strike had saved SEPTA $2 million ($6 million in 2023) at that point as a result of increased subway and bus ridership and not having to run unprofitable commuter rail lines, prompting Archual to question whether or not the strike was a ploy on SEPTA's behalf to do away with the Regional Rail system altogether and replace it with more cost-efficient alternatives.
[4] According to a 1983 article in the magazine Trains, the long duration of the strike could be attributed to several factors, including ample alternative public transit options, the general ease of accessing Center City without using the commuter rail system, and the willingness of SEPTA officials to remain adamant against union demands.
[5] An article in the Encyclopedia of Greater Philadelphia cites "poor planning by SEPTA" as the main cause for the issues and difficulties that plagued the system takeover.
[23] According to historian Jake Berman, the strike derailed the implementation of these proposed reforms, which would have included automated fare collection, level boarding, and simplified transfers, among other things.
