This is a tale of two cities. And at this point in time, their transit systems couldn't be more disparate in terms of finances, service and a future.

In the Pittsburgh region, the Port Authority has cut service by a record 15 percent, laid off employees, raised fares and continues to scratch for money.

Allegheny County bar-restaurant owners, politicos and residents are debating whether a 10 percent drink tax or higher property taxes should be used to support buses, trolleys, paratransit and the Mon Incline.

The authority needs $27.7 million from the county to receive $184.5 million in matching funds from the state this year.

Chief Executive Dan Onorato is withholding the county's subsidy until the authority becomes more efficient and negotiates less generous labor contracts.

Last but not least, 2,300 members of Local 85, Amalgamated Transit Union, are working without a contract and face losing some of their retirement, pension and health-care benefits gained over many years and now an expectation of their employment.

But on the other side of the state, the Philadelphia-based Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority recently announced the largest expenditure in its history. SEPTA is hiring 180 operators, adding trips and buying buses and trains. Ridership is up. Money is not a problem.

Raising its 15 percent "local share" of matching money has not been a contentious issue for years with Bucks, Philadelphia, Montgomery, Chester and Delaware counties, all of which pay for SEPTA out of general budget revenues.

As a result, SEPTA is fully funded and receiving $77.5 million from its member counties to draw down $515 million in matching state money, a 1.7 increase over last year.

Why are two of the nation's biggest public transit systems, operating in the same state, headed in different directions?

The answer is as complex as the formula by which PennDOT figures subsidies under the Transit Trust Fund created by passage of the Act 44 transportation funding legislation two summers ago. It bases the distribution on number of passengers, 25 percent; number of senior citizen passengers, 10 percent; revenue vehicle hours, 35 percent; and revenue vehicles miles, 30 percent.

But, essentially, the Port Authority is now competing for those state funds with dozens of other transit agencies.

And because the Transit Trust Fund rewards those who perform best under the formula, the Port Authority is a loser. Here are some of the reasons:

• The Port Authority (i.e. taxpayer) provides a subsidy of $3.17 for every ride compared to a per-passenger subsidy of $1.77 at SEPTA, an indication of poor performance under the Transit Trust Fund formula.

• SEPTA vehicles carry an average of 50 passengers an hour compared to 28 here, albeit it operates in a more densely populated area.

• The Port Authority's operating costs, determined by dividing the total number of rides into expenses, is $4.65 per passenger compared to $3.22 at SEPTA, another low mark.

The bottom line: The authority will receive a mere 0.8 percent more from the state this year than for the 2007-08 fiscal year -- an increase well below inflation, less than 36 other transit systems and less than all but one, rural Carbon County (0.5 percent). Meanwhile, some will get a maximum 20 percent increase.

There are other reasons for authority problems, such as having more retired than active employees; long-term pension obligations in the hundreds of millions of dollars; and spending $29.2 million on retiree health care while SEPTA, with three times as many employees, is spending $7.3 million for the same thing.

That's why Mr. Onorato and authority leaders have been insisting on gaining concessions, cost-containment and operating efficiences in a new union contract.

That's why the authority is restructuring bus-trolley service based on routes and practices established years ago by developing its "Connect 09" initiative and introducing new "smart card" fare technology in the near future.

In short, that's why the Port Authority is in trouble.