East Busway Blog

Lawrenceville Greenway Circulator

2011-02-16T13:22:00.000-05:00

First,

Slow Clap to the Mayor, and URA for this plan. It’s a great start to making the city more dense with development once again (and green development at that). This new green development conjures images of Portland and other urban oases.

As with any re-development plan (unless you’re a sprawling city) the key is to integrate transit options other than automobile based to increase mobility into and out of your new development.*

This newest plan for Pittsburgh’s new riverfront development certainly addresses these issues. AVR’s branch to 26^st street in the Strip has been planned for integration into the development as part of their already proposed commuter rail and also includes an at-grade “trolley circulator” which would traverse Smallman St. and Penn Ave.

I’ve talked ad-nauseum about AVR’s commuter line (although I will address the addition of another commuter line later). As a result I’ll focus more on the at-grade trolley topic as well as an oft ignored topic here in Pittsburgh; the water taxi.

Trolley Circulator

In my mind, you wouldn’t have to do anything to the strip and it would already be a great idea for a tourist centered trolley. An at grade line on Smallman St. from saaaayyyy the Heinz History Center to the 31^st St. Bridge would be great to move people in the Strip on weekends.

As such it only makes sense that this idea would be incorporated into this riverfront plan. As written in the proposal, this line would start at the David Lawrence Convention Center and travel at grade up Smallman St. to the 40^th St. Bridge, where it would then loop onto Penn Ave back to approx 21^st St. where it would rejoin the ROW on Smallman back to the David Lawrence Convention Center.

As I said before; solid idea. I also realize that this is just a proposal for the entire project and as such doesn’t go into too much detail on the transportation aspects of it. However, there are some issues that should be discussed and ironed out.

First, check out this great primer for streetcar systems over at the Transport Politic.

There have been a number of streetcar systems established in the U.S. within the past ten years. What’s even more promising is that some of these have built a successful nitch in traditionally non-transit friendly areas, such as Tampa’s TECO Streetcar and Little Rock’s River Rail.

These and other systems have capitalized on the nostalgia aspect of trolleys. Many lines use either heritage equipment (like San Francisco’s fleet of PCC cars) or new equipment made to look old (like TECO and Little Rock). It would bring back a lot of memories for Pittsburghers to see trolleys like this

or this

There is certainly something to be said for marketing your operation correctly and nostalgia is certainly a good way to do it. However, nothing beats ease of use and good inter-connection. I like the idea that it spans the entire length of the Strip from downtown all the way to Lawrenceville. It would be a great way for a Lawrenceville or Strip resident to get downtown or move between the neighborhoods.

However, the key question which isn’t really addressed here is; how do you get to the trolley if you’re not one of these residents? What are it’s connections? I know there is talk of another trolley circulator to Oakland but that’s a topic for later. How will someone from the Southside, or the South Hills make use of this trolley without driving to a parking lot in the Strip or Lawrenceville? The T would make a great connector, but with AVR seemingly going all the way Steel Plaza, that takes away that option.

Additionally how will someone from Oakland, or Hazelwood, or East Liberty or Garfield get to this line without driving?

It can be done, after all we’ve got the East Busway for the east end neighborhoods, and supposedly this commuter rail will be an option for people coming from the South, but how this will be integrated and implemented are important discussions that could make or break this operation.

Lastly, I don't like the idea of putting it on Penn Ave. I know the plan is to use the circulator to take cars off the streets, in particular Penn Ave. in the Strip. As a transit guy, I know I’m supposed to believe that putting down rails will take cars off the roads, and I DO believe that. However, I’m a realist and know a lot of people drive to the Strip on the weekends and that a lot of people will continue to do that as a lot of them are NOT city residents but in fact suburbanites. I also know that it’s basically bumper to bumper traffic from about 25^th St. down through 16^th on a Saturday morning. I think over time that will change but the change will not be immediate. I think you can get nearly the same effect by putting two tracks in Smallman St. and letting Penn Ave alone. That said: it’s not a stake in the heart of the idea.

The second issue is more of a practical nature. If you have one track on Smallman and one on Penn, you are creating two at grade crossings of the AVR’s commuter line should it follow its proposed route on 26^th St. Two rail operations crossing at grade are more complex than a road crossing a railroad at grade. It involves more circuitry, and electronic systems to accomplish. Why do it twice within a few blocks, making redundant systems when you can do it once, on Smallman St? You’re not chasing passengers away by having the route one block away with the relatively narrow blocks in the Strip, and you’re saving money on implementation and operating costs.

Overall, I'm clearly on board with this. I think it's a great idea and the Strip is a great place to do it. However, there are some issues that will have to be fleshed out before this aspect of the Riverfront plan could be implemented.

I was going to cover the additional circulator to Oakland in this post, but seems as though I am rambling and will probably cover that and the “proposed” North Hills to Hazelwood commuter line at the same time.

Next up: Water Taxi

*As an aside, that was a major failure with earlier re-development projects in the Pittsburgh area. The water front is nothing more than a dressed up strip mall with oceans of pavement. The South Side works, although denser development has few options for transit and no room for transit expansion.

Lawrenceville Greenway

2011-02-14T13:16:00.000-05:00

A full report's finally available on the city's plan for the new "Greenway" which would extend from the DLC to the city line.

Not all of it's transit related, but there are some interesting nuggets, including a trolley "circulator" between Dahntahn and Lawrenceville, some sort of additional circulator between Lawrenceville and Oakland The oft mentioned commuter rail has popped up once again. This time including an extension on the old CSX P&W subdivision between Allison Park and Hazelwood (huh?)

I'll have more to say later, but in the mean time; here's the link.

In Happier News

2011-01-19T15:31:00.000-05:00

Fresh off my previous rant, it's good to see some positive news.

Check it aaaaaaht

It'll be nice to have the Port Authority join the 21st century. I look forward to more smart card machines than one can count!

“T” Gate

2011-01-19T15:19:00.000-05:00

*Disclaimer* I usually try and be pretty fair, using facts to support my arguments. This is strictly my opinion. If at any point you become offended, stop reading and close your browser window. I’ll be back to the regular old stuff soon enough.

Enough of this crap.

It’s getting really ridiculous to see ATU 85 once again shoot the Port Authority, and in turn, themselves in the foot to prove a point. What that point is, I’m not exactly sure.

I do know what is being said, however. The ATU 85 is saying that the Port Authority’s “T” schedules are impossible to follow without violating speed restrictions. All of this supposedly came about after an external safety audit of PAT operations.

The Port Authority is coming back and saying that the speed limits have not changed in over 12 years.

I can’t unequivocally say I know that this is the Union’s fault and not PAT’s. However, judging from the contract “negotiations” of 2008 where the Union threatened to strike because of a minimal increase in healthcare costs, and a lot of the stupidity I have heard roll out of Pat McMahon’s mouth over the past few years, I’m siding with the Port Authority.

Again, I’m not sure what the real point of ATU 85’s shenanigans are. If their point is that the 15% service cuts are bad, then address that, pissing off commuters on the T is in no way that my feeble brain can comprehend productive. All they are doing is adding a disgruntled third party. A third party that can either support the Port Authority, and in turn ATU 85 or harm the Port Authority and in turn ATU 85.

In fact, the biggest thing the Union can do to screw itself is to give the taxpayers the impression that they are overpaid and that they underperform. Right now, it seems like they are right on track to screw themselves. In the face of extreme budget uncertainty and while they are some of the highest paid transit operators in the Nation, the ATU 85 has decided to go toe to toe with the Port Authority by delaying trains…BRILLIANT!

As I said, I have no idea what this is really about, but I do know what this is accomplishing. It’s further eroding the faith in public transportation and the Port Authority, by no fault of its own; and could ultimately lead to even GREATER layoffs and service cuts in the future.

My Man

2011-01-11T11:38:00.000-05:00

A little candor is refreshing every once in a while.

Cheers to Ed Rendell!

Transportation Ignorance

2011-01-11T11:30:00.000-05:00

I like to make fun of the Trib, but I have to hand it to them, they've been all over the transportation/infrastructure stuff!

Check out this article from yesterday's Trib.

This article seems to provide a really good barometer of Pennsylvania's public opinion concerning our transportation and infrastructure situation.

The bad news is everyone appears not to care. At least not enough to address it. My crack analysis shows that only a little more than a quarter of your average Pennsylvanian thinks that transportation and infrastructure should be a priority for our incoming state government. The silver lining to that cloud is that we Pittsburghers seem much more keenly aware of the issues facing our Commonwealth when it comes to repairing our infrastructure and upgrading our transportation systems. Given the general apathy, I'm sure the rallying cry for the next four years at least will be much the same as it has been: "Don't take my money to pay for your fancy shmancy public transportation"

Given the low numbers, it's not suprising to see that a majority of those interviewed would not support higher costs to support infrastucture/transportation improvements. Even less suprising is that those numbers are highest in rural areas.

The biggest question I have is: why don't people care? Eventhough Corbett has pledged up and down he will not raise taxes, he, and his appointed transition committee members seem keenly aware of the poor state of our infrastructure. Why doesn't your average Pennsylvanian feel the same sense of urgency? The news on the state of our infrastructure has not been kept in the dark. Yet, most people are still concerned with lower taxes than a bridge collapsing, or getting cars off the roads.

Should we add railroads to the list of Passenger Rail enemies?

2011-01-10T15:37:00.000-05:00

A lot of HSR stuff in the news. It’s no secret that Obama’s vision for a national High Speed Rail network is under attack. Many newly elected officials are far from passenger rail fans. Everyone’s heard about what’s happened in New Jersey, Wisconsin, and Ohio. Meanwhile, what should have been a milestone event in Illinois turns out to have simply added more fuel to the anti-rail fire.

While I do not buy in wholesale to the premise of the article, it brings up some very practical and real issues with the implementation of the Obama Administration’s implementation of HSR and with expansion of our passenger rail network in general. The biggest and most interesting, in my mind, is the buy-in of the host railroad. The article surmises among other things that Union Pacific may have “driven a hard bargain” to Illinois and Missouri in exchange for their cooperation with the project. To me, when they say “hard bargain” they mean $$$. By money I have a feeling they mean state contribution for upgrades to infrastructure including track and signaling equipment.

I understand Union Pacific, like all freight railroads want to protect their profitability. They make their money by moving freight, after all. However, it’s disconcerting to see they are willing to accept negative effects to our national transportation infrastructure so they don’t see a reduction in their margins.

The freight railroads, for the most part know they have a captive audience. Most operating rights of way in this country are private and are owned by corporations. Any public agency or partnership that wishes to expand service must cooperate with the freight railroads and basically must submit to whatever conditions the carrier lays out, or risk outright refusal to cooperate. There are legal means to get around this refusal, but a profitable freight railroad is much better equipped to handle a potentially protracted court battle than a coalition using funding which is tight to begin with. Also, let’s face it, a lot of transportation projects, especially rail projects often face significant opposition, and a public legal battle would not help the situation.

We’ve seen similar issues here in Pennsylvania. Look no further than the Keystone Corridor which on paper extends from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh. In reality, the section from Harrisburg to Pittsburgh is little more than a line on a map. Between Harrisburg and Philadelphia multiple electric powered trains per day whiz back and forth at maximum speeds up to 110 mph. West of Harrisburg, a lone diesel powered daily train takes riders to Pittsburgh. While the line from Philadelphia to Harrisburg sees only local freight service and is owned by the state, the line west of Harrisburg is one of two major rail arteries between New York and Chicago, and is owned by a private company (NS). Even though there is room to expand (the line was once 3-4 tracks for its whole length, and is now 2-3) NS has gone on record saying that it will require significant investment from public sources for NS to buy in on any service expansion to Pittsburgh.

Another example is the ongoing Commuter rail saga here in Pittsburgh. This time last year, it seemed almost a foregone conclusion that Pittsburgh would be gaining two rail lines; one to New Kensington/Arnold via the AVR, and one to Greensburg via the NS. By July however, NS’s tune apparently changed, as they became “highly unlikely to allow commuter trains on their tracks”. As a result, we’ve gone from a dual line heavy commuter “system” to a single line light rail system. While it’s impossible to know what changed, clearly something did.

Freight railroad's lack of cooperation in allowing passenger operations on their rails is understandable but detrimental to our nation transportation network. The only real way to get them to help is to force them to. Unfortunately, that is a thorny subject. A lot of people in this country don’t like when the Government tells companies what to do. Additionally, just like every other lobby, there’s a lot of money behind the railroad lobby and any legislation forcing railroad compliance would have to fight not only political will, but good old fashioned money.

I have to wonder what the answer is. I for one don’t know. It’s hard to see our national rail network ever expanding if railroads themselves will make it cost prohibitive.

Mid-week Train Links

2011-01-05T15:15:00.001-05:00

Here’s a couple of links I found today, both rail related.

First, in the total surprise department, the Trib issued a transportation (other than auto) friendly column yesterday.

Check it out here

Before you get too excited, links at the bottom of the page are a little less Bizzaro-Trib in nature. After reading this article you can find out how “liberals” have been proven to be “stupid”.

Enough attempted humor. The article is dead on, and fits in well with what experts in transportation and infrastructure have been screaming into deaf ears. Our transportation system is second rate and getting worse, because as we aren’t spending money to fix it and integrate it. In this country, if it’s not about cars it’s a conspiracy against our Freedom, or some such nonsense. While we are busy doing this:

the rest of the world is improving its infrastructure, in this case its rail systems.

Second, This link comes from the Post Gazette. Apparently the midst of a budget/funding crisis where the fare from every rider counts is the perfect time to practice Union tomfoolery.

I am a pretty progressive person (especially when it comes to transportation, which should be no suprise) but there’s nothing like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Apparently purposely screwing with people’s schedules and pissing off the riders is a great way to stick it to the man.

What is this, kindergarten? Grow up; you make a lot of money for what you do, and your employer is in a constant state of funding distress. The last thing the Port Authority needs, and deserves is a black eye because some self-entitled workers want to stick it to them.

Why not a Gondola???

2010-12-28T15:04:00.001-05:00

First things first; I learned a valuable lesson early on while researching for this post.

An aerial tram is about as closely related to a gondola as a housecat is to a lion. While trams and gondolas both travel through the air, are suspended and propelled by cables mounted atop towers, there are some key differences. (All numbers are approximations and depend on system length, # of vehicles etc.)

Tram Gondola

Cars/system 1-2 10+

Cost/line $15-50 mil $8-15 mil

Carrier Cap. 20-50 4-12

System Capacity 2000/hr 2400+/hr

This idea of an aerial gondola in Pittsburgh popped up a little while ago, and is very intriguing to me. The idea has been pooh-poohed and at first glance, that notion seems to be accurate. They’re slow, and can only travel in straight lines without significant upgrades to infrastructure and increases in cost. Some people may also argue that they are an eyesore high in the sky.

I for one think it’s worth a second glance. First of all, we’re not trying to connect to the airport here. This system could be successful as a link within the most dense parts of the city. Secondly, when compared to the cost for an at-grade or underground rail system, you are looking at an absolute blockbuster bargain (an underground link between downtown and Oakland was estimated at over $1 Billion with a B and an at grade system has been estimated at over $100 million). An additional positive aspect of an airborne system is the miniscule infrastructure footprint when compared to at grade or underground systems. Lastly they’re not as slow as you think.

Detachable technology allows the gondolas to separate from the cable while in a terminal and move independently from the cable which operates at a constant speed. While the gondolas travel at a literal crawl in each station, they can actually travel as fast as 20 ft/sec once under way. When you combine that with the fact that they travel in a complete straight line towards their destination, you could be looking at a trip between Oakland and the Southside in a mere 5 minutes. Five minutes all while taking in beautiful views of our beautiful city.

Here’s a few interesting reads:

A German Company who specializes in aerial trams and gondolas

An advocacy website for “Cable Driven Transit”

Well, I couldn’t just sit idly by with all this new-fangled and novel transit talk going on and not flex my Google Map muscle.

Essentially, I tried to create a circulator that would take you from nearly any “city core” neighborhood to another relatively easily. Station placement is key in this scenario because there would be no “intermediate stops” on a given line. Therefore, easy access to TOD and or other transit is critical for this idea to work.

The system would consist of five color coded lines. Each line would tie directly into another line at a terminal building and would operate in both directions. This is to facilitate easy and quick transfer from line to line without a rider having to leave the relative comfort of an enclosed terminal. Each gondola would ideally hold between 8 and 10 people, and each line would have enough gondolas to keep any transfer time under a minute. Payment would be rendered at the intial entry station, and an unlimited number free transfers could be made, until a person exits a station and the system.

Lines:

Blue: Oakland Campus. This line would connect Fifth Ave. with the Sports Complex. Would also tie into the Yellow Line at Fifth Ave. and the Red Line at Pitt’s Upper Campus.

Yellow: Oakland to Southside. This line would connect with the Blue Line at Fifth Ave, and the Orange Line in the South Side.

Orange: Southside to Mt. Washington. This line connects with the Yellow Line in the Southside, and the Green Line at Mt. Washington

Green: Mt. Washington to Uptown. This line connects with the Orange Line at Mt. Washington, and with the Red Line Uptown.

Red: Uptown to Upper Campus. This line connects with the Green Line at Uptown and with the Blue Line at Pitt’s Upper Campus.

Stations:

Upper Pitt Campus: This station serves the Upper Pitt Campus and Hill District. This station increases the potential for Pitt Students to use the gondola as an alternative to walking up the hill or using a shuttle. For this service to work however, some sort of free fare system for students would have to be worked out.
Oakland: This station would provide access to the heart of Oakland with the Pitt Campus and hospitals. It would also provide good transit access with the bus routes which traverse 5^th Ave and Forbes Ave.

South Side Flats: This station would be best situated between the Southside works and Carson St. This would allow easy access (2-3 blocks in either direction) to the attractions at the Southside Works and Carson St. This stop would also tie in well with Port Authority service on the South Side.

Mt. Washington: This station would offer easy access to the Mon Incline and views of Pittsburgh.

Uptown: This station would tie in very well with Current re-development plans for the Civic Arena site and the Consol Energy Center. The only potential issue with this stop is it does not tie in well with transit downtown.

View Fun With Aerial Gondolas in a larger map

Again, this is by no means a hard and fast plan, but a mere suggestion at how and aerial gondola could be made a very well patronized, inexpensive, and viable form of intra-city transportation in the City of Pittsburgh.

My Hard Work Pays Off!

2010-12-22T10:44:00.000-05:00

You can all thank me later...

http://www.portauthority.org/PAAC/News/LatestNews/tabid/533/newsid1261/1067/mid/1261/Default.aspx

Winter What?

2010-12-21T11:59:00.000-05:00

It’s hard to miss signs of the 2011 Winter Classic between the Pens and Washington Capitals taking place in just over 11 days. I for one am ecstatic; between the Alumni game and Classic itself, this an exciting time for hockey in Pittsburgh.

How is this related to transit you ask? Well, check out this segue.

The only organization in Pittsburgh that doesn’t seem to know there is an event at Heinz Field on the 1^st of January is the Port Authority. I understand they’ve been pre-occupied, with the budget crisis, but still, this is a HUGE event for Pittsburgh. Unlike your average Steeler game (which has a number of transportation options to choose from), a lot of people will be from out of town. A lot of those same people will be staying in City and area hotels and will be looking for a good way (other than paying $100-$500 to park within a mile of the stadium) to get to the stadium.

If you look at the Port Authority’s website, you’d think that nothing is going on. A spin of the ole' trip calculator between anywhere and Heinz Field reveals no special service options, detours or announcements in conjunction with the Winter Classic.

Meanwhile, a casual search of the internets revealed about 30 different forum threads on various websites from out of towners looking for ways to use public transportation to get to the game.

This event has already been great for Pittsburgh. We, as a city look awesome in everything from the advertisements to HBO’s series "24/7". Pittsburgh likens itself to a progressive and “greening” city committed to livability and sustainability. That image doesn’t really jive with a transportation authority who, from all appearances, is not concerned with providing quality transportation alternatives to driving for arguably the biggest sporting event in Pittsburgh this year.

It seems that to the Port Authority, it’s just another weekend holiday on an un-remarkable winter day.

AVR Commuter Rail Operations Part 3

2010-12-20T16:17:00.000-05:00

Vehicles

The end is in sight!

This final portion of my series on the proposed AVR Commuter line will cover equipment. It’s been decided, for better or worse, that the AVR’s plan will not use an FRA-compliant heavy DMU, ala US Railcar. Instead they will use a light DMU. There are plenty on the market in Europe, and there are several operating examples in the United States.

I’ve quoted the RiverLine a lot and they use a version of Stadler “GTW” line of vehicle. This line is also used by Capital Metro in Austin, TX, and is the proposed vehicle for a new start up service in Denton County Texas.

Other manufacturers with a foothold in North America include Siemens Mobility, whose Desiro design is used by Southern California’s Sprinter service and Bombardier whose Talent vehicle was chosen for Ottawa’s “O-Train”.

To be honest, that’s about the extent of the information. Plenty of company propaganda, but little other information. I’m not privy, of course, to pricing and what types of options the AVR would include, but if they’re married to a light DMU, then there are at least a number of options to choose from.

By The Skin of their Teeth…

2010-12-15T15:49:00.000-05:00

Whew….I can take a breath for now at least. Funding is by no means secure for the future, but things look good today.

Here’s to the small victories.

Check out the article here.

Check out an even more interesting blog post here.

Very emblematic of the struggle within the state for transportation funding. The groups that seemingly had little stake in the funding crisis voted “NO” overwhelmingly. Those in Allegheny County and in areas that had the most to lose voted overwhelmingly “YES”. It’s more of the classic “My taxes should only go to pay for my roads. Screw everyone else.”

It’s sad to see that such parochialism exists even within the council. I’m sure everyone believes they are voting in the best interest of the region (or at least that’s what the point of the SPC is). However, there are clearly divergent views on what’s important.

I for one don’t understand how you can let the largest population density in the region (and the economic production that goes along with that) to flounder without proper transportation assets and expect it not to affect more than just Allegheny County. Washington County realized that, I can’t believe that some of our other neighbors (namely Westmoreland, Butler and Beaver Counties) could not, or chose not to recognize that fact.

Nothing Set in Stone

2010-12-07T17:37:00.001-05:00

First things first. Don’t call it a bailout (that goes for you too PG). That insinuates the Port Authority immediately screwed something up*. The Port Authority didn’t say; “Hey, let’s throw away our state funding on hookers and blow!” The state promised dedicated funding for public transportation. Their plan was arguably a stupid idea and they had no plan B when it didn’t work. Now they can’t balance the budget while providing a sustainable transit funding source. The blame for this immediate crisis lies with the state.

Now to the topic at hand; there is yet to be consensus among the SPC members that they will sign this off on this transfer of funds.

Apparently, some on the committee are saying that this is just another band-aid. I would agree. No one thinks this is permanent. However, I would also argue the Port Authority shouldn’t be pushed off the cliff to prove a point.

Permanent funding absolutely needs to be established. Forcing the Port Authority over the edge and using Western Pennsylvania’s transit users as pawns in the process is not the right way to bring about the needed change.

The move is meant to buy time to allow steady funding to be established WITHOUT the massive cuts, increased wear and tear on roads, and increased traffic headaches that will occur as a result.

Not helping the cause is the fact that there seem to be some clear highway advocates within the SPC, especially in areas that are not densely populated and do not have a big public transportation footprint.

Chairman Charlie Camp seems to be a leader among them, stating:

"We're tired of the mass transit funding issue coming at the cost of highways and bridges and being put on our table."

I believe that to be a short-sited and erroneous statement. The money is coming from projects that were not started. This money would not have been spent on improving our highways. Additionally, if the cuts are allowed to go through, they will cause major increases in road usage, and therefore increases in wear and tear on our already tired roads and bridges. Not spending the money to keep the Port Authority going is NOT going to help Western Pennsylvania's roads.

Bottom line, it looks like it’s going to be yet another nail biter in this already very nervous year for the Port Authority and their riders.

If you care about keeping service at least at status quo, then here are a couple of contacts:

To reach the General Comments address: comments@spcregion.org

To reach the Transportation Planning Director: dipietro@spcregion.org

*As I've stated before, the Port Authority has done plenty over the years to warrant anger towards their financial situation. However, this particular situation has nothing to do with the current regime at the Port Authority. It's also easy to blame the Unions. It's true that their negotiated advances did a lot to push us towards this point. However, the Unions have a legal contract in place and Steve Bland cannot just legally back out on that contract and make the sweeping changes that are called for in some circles.

Crisis...Averted?

2010-12-02T13:01:00.000-05:00

I found this by way of PGH is a City this morning.

Here's the story.

Rendell has found funding. That part is good. As of right now, we don't know if the Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission will approve the "flexing" of $45 million in funds to cover the Port Authority funding gap. They will meet to decide on December 13th. If you'll recall, over the summer the Commission voted unanimously to turn down a one time "flex" of money from the Governor. That was then, this is now.

At that point there was hope that a long term solution was still a possibility so in many ways it made sense that the commission would vote the flex down. Now that we are down to the wire, they will hopefully approve the measure.

Key word here is hopefully.

Another key issue is, this is just a temporary stay of execution so to speak. It's a one year, one time cash infusion that will do nothing to solve the perenial funding issues facing the Port Authority.

However, at this point, I'd be glad to take just about anything that will help stave off the cuts.

AVR Commuter Rail Operations Part 2

2010-11-30T15:07:00.000-05:00

Signaling

First off, in a different post I used the traffic light analogy when describing a railroad signaling system. That’s partially right. For a much better and in depth description of railroad signaling, and different types of railroad signal, check this out.

As it stands right now, none of the current AVR line mentioned in this proposal is signaled. Signals were removed from this route back in the PRR days. This means not only that all the signals and associated relay equipment will have to be re-installed, but any other remotely controlled switches/derails*/automatic stops** etc. and their associated relay equipment would have to be installed. This is a normal cost associated with setting up a commuter operation.

Additionally, special signaling would have to be supplied for the portion that runs at-grade on 26^th street and on the Busway.

Here’s the good news. A local business getting the business. Union Switch and Signal (a part of Ansaldo) has their headquarters in the city. This sounds like a match made in heaven to me.

The signaling concept is pretty easy and straightforward. A light rail operation can use similar rules and signaling with a few modifications (mainly derails and Automatic train control devices). Aside from cost, there is little that would be more challenging than a heavy commuter line, or any other light rail for that matter.

*Apparently derails are required at controlled points where a heavy rail operation interlocks with a light rail operation. These devices will prevent an improperly directed train from entering prohibited territory.

** Automatic train control devices would be required at all interlockings. If a train does not have permission to proceed through the interlocking (by the signal protecting the interlocking), then an automatic train control device would kick in and stop the train. These devices require both rail vehicle modification and additional lineside equipment.

Routes Getting the Axe

2010-11-29T12:03:00.000-05:00

Found this on the Port Authority's website this morning. There's an awful lot of red.

http://www.portauthority.org/paac/portals/0/board/P&D_ServiceReductions_Nov2010.pdf

It’s Done Done

2010-11-24T11:29:00.000-05:00

With a mere 50 people there to mark it’s passing, the Port Authority inked the largest fare hike and service cut in Port Authority history.

I wonder how long it takes the other 1 million people in Allegheny County to notice that their lives have been negatively impacted by not giving a damn about transit funding.

A big shout out to the Pennsylvania State Government for having a funding plan that wasn’t secure, and then showing the political fortitude to do absolutely nothing about it when that funding plan fell through.

Also a big shout out to Pat McMahon of ATU 85 for threatening to strike over a 6% raise in health care costs and a 3% salary raise in 2008 and then having the gall to scold anyone but the ATU leaders and members of the last 20-30 years who have plenty of culpability in this whole situation.

http://www.postgazette.com/pg/10328/1105862-455.stm

While We're on the Subject...

2010-11-23T11:53:00.000-05:00

Been doing a lot of writing about the FRA regulations dealing with light rail. While searching for the regulations themselves, I found this interesting blog post. It's a few years old, but informative and interesting nonetheless.

http://www.ebbc.org/rail/fra.html

Could the issues raised in the post indeed have something to do with how expensive/troublesome it has been to get our national passenger rail network off the ground? I can't say for sure, but there are some interesting points brought up that would support that notion.

I found the portion on TOD and silent crossings to be particularly interesting (that's how you know if you're a transit nerd)

AVR Commuter Rail Operations Part 1

2010-11-22T17:04:00.002-05:00

Ok, I’m FINALLY getting to this. I know there’s a lot going on, and a lot of it is negative. I’d like to focus on something that is moving forward, at least for the time being. I was going to do this in one post, but it got a little O.O.C. so it’ll be broken up into three.

Dispatching

Before I get into the whole light rail/freight separation thing, we can get the “easy stuff” out of the way. Dispatching of this operation would be vary very little from dispatching a “heavy rail” operation. A dispatcher would oversee operation, line signals and manage the movement and protection of the trains. The bigger question is who would run it. I can’t say for sure if AVR has dispatching factored into its annual operating cost in its study of this service. I do know that they will be on the hook for it. I would be very surprised if CSX would take on this responsibility, and there’s no way the NS would get involved. Additionally, as The Trib so wonderfully put it, they wouldn’t want to burden the Port Authority with any further responsibility, so the AVR looks to be on the hook for all operations including dispatching. A cost issue, which must be taken into account is night-time operations. If a signal system is installed (it would have to be) it can’t just be shut off at night. It takes written FRA approval to shut down a signaling system. That means that the lone night time train would require a third shift dispatcher. Hardly an effective use of money.

The next question is what operating rules they would use. NORAC would make the most obvious choice, and is used by NJT on their RiverLine. Most other rulebooks are railroad specific, but NORAC provides rules which are used by multiple railroads, especially in the Northeast/Mid Atlantic region.

Time Seperations

I’ve talked a lot about light rail intermixed with freight traffic and I’m not a big fan of these types of operations, except in cases where the freight operating window is very narrow (think a few hours) because of the FRA requirement of a “temporal separation” between freight traffic and light-rail passenger operations. If you’re going to run a commuter service, then in my mind it should be heavy rail, but that’s another discussion for another post.

If this operation is envisioned to be a purely commuter style operation, then the separation called for by the FRA isn’t a big problem. Passenger trains would operate mostly into the city during the day and out of the city at night. Operations would end probably somewhere around 8 or 9 PM, allowing the AVR to serve its customers, and would then begin early in the morning.

The problem with this is, however, it limits the operation’s effectiveness for TOD and also in getting people out of their cars on nights and weekends. What’s the attraction to living close to transit that doesn’t operate when you need it (outside of work)?

If this operation is to be, as some have painted it, as an intra-city link to move people from downtown to the Strip/Lawrenceville area, then this could be a challenge (not to mention I question this operation’s value in that capacity). A subsequent separation or several separations would have to occur on a daily basis for this to work. For example, a certain portion of the line (say above Oakmont) could be made available for freight operation after a given time (10 PM for example), while the southern portion could remain off-limits to freight until a later time (1 AM, for example). One problem with this, however, is that the northern portion of the line is isolated. AVR trains must enter at one of two spots, the first around 33^rd St. which uses their own rails, or via NS’s Brilliant Branch, which would require further trackage rights and an extended back-up move.

To accomplish this, another window would have to be established, earlier, say after rush hour but before the “nightlife” kicks in. Passenger operations would have to be banned entirely during this period and all passenger equipment clear of the line and properly secured. The AVR could then enter the line and travel north towards New Kensington. Once the train cleared a certain point (say a controlled point in or around Oakmont) AND a certain time was reached, passenger operations could then resume on the southern portion of the line until later that evening, when passenger operations would be suspended for the evening and the AVR could service customers south of Oakmont. See the list below for a (hopefully) better explanation.

6AM to 7 PM-Passenger only operation. No freight operation allowed*

7 PM to 8 PM-Freight only operation, no passenger operation allowed**

8PM to 1 AM-North of Oakmont: Freight only operation, no passenger operation allowed.

8PM to 1 AM-South of Oakmont: Passenger only operation, no passenger operation allowed.

1 AM to 6 AM Freight only, no passenger operations

Clearly it’s doable but complicated. I’ve heard of an FRA waiver that could be applied for to allow simultaneous operation, but I don’t know how practical this is considering NJT’s RiverLine was supposed to be operated in this manner but could is still operated with the time separation after 6+ years of operation.

*EDIT*
I did a little more digging and found out that the RiverLine is operating under waivers. However, it's not as straightforward as I thought. Apparently a waiver is required just to let freight trains use an interlocking or controlled point that has a physical connection to the RiverLine (ridiculous). Additionally, it appears that a waiver is required for a freight train to even operate on a separate but parallel track to an active light rail track (also ridiculous). New Jersey Transit and Conrail were approved for these waivers and are operating under them, but these waivers do NOT allow for freight traffic to operate on the same track at the same time as passenger traffic.

These waivers would certainly have an effect on AVR's operation. The freight would have to enter at a controlled point, remotely controlled by a dispatcher.

View AVR Freight Connection in a larger map

The AVR also has a track that continues over the Allegheny River and interchanges with the Buffalo and Pittsburgh at Bakerstown, PA. Because this line (the former B&O Railroad P&W sub) sees freight traffic on an as needed basis and because there is a physical connection between this line and AVR's proposed service, a waiver would be required.

The whole issue of temporal separation could be avoided by dedicating one track to freight and one to passenger. The line was at one time double track so it is possible, but again, some sort of waiver would be required.

*This means that no heavy freight cars, engines or trains can move on or occupy any main track, and must be secured against movement

**This means that no passenger trains can move on or occupy any main track, and must be secured against movement.

High Speed Fallout

2010-11-18T13:14:00.000-05:00

There’s been a ton of talk about the changes in the political winds and how it’s going to affect transportation Western Pennsylvania. Those winds have also been felt on the national level. The shift to the right in other states has brought some potentially huge impacts to Obama’s national HSR plan and will impact the Pittsburgh region.

There’s a really interesting battle going on in Wisconsin right now. The Governor-elect has pledged to end the HSR project and has asked the DOT to allow the state to re-appropriate the funds. Additionally, TALGO had set up a manufacturing plant to build HSR equipment for Wisconsin and other states. It appears that they stand to lose the manufacturer and the money ($810 million) if the governor follows through with his plans.

Of a more immediate impact to the Pittsburgh region is the election of a new Governor in Ohio, John Kasich. Part of his platform from the start was to kill the 3C Corridor. He has pledged to keep this promise and end the project. This is a much bigger blow to Western Pennsylvania than other HSR developments, as the next step after completion of the primary corridor was a connection from Pittsburgh to both Cleveland and to Columbus, creating a triangle of passenger service in Ohio. For the last few years, Ohio has seemed more intent on getting better rail service to Pittsburgh than Pennsylvania was, and now that seems to have flown out the window as well. As with Wisconsin, DOT Secretary Ray LaHood has vowed to take back all funding given to Ohio, to the tune of $400 million and put it back in the national HSR pot.

This is immediately bad for Western Pennsylvania. Our local transit system appears to be taking a huge nosedive, and it looks like our regional connections will remain status quo, at best for the foreseeable future. Pennsylvania’s HSR grant this summer in relation to Pittsburgh was miniscule ($800K) and was only to do some very preliminary studies on the NS’s route from Harrisburg west to Pittsburgh.

With our emerging ally to the west seemingly switching sides, and a further shift in our state government to the right (a traditionally un-friendly group towards transportation other than the automobile) it’s not looking good for the home team.

Our one bright spot, at this point, is that the money appears to be going back into the pot. It will take time to re-receive applications for appropriations and to go through the approval process. While Pennsylvania does not have any “shovel ready” projects, perhaps we can use this bought time to advance our cause.

Knowing our state government, I’m not holding my breath, but it’s a chance.

It's Done

2010-11-17T13:14:00.000-05:00

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10321/1103993-100.stm

Not good, not good at all...

Bad to Worse

2010-11-17T10:42:00.000-05:00

Everyone knew about the transit cuts coming in March. First off, it looks like those are a done deal, unless something drastic happens in Harrisburg in the next few days (I’m not holding my breath). Now it looks like they are trying to plan ahead for 2012. With the new sheriff in town who has pledged not to raise taxes, no matter what (I’m very interested to see how that is supposed to work given the horrid state of our infrastructure, and massive budget shortfalls).

The Port Authority said it was too early to discuss the scope of a second round of cuts (right now slated for July 2011), but it’s on the horizon unless something changes.

Depressing, that’s all I can say about this whole situation. After the optimism of two years ago, all we hear about are landmark cuts and the bad news we already knew about. What is most frustrating is that it’s easy and politically attractive to say cut cut cut spending. Meanwhile, we are sitting on an infrastructure time bomb that is ticking away. Further cuts will only cause the timer to speed up, as increased automobile traffic resulting from further transit cuts on the roads of Western Pennsylvania will only increase the wear and tear on our already worn out roads and bridges.

AVR Commuter News

2010-11-16T15:46:00.000-05:00

Fisrt things first, I am really going to finish my “expert” analysis of the AVR’s Commuter line, I swear.

In the meantinme…

The AVR Rail proposal has popped up again. The city got a grant for redevelopment or greening of a ribbon of land heading from the Strip through Lawrenceville.

Check out the article here.

.The total funding was $1.5 million. It isn’t explicitly stated, but the most of the amount seems to be going to building the greenway. Relocating sidings and industries is noted, but that seems to allow for the greenway, not to facilitate commuter rail.

Still, the fact remains that AVR’s commuter service was mentioned hand in hand with this. Questions of funding still remain un-answered, and because there is currently no public money involved, there is no study or project plan available to the public.

This is all well and good, but again, I see limited value in integrating this into the greenway. I am not questioning the greenway or the value of building up our transit infrastructure, I am merely questioning the value of AVR’s proposal to making transportation better IN Pittsburgh. A commuter style route to the suburbs is fine for, well, commuters, but not to bring residents to another neighborhood in the city. What you'll most likely end up with is residents of the city using buses, driving or biking to reach this new development when all is said and done.

MEANWHILE, DOWNTOWN….

The Public Hearing: The Day After

2010-08-20T10:12:00.000-04:00

I won’t rehash the many arguments made at the hearing yesterday. They all have their merits, and each covered a small piece of why public transportation is a PUBLIC SERVICE and is absolutely indispensable if we want our city to remain a great place to live and work.

However, I cannot emphasize this point enough: Public Comment is NOT over. Let’s hope the 200+ speakers from yesterday’s public hearing is not even the tip of the iceberg.

You can mail in your comment to:

Port Authority Fare & Service Proposals

Heinz 57 Center, 345 Sixth Avenue, Floor 3

Pittsburgh PA 15222-2527

For those of you that are more technologically inclined, you can fill out an online submission form here.

If you use public transportation in Allegheny County, and enjoy the mobility you have, PLEASE make your voice heard.

Make Time

2010-08-18T10:32:00.000-04:00

If you’re angry about the Port Authority’s funding being slashed and subsequent slashes to service….make time

If you don’t want to see residents that rely on this public service lose access to service and thereby lose their mobility…make time

If you are upset that the politicians that represent you are spineless and care more about not making a splash amongst potential voters than actually helping their constituents…make time

If you are unhappy that full time funding for transportation in this state was dangled in front of your face like a carrot, only to be pulled away…make time

If you are tired of yahoos from Central Pennsylvania whining about how their taxes go to those big city folk for their fancy buses, when if fact, we big city folk help pay for their roads…make time

You can go and testify, or log on and comment there. Just like with the Connect '09 initiative, you have a chance to be heard and a chance to make your voice, and your opinions count. You can be damn sure that I’ll be putting in my two cents.

Really? You're using this?

2010-08-04T12:21:00.000-04:00

Poor, poor NSC. It’s been the regional whipping boy for years now. It’s taken the leap to the national political stage. Here’s the article.

I’m no NSC cheerleader, but realize that it’s already near complete and will provide value to the region. Check out this post for a more detailed opinion.

This is absolutely ridiculous. Don’t use the NSC as your political pawn to validate your political agenda. The NSC is not representative of the bailout, and the way in which it is presented is just plain misleading.

The NSC is such a tiny piece of the overall stimulus package ($62.5 million out of $ 800 odd BILLION dollars). I could probably find just as many examples of the Stimulus program helping to stimulate job growth as you could find examples like the NSC, but that is not the point of this post.

People constantly argue that the NSC should not have been built, but it was. If they would have had to stop the project, the 4000 or so jobs related to this project would have been prematurely ended (while the economy was at its worst) and the Port Authority would have inherited tunnels that it could not use but still had to pay for. You could argue that the cost per rider will be expensive, and it will, but PAT will at least re-coop at least some money through ridership. If no one is using the tunnels because they could not be completed, then no money is being re-cooped and the tunnels and other related infrastructure would just be sitting there, unused and eating up dwindling Port Authority funding (it still costs money to maintain infrastructure, even if its not in use, especially tunnels that could collapse if not maintained).

Finally, and here’s the biggest issue I have with this. You want to blame an administration for the NSC? Fine, blame the Bush Administration.* That administration approved the project and funded it to the tune of $348 million (80% of the projected cost at the time of approval). I could argue that had the Bush administration not agreed to award the money, then the project would not have to be bailed out because it was over budget due to inflation. I could say that this is another example of the Obama administration having to “bailout” a decision made by the Bush administration. If you want to look strictly at the numbers of how much each administration has spent on the NSC; the Bush administration spent a lot more on the project than the Obama administration has.

I am not actually trying to make that statement, but it’s about as accurate as someone saying “look at the NSC, it's bad, it got bailed out by Obama's bailout, Obama’s bailout is bad.” The point is, the project needed to get finished, and no matter who is in the oval office now, the money probably would have been spent to finish the project. The funding also just happened to come from Stimulus funding. If that would not have been available, it probably would have come from somewhere else.

Politics in this country is disgusting. Nothing can be taken at face value, because nothing is ever presented at face value. Every “fact” is tilted, twisted and wrung out until it matches an ideology.

*Blaming the Bush Administration for DOT’s approval of the NSC is just as foolish as directly blaming the Obama Administration for the use of bailout money on the NSC. I would wager that neither President had direct knowledge of the physical approval for either instance.

Breaking Down the AVR Proposal Part 1

2010-07-29T17:32:00.001-04:00

I’ve been critical of AVR’s plan for commuter rail. That’s not to say that there isn’t value to what they are doing. With that in mind I’ve put together some of what I feel are issues/risks/opportunities for this proposal. I broke the proposal down into construction and operation. The first installment will cover construction and each section will lay out potential issues and opportunities (if applicable)

Keep in mind as well, there is no public report available for this. I’ve gathered my ideas and thoughts through articles and material available on the internet. There are no concrete figures save the $171million “private loan” and the $228 million overall cost. Beyond that, there is currently no detail available.

Construction

Stations

There aren’t many major issues with the construction of stations from Arnold, PA to 26^th St. in the Strip.

There are just a couple of concerns that I think it is important to highlight.

Tarentum Bridge Stop: One of the issues AVR has apparently taken with the current Commuter Rail study is the lack of a stop past the current end of track in Arnold, PA. They want to extend the route, approximately a mile north along the river to a stop around the Tarentum Bridge.

While I don’t have a problem with this in theory, geography makes implementation tricky, and probably expensive. The east side of the Allegheny River under the bridge is just a thin strip of flat land, with a steep hillside to one side and the river to the other. There is enough land for at least one track, as this is the former PRR Railroad Allegheny Division right of way. The tracks are gone, but the right of way is still intact. However, there is little room for a station with parking and multiple tracks. Additionally, gaining auto access to this strip of land would be challenging. If the designers envision direct access from the Tarentum bridge (which I am guessing they will), steep ramps will have to be built from the bridge. These ramps will need to provide enough clearance for Tugs to operate underneath them. It can be done, but it would be expensive. Again, there is no word whether this cost is included in the $228 million figure quoted in the Trib/Post Gazette.

Another option that could be used would be to either make an access road off of Lower Braeburn Road in Lower Burrell or move the station further north so that it would be situated at the bottom of Lower Braeburn Road. Both of these have potential issues as well. I am still not sure there’s enough room underneath the bridge itself for a station, even without using ramps off of the bridge. Also, with the second option, you will lose the convenience option. I am betting they are trying to capitalize on the ease of travel to the Tarentum Bridge and therefore maximize on ridership. If people have to drive out of their way to get to a station that is isolated by geography then there is no real reason to spend the money to put it there.

26^th St. Intermodal Terminal: 26^th Street is a decision point for the AVR. They will either keep to their ROW to 16^th street, or leave their right of way at 26^th St, travel at grade on 26^th street and join the Busway on the far side of Liberty.

If the latter is chosen, this point could become particularly important. According to this idea, an intermodal terminal would be built at 26^th street and the AVR would possibly interchange with an LRT line coming up from downtown (don’t ask me how this would happen…)

The nearby property owners will become important in this instance. A light rail vehicle can’t just hang a left at an intersection and the Strip is filled with dense development.. To get an idea of what it takes to turn a light rail vehicle, see the below map.

View Larger Map

Land will have to be acquired and buildings potentially demolished. This is sure to meet with resistance from local business/property owners. This will add to the already expensive costs of terminal facility construction in an urban environment.

Right of Way Construction:

One advantage that AVR has is that of an existing ROW. (ahh the joys of existing infrastructure). They already own the property and the tracks. All they have to do is upgrade it. They will have to add stations, passing sidings, signaling, and probably upgrade the road crossing protection over what they currently have. While still expensive, the hard part (ROW acquisition) is already taken care of.

That is until…

you get to 26^th St.

As discussed before, the AVR may elect to continue using their right of way and easement to reach 16^th St. If this is the case, while not ideal for operations it is ideal from a cost standpoint.

The other option would be to operate at grade on 26^th St. across Liberty where it would run on (or alongside) the Busway to the Penn Center Station and onto Steel Plaza. This option could end up being very costly, and may not be physically feasible at all.

View Larger Map

As I alluded to earlier, a train doesn’t turn on a dime. The line would have to curve to meet 26^th St, and again, would probably have to cross a privately owned parking lot. The AVR would then need permission to dig up the entirety of 26^th Street to lay rail. This would involve closing off Liberty Ave and Penn Ave to dig up the pavement and lay rails.

I don’t know the timeframe for how long these roads would have to be disrupted for or the cost to install rails and update the traffic control equipment (both for auto traffic and trains).

The going gets tougher once across Liberty Ave. There is currently a bridge across the NS Pittsburgh Line that buses use to access the Busway. There is a grade after Liberty to get over this bridge. If trains are to use this they must make sure the grade is not too steep to operate. They also have to ensure that the bridge is rated. Remember, Light Rail is a relative term (River LINE style cars are approx 20 tons) and they are crossing a highway style bridge. Assuming those requirements are met the ramp will have to be dug up and tracks laid.

The next challenge is the Busway itself. After having to emplace a hard right hand curve at the Busway end of the bridge, the line will have to deal with the Busway itself. This is not privately owned and is owned by the Port Authority. They must agree to allow tracks to be put into place on their route. (There is also no indication whether PAT will or won’t be responsible for operating this AVR service). Again, IF PAT agrees to this request, the Busway will have to be torn up and tracks laid. As the route would near the Penn Center Station, there is more room and the two routes could operate parallel to each other.

An additional problem would face this proposal south of the Penn Center Station. Soon after the station, the T ROW into Steel Plaza goes underground and stays that way for the 1000 or so feet to Steel Plaza. This would mean that diesel propulsion may not be practical. At the very least cars would not be allowed to idle in Steel Plaza, and may not be able to be operated underground at all without an electrical back up or third rail system. Although this would be a short distance requirement, it still would mean additional infrastructure and vehicle costs. Also, tracks would have to be re-laid because of gauge difference.

A final construction issue is future T service to the East. I know it’s a pipe dream, but there has always been talk of making the East Busway into a T line. Right now that possibility will always be there. If you built a different gauge line in from the East, you are removing that possibility.

It’s clear there are some challenges. I like the idea of the line going all the way to Steel Plaza. This line is unlikely to ever be able to link in with a like mode of transportation. Giving people ready access to the T and East Busway to get elsewhere in the city is critical if this service is going to succeed. It’ seems as though construction is feasible. The question right now is; is it practical?

I'll Pull My Funding if You Pull Yours

2010-07-22T13:16:00.000-04:00

As I stated in my previous post and now that I've had a little time to calm down; I am 100% in support of pulling all state funding from the Port Authority (and SEPTA for that matter) with the caveat that the state no longer maintain any roads or fund any new roads. Counties and municipalities would be on the hook to maintain all existing roads and fund any new road construction or expansion, to include limited access highways without the help of state funds.

It’s hard to hypothesize what this would be like because it is unprecedented. It's even harder to imagine how it would be all funded; not a pretty scenario given our auto-centric society.

The only real “case study” of this is E-470 in Eastern Colorado. It’s a Public/Private limited access highway that extends from Meridian, CO southeast of Denver, past Denver International to Broomfield, CO, northeast of Denver. It’s basically a half moon shaped highway which forms the eastern half of a beltway around Denver. Its western half was built and is maintained by the State of Colorado.

E470 is maintained and tolled by a private company and has a public board consisting of the municipalities that the road travels through. They set toll rates and oversee the operation and finances of the E470 highway.

As of 2009 the average toll is 31 cents per mile for a two axle vehicle. The toll is higher if it is a tandem axle vehicle. The road was built and financed through private bonds and cost approx. $ 1.23 Billion dollars or about $25,751,072.96 per mile ($1.2 billion/46.6 miles)

If we take that $.31 per mile and say we drive five miles back and forth (a total of 10) each day to work. The total per day would be $3.10. Driving the route 5 times a week would cost us $ 15.50. Driving 50 weeks out of the year would cost $775.

In our current system, a person could avoid tolls altogether by using a publicly funded road that may parallel this limited access highway. However, if all roads were locally funded, avoiding this toll may not be possible.

Again, this is just a small example using available information. However, if local municipalities had to pay for new road construction and road maintenance (including limited access) they would be hard pressed to fund those requirements. Those requirements would make a system such as the E470 highway entirely possible on a larger scale. In this case, that $775.00 could be and most likely would be MUCH higher.

Even if a system like the E470 weren’t adopted on a wide scale, communities would have to garner the revenue somehow. In that case, it's likely that local governments would resort to the thing that everyone hates to begin with; taxes.

So, once again, anyone willing to trade privatized transit for privatized roads, I’m all for it. That way everyone can finally see that no form of human transportation, be it automotive, rail, air, or bus is un-subsidized.

Not Good at All...

2010-07-21T13:07:00.000-04:00

I have to agree with the sentiment of my friend over at Politics and Place on this one.

This is bullshit!

Port Authority has announced MASSIVE cuts. If you ride transit, you will be affected. Check out the article. Here are the changes. Public comment has been scheduled for August 19th. Be there if you give a crap about transit in Pittsburgh.

Also, talk to your state representative. They are the root of this problem. Tell them you think it's unacceptable to place public transit's head on the block to save their own heads at the ballot box.

To my new friend from Hempfield Twp. What's good for the goose is good for the gander: You don't want to pay for transit in Pittsburgh and Philly? Fine, I don't want to pay for your roads. Not an penny of state funding should go to your hard working, poor, innocent, and abused constituents in Central PA who are road bound. Let them pay for their own road maintenance and new road building costs. No state grants; no money for state roads, no nothing. Maybe God and the Tea Party will fix your roads for you.

AVR "River Line" Map

2010-07-20T16:00:00.000-04:00

Check ahhhht this new Google Map of AVR's proposed transit line, which I have nick-named the "AVR River Line" after NJT's version from Trenton to Camden, NJ.

View AVR's "River Line" in a larger map

Coming soon: a breakdown of the challenges/opportunities for AVR's proposal.

The AVR Saga Continues

2010-07-16T14:23:00.000-04:00

I couldn’t resist. I had to write something after I saw the latest Article in the Trib about the AVR.* As if that wasn’t enough, there was a follow up article in the City Paper.

To sum it up: AVR wants to implement service from Arnold to Steel City Plaza via their current right of way from Arnold to the Strip, breaking off (and I’m assuming) using street trackage on 26^th St, crossing Liberty and using the East Busway to gain access to Steel Plaza. They want to do this because: #1 They feel access to Steel Plaza will provide the greatest intermodality (can’t argue that, given the context) and #2 struggles with property owner below 21^st ST (Buncher) continue, even though the STB ruled in favor of AVR owning the easement to their ROW in the lower Strip.

A couple thoughts on the Trib article:

I wonder if the Allegheny/Westmoreland County commuter proposal has really “lost steam” as the article suggests. Granted, not much has been said about it lately, but throughout this planning process, there have been large gaps in time between updates.

I also get the impression that really no one is on board with the AVR’s proposal, accept the AVR. County and Port Authority officials seem to be awfully quiet about the whole thing.

Then the City Paper article popped up. This article brought up further issues, such as the proposed Buncher TOD development in the Strip. Included in this was talk of an LRT line to Lawrenceville. Additionally, the article questioned the validity and thoroughness of AVR’s study on connecting their transit line with Steel City Plaza. There was no mention of the Allegheny/Westmoreland Commuter Rail proposal in this article.

A couple thoughts on the CP article:

Wow, the plot thickens. I had seen articles about the proposed development in the Strip but had not heard talk about an LRT line to Lawrenceville. I have to wonder where exactly that all came from (aside from Patrick Dowd’s mouth). Considering PAT nixed the convention center spur, I don’t know how likely this line to Lawrenceville would be. I’m certainly not opposed to the idea; however, I'm not holding my breath for them to build one. Consider that the first Spine Line Study was completed in 1993. Nearly twenty years later, we are close to having a tiny portion of what was supposed to be the Spine Line (The NSC).

My overall thoughts:

There have been many developments in a short amount of time. In addition, I’m not exactly sure what is really going on vs. what is conjecture. Nothing is guaranteed at this point, not even AVR’s plan. Dowd’s comments are right on about wanting to increase connectivity within the city, not just into and out of the city. For my money, I’d rather see an extension to Oakland, transformation of the busway to LRT, or an LRT line to Lawrenceville through the strip before commuter rail.

Additionally, I have to wonder where the commuter rail plan stands. Again, if AVR forges ahead as is, they will be creating a single line transit system that will be limited in how it can tie in with other forms of transportation within the region. You will never have a system of these lines in Pittsburgh where you can get from one point in the region to another (beyond Arnold to Pittsburgh). A heavy type commuter rail would at least give the ability to operate inter-mixed with freight traffic, and would make the dream of having a system from one end of the county to the other at least a possibility. As unlikely as that may seem, it is still MORE likely than a similar system using River Line style light rail.

Having said that, any project that would decrease the number of vehicles on the road and the amount of time that people spend in cars would be welcome. Commuter rail can spur TOD. If someone moves to a walkable community near a train station from a suburban cul de sac because it provides access to the city that in itself is a victory. Oakmont isn’t in the city, but it’s a perfect, ready made TOD community (with the exception of a super market, but I digress). It would certainly not be a bad thing to expand a walkable community like Oakmont.

Additionally, as a commenter In the City Paper article suggests, a golden opportunity to generate support for a commuting alternative is being missed here. Route 28 sees 60,000 cars a day. Route 28 is also undergoing major construction. If even 10% of those people are convinced to try AVR’s transit line, that would be a great start to establishing a well patronized and effective commuter alternative. If some sort of system were not started until, say 2014-2015 time frame, then people would be much less likely to ditch their cars.

As always, I guess the bottom line is: The more we stand around and talk, the more things don’t change.

*As an aside, I like how the Trib gets their barbs in there specifically about the Port Authority and publicly funded transportation.

Specifically:

“Ardolino said the venture would not ask for funding from the cash-strapped transit agency.

"We're trying to keep Port Authority out of this equation," he said. "They have a role, but we'd rather not burden the authority any further."”

Then the subtle jab against publicly funded transportation at the end:

"I'd be all for it if it would be mostly self-supporting,"

Of all the quotes during interviews, I find it curious that this one is the one they would include...

Back from the Dead

2010-06-03T17:38:00.000-04:00

Ok, I wasn’t really dead, just consumed with life outside of blogging.
A lot has happened in a short amount of time with the planned commuter rail plan for Arnold/Greensburg.

The story first appeared here and has become significantly more complex in the mean time. Apparently, not only has AVR secured financing for the Arnold to Pittsburgh line, but they intend to move forward with it, and are at least exploring other options for its operation. i.e. potentially pursuing a River Line style (light) of operation vs. a WES or Tri Rail operation. (heavy).

I’m not sure what to think of this. If you read the AVR proposal they have their own ideas on implementation, and basically don’t care what Allegheny or Westmoreland County think.

I can see two perspectives on this:

-AVR is trying to grease the skids so to speak. They (as I am) are not impressed with the pace of the overall project while costs escalate and the Rte 28 project progresses. Because this news is so out of left field I would not be surprised if this is in fact the case. This is what I hope is really happening. In fact, I hope it works. We’re on our tenth year of talking about this, and I see this having the potential to go the way of every other transit project in Pittsburgh if action is not taken. (That place is no where)

- AVR is serious about this propsal. I REALLY hope that they aren't serious about their proposal. I say that because a light rail style of operation, whether diesel or electric severely limits its interaction with either a Greensburg line operation or Bill Peduto’s shuttle, or any other standard rail line for that matter. Currently, operations such as the River Line must be segregated, by time from heavy operations. Meaning, if light operations occur from 5 AM to 7PM for example, then no heavy trains can operate on that trackage during that time and visa verse. This is fine for the AVR tracks, but not good for tying in with the NS (Greensburg) or Amtrak/CSX (Peduto Limited). If the AVR gets their way, then their operation will be forced to be a stand alone operation, even if some other commuter operation would come to fruition. Basically, you would have yet another mode of operation that does not tie in well with any other operation. That greatly decreases the operation’s effectiveness and chances it could operate successfully. No word on whether they expect to receive operating subsidies, or whether they expect to be able to operate at a profit.

Wish I could have said it as well

2009-09-25T09:53:00.001-04:00

My feelings, encapsulated in a blog post.

G 20 Journal

2009-09-23T11:55:00.000-04:00

The nice thing about having my own blog is I can plug other blogs that are mine. Living near a pretty large number of protests is going to be interesting, and the history major in me wants to record it. If anyone is particularly interested, check out my daily journal-blog about the G20. In all honesty, I hope it's boring, but we'll see.

G20 in the East End

Dahntahn Lockdahn

2009-09-21T18:53:00.003-04:00

This blog post is probably not news to anyone, there have been a bunch of articles about how the G20 will affect transit in downtown. Check out Post Gazette article here. Also, here's the link to the Port Authority's detour pamphlet. Actually, I felt left out of the collective G20 hand wringing, so I figured I would highlight the changes that will be taking place this week.

The Changes
Basically, the Port Authority will be vacating the Golden Triangle. And there you have it, there's my highlight.

Helpful huh? Honestly, there's a chance that a lot of bad stuff could go down, and there's a chance it could go (relatively) well. Call me optimistic, but I think it won't be as bad as everyone thinks it will be. Personally, I am in the same camp as Illyrias, who does not believe the sky is falling.

However, just in case the sky is in fact falling, I think we should harness the pahr of Pittsburgh Pride. I believe Steelers emblems should be plastered all over any potential protest site/Starbucks. The first rock or frozen turd to deface a Steelers emblem will cause yinzers to close on the site and destroy anyone who may have possibly maybe been involved. Nothing is scarier than watching towel wielding, mullet and zoobaz wearing overweight yinzers bear down on you and your fellow anarchists.

Ok, I kid, but seriously it would work…you know it would.

Changes?? Poppycock!

2009-09-16T10:47:00.004-04:00

I don't want to belittle the concerns of people who have legitimate transit needs in Allegheny County, but I just don't like the point of today's article in the Post Gazette. I think the article focuses too much on a TINY minority of people that will be adversely affected by the changes that are coming about as part of the TDP.

Additionally, I flat out disagree with the comments of the people interviewed. They should do their homework before making broad public comments about service changes. Both people quoted in the paper have easy alternatives given the proposed changes (see the maps for the updated 51C/54C and alternatives for the 13B). The notion that the Port Authority will be driving (pun intended) people to their automobiles is misguided and just plain incorrect. If anything, the TDP will attract riders. Decreasing stops and focusing on rapid service has the potential to draw riders, not chase them away.

Although the article seems to lump fare increases in with the TDP, the fact is the two are separate. A fare change was meant to be part of the TDP, but not an increase. The TDP was well under way when the Port Authority announced that it was increasing fares to cover increasing legacy costs. In fact, you could argue that the TDP could help to minimize an increase that was going to happen anyway. The separation between the two is important and needs to be drawn lest people come to believe that fare increases were proposed as part of the TDP.

The problem, I believe, is the simple fact that the Port Authority is trying to change anything at all. Opinions such as those expressed in this article are the reason it's taken this long to get anything done in the first place. I've always held the opinion, despite the fact that Pittsburgh is incredibly innovative and has been throughout its proud history, it's people, for better or worse are very conservative and resistant to change.

You could argue that people will be affected by the TDP changes and will not have alternatives, but the people quoted in this article DO have alternatives and do not face significant changes. Again, the problem is that they face changes at all.

If you like the TDP and you use transit, get out and voice your opinion in favor of it. I personally don't want to see the plan derailed by the same old Pittsburgh attitude...

Keeping MAGLEV Inc. Afloat

2009-09-11T10:38:00.003-04:00

In the latest victory to justify and allow their continued existance, a $28 million grant was awarded to MAGLEV, Inc. yesterday. Check out the article here in the Post Gazette.

My feelings on MAGLEV are pretty clear. I don't have a problem with the technology, and would love the idea of getting on a MAGLEV train and getting to Philadelphia in an hour or Chicago in a few. I just think this application as a commuter route to a nearly empty airport is absolutely ridiculous. All at a cost of $3.75 BILLION. By the way, that's in 2003 money. It's a safe bet that a more updated estimate would put the cost over $4 billion for 54 miles of MAGLEV track. Transportation in Pittsburgh already has enough black sheep, we don't need another. For the record the NSC at least allows Pittsburgh to expand its light rail network in the future to the north and west of the city. I don't envision a rapid transit system in Pittsburgh of interconnected MAGLEV lines.

I guess the bright side is that apparently this money was earmarked specifically for MAGLEV and does not come out of any sort of HSR funding.

While the MAGLEV funding wouldn't come out of a pot that Pittsburgh could use for transit, it's tempting to think about what you could get if you managed to get $3.75 billion for transit in Pittsburgh! Imagine the LRT or subway system you could have! Bottom line, there are so many better uses for the $28 million, let alone the $3.75 billion.

I feel like a broken record.

Something from Nothing

2009-09-09T21:04:00.003-04:00

I've (finally) looked through the TDP and there's enough information out there on the net and in print as far as analysis of the TDP goes, so I figured I would take a little bit of a different view. I decided to pick the best of the best; the route change which, in my opinion was the best "new" look created as part of the TDP.

This year's Something out of Nothing award goes to: The G2 West Busway/Downtown/Oakland (Formerly known as the 100) (check out page 203 of the document). The Port Authority took a route that had some value, gave it additional responsibilities/routing and the route ultimately came out a much improved product.

Why do I like this so much, you ask? Simple, it creates a route that increases interconnectivity, maximizes grade separation that will increase not only its own efficiency but efficiency on additional routes. As any of you who read this blog with any regularity will know, I love interconnection, separated grades, and efficiency.

The new routing starts in Robinson Town Center, and travels the Parkway to the West Busway, through downtown to the East Busway to Oakland. It returns by the same route. The old route started in Carnegie, traveled on the West Busway, and made a big loop in the East End, meaning it went via the East Busway to Oakland and returned downtown via 5^th Ave and Boulevard of the Allies.

First of all the routing is much improved. By routing the G2 on the East Busway in both directions, the transit time between the two will be quicker, and will have fewer stops. This will make it a more attractive option for students trying to get downtown or to Robinson. To me this is an incredibly simple change that will pay dividends.

Secondly, by extending the route to Robinson, the G2 will take on the 28X's responsibility of stopping in Robinson Town Center (the bane of any rider's trip to the Airport in the past). This could potentially increase ridership on the G2 in addition to the fact that the 28X(R28) will now be able to shave a significant amount of time off its schedule making its service more appealing. A good scenario for both routes.

In some of the more sensationalized, attention grabbing headlines I have seen concerning the TDP; they have advertised it simply as the latest in a series of "route cuts". Not so my friend, and the new G2 is the perfect example proving that the program is not just another in a long series of "route cuts".

Note: The Port Authority needs to clean up the maps vs. route descriptions on the TDP website. If I look solely at the map, it seems that the new G2 will operate between 6 AM and 12 PM, and will use the existing route structure once across the river (between downtown and Oakland). If I read the draft recommendations document, it states that the bus will operate from roughly 6 AM to 12 AM and will use only the East Busway in both directions from downtown to Oakland.

Rapid Buses, Noise, and Customer Service

2009-09-05T13:33:00.002-04:00

TDP and the BRT

I haven't been focusing as much on the TDP perhaps as I should be, but as usual, Paz over at Politics and Place gives some good analysis on some fluff on the TDP concerning rapid buses. For my two cents, if Pittsburgh wants to emulate anything they should emulate L.A. which has developed a comprehensive "rapid" bus system and has taken BRT further than any other transit agency in the nation with its Orange Line and Rapid services. When it comes to levels of bus service, L.A. is a standard we should work towards.

Quiet Buses

This may be one of the most exciting topics I have ever written about in the short history of this blog. That's right folks, bus mufflers. Even if you're not transit-geek enough to notice by looking, if you ride the bus, you've probably noticed the noise improvement because of the distinct lack of that loud obnoxious Port Authority bus sound and the frequent plume of black smoke.

I love these things for several reasons:

1. Makes buses quieter

2. Gives buses, and transit in general better PR

3. Potential emission improvements

I'm not sure if these new mufflers are actually filters as well, or if they are just mufflers. I searched the web and Port Authority's website but couldn't really find out much information that would point to whether these new exhausts were filters or not. I attempted to contact the Port Authority but (surprise, surprise) have not received a response.

If indeed these new exhausts are filters, my first question, is why the hell aren't they on all the buses. This ties in well with my post about the emission reduction grants. Spare the hybrid buses for now, and improve your whole fleet using the federal money. I do not know the price of these exhausts, but think of the number old stinky buses that you could fit for the price of one hybrid bus. I don't have the facts to really do a comparison analysis, but the question is; is anyone at the Port Authority doing the analysis? Has anyone asked the question whether it would create a greater benefit in emission reduction to outfit all the buses with this new filter or get a few hybrid buses? From my experiences with the Port Authority, my guess is probably not.

Customer Service, or Lack Thereof

I don't have that much experience with other transit agencies, but good god is the Port Authority not-user friendly. From rude drivers, to tying to get information of any kind (other than schedules), I have had so many headaches it's ridiculous. When I do a post about the Port Authority that requires technical information from the Port Authority, I pray that I can find it elsewhere, because trying to get it either from calling them or through their online comments section is like pulling teeth. What are your experiences? I have a hard time believing I am alone in this experience.

Low Cost Alternatives

2009-08-29T12:06:00.002-04:00

Pennsylvania's submission is in. Politics and Place and Green is Good beat me to the punch, so I won't rehash what they have already capably covered, EXCEPT to say, Keystone Corridor West…really? Don't patronize us. If you have no real plans of making it a corridor, don't call it one. I can call the Turtle Creek Industrial Railroad the "Export Corridor", but that doesn't change what it is. The same can be said for the "Keystone Corridor West"; you can call it a corridor all day and all night but to PENNDOT, it's a freight railroad with 1 passenger train each direction every day.

Enough Ranting…Instead I want to make a pitch for more "standard" service. Despite the problems of the late "Steel City Flyer" I do believe the market is there for greater service. In 2008 the Pennsylvanian's ridership increased 12%, and increased another 1% in the first half of 2009 (I know 1% is hardly stellar, but not bad when you consider that overall ridership on Amtrak has slipped from the huge increases in 2008).

Combine the increases with the fact that there are some holes in the current service and you get the opportunity for more service. Someone cannot take a train from Pittsburgh (which leaves at about 7:20 AM) go to Harrisburg or Philly, and expect to get anything done that day and return on a later train to Pittsburgh. The same goes for anyone traveling to Pittsburgh from Harrisburg or Philadelphia. In fact, that is even worse. If you have business in Pittsburgh, better be ready to make a 3 day trip! If your business takes place on Tuesday, you'll be leaving Monday afternoon in order to arrive on Monday evening. I hope your business takes all day, because your next opportunity to head east will be on Wednesday morning.

The bottom line is, we can do better, and do it for a lot less than an electrified HSR system*. The track is there, the signaling is top notch (used by 60+ freight trains a day). If you think said 60+ trains a day are a problem, consider a quote from an NS exec who when asked about the Pittsburgh Line in a Trains Magazine article from 2005 said that "We've Got Room to Grow". He is right. Most of the right of way from Pittsburgh to Harrisburg at one point had more tracks than what they have now. That means, if need be, another track could be put in place. This would certainly minimize interference between freight and passenger trains.

We, as a state could foot part of the bill and have Amtrak operate it, much the same as the Keystone Corridor, Lincoln Service, and Downeaster, to name a few. That would save on rolling stock costs. If we wanted to get crazy, we could follow the path of Vermont who has been pursuing DMU's for its Vermonter service. Everybody knows where I stand on DMU's. They're FRA approved so they could operate with freight trains. Additionally, they're cheaper to build and maintain than traditional trainsets.

This is by no means hard analysis, but it can be done, again maximizing existing infrastructure in order to save construction/operating costs. Pennsylvania would be doing its own citizens a much better service by committing to lower level but more frequent service instead of wasting a few million here and there every few years to study HSR west of Harrisburg with no real intention of ever building it.

*I haven't changed my position on HSR, and would support it if PENNDOT ever got serious about it west of Harrisburg. However, since they don't seem to be serious at all, we should at least get some form of transportation investment west of Harrisburg.

Are you happy? I'm happy

2009-08-28T09:32:00.003-04:00

The big day is here and the results have been released (at least to the Press, oddly enough they're not yet available on the TDP website) It seems as though option two has won out, and that is a good thing.

It's good for alot of reasons, not the least of which is that the fact it was long overdue. Pittsburgh's population distribution and development patterns have changed dramatically over the last 50+ years, and the Port Authority never adapted their service to the changes. This was much needed. Better service will be provided to the now high density areas, and areas that do not have the same transit usage as in past years will see corresponding cuts in service.

Additionally, this should show, to the people who like to use the arguments that mass transit isn't efficient, or that mass transit agencies don't operate efficiently, that the Port Authority is making a good faith effort to both decrease operating costs while increasing service. Talk to any businessperson out there, that's good business thinking.

Finally, this is excellent timing. With transit funding stagnant in Pennsylvania, any way the Port Authority can save money is a good thing.

Public comment will be held from today through September 30th. TELL THEM YOU LIKE IT!

A Perfect Storm for Public Transportation in the United States?

2009-08-26T23:15:00.002-04:00

The Good

The last two years have been an exciting time if you are an advocate of public transportation in the United States. Among other things, we have seen a major spike in gasoline prices, and although they seem to have stabilized somewhat have pushed people away from their personal automobiles and towards alternate means of transportation in record numbers. Case in point: Amtrak saw a 14% increase in ridership between July 2007 and July 2008. The poor economy has eroded some that increase, but ridership is still higher than it was at this point in 2007. It's also important to keep in mind that this is with a smaller system than Amtrak has ever had along with stagnant funding. Check out the master list vs. what service is in place today.

Ridership on public transit is up. Way up. In 2008, transit ridership was the highest since 1956! That's big. That's 52 years of highway dominance, out the window in one year.

Additionally, the winner of the 2008 Presidential campaign brought even greater hope by promising to invest in our long neglected transportation system along with our national infrastructure. This promise was highlighted by the symbolic train ride that the President-Elect and Vice President-Elect took from Philadelphia to the inauguration in Washington, D.C.

Things sure are good in the transportation world aren't they? Not so fast. Some big issues in America right now are forming together with the record success of transit to form a perfect storm of sorts that threatens to hamstring transportation development in this country, if not set cause a massive setback.

The Bad

While transit use is up, which is great, funding remains flat. Check out an article here in the Post gazette that touches on the issue. Local transit authorities are faced with increased demands on their infrastructure and calls for service expansion all while dealing with the same funding levels that they dealt with 5 years ago. In some cases, because of the hard economic times funding has even been cut, again, while ridership increased. The system is broken, that's not news. The Gas Tax hasn't increased in 16 years and the Highway Trust fund is broke. You can't get better transit if you don't have the money to pay for it.

The Ugly

The healthcare debate, among others swirling around Washington seem to have caused enough strife to further the notion that our current funding strategy will suffice for another 18 months. The Post Gazette covers it here . It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if the funding system doesn't work now, it will continue to not work for another 18 months. Things will stay about the way they are now. Ridership looks to stay high, and funding will be inadequate which will cause further cutbacks and potential fare increases.

Hope isn't completely lost for a new funding package before the September 30 deadline of the current deal, but an 18 month delay could cause a permanent halt to a funding overhaul and renewed emphasis on transit.

The political tides seem to be shifting. The tremendous support that the Obama administration and their policies enjoyed may be at least wavering. The Senate Committee charged with appropriating the initial $4 billion dollars of HSR funds decided only to appropriate $1.8 billion. While this is not the end of the discussion, the figures initially discussed are already being paired down. This does not bode well for future HSR funding. The same can be said of transit funding. If support for HSR is still high and the money is being cut, imagine what happens when the support dies down, or gas prices come down.

I don't want to be a Negative Nancy here, but in my mind, we as a nation are at a crossroads. The demand for transit is there (and hopefully will continue to rise). What is missing is political will. If we put transportation in the back seat and don't fund it now and fund it properly, our best case scenario is we will have what we have now. Aging infrastructure, too many roads, and not enough alternate forms of transportation. That's the BEST case scenario.

The link between Healthcare and Transportation

2009-08-20T18:57:00.003-04:00

While relationships between healthcare and transportation may not seem immediately clear (except for the fact that the people who work for and operate transportation companies/agencies/authorities all generally have healthcare) there are similarities in the debates between the various camps on either side of the issues.

First, let me say that the point of this is not to shout my opinions about Obama's healthcare plan, there are plenty of other blogs where you can find people's opinions about Government healthcare. When reading an article, found by way of The Radical Middle yesterday, I was shocked by some of the ridiculous arguments being made, by both sides on the medical debate. The far left view was that anyone who oposes their idea of Government healthcare is basically a heartless fascist who is just a puppet of big business, while the far right view was that Government healthcare was tantamount to communism and would force poor granny to go in front of a "death panel" that would decide her medical fate.

Both arguments are downright ridiculous, and the people who further these types of arguments should be ashamed of themselves. They turn important policy debate into a turd flinging contest. Their intent is also not to compromise and create the best course of action for everyone but to demean the opposition through the spreading of ridiculous lies and insults.
Where am I going with this you ask? After all, this is not Shadyside Hospital Blog, it's East Busway Blog. My point in this is the same ridiculous, emotional attacks that are clouding the healthcare debate are always present in the transit world, and it's a problem.

When lies, misconceptions and anecdotal arguments are allowed to influence public policy, the outcome is a dumbed down, half-assed version of an ideal policy. A perfect example in Pittsburgh is the hated Allegheny County drink tax. I have made it well known that I support the tax, because I looked at it rationally and to me it makes sense. You've got plenty of drinkers in Allegheny County, and the proceeds from the tax would serve a worthy cause, transit. However, the opposition to the tax was immediate and just plain angry. From radio ads by the owner of the Church Brew Works invoking Abraham Lincoln, to a gentleman who wanted to challenge Dan Onorato to a boxing match because of a tax on his beloved beer.

Most of the opposition was rooted in the fact that people just didn't want to pay more for alcohol, there wasn't a whole lot of rationality to their argument beyond that. The closest thing I saw to a coherent argument was that the tax would cause such an outrage that people would abandon drinking at bars in Allegheny County and flock to neighboring counties (which has happened to an extent, how much however, is not all that significant) which would cause bars to go out of business. However, even that argument which was rooted in rationality was taken to the extreme. Supposedly, the drop in business would lead to some mass bankruptcy in the bar industry, causing huge losses in jobs and revenues.

As it turns out, the "losses" have been minimal. The decrease in drinking at bars has been negligible, and I don't believe there is any quantifiable evidence that the drink tax has caused any bar or restaurant to close and the tax exceeded expectations for revenue. (Check out one of my favorite comment strings from way back on a "discussion" about the effects of the drink tax). My friend "anonymous" may have some valid points, but they are clouded by his insults and condescending tone.

The HSR debate is another example. There are logical arguments why HSR would not or could not work that could be made by reasonable people, and then there are people like this guy. (check out comment number 5). This quote came from Trains for America, and they seem to get more than their fair share of ridiculous, emotion based polarized arguments. You don't like trains? Fine, don't belittle rational discussion with regurgitated garbage you probably picked up off your favorite political radio talk show host.

I know that you find whackos anywhere, and two examples in a blog does not an argument make. However, go onto a news website and look at the comments that follow and article or opinion piece or watch a town hall meeting. It's frightening, not so much what people are saying, but how many people are saying the same crazy things, meaning the lunacy is widespread.

Why this polarized thinking has become so prevalent is another topic for another blog, but it certainly is present in transportation/transit policy debate, and it's damaging our infrastructure and de-railing (pun intended) our future.

Getting Back into the Swing of Things

2009-08-18T21:34:00.002-04:00

I read an interesting opinion piece over the weekend about tolls vs. a gas tax as funding sources for "transportation". Check it out here.

I am assuming that by transportation the writer means solely highways because he doesn't really refer to any alternate forms of transportation. Between the author and the commentors, there a lot of misguided arguments. You get everything from the idea that increasing the gas tax alone will help, to the very common misconception among the pro-highway set that, other than vehicle cost/repair/maintenance (including filling up at the pumps) driving is and should always be free.

The events of mid 2008 have shown, in my mind that relying on a gas tax to fund transportation is not a solid bet. As gas prices increased independently of the tax, people drove less, to the tune of 12.9 billion miles. This caused the revenues of the tax to decrease by nearly $71 million. Tolling, I think has worked well, and should be expanded. Pennsylvanians need to know that driving is not free, and tolling provides the perfect method of explanation to the public at large. Ok… you can't toll everything, but I sure wish you could, and it certainly seem more stable than a gas tax. During 2008, the revenue from tolls increased despite the fact that nationally, vehicle miles driven decreased. (The increase was NOT from a fare increase either: the toll revenue increase occurred because the amount of vehicle miles traveled was higher in 2008 than 2007). There are mileage tax plans out there, but I don't even know if I like big brother having the potential of knowing where I am all the time, let alone what Cletus in central Pennsylvania will think of the idea.

I don't have the answer to taxing highway or road usage and the point of this post wasn't to propose an answer. At the risk of generalizing, this submission and the subsequent comments just go to show how ignorant people really are. There is a general misunderstanding of how roads and transit are funded; people still have this concept that "I pay for transit that I don't use and it's therefore a waste but don't have to pay for roads I don't use, and that makes roads more economical".

Another thing to take away is people's general dislike of transportation agencies. The Turnpike Commission gets a bad rap, but unlike PENNDOT was profitable until Act 44 required a $750 million contribution that put their numbers into the tank. There's a reason that Ed Rendell wanted to Toll I-80, it works on I-76.

Check out the Turnpike Commission's webpage here which goes into the details on their finances.

“Hybrid” Grants: A Small Step

2009-08-17T21:00:00.003-04:00

Check out the article here. I certainly can't fault the concept, I just wish we could get more, and dare I say, I have some opinions on doling out the money. The Port Authority along with CSX, U.S. Steel, and Constructors Association of Western Pennsylvania are getting federal money to invest in hybrid/pollution reducing technology.

The Port Authority will replacing two internal combustion buses with two Diesel Hybrid buses. Additionally, nine buses will be given new engines to bring them up to 2007 EPA standards. CSX will upgrade 1 single engine, U.S. Steel will be placing filters on some of its dump trucks, and the Contractors association of Western PA will place filters on some of its construction vehicles.

I think that is great, however it is just a drop in the bucket, and I am curious if the actual impact will be as great as the estimates quoted in the article.

Here's an alternative solution: Take the grant, give it to one entity, and make them a "poster child" for the greening of Pittsburgh/ Allegheny County. For example, instead of giving the Port Authority $875,000, give them the $3.49 million and let them go to town. That would get them 8 hybrid buses and 36 upgraded, more emission friendly buses.

I think arguments could be made for all the entities, but the Port Authority makes the most P.R. sense. Think about it, Pittsburgh and the region are already getting great publicity as a leader in green. 8 hybrid buses and 36 upgraded buses would make a pretty big splash nationally, better so than 2 buses, 1 locomotive, and a bunch of dump trucks.

Sorry, but I can't come to the blog right now....

2009-07-27T16:36:00.001-04:00

but if you leave a message after the beep, I'll return your call as soon as possible.

*BEEEEEP*

Be back around the 15th...

Reconciling Sprwal and Transit Part 2

2009-07-23T12:28:00.004-04:00

To answer my first two questions from the previous post, I hope so, and yes.

Now to elaborate just a little bit. I personally believe this type of construction or planning will slowly fade away with time. Eventually, it will be seen for what it is, resource consuming, inefficient, and just plain wasteful. Is that time now? I like to think so, but there's not a whole lot of hard facts to say that it is in fact the truth. In the Pittsburgh area specifically, much of the re-development of former industrial sites are in the areas of commercial and residential development. There hasn't been a lot of re-development of former industrial sites in an industrial capacity.

That leads us to the answer of my second question. Because sprawling industrial parks will not suddenly disappear from the landscape, it is worth making an attempt to integrate them with transit, especially those closer to urban centers.

The hard question

Now that I've answered the easy questions, the hard question is how exactly do we integrate these sprawling industrial sites with transit? It's certainly going to cost money, and you will be hard pressed to get the owners of the parks to shell out for the integration. Most likely the authority which operates service to that park would have to shell out, but that's another topic for another post.

Before you can even think of integrating an industrial park, like RIDC East or West, Southpointe, or any industrial park you have to give them decent transit service period. The RIDC Parks have decent bus service, but I'm talking about station stop on a separated grade system, whether that be BRT, LRT or even commuter rail.

In this sprawling environment, simple access is not enough, however. A patron getting off at a central transit stop in a sprawling industrial park could be potentially be faced with a mile+ walk with no sidewalks to their place of employment.

The answer to me is pretty simple; a mini circulator. A small bus that runs on a schedule that is closely tied to the schedule of the connecting transit (BRT, LRT etc.). This circulator should provide at least street corner service, if not front door service (This ability would obviously be impacted on the size of the industrial park). Schedule integration is the key. If someone can get right on a bus from their connecting form of transit, and be able to do so under protection from the elements, they would be much more likely to utilize the transit service as opposed to waiting 5 to 10 minutes for a bus to make a connection, potentially exposed to the elements.

The Harder Question

The biggest sticking point, as usual is the cost. Will this be financially feasible? In my mind a circulator would be a relatively inexpensive investment with relatively low operating costs. The big issue from a cost standpoint is getting the connecting form of transportation (BRT, LRT etc.) to the industrial parks. Most of these parks are missing connections to begin with. That is step 1 to integration, and must occur for these mini circulators to make any sort of sense.

If they (the politicians and public) can be convinced to give industrial parks adequate access to public transit, getting the circulators, by comparison will be easy.

Reconciling Sprawl and Transit

2009-07-16T16:40:00.003-04:00

The United States has seen a resurgence of interest in transit and transportation modes other than private automobiles. While vehicle mileage is still incredibly high, the amount of miles driven has dropped over the last two years after reaching an all time high in 2007. Additionally, more people rode public transit in 2008 than in any of the previous 49 years. Poor economic times, fluctuating gas prices, and continuing negative news about the state of the environment have helped sustain that interest.

Many Americans are beginning to re-think our strategy on transportation and infrastructure. If this trend is to continue it will mean a massive upgrade and expansion of our non-automobile transportation system. While this is clearly positive, in my mind, there is a large amount of sprawling suburban style development which is still in place. Even though this type of development is shrinking, it is doubtful that suburbia is going to disappear anytime soon. This is especially true in the Pittsburgh area. Suburbs such as Cranberry Township (whose population has increased from just under 15,000 in 1990 to approx. 27,000 today) are continuing to expand, despite the economic times and a renewed interest in smart growth.

Sprawling suburban development does not just encompass the cul-de-sac development, there are suburban style strip malls that serve commercial needs and huge sprawling industrial parks with large green lawns, ponds and parking lots larger than the buildings they serve.

These types of developments lend themselves well to automobile transportation but because of the wide distances, large spacing, and long winding access roads they do not lend themselves well to transit integration. A central transit hub or station located in the physical center of any type of suburban development will not usually be sufficient to provide that development, or that mall, or that industrial park with transit service. Spreading the development out makes walking distances longer and even when distances are acceptable, the facilities (i.e. sidewalks) do not often exist to allow people to move between a home/office/store and a central transit hub or station.

I could talk about integrating varying types of suburban development with transit, but for this post I will focus on industrial development. This is partially because of my experience living in the city and commuting to the suburbs and because I think opening up suburban industrial parks to effective transit operations has a good chance for success if done right.

There are many industrial parks in the Pittsburgh area that fit this bill; RIDC Park(s) in Blawnox, and Robinson, Southpointe in Canonsburg, and Westmoreland Business and Research Park, just to name a few.

These existing developments bring up some interesting issues/questions. Are parks like these, "the wave of the past"? Is it worth integrating parks like these? Without "starting over from scratch", how do you integrate these types of parks with expanded transit systems? Is it possible, i.e. financially feasible?

These are all questions I intend to answer (or at least give my opinion on) but this post is growing by the second, so I will leave those opinions for a follow on post.

On Gas, Commuting , and Pure Truth

2009-07-16T12:52:00.002-04:00

I don't plan on posting anything too earth shattering today, but there seems to be several articles/posts that are all intertwined and I think worth drawing attention to.

Apparently, a group of businessmen have gone to Washington D.C. (Mr. Smith style) to lobby for an increase in the gas tax, so we can get back to repairing our infrastructure and (most importantly) get back to building new highways to meet our "21st Century" transportation needs. While I agree cheap gas is bad, I do not think that raising gas prices to further our wasteful infrastructure habits is good. Perhaps it's even worse than cheap gas.

Trains For America talks about what if gas was $20 dollars a gallon, and how that would be bad. I think the price of gas does need to be higher, or people will not seek alternative means of transportation, however, a commenter brings up a good counter-point that along with those prices will come increases in raw material/construction costs which may make large capital projects (like HSR) cost prohibitive. I guess my short answer would be to find a price that makes people want to seek alternate forms of transportation but not so high that it would affect transit projects negatively.

Finally, I read a post over at The Radical Middle was truly a treat to read. Sometimes someone makes a point so clearly, and so succinctly, that you are both impressed and envious. Impressed at the clarity and simplicity, and envious that you would be challenged to write the same thing in a manner approaching its common sense and brevity. Enough schmoozing, here's the link. I'd try and recap and analyze what is written, but I wouldn't do it justice.

Stillborn

2009-07-13T12:36:00.004-04:00

I have had some questions about and concerns about where the State of Pennsylvania stood on HSR. Now, I'm pretty sure that I have my answer, and I don't like it.

The Transport Politic did a post about the initial requests for HSR funding that were to be submitted last Friday. He broke it down into two lists, confirmed requests, and probable. While states like Arkansas (progressive state that they are*) and California have already submitted applications, and states like Alabama/Mississippi (again very progressive states**) are likely candidates to submit for funding, Pennsylvania is notably absent from that list.

While Transport Politic's post is not the final absolute list, the lack of any information coming from any source (be it news or government) in Pennsylvania pretty much sums up our status. I think the silence is more frustrating than being told flat out that Pittsburgh to Harrisburg HSR is not even a concern for ______ reason (budget issues, don't care, etc).

I would also be a little less upset about this if there were some alternate plan or "consolation prize" such as a few more trains between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh and or Pittsburgh and Cleveland.

It's not over, and there are more rounds of funds scheduled to be made available later. However, future funding from the Federal Government is never a sure thing.

At this point, it's hard to even say if there are any plans by Pennsylvania to apply for funding now or in the future.

*Sorry Arkansas, but you are kind of trashy
**Sorry Alabama and Mississippi, but you are kind of trashy too

So Long Steel City Flyer

2009-07-10T08:59:00.005-04:00

In bad transit news, the Steel City Flyer, a relatively new, and high end bus service between Pittsburgh and Harrisburg is going kaput.

Apparently, American selfishness still outweighs all other concerns:

"Workers don't do math the same way as their employers, he (Henry Posner) explained. Someone sent to work in Harrisburg could be reimbursed by their employers for up to 55 cents a mile for driving their own cars. They perceived they'd be giving up money (more than $200 for a round trip), though they'd save their employers money by riding the bus at $138.00. That was a subtlety he
hadn't considered when the Flyer began its runs, Mr. Posner said."

This illustrates pretty well where people's priorities are. We (Americans) care about transit and reducing our car dependence only when we stand to lose money by driving. So many times people who do not use transit use arguments such as transit/transportation is not "convenient" for them, or it is not timely enough (i.e. it takes alot longer to get somewhere riding a train, bus etc. than it does to ride in their own car). Here you have (had) a service that was competitive, was timely, and allowed people to commute, work, and return home in the same day. It still was not enough of a draw to stay afloat.

This brings up some important questions:

#1. Is there really that large of a market for air/train/bus service between Pittsburgh and Harrisburg?
#2. Was U.S. Airway's commuter air service that successful? (What was the "ridership" on the daily flights? Did they merely maintain the service because Pittsburgh was in fact a hub?)
#3. How high would gas prices have to be for people to really consider ditching their cars in large numbers when traveling between Pittsburgh and Harrisburg? (The same question could be asked about Cleveland, or Columbus)
#4. Is this failure an indictment of non-automobile transportation between regional destinations?
#5. Were there mitigating factors to this failure that make you think there is a viable transportation solution?
#6. Do you agree that alot (not all) of Americans are utterly selfish?

I'm not going to answer these questions. I want to know what you think.

Talk amongst yourselves

DMU Update 2

2009-07-07T13:44:00.004-04:00

I found out recently (by way of the Commuter Rail Report) that the United States may be back in the domestic DMU business. A company calling themselves U.S. Railcar has indeed bought the design and is moving production assets to a facility near Columbus, Ohio.

They are planning on re-commencing production sometime later this year. Additionally they are planning platform enhancements, the largest of which would be a new top speed of 125mph. (Pretty smart if you ask me, that gets them at least a mention for our new "HSR" network.) No word if there are any active or anticipated projects currently in the works.

Pittsburgh's Perspective
Hopefully this will change the finding of the report that DMU's would be considered for the AVR segment only. The whole point of this DMU design is to meet CFR 49 regulations for crash worthiness. The whole point of meeting this regulation is so that a DMU can operate co mingled on the same track at the same time as freight trains. This makes them a great idea for integrating with the heavy NS freight traffic on the Pittsburgh Line.

In fact, if there were some logical reason for the researchers suggestion of only pursuing DMU's on one segment of the system, it would make more sense for them to do it on the Greensburg Line. DMU's are smaller (capacity wise), and less expensive than traditional trainsets. The Greensburg Line has a lower forecasted ridership and according to the report would use shorter trainsets (of a single car and an engine). Why not get the most for your money? The DMU would maximize the amount of space used for a lower price than a trainset.

If trainsets are preferred for any operation, it would be for the Arnold/New Ken line as that has a higher forecasted ridership and a larger capacity trainset may make more sense (although I think you could argue that DMU's would more than suffice in that situation as well)

Time will tell, perhaps study #371 will reverse some of these interim findings.

El Circulatore Spectaculare

2009-07-06T23:45:00.002-04:00

Here is the link to my humble submition for the Great Bus-Off of 2009. May the best circulator win!

The Commuter Rail Report by the Numbers

2009-07-02T16:00:00.002-04:00

I just got finished with the 258 page "interim" report on potential Commuter Rail between Pittsburgh and Arnold and Pittsburgh and Latrobe. Here's a list of the big numbers:

Ridership (2012)

Arnold to Pittsburgh

Alternative 1: 2,337 per day (S. Verona Stop, Penn Station via Brilliant Branch)
Alternative 2: 1,037 per day (S. Verona Stop, Strip District)
Alternative 3: 2,689 per day (Nadine Rd, Penn Station via Brilliant Branch)
Alternative 4: 1,343 per day (Nadine Rd, Strip District)

Latrobe to Pittsburgh

Alternative 1: 1,367 per day (Trafford Stop, no Irwin Stop)
Alternative 2: 1,252 per day (Irwin Stop, no Trafford Stop)
Alternative 3: 1,495 per day (Both stops)

Recommended Stations and cost per station:

Arnold to Pittsburgh

Arnold (Station and Yard): $12,819,000
New Kensington: $2,807,000
Oakmont/Verona (located in Verona): $4,437,000
Nadine Road/Allegheny River BLVD: $5,147,000
Shadyside (incl. in NS Line)
Penn Station(incl. in NS Line)

Latrobe to Pittsburgh

Latrobe: $3,269,000
Greensburg: $760,000
Jeanette: $4,941,000
Irwin: $3,973,000
Trafford: $4,595,000
Shadyside: $3,114,000
Penn Station: $3,437,000

Total Station Costs: $49,299,000

Capital Costs

Rolling Stock

Arnold to Pittsburgh Line:
Locomotives: 5 (4 and 1 "spare") x $3,550,000 = $17,750,000
Bi-Level Coaches: 5 x $1,700,000 = $8,500,000
Cab Control Cars: 5 (4 and 1 "spare") x $2,300,000 = $11,500,000

Spare Parts: $1,510,000

Total: $39,260,000

Latrobe to Pittsburgh Line:
Locomotives: 5 (4 and 1 "spare") x $3,550,000 = $17,750,000
Bi-Level Coaches: 1 x $1,700,000 = $1,700,000
Cab Control Cars: 5 (4 and 1 "spare") = $11,500,000

Spare Parts: $1,238,000

Total: $32,188,000

Total Rolling Stock Costs: $71,448,000 (2009 prices)

Track Improvement:

Arnold to Pittsburgh: $56,140,000
Latrobe to Pittsburgh: $7,246,000
Total: $63,386,000

Derry Maint. Facility: $13,347,000
Misc. NS improvements: $5,720,000

Total Capital Costs: $203,100,000*

*the report cites a total of $208,652,000, but that assumes 2011 pricing for rolling stock

Cost Per Passenger: $21.82
Annual Cost: $22,479,400

Important Dates:

Completion: 2012
Next Step: ???????

General Notes:

-I am concerned about the lack of an Oakmont proper station, they cite the lack of parking but at the same time draw attention to the fact that it's a great "walkable" station, and dedicate about 50 pages to developing TOD. You have a ready made TOD site in Oakmont and they are going to bypass it so they can have a 500 car lot in Verona...

-Another example of this occurs in Trafford/Pitcairn, the proposed stop is right behind a strip mall with no walkable development nearby. Less than a mile up the tracks is Pitcairn which has a main street that is a stone's throw away from the tracks (via a bridge over Turtle Creek). See above for why this angers me.

-DMU's were mentioned briefly. They were not mentioned as a rolling stock alternative for the NS line (why not???? It's designed to meet FRA standards for crash worthiness, thus allowing it to share rails with freight trains)

-Apparently a company from Columbus has bought the drawings and rights to the Colorado Railcar DMU concept. Should this come to fruition, DMU's should be the FIRST place they look for rolling stock (alot less $$$$$)

-It's mentioned that NS has not been consulted on any of this yet. This could be a major sticking point and great lengths will have to be made to keep them happy.

-No definite answers on funding, or timelines for a next step. This was just an interim study and there's more on the way. A 2012 timeline is very ambitious and if they have any intentions of meeting it, the next step must come very soon.

LRT System Redux

2009-07-01T18:57:00.003-04:00

In an effort to make my proposed LRT idea better (and to brush up on my skizzills for the Great Circulator Battle of 2009) I've updated my previous post from November. Check it aaaht.

Final Report Available

2009-06-30T11:38:00.003-04:00

The WCTA has made the full commuter rail report available on their website. Check it out here. I haven't had the chance to read it, but I'm a dork and therefore am looking forward to reading it myself.

Also, I wanted to draw attention to the fact that the Westmoreland County Transit Authority is about a thousand times easier to deal with than the Port Authority. They kept me updated on the status of the report and unlike Port Authority employees are much more user friendly, and much less rude.

For background up to this point click here.

Quick Hits

2009-06-29T15:24:00.004-04:00

I'm really not feeling all that ambitious today so here's some good stuff from over the weekend that is worth reading without my "expert analysis".

Politics and Place had a great response to the article in Sunday's Post Gazette. Paz highlights why although Concept 3 for the TDP is a great idea, it's not a great idea for Pittsburgh. Go Concept 2!!!!!!

Cap'n Transit has a post here that fits in well with the hot button issue of labor costs. Brings up some good points, but I think the Cap'n may be a little too liberal with the phrase "living wage".

A hilarious (and brilliant*) non-transit post here and here from the Angry Drunk Bureaucrat.

*To the numerous Federal Intelligence Agencies that no doubt read my blog daily, I just think it's funny, nothing more.

The Fares, They Keep A'risin!

2009-06-26T11:19:00.004-04:00

Another round of fare increases will be set for January 1, 2010. Fare increases seem like a common occurrence in Allegheny County, and the fact that there is another one was not all that surprising to me. I actually remained calm for the first few lines of the article.

Then I saw why the budget had increased significantly enough to warrant a fare hike despite the fact that the TDP is expected to be implemented (beginning in late 2009) to increase efficiency, and service while reducing waste.

It turns out that health costs are going up again and the PAAC will need $4 million to make up for the shortfall. Concessions were made by the ATU 85 during the last contract negotiations, and it was enough to stave off disaster but not enough to avert a fare increase. I can't help but be frustrated by this. I don't want to go on an anti-Union rant, as they negotiated to get what the got. Some of the blame lies on the shoulders of the Port Authority reps who, for years agreed to terms that helped to bring Pittsburgh some of the highest labor costs in the country among transit authorities.

Good stewardship not only means running with some degree of efficiency so as to not waste money; it also means having the foresight and planning ability to negotiate contracts that will not be destructive to your budget and ability to provide a public service.

LRT Plan

2009-06-25T11:34:00.003-04:00

I found a cool link to another proposed LRT system by way of some comments over at Null Space. Check it out here.

It looks pretty comprehensive and pretty aggressive utilizing at least some, if not all new rights of way which would require the land to be acquired, graded and tracks laid. Additionally, it's not stated by the map's creator, but I am assuming some of the tracks would be underground (i.e. through the South Side and through the Hill District, Oakland, and Squirrel Hill).

It's expensive and unlikely, but boy would I love to have an LRT system like that!

Our Neighbor to the Nor...err I mean West

2009-06-24T13:57:00.003-04:00

Usually, most of the energy we Western Pennsylvanians focus on Ohio has to do with their terrible NFL football teams. When it comes to planning a new HSR SYSTEM, however, they are light years ahead of us. I talked a little bit yesterday about where various other HSR corridors stand, and because Ohio is our neighbor to the west, I wanted to focus a little more exclusively on them.

You could argue that Pennsylvania already has HSR (or at least a version of it) both on the NEC (Northeast Corridor) and the Keystone Corridor from Philadelphia to Harrisburg. However, we as a state seem to be pretty satisfied with that and have therefore become complacent (insert your favorite Harrisburg loves Philadelphia, hates Pittsburgh comment here).

They have become so complacent tht when I searched PENNDOT's website for "High Speed Rail" I got this message in reply. When I search for Ohio HSR, I found several websites, including All Aboard Ohio, which is a non-profit rail advocacy group which is very involved in making HSR a reality. Additionally, unlike PENNDOT, ODOT has an entire website devoted to their plan. Here's a summary of their accomplishments found on the "Ohio Hub" website*.

-Funding Requests have been completed and submitted for all four phases of the project
-A full report has been completed and includes:

Feasibility estimates
Capital and Engineering Costs
Operating strategies and operation costs
Ridership forecasts
Fleet Requirements
A number of appendices that tackle many of the practical issues including freight integration, funding and scheduling

Here's a quick summary of what Pennsylvania has done to secure funding to extend the Keystone Corridor to Pittsburgh:

Jason Altmire has said we need to begin work to secure funding to extend the Keystone Corridor or connect Pittsburgh to Cleveland
That's all

We may be better at football, but I sure am envious of what Ohio has done to position themselves towards the head of the line for HSR funding.

Pennsylvania is either happy with what it's got already or is completely distracted by the budget fight going on in Harrisburg. Ohio seems to want to include Pittsburgh in its plans but we have to assume that the State of Pennsylvania will have to involve themselves in some way shape or form. We, as a state can't sit here and think that Ohio is going to take care of everything for us. The Pittsburgh to Cleveland connection is phase 4 of the 4 in the project. I couldn't even estimate how long Phase 1 will take, let alone phase 4.

The last thing Pittsburgh needs is to be an isolated backwater to a budding HSR network.

*You could spend hours on this website, it has maps of the four phases, an archive of project related documents and reports, along with news concerning the project, and other info about HSR

Standing on the Platform Watching the High Speed Train go by

2009-06-23T16:01:00.003-04:00

The Pittsburgh blog scene has been on fire with posts concerning the flurry of train related news that has popped up in Pittsburgh's media. It's exciting to see all this sudden attention focused both on local commuter rail and on Pittsburgh's piece in the HSR puzzle.

Much has been said about where to go first, Cleveland, Harrisburg, or Washington D.C.? They each bring up good points. (For my two cents, Cleveland would be the easiest first step, and since we're already behind the 8 ball, we should be looking for easy right now).

Where we should go first is not the point of this post however. The purpose of this post is draw attention to the fact that we are, indeed, behind the 8 ball when it comes to HSR. Here's a brief synopsis of where some other programs stand in comparison to the extended "Keystone Corridor"

-California: In addition to having a pretty sweet website, California is first in line for $$$ so says Joe Biden. This surely has to do with the bond issue for $10 billion with a B that was approved last year.

-Florida: The sunshine state has developed a comprehensive rail plan which you can see here. Additionally, they are well ahead of the curve for the myriad of studies that must be undertaken. Several studies including a ridership and cost study were undertaken in 2003 and would just need to be updated. Their application to receive federal funding is also nearly complete.

-Ohio: Ohio has already dedicated $7 million to study HSR. Additionally, they have banded together with 8 other Midwestern states that would have Chicago as a hub in the hopes to increase their chances of securing funding. Multi-state cooperation is said to increase the likelihood of funding.

This is not an all inclusive list, but from this brief list it's easy to see who the front runners are for the money. It doesn't help that apparently the state of Pennsylvania has done....absolutely nothing. Until Mr. Altmire's speech about extending the Keystone Corridor or connecting to Cleveland, no one was so much as speaking about HSR involving Pittsburgh. With an application deadline of August 24th, we are fast running out of time to take advantage of this round of funding. Another $50 billion is slated for further down the road, but the winds of politics could change by the time that money is to be appropriated.

A failure to capitalize on this opportunity would be a failure by the leaders of our region and state. While our local leaders should do all they can to promote and build our transit infrastructure, it is our State and Federal representatives who need to push this forward. So far Jason Altmire is the only one who truly seems committed to making this happen (all while pushing commuter rail in parallel).

Pittsburgh has failed so many other times when we had a chance to better our transportation assets. This time the responsibility does not fall squarely on Pittsburgh's shoulders. It falls on the State and Federal representatives . We do not need to be standing on the platform as Obama's HSR Express flies through without stopping

Trainapalooza

2009-06-23T10:42:00.004-04:00

In a town where transit related articles aren't always easy to come by, I got probably a little more excited than I should have to see three separate articles about commuter/HSR relating to Pittsburgh and Western Pennsylvania. I'll write more (especially about the HSR entries) in a later post, but just to get them all out there, here they are in no particular order:

Commuter Rail: In an apparent reversal from a previous article in the Post Gazette, the Greensburg line is apparently not dead. Additionally, the costs estimates came back less than expected(sweet). I'm still not sure how many more studies must be taken but at $208 million, these lines look like a steal (Thank you existing infrastructure). Also, for anyone interested, public comment will be held June 29th in Greensburg, and June 30th in New Ken. Hours for both are 6-9 PM.

HSR:
The Pittsburgh to Cleveland Connection: It's been stated by other bloggers that it would make better sense for Pittsburgh to connect to Cleveland (and Chicago) before it connects across the state to Philadelphia and Harrisburg. I for one, agree, and apparently so does Jason Altmire. In a meeting yesterday he said that a link between Pittsburgh and Cleveland is a "missing link" to Obama's proposed HSR system. Apparently, a connection between the two cities would be eligible for funding... however, before they can think about any corridor, they must begin to work on it. Leading us to our third trainapalooza article...

A slow start to HSR: California and several other corridors have a jump start on us for HSR funding. Although Philly to Pittsburgh has been designated an HSR corridor, that's about the only thing that has happened. Jason Altmire wants to take steps forward to begin working towards HSR corridors to and through Pittsburgh, although no concrete steps have been outlined.

Potential Side Effects

2009-06-18T13:17:00.004-04:00

I wrote a post a while back trying to give some support to BRT as a form of mass transit. Overhead wire recently posted a piece about former HOV bus lanes being turned into toll lanes for cars and it got my mind spinning.

I'd classify myself as pro BRT and pro LRT, I think each has its place in transit and neither one should be totally discounted. However, his post, in my mind, uncovers a potential flaw with BRT that is worth noting. It's disconcerting enough that these once dedicated bus rights-of-way were transformed into further personal automobile capacity.

What is even more disconcerting is how easy it could be done, and their in lies the flaw. It's a heck of a lot easier to convert a busway or dedicated bus lane to a toll lane than it is a LRT right of way. How likely or unlikely that a conversion would occur can be debated, but from a sheer cost standpoint, it's more likely to happen with a BRT right of way vs. an LRT right of way. Additionally, while conversion is a strategic mistake, I could see people who choose cars for transportation lining up to utilize a converted busway.

I think we're safe here in Pittsburgh, the amount of ridership (especially on the East Busway) ensures our busway system's continued existence, but the potential for conversion is definitely a point that should be discussed when it comes down to the question of "BRT or LRT".

Voice your opinion about Transit Cards!!!!!!!!!!

2009-06-16T16:03:00.003-04:00

I've just woken up from my Stanley Cup celebration induced coma to make a quick post about transit cards for Western Pennsylvania (notice I don't just say PAAC). I got a head's up from Schloss in the Burgh's post about a current survey of transit users.

To paraphrase my favorite website...DO IT!

A couple exciting potential aspects:
-A single card for some or all regional transit agencies (i.e. PAAC, WCTA, BCTA etc.)
-Multiple purchase or re-charge options (on-line, at or near your transit stop)
-Make Transfers easier!!!!!!!

A Trip to Fantasy Land - of transit that is...

2009-06-09T15:36:00.003-04:00

This post is related to some thoughts that have been swimming around in my head that will hopefully move through my fingers to the computer for an upcoming post. I've been thinking a lot about reconciling the existing sprawl with better transit and how (or if) it could be done without creating a spaghetti bowl of a transit system.

I was thinking about a trip to Germany I had during high school as an exchange student. I was 16 and transit issues weren't all that important to me, so I don't have a lot to go on other than memory. One thing I do remember, however is not riding a big yellow school bus to school. I remember taking a bus/train to school, and a bus/train home from school. I wasn't exactly in a bustling metropolis either. I lived in a small village, and attended school in a nearby town of about 18,000 people named Bad Durkheim.

I remember being impressed, even at that age how easy the "commute" was and how amazingly efficient their operations were. We would pick up a bus in Niederkirchen and would take it to the train station in another village named Deidesheim. Once there, we would get off the bus, and literally, by the time we were able to walk to the platform, the train was pulling in. We would then take the train into Bad Durkheim, walk a few blocks and be at the school.

The ride home was similar, especially in its efficiency. We would leave the school, walk a few blocks to the station where the train was already waiting for us. After a few minutes, the train left, and we would take it back to Deidesheim, where as we would pull into the station, a bus would be pulling in to meet us.

What's the point of this little anecdotal trip down memory lane? This was not a heavily urbanized area, in fact, it was downright rural. Niederkirchen had no four lane roads, the train traveled on a single track line, and Bad Durkheim was the terminus of two seperate branch lines, that's all. Yet, the transit operations were so efficient that they acted as the school bus for an entire high school (sorry, it's been a few years and I forgot just about all my German, especially the equivalent of high school). I was amazed, day in and day out, how when we would pull into a station, a connecting form of transit was there to meet us.

I will grant you that America, and specifically Western Pennsylvania has much more sprawl and our ability to "cut and paste" a similar system to serve our sprawling suburbs and exurbs would probably not work. However, if nothing else we could use this model. Incorporate T.O.D. as a core along existing transit corridors to create more transit friendly and somewhat more densely packed suburbs instead of sprawling monsters that consume all our resources.

I better watch out, I may be branded as a "socialist" for wanting an effective, European style transit system.

Put your 2 cents in!

2009-06-02T13:41:00.003-04:00

CHECK IT OUT! Give your input for the TDP (Transit Development Plan). A session will be held from 8 AM to 8 PM tomorrow at the Omni William Penn Dahntahn. An additional session will be held on June 8th at the Alumni Hall on Pitt's campus from 2-5 PM and 5:30 to 7:30 PM.

What's that? You forgot what the TDP is? Here's a few links to refresh your memory:

TDP Website

My post on the plan

Hint hint.....I like Concept two

Too late to help 28?

2009-06-01T14:18:00.006-04:00

As time slooooowly passes between the myriad of studies and actual construction on a commuter rail line between New Kensington and Pittsburgh, I am constantly reminded why I think this commuter line is a good idea. I am also constantly frustrated by the fact that if it weren't for the 42,352 studies that were required, maybe this rail line could already be doing some good.

A major justification for this commuter service is the fact that the line parallels route28, 28 is busy, and 28 is undergoing some major construction (translation, Route 28 is a pain in the arse). Apparently, now 28 outbound will be closed through October. However, if the service doesn't begin operation until AFTER construction is completed on 28, then that reason loses a lot of its luster. I know this latest round of construction is not the last for 28, but the overall improvement project is supposed to continue through 2010. Even if the 28 project is delayed (as it most likely will be), there is yet to be any kind of target date for the commuter operation to start.

I know a major transportation project like a commuter line can't be made to "turn on a dime". The time from inception to operation is long. However, in the case of this project, and many others in Pittsburgh, that time becomes even more drawn out. The first study for this project was completed 9 years ago in 2000. Here we are in 2009 and the same study has just been completed...again. It's not like they had to acquire right of way begin new construction of a rail line. That's nine years that the same right of way has sat there seeing under 10 trains a week.

I do realize a couple of important caveats:
#1. I'm sure the information from a 9 year old study could be seen as out of date, especially by opponents of the proposed project.
#2. 2000 was not the transit friendly environment that 2009 is. In 2000 gas was cheap, the economy was doing well, and global warming was nothing more than an outdated buzzword from the 90's.

This project isn't the only one in Pittsburgh to languish for years. The first one that comes to mind is the Spine Line. The first study took place in 1993. It's now 2009 and we have a tiny little piece of what was supposed to be and the price just keeps climbing on finishing it off. Let's say, for sake of argument, that an LRT Spine Line to Oakland is finished in 6 years (very optimistic, I know). That would put it at 2016. Think about that, 23 years to get at most 5 miles of new track.

I'm certainly not trying to say that if the rail line doesn't commence operations before this 28 project is complete then the line will be a waste. However, I see the operation losing out on some major opportunities, like being able to gain more riders early on and helping to reduce construction delays along 28. The way transit projects in Pittsburgh seem to run, I will be happy to have anything at all!

Gas Creep

2009-05-29T14:26:00.003-04:00

Don't pull your F650 out of storage just yet! An article from the most reputable new source in the world talks about how, despite the bad economy gas prices have had a solid recovery (for OPEC that is). Additionally, the future is looking bright as well (for OPEC). The USEIA(United States Energy Information Administration) has reported that it expects the prices to continue to increase as the economy gets back on its feet. The price per barrel is expected to reach $130 by 2030.

This is good for transit, bad for suburbia. I was worried that all the new hubbub about transit which took place around this time last year might be a shorter fad than slap bracelets or Zubaz (unless you live in Pittsburgh). Now however, it seems that my fears were nothing more than that.

After all the optimism in the U.S. when everyone was paying $2.00 a gallon and damn happy about it, it now seems that the recent spike in gas prices will continue for the foreseeable future. I don't need to sit here and tell you why getting your climate wrecking sprawl creating fossil fuel from an international cartel is bad.

Instead I will celebrate! Hopefully, this means that interest in transit will not wain. I say the sky's the limit, I can't wait for the day when we pay $5.00 a gallon! That would be the day when we would really see an honest effort put forth by the government and private industry to beef up our transit infrastructure and increase access to transit.

Raise the Roof Pittsburgh!

2009-05-28T17:06:00.003-04:00

I realize this is totally non-transit, but I am happy any time Pittsburgh gets good PR. I'm pretty sure that I couldn't ask for a lot more than this (other than a Stanley Cup).

The G20 conference will be held in Pittsburgh on September 24-25. This will be a great opportunity to showcase our awesome city and our significant efforts to become a leader in green (They better get moving on those LED streetlights!)

I'm not entirely convinced that our "success" as of late has been somewhat overstated because of the good PR we've received, but hey, who am I to turn it down? The short term benefits to our economy and the long term benefits to our reputation could be great (as long as the city doesn't collapse into a fiery heap because of angry protesters....that would suck)

DMU Update

2009-05-28T16:27:00.005-04:00

This post appeals to the technical geek within the history major that is me. As part of my in depth and hard hitting series "My Idea for Heavy Rail in the East End Part 7" I wrote about potential rail vehicles for this new commuter service. One big issue was the fact that Colorado Railcar had gone out of business. They were, up until their demise, the only manufacturer in the world who produced an FRA crash worthiness compliant DMU.

I wanted to follow up to see if their have been any developments because this could have a significant impact on an commuter operation from New Ken to Pittsburgh. By this I mean, if no compliant DMU could be found, whoever would operate the service (WCTA or PAAC) would have to consider either:

#1: Buying new full trainsets consisting of a diesel and passenger cars. (This is bad because it costs alot of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$)

#2: Scrounging up used trainsets or RDC cars ( This could be expensive in itself and the equipment would require at least an overhaul, if not a full re-build. Using old equipment could also lead to increased maintenance costs and decreased publich perception of any service).

This update comes via a post from Seattle Transit Blog from last month. In an article about the last Colorado DMU which was shipped to Alaska Railroad, they mentioned a company called "Value Recovery Group" which is supposedly interested in purchasing the remaining assets of the company and resuming operations. I sent the company a message via their website asking if the information on Seattle Transit Blog is correct or not. No answer yet, but I just posed the question.

Again, their are international players as well, but it's hard to find any real information on whether their current product lines could be made FRA compliant or not. Again, I think it would be great for potential operations around the U.S. and especially Pittsburgh if the proven designs built by Colorado Railcar could be resurrected and produced again. I will certainly post again on this subject as more information becomes available.

Am I a hypocrite?

2009-05-26T14:11:00.003-04:00

I got a comment a few days ago (I think, I put away the blog for the weekend) basically asking me why I don't practice what I preach. In other words, I blog about sustainable communities, when I don't really live in a sustainable community.

It's a fair question, and is certainly worth a response on my part. I guess the short answer is I do live in a sustainable community. I can hit the busway with a stone from the back of my house, can get a bus to just about anywhere I need to within the city and can walk to basically everything I need (food, booze etc.) The problem is I don't WORK in a sustainable community.

I've thought a lot about my current situation and figured out that there are really four options. I tried to pick the option that is best for myself and my family while taking livability issues into account:

1. Find a better job (by that I mean, one in Pittsburgh that I could commute to via public transit). I'm constantly in the search for a better job, but the economy is not the best, and unemployment has finally begun to catch up with Pittsburgh. At this point I am glad to have a job.

2. Seek a job in a different city that would satisfy the requirements that I consider ideal(walkability, and easy access to public transit). I could probably find a job elsewhere in the country, but the fact is I am committed to living in Pittsburgh. It's important to me, and to my family that we stay here.

3. I could move closer to my job. I could cut down on my commute and save on gas, drive less and do less damage to the environment. However, I'd be moving to suburbia, and my reduced driving to work would be offset by the fact that I would have to drive to do everything else. I believe if I did this, it would make me more hypocritical than I may already be.

4. I could live in the city, but commute to work. This option represents my current arrangement, and I like to think of it as making the best of my current situation. Right now, I have to drive a lot to my place of employment, but I've tried to minimize the damage I am doing, both to myself and my environment. I drive a small car that gets 35-40 MPG (which will be replaced by a hybrid as soon as the budget allows), and I still live in the city. This means that for social events, shopping or most anything else, I can still walk or utilize public transit. This option is not perfect but allows me to stay in Pittsburgh while still having some benefits (the transit and walkability) that would not be available in a different option.

Am I a transit role model, of course not, but I think the important thing is that I try to take livability issues into account in the decisions I make. I think that is the key for us as a nation moving forward. Does everyone need to be religiously committed to moving into a T.O.D. condo or apartment complex? Of course not, but we need to start realizing that much of our suburban living is unsustainable, and for us to factor sustainability into our thought process in some manner.

A Flair for the Obvious

2009-05-21T12:01:00.004-04:00

In completely unsurprising, yet sadly true news, our Infrastructure is obsolete and it's broken. A group of state level heavy hitters from across the country, including the Governator himself, have also put together a report on how to overhaul our transportation system and our infrastructure.

To anyone who has an interest in transportation related issues this counld be the unshockingist news of the century. It is however right on the mark. Our transportation infrastructure is overburdened and outdated. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, it will cost an estimated 2.2 trillion dollars to fix our transportation infrastructure. Additionally, the bipartisan coalition (with the Governator's help) issued a report on our transportation system which outlined the following changes that they feel must be made:

-Change the political approval process (less earmarks for transportation projects, more transparency)
-Emphasize Livable, Sustainable communities (YES!)
-Expand of public transit and passenger rail (YES!)
-Fix what we've got right now
-Tolls with variable pricing based on time of day
-Public/Private partnerships for transportation projects
-Create a stable revenue stream for transportation (Do something about the Federal Gasoline Tax and Highway Trust Fund)

I agree with all of these ideas and agree that these are all legitimate concerns. In my mind, the first concerns are fixing the infrastructure we've got now and making transportation funding solvent(that includes fiscal responsibility amongst transit agencies. No more$60,000 per year bus drivers who pay 3% of their health care and can retire at 50*).

However, the greatest long term point of emphasis needs to be sustainable living! Incentives have to given to stop the sprawl happy, auto accessible only types of development that have been the hallmark of the last 50 years. I can speak, from my terrible daily drive, that this kind of construction is still taking place around Pittsburgh. Public Transportation and alternative methods of transportation (i.e. trains) will only have so much value when there is a massive amount of sprawl. This will be a huge challenge given that some cities haeve nearly their entire infrastructure based on suburban style single family homes and single use commercial and industrial development.

While depressing to view, the beginnings of suburban slums and suburban abandonment signal something good. They signal that we are moving in the right direction and SLOWLY beginning to re-concentrate our population in ways that are more sustainable and transit friendly.

*I'm not attempting to cite a specific statistic, merely illustrate through rough estimation how labor costs for transit agencies are exorbitant.

A quick political Detour

2009-05-20T13:19:00.002-04:00

I know I said yesterday (and I still maintain) that this blog does not discuss politics except for where politics intersect with transit/transportation, however I have to continue on my detour because of my genuine concern for this amazing city.

I'm obviously not happy about the outcome of the primary yesterday, but there's not a whole lot I can say other than: I hope a worthy challenger presents themselves before November or I hope our incumbent mayor shows us much more than what he has up to this point. However, that is not the point of this post.

What concerns me in this instance is involvement. Everyone knows we love our sports teams here in Pittsburgh (myself included). Just how much we love sports hit me today while I was surfing Post Gazette.com, and found under their "most e-mailed stories" that the number one story was not related to the election. In fact, the #1 story had something to do with the fact that James Harrison is afraid to fly. That whole election thing didn't even make it into the most e-mailed stories for today, period.

Is Pittsburgh sports REALLY that important, or do Pittsburghers REALLY not care about politics? I'm afraid it's a little of both. I'd be frightened to know the results if a poll was taken to see how many voters were swayed in favor of Mr. Ravenstahl because of his January "name change".

Turnout was low throughout the county at roughly 21%, and the unofficial vote count for the mayoral primary in Pittsburgh was roughly 45,000 or 13% of 334,000 residents (using 2000 census statistics). I understand that Pennsylvania voting laws don't help the situation, but if a republican or independant could vote in a democratic primary, would the outcome have been all that different?

I am surprised and saddened that a citizenry that is so fiercely loyal to this city is so apathetic to influencing the mechanisms for change. What can be done to change that? Are people disillusioned, or do they just not care? I sincerely hope it's not the latter.

The Most Monumental Endorsement in Pittsburgh Political History

2009-05-19T16:04:00.003-04:00

This post will hopefully tip the scales in my mayoral candidate's favor, but time will only tell. I have political opinions but try (for the most part) to keep them out of this blog, except where they intersect with transit related issues. Today is big for Pittsburgh, especially because it is basically the general election. Whoever wins today will most likely be Pittsburgh's next mayor.

For what it's worth, I am putting my political might behind Patrick Dowd. He is the only candidate that seems to have a strategic vision for the city to move it forward and who is willing to fight to take down the road blocks that lie in his way (pay to play politics, pension/health care issues, lack of government transparency). Additionally, unlike the two other candidates he is the only candidate to mention transit as a part of his strategic vision.

Maybe it was the "Steelerstahl" incident, or the Toby Keith incident, but Luke Ravenstahl has been anything but a leader. His goal has been to tread water while taking credit for anything that has been accomplished during his tenure, whether he had anything to do with it or not. I don't see Pittsburgh reversing the tide of population and job loss with Mr. Ravenstahl at the helm given what we have seen so far, and given his "vision" for the future.

I was impressed by Carmen Robinson's candid nature, responsiveness, and willingness to engage a low life blogger in a sustained discussion about transit. However, I did not get the impression from her that she had a cohesive strategic vision for where the city needed to go. I think with time and some re-work to her message, she could be an excellent candidate. However, that time is not right now.

No one else seems to have the drive, and the fire to fix Pittsburgh like Patrick Dowd. When I look at the picture he paints of his Pittsburgh, it looks like a place where I want to live!

A Transportation Center, No, a Bus Station, Yes

2009-05-14T15:38:00.003-04:00

In the finest traditions of wordsmithing, the Recently re-built Greyhound Bus Station was re-christened as the "Grant Street Transportation Center".

Really???? Balderdash!!!! I think the Grant Street "We have a bunch of forms of transportation kinda close" Center would be more accurate. I'm not knocking the fact that they re-built the Greyhound station, it was old, dirty, and kind of smelled. But let's call it what it is, a bus station. This is Pittsburgh politics at its worst, we call something different than what it is, and then cite it as an example of how we're "moving in the right direction", when in reality little has changed aside from some hollow words.

It's just another opportunity lost, or is it? There are several forms of transportation in close proximity; you've got the bus station, Amtrak, The T, and the busway. In fact Amtrak was originally supposed to be included, but for some unknown reason, was not. In my mind, you've already spent $40 million to re-build the thing, why not spend the extra few million (a small amount in comparison to the overall cost) to bring those things together, and actually MAKE it a transportation center. You're a few enclosed walkways from that being the case.

First things first, un-abandon the Penn Park branch of the T. The Port Authority said it was too expensive to operate. I agree, only because the manner in which they operated it was foolish. Have certain trains from the Overbrook line and certain trains from the Beechview line run to Penn Park instead of Gateway Center. Bring back that easy transfer to the busway, Greyhound, Amtrak, or to a potential commuter line. Additionally connect the busway and T stop to the Transportation Center and Convention Center via an elevated walkway, which was supposed to be included in the NSC project but was not.

Step Two, connect the railroad to the Transportation center. Again, one covered walkway could bring passengers from the station platforms to the transportation center. Right now, the Amtrak station feels more like a remodeled basement than a gateway to a city. Imagine if Pittsburgh sees increased Amtrak service under Obama's plans for expanded passenger and HSR service. Which would you rather people to first see when they enter Pittsburgh? This, or This?

Additionally, if any form of commuter rail becomes reality, again this is a perfect opportunity to integrate it into a real bona fide transportation center. Current plans call for the operation to either terminate in the strip district or at Penn Station. Either way it could be made to work (if the Strip option was chosen, the tracks could run right up to the Convention Center and an elevated walkway could be used to connect the the platforms to the transportation center).

As it stands now, there is no reason for most people to enter this $40 million "transportation center" unless you're parking there or taking a Greyhound bus. Give people a reason. For once, make a whole hearted attempt at integrating transportation modes. Don't make this new building a bus station with a fancy name.

The Saga Continues

2009-05-13T13:23:00.004-04:00

Strike 1 against the Port Authority's attempts to get funding for the last $60 million or so shortfall to complete the NSC. Read about it here. I'm tired of beating this dead horse. Anyone who has any questions on where I stand with the NSC can read about it here, and here.

Suffice to say, the only thing worse than spending $500+ million to get 1.2 miles of additional track is spending $300 million and getting nothing.

I know this isn't the last of the options, there will be more funding opportunities to cover the shortfall, and according to the article, there is enough money to keep working for another year. Hopefully this project doesn't become the next Wabash Tunnel (I'm referring to the 1st failure, not the 2nd, or 3rd)

BRT: Deserving of of its Poor Reputation?

2009-05-05T12:45:00.007-04:00

The heat's really been turned up on MBTA's Silver Line BRT service. The Overhead Wire and Transport Politic each have stories about the planned addition to this "system". Without re-hashing the articles, there's a lot of angst among Bostonians and pro-transit people because $115 million dollars is being spent to connect the currently separated "branches" of the Silver Line.

At face value, the concept of connecting the various branches to make a more complete "system" makes sense. However, if you read the details of the proposal vs. the original plan, there is reason for many people to be unhappy. Additionally, many commenters brought up personal experiences with the shortcomings of the Silver Line, including slow speeds through tunnels, awkward transfers, and efficiency issues (i.e. switching from electric power to gas power in the underground segments of the BRT.)

Their views and frustrations are certainly valid, the Silver Line has been poorly planned, and poorly run. Check out this report by the Sierra Club on the Silver Line (It's biased, but does make good points).

All in all there's a lot of information being flung like mud back and forth over the Internet between Pro-BRT agencies like "The National BRT Institute", or "The Bus Rapid Transit Policy Center" and Pro-LRT agencies like "Light Rail Now.org" or "Light Rail Transit Association". Both sets of websites are very one sided, and very biased in their viewpoint about transportation. If a person were to have no knowledge of transit and different modes of transit, and they logged onto Light Rail Now.org, they would leave the website thinking LRT was the best form of transit EVER, and thinking that BRT was garbage. The same goes for pro BRT websites. If a person logged onto a Pro-BRT website, they would leave thinking BRT is amazing, and LRT is a waste of money.

I don't like one sided viewpoints, so I tried to sit down and figure out if BRT really is deserving of its status as the crappy version of LRT. There are some common threads in the arguments that fly back and forth between LRT and BRT folks, which will be discussed individually. These are; which is cheaper to build/maintain, which is more cost effective, and which has the propensity to attract more riders?

Which Mode is Cheaper to build/Maintain?

BRT: BRT advocate's main argument is that BRT provides the same levels of service as light rail, but at a substantially lower construction and maintenance cost. One BRT website reports that the average construction cost per mile for LRT is around $70 million, while BRT is a "mere" $25 million per mile. Additionally, they claim savings in maintenance and operations costs, citing that there is less infrastructure, and simplified vehicle maintenance due to the fact that where as LRT has overhead catenary, a signaling system and rails/ties, BRT has paved road and buses, that are essentially no different from other buses which operate on the street, thus simplifying maintenance facilities, and employees needed.

LRT: LRT' advocates counter that these claims are a mirage. That in fact, Busways can be just as expensive as LRT if not more. They cite Pittsburgh's own West Busway as their main example. Which, like every other Port Authority project since the beginning of time has come in late and over budget. The cost of the project was $320 million for 5 miles of Busway, or roughly $40 million per mile. LRT advocates also claim that any cost savings in construction and lower overhead for maintenance are outweighed by the fact that the guideway for a BRT system has a MUCH shorter lifespan, along with the shorter lifespan of the buses vs. LRV's.

My Take: Edge BRT. There's a couple facts that should be taken into account. The West Busway was insanely expensive, and its cost per mile is much higher than what BRT advocates state the average cost per mile should be. However, that cost of $40 million is less than the average LRT. (Look at the NSC, if you DON'T count the tunnels, the construction cost per mile is approx $166 million*)

Which mode is More Cost Effective?

BRT: Advocates claims that BRT is more cost effective because the overall construction and maintenance costs are lower, and you get all the benefits of LRT. They even claim some advantages that LRT can not share, such as the ability of certain bus routes to operate at grade for portions of their route, and on the guideway for parts of ther route (for example, the Allegheny Valley Flyer which travels to East Liberty at grade, and then bypasses the bulk of Pittsburgh traffic by traveling the last 5 or so miles into Downtown on the Busway.)

LRT: LRT advocates claim that these benefits are overstated, and that BRT cannot provide the levels of service that LRT can. A study conducted by the city of Hamilton, Ontario found that in every city surveyed but one, operations and maintenance costs per rider were LESS for LRT vs. BRT.

My Take: Rest of the world, Edge LRT (Pittsburgh, Edge BRT). Why is that you say? There is a big caveat to this study; wanna know the only city whose cost per rider was higher for LRT than BRT? That's right, Pittsburgh. Across the board in Pittsburgh it costs more per passenger to run the T than it does to operate and maintain all three busways. The Hamilton report surmises that has to do with Pittsburgh's relatively low population vs. some of the other cities studied, such as Portland, San Diego, and Denver.

Which has the Propensity to Attract More Riders?

BRT: This is the one point the BRT advocates will readily wave the white flag on. They have recognized that the public prefers rail, whether it be a heavy metro or LRT. There are numerous studies on both websites to back this statement up. Even the BRT websites have not tried to directly challenge the assertions that BRT is less attractive to riders than LRT. Instead, they have undertaken studies on how to make BRT more attractive to those who prefer rail. (In short, their proposed answer is, make it as much like rail as possible).

LRT: Who's to argue with logic like that? When the BRT folks are conceding that they are not as attractive to riders, there's not much more to say.

My Take: Rest of the World: Edge LRT. Pittsburgh: Push. Once again, Pittsburgh bucks the trend. Pittsburgh's busways carry on average 17,000 more people per day than the T.

In most cases is LRT superior to BRT, in my unqualified opinion, yes. However, I think there is a tendency to dismiss BRT and I believe that notion to be a little bit short sighted. Clearly in the case of Pittsburgh, the Busway system has been very successful when you compare it to the T. Busways carry more riders and do it for less money.

Is a BRT a sure fire option over LRT? Of course not, but LRT is not always guaranteed to be a better option than BRT. In a place like Boston, BRT doesn't necessarily make sense, especially given the existing infrastructure and dense population. However, in a smaller population city like Pittsburgh, it's clear that BRT can fill a vital role. It can provide high quality, and rapid service by taking buses of the street and putting them on their own separated grade guideway, and do it more effectively than LRT. The point is, maybe urban planners need to look at both options, and don't just look at the biased opinions of special interest groups who clearly have an agenda beyond providing efficient transit service.

Connect '09 Recommendations Announced

2009-05-04T12:30:00.003-04:00

The results of the Port Authority's Connect '09 study have been released. The report has not been uploaded to the website yet, but it should be soon, as the Post Gazette and Trib both have stories detailing the findings.

The report focused on three main options to improve efficiency and service (in no particular order): The Grid system, Better Radial System and Better Radial "Plus"; all of which are designed to reduce costs while increasing efficiency and ridership.

The "Grid System" idea was axed pretty quickly because it involved a number of feeder routes to existing separated grade lines, such as the T or East/West Busway. It was determined that this would not generate the needed ridership, and would also increase costs and lead to increased fares. (This is a shame, I think this concept has promise if you have a robust enough backbone system to support such operations. Think Chicago or Boston)

The "Better Radial System" is still in the running. This system maintains Downtown and Oakland as urban "hubs" and concentrates on moving people to these two hubs. As a result, some service would focus on moving people primarily to Oakland (thus bypassing Downtown) and moving others primarily to Downtown (thus bypassing Oakland). This would ultimately speed service to those hubs by reducing the number of buses and routes that have to get stuck in Downtown traffic BEFORE getting to Oakland, and visa verse.

The third system, known as The "Better Radial System PLUS" involves the changes outlined in the Better Radial System, and also involves a number of significant improvements to bus service. In my mind, this is the best choice of the two remaining choices, however, it will involve more investment to get it running than the "Better Radial System".

"Rapid" Bus Service: 61 series, 71 series and 500 would become like a "BRT light" system used by other transit authorities. Changes would include dedicated lanes where possible, priority signaling at intersections, upgraded stations, and "limited" service (A reduction in number of stops). This operation would be similar to Los Angeles Metro's "Rapid" service.
28X, more of an "Xpress": Right now, the 28X Oakland to Airport service has a slow meandering route to the airport that includes a number of stops in Robinson Town Center. Operational changes under this idea would have the 28X bypass Robinson Town Center, slashing transit time to the airport. RTC access would be provided by extending the current 100 route.
More bus only lanes: This service concept would provide for bus only lanes (like 5th Ave in Oakland), and priority signaling wherever possible.

Universal Changes proposed include:

Reduce the 16,000 stops on the Port Authority system by a significant number (The actual number, I believe will be determined by another round of studies)
Eliminate variations of a single route
Route number overhaul (YES!) which would change many bus route numbers and get rid of the antiquated T route numbering system completely in favor of a color coded system.
Construction of new park and ride facilities.
Downtown routes would centralize on fewer streets with fewer stops, with the goal of simplifying operations and improving efficiency.
Creation of "transit centers" throughout Allegheny County in areas where several routes converge, i.e. RTC or East Liberty. These centers would have updated schedule information, as well as a climate controlled environment.

Overall, not too shabby, there's nothing glaringly wrong with this plan. I also like the basic premise, transit improvements on a budget, making the most out of the system we and resources we have Right Now.

I know this study was based on things we can change right now, but I still would like to see a capital improvement plan that would, ohhhh I don't know, get us an integrated separated grade transit system (See any recurring themes here?)

Reaching for the Stars

2009-04-29T21:20:00.004-04:00

Today's Post Gazette and Tribune Review* had an article about an ambitious (that would be an understatement) plan for rail service in Pittsburgh and Allegheny County. Dan Onorato is requesting a total of $17.5million dollars for this plan. $10.5 million of this request is to get the New Ken to Pittsburgh commuter rail plan off the ground, and $7 million is to begin studies on an LRT link to the airport, an LRT link to Oakland (could it be...the Spine Line completed??!!!) along with a "people mover" system to connect Pittsburgh's neighborhoods.

Wow, that's a lot, and if you scroll down further through the article you will find that the price tag for all this is a measly $3.5 Billion. Mr. Onorato feels that now is the time to act and take advantage of the "...sea change of philosophy in Washington." He has requested the help of Reps Mike Doyle, and Jason Altmire, an outspoken transit proponent to secure this money.

First of all, however realistic this plan is or how likely the funding is to occur, I've gotta hand it to the guy, I like the way he thinks. A world class city deserves world class transportation.

My idealistic side thinks that Dan Onorato and Jason Altmire are forward thinkers who have a great vision of what transportation and transit should be in the region and are willing to go for it.

However, my pragmatic side has to get his side of the story in. Does anyone really believe that this will happen? I like just about everything that Dan Onorato is quoted as saying in this article. However, history is not on his side. Additionally, people didn't like the $500 million for the NSC, do you think they will it like if you change the M to a B? I know that Pittsburgh would get so much more out of this project than the NSC, but I think the average tax payer is only looking at the price tag, and not what you're getting for the price.

Having said that, there are a lot of options here. If Pittsburgh could just get one of the "options" discussed by Dan Onorato, it would be great. I would take a "people mover", I would take a downtown to Oakland LRT, and I would even take an LRT line to the airport.

For now, I'm happy for what we've got. By that I mean, I'm glad we've got at least two progressive leaders who are taking steps to improve mobility, and actively improve our city, and our region.

*Just Kidding! The Trib doesn't actually cover transit, unless it's to bash the NSC.

BRT System Map

2009-04-28T23:26:00.001-04:00

Check out my BRT system map for Pittsburgh here.

A Different Take on Inter-Connection

2009-04-28T12:43:00.003-04:00

I've written before about the fragmented, and generally half-assed nature of Pittsburgh's transit "system". I also proposed my own design for a separated grade LRT system to help Pittsburgh have a more complete transit system. Now it's time for BRT to get its due. I've said before that I am pro-light rail, but honestly, from my perspective, whether I am riding a bus on the busway or an LRV on rails, I can still get downtown in about 5 minutes. That's what I care about.
The big difference between a true BRT and LRT is not whether the wheels are steel vs. rubber, or not what the wheels travel on; the big difference is in public perception, but that is another topic for another blog.

If we could have an interconnected LRT system, why not a BRT system? We already have busways that radiate in three different directions (East, West, and South) with just a few short miles between them, vs the single LRT corridor into the South Hills. The problem right now are those few short miles between them. With the current system, if the Port Authority were to create a bus that would go from Swissvale to Carnegie (basically the entire East/West Busways) the bus would have about a two mile stretch where it would have to contend with the streets of Downtown. The same goes for a bus that would travel the entire length of the East and South Busways. In my mind, running busway buses on regular streets to bridge the gap between busways is not an acceptable option.

What is a city to do? Simple, we create a link between them. I know what everyone's going to say, we can't afford that, or perhaps that it's just plain stupid. Luckily, my favorite two words make me think otherwise, existing infrastructure.

East Busway

Stay with me here, The East Busway would not end at Penn Station, it would continue, under the Post Office (on the Penn Park Branch of the T which is currently unused). The busway would travel THROUGH Steel Plaza where it would meet with the South Busway.

South Busway
The South Busway currently ends at Station Square. With my idea, it would continue to share rights of way with the T, all the way across the Panhandle Bridge, through the First Ave. station to Steel Plaza where it would meet with the East Busway.

West Busway
The West Busway is currently the most "isolated" of the three current Busways. It currently ends near Corliss St. Buses then travel via Carson St. to make their way downtown. This busway creates a challenge because it is the most "isolated" and there is really no good way to connect it with the other two busways. Luckily, we could get 7/8 of the way there.

The Wheeling and Lake Erie Railroad has a branch line that connects to their main line around the Wabash Tunnel and travels over the parkway where it meets the CSX mainline near the West End Circle. This track is unused, and has been for some time. This would be an excellent ROW for West Busway. It would parallel Saw Mill Run BLVD until the Wabash tunnel, where it would cross over Saw Mill Run BLVD on an abandoned railroad bridge, through the Wabash Tunnel to Carson St. Once at Carson St., the buses would take to the public roadway for a few hundred feet until it would meet up with the South Busway and the T at the Station Square stop.

Potential Issues

Why do I get the feeling this idea is going to go over like a fart in church? I can just see the comments now, about how it's unfeasible, and listing a million different reasons why it can't happen. Well, I racked my little brain is best as I could to address potential problems with the plan and here's what I came up with:

1. Emissions or exhaust inside tunnels and at Steel Plaza: There is an easy solution to this one. Hybrid buses, or even electric buses. Look, they're a good idea to have anyway for their environmental benefits, why not at least invest in them for busway service? Boston has a busway called the Silver Line that operates underground, but uses rubber tire electric buses on the route.

2. Operation of LRV's and buses on a shared right of way: This is not an issue because it already happens, buses and LRV's share the Mount Washington Transit tunnel with each other and they share right of way across route 51, before the South Busway splits off. Even with this idea, the two would not share right of way for more than a few miles. Even if speeds had to be limited to, say 15 mph, it's still a steady 15 mph, instead of slow, choppy movement through the streets of Downtown.

3. Clearance restrictions along shared rights of way: This obstacle would probably be the hardest to overcome. The first issue is that buses don't operate at high platforms, the T does. Platforms at Steel Plaza and 1st Avenue would have to be lowered, or at least parts of them would have to be lowered. The more problematic issue is buses bouncing off of high platforms and bridge abutments. I do know that an LRV is 105" wide where as the current Busway vehicles used by the Port Authority are 102" wide. This means an LRV vehicle is 4" wider than a bus, so clearance between vehicles traveling in opposite directions should not be a problem. That would also give buses some breathing room when operating near high platforms. However, I still don't know if I have a good answer for that dilemma. Perhaps some sort of guideway at stations could keep the buses in the right path (think the little track at the car wash that pulls your car through the car wash).

Operations

Given an inter-connected system of busways, the best way to operate it would be the the same way you would an LRT or any other rapid transit system. Use a color code, maybe a Red line from Carnegie to Swissvale, and have a Blue Line from the South Hills as far as downtown. At downtown, someone could transfer if they desired to do so.

This could be an excellent, inexpensive way to connect the closest thing Pittsburgh has to a rapid transit system. If feasible, this could be the perfect keystone to an expanded BRT system in Pittsburgh. If it's not feasible to connect the busways in this manner, hey, I'm just a history major who likes to blog about transit!

The best plan for transit funding

2009-04-27T23:05:00.001-04:00

It seems that every spring in Pittsburgh, there are certain things we can all take for granted. The flowers bloom, the days get warmer, and the Port Authority begins to talk about its next round of service cuts and fare hikes because they have a budget deficit. It's a frustrating concept, especially with the 15% service cuts of two years ago, and the fare hikes of last year*. It's made even more frustrating knowing that transit usage is up all over the country, including Pittsburgh. There are a million blogs that have a million discussions on this topic, and for every discussion, there are a million more extremely polarized ideas about how to solve the problem. The ideas tend to mirror people's personal opinions about transit. The pro-transit people want dedicated funding that can be adjusted for inflation. Anti-transit advocates want less money for transit, smarter spending by transit agencies, and in general, and privatization of transit agencies.

To be fair, I don't know if either end of the spectrum is really going to work. However, Cap'n Transit Rides Again has a great post about this very subject. One of the topics he discussed was transit profitability, and he cited examples of bus companies that run out of the Port Authority Bus Terminal in New York City and also operate for a profit. One reader who commented on his post brought up an outstanding point, and perhaps an outstanding idea for funding transit agencies.

The reason these ventures are successful is because they have a much lower overhead than a transit agency would because they are paying for equipment (i.e. buses) and drivers. They do not have to put any sizeable amount of money into the right of way they are using (the highway) other than the same taxes that everyone else pays, and perhaps tolls. Basically, they have a right of way given to them and maintained for them at little cost. This reader's next point was to say, why not expand this idea to transit agencies across the country? Take State and Federal funds, purchase, build and maintain rights of way at public expense (just like what we do with highways now). Make it the transit agency's responsibility to purchase, operate, and maintain the vehicles, whether they are buses, subways, trolleys, heavy rail vehicles etc. This would be analogous to the State of Pennsylvania/USDOT building a right of way, and PENDOT maintaining that right of way for the Port Authority. I know, PENDOT is not always the most efficient organization in, but they get the job done on thousands of miles of highway across the state. This could make some people mad, but it's no different than what everyone experiences now with our highways. The State, and Federal governments build and maintain the highways and we drive them, more or less for free (aside from the taxes collected to maintain them).

I'm not going to sit here and tell you I have it all figured out, but something has to give. There is more of a demand for transit now than anytime in the last 30 years, but the funding has not caught up with that demand. Additionally, many conservative Americans seemed to be poised for a backlash against the transit spending that must occur to bring our transit systems up to the level they should be at.

*I'm sure that some reader's first comments will likely have to do with inefficiencies at the Port Authority and how all their financial problems stem from that issue. I will grant you, that they do have inefficiencies; they still have labor costs that they must mitigate, and I don't get a warm and fuzzy feeling that the agency is a well oiled machine. However, I also don't believe that they should remain underfunded. Even if these inefficiencies were solved, there would still be a budget deficit. I think operational reform should go hand in hand with a plan to properly fund their operations.

A Piece of Good News, No Matter How You Look at It.

2009-04-23T10:31:00.003-04:00

The Trib had an article a few weeks ago about potential development for the former LTV Steel site in Hazelwood. I have wanted to write about it for sometime, but there has been a lot of other transit related news to discuss. Check out the article here.

In a nutshell, Bombardier, whose people mover division (think the subway on tires at the airport, or skybus) is located in West Mifflin wants to put a test track at the Hazelwood site. That's good news for a couple of reasons.

#1: If this proposal is to take place it represents re-development of a former brownfield site within the City of Pittsburgh. Re-development is good. Re-development within the City of Pittsburgh is even better. Additionally, it is an investment in the future. With the recent re-investment in transportation systems both in the U.S. and abroad, the indication is that this test facility and West Mifflin factory, and all the jobs that go with those two would be here to stay for the foreseeable future.

#2. From a transit/transportation perspective, this could makes Pittsburgh look good. To have a test facility for future transit projects increases Pittsburgh's standing in the transit world, and perhaps, down the road, could lead to future transit investments in Pittsburgh, either by Bombardier, or other transit/transportation companies. I realize I am being optimistic, and that generally optimism is pretty dangerous, but sometimes it just feels good.

Now for the reality/common sense check. First this isn't finalized yet. Obviously, negotiations between the city (URA) and Bombardier must take place. After that, they still have to get the proper permits to begin construction.

Additionally, the third last paragraph just doesn't make sense. Apparently, someone from the URA had the foresi...delusion to request that Bombardier "...eventually connect it with a transit system that links the site with the Pittsburgh Technology Park in Oakland and to Downtown".

Whaaaa?????? Did I miss something? Are we going to give the skybus another shot? All indications are that this will be a rubber tire people mover TEST track i.e. a CLOSED LOOP. Additionally, a rubber tire people mover is completely incompatible with any other mode of transit currently used by the Port Authority. Even if this is a steel rail test track, it is very unlikely that it will be compatible with Pittsburgh's current LRT system, or that it would be compatible with a heavy rail commuter service.

I would agree that whatever facility they build should have access to public transit, be it bus, or a commuter rail line, but I sincerely hope they are not suggesting that they take this system and attempt to extend it to Oakland or Downtown, thus creating yet another form of transportation that doesn't really go anywhere or connect to anything. ugh.

Just let them build it and be happy about the development.

Commuter Rail Update

2009-04-21T14:38:00.002-04:00

A big update for potential commuter service in Pittsburgh came when Study # 2 of 1,105,289 was completed recently. Read the article here, I have some comments to the outcomes, it is a bittersweet conclusion, that is for sure.

-To me the biggest surprise, and the bitter portion of the conclusion was that a line to Greensburg would not have ridership to support operations. This surprises me, obviously a lot of people from Greensburg commute to the city. I know just about every Westmoreland transit bus I see on the busway in the morning is PACKED. In fact, when Republicans Mike Turzai and Mark Mustio proposed that agencies from other counties be able to pick up/drop off passengers in Allegheny County* the Director of the WCTA (Westmoreland County Transit Authority) Larry Morris replied that his buses could not (presumably the Greensburg Flyer) because they were already too full.

On the other hand, most of the route along which the Greensburg line would have traveled through are depressed to say the least. The NS Pittsburgh Line travels through the borough limits of one of the hardest hit Rustbelt victims, Braddock. Despite that, I still feel a commuter service could have drawn from other more suburban areas, like Monroeville, Holiday Park, Plum, etc.

-Luckily, on the bright side, the segment from Arnold/New Ken still appears to be a viable option. There appears to be an issue of operating subsidies, and that might get the NIMBY's fired up, but it appears to at least be viable. Rep Jason Altmire, a big proponent of the service feels that he should be able to secure funding to begin laying the ground work, including devising an operations plan, and beginning to upgrade the route, among other things. That's exciting.

There are issues here that still must be solved as well. Where will the line terminate? Will it share any tracks with NS? (that could still be a big hurdle, and for all we know, may be the reason the Greensburg line was deemed unfeasible) Where will the needed operating subsidies come from?

It's still a long way from completion, but one step is out of the way.

* The move was more of a publicity stunt to by these two representatives. They were attempting to "scare" the Port Authority into operating more efficiently. However, the argument was a moot point, and should have made the two look pretty silly. The law says the authority (in this case PAT) has the ability to make that decision on their own. The Port Authority had already allowed outside county transit agencies to pick up/drop off in Allegheny County. D'OH!

Transportation and the Mayoral Race Part 3

2009-04-20T12:42:00.004-04:00

The last of the three democratic candidates is Patrick Dowd (I will cover "Dok" Harris, and any Republican who might decide to come along later.)

I had an interesting interaction with Mr. Dowd's campaign, I was somewhat frustrated at first, but his campaign contact was very polite and helpful. Using his website, I sent the same question that I have sent the other two democratic candidates. "What are your plans for transportation infrastructure and transit if elected as mayor?" I received an e-mail several days later, but instead of it being an answer to my simple question, it was an e-mail soliciting me to contribute to Mr. Dowd's campaign. I was naturally a little miffed, the campaign did not answer my question, but has assumed that Mr. Dowd now has my vote and needs my money.

So far, off to a bad start...

I quickly responded with an e-mail of my own stating, in a nutshell, that the campaign was making a pretty big assumption if they believed I would support Mr. Dowd without even a reply to my question. As I said before, the campaign rep I spoke to was very courteous and helpful in his reply where he answered my question.

"Patrick's plans for transportation and infrastructure fit within his broader vision for smart, strategic development of the city...you'll see that Patrick wants to invest in mass transit corridors that will promote dense development and a more sustainable city. He's very interested in projects like the Oakland - downtown corridor and working closely with the Port Authority to provide the most efficient and effective public transit system possible."

He also wrote about Mr. Dowd's stance on bike-ped initiatives (Bike Pittsburgh will be pleased).

Lastly, he wrote about a much needed re-vitalization of Pittsburgh's infrastructure "...whether it's for transit, or water and sewage..." Can't argue with that.

Mr. Dowd shares the opinion of Carmen Robinson that reform is needed within the Port Authority to improve efficiency. Additionally, Mr. Dowd seems to be the only candidate to have a specific vision for transit and transportation relating to their potential administration and to note their support of a specific tranit plan (The Spine Line). These points are certainly positive, but as with all politicians, there remains the looming shadow that this is all just campaign fluff and nothing will be addressed. This is nothing against Mr. Dowd, but just the nature of politics.

Mr. Dowd's website is also the only website of the three candidates that directly addresses transit issues. His website includes a paragraph entitled "Investing in mass-transit corridors". He states that "I intend to work closely with the Port Authority in order to promote development that increases ridership, fosters community and neighborhood revitalization, and supports local economic development." Now that's right up my alley! He's saying alot of the right things; talking about T.O.D., neighborhood revitalization, and creating a better transit system. Although it is a short paragraph, and generally broad like most information on all three candidate's websites, it is well thought out and clearly provides the greatest vision for transit of all three candidates.

The Keystone Corridor

2009-04-17T15:23:00.004-04:00

I'm pretty sure just about anyone who reads this blog is interested in transportation/transit topics and has probably already seen via the Post Gazette, Trib, or numerous other blogs that the Obama Administration has officially unveiled the plan for a National HSR (High Speed Rail) system.

Pennsylvania is in the running for funds to build a connection between Pittsburgh and Harrisburg which would complete a HSR corridor between Pittsburgh and Philadelphia.

A couple quick thoughts on my part:

-I want better Amtrak service than what we have now. The route over the Alleghenies (owned and operated by NS) is not the best route right now for HSR. It's heavily trafficked, and has many curves and steep grades. Couldn't we connect to Cleveland with HSR, and add more "standard" trains with better scheduling east to Harrisburg and beyond? I'm not saying don't throw money into upgrading the current route and adding trains. I'm saying significant upgrades could be made to the current route without making it an HSR route (at least for now). For the larger picture, this would free up more money for projects that are closer to reality (California for example) and still provide Pittsburgh area residents with an alternative to an expensive flight or a long drive.

-Having said all of that; I will gladly take any HSR funding that comes our way, and if I were given the opportunity to ride to Philadelphia on an HSR train, I would welcome it.

-Also, I think it's ridiculous to even mention the MAGLEV in the same sentence as this HSR plan as the Post Gazette has done. This plan is in no way shape or form supposed to give a Pittsburgh MAGLEV money, and I think to even entertain the thought is to invite trouble and slow down the process of doling out the money. I will say that a MAGLEV from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia would be incredible, and a great advancement. However, I say, take what you can get when you can get it. We are in the running for HSR funding, let's go for that instead. Not to mention, I can't imagine the ungodly price tag for such an animal.

Transportation and the Mayoral Race Part 2

2009-04-16T12:47:00.004-04:00

Part 2 will focus on Candidate Carmen Robinson (I was going to do this alphabetically by last name, after the incumbent, but Ms. Robinson was the first to respond to me, and took the time to have a conversation with me about her ideas via e-mail. She deserves some credit for that.)

I posed the same question to Ms. Robinson that I posed to Mr. Ravenstahl, and Mr. Dowd: "What are your plans for transportation infrastructure and transit if elected as mayor?"

Her first answer was:
"Although I have thoughts on transportation and some experience in that industry, I will have to use the "bully pulpit" of the office since transportation is squarely a County Executive and County Council mandate. I didn't say issue because it affects all of us. Currently the office of the Mayor has no influence over Dan Onorato. I will change that!"

She went on to explain what a bully pulpit is, and I didn't include that. As far as an answer, it's pretty vague, but not far from a standard politician answer to a question. She is right that it is a County matter, but it is a big matter for the city. As far as how she would approach using the bully pulpit, she was again, pretty vague.

I sent her a clarification question, relating Luke Ravenstahl's "infrastructure wish list" and asked her if she had any more concrete ideas for improving transit and transportation. She responded by saying she would argue for sub-contracting out certain services. Saying that " If a private company were run the way PAT does, it would be out of business...A competive (sic) bid for sub contractors could give the system the boost it needs"

I certainly agree with her assertion that the Port Authority is not running as efficiently as it could. Again, just because the Port Authority is not a business, doesn't mean that they can't run efficiently and emulate a business. However, I question her plan on sub-contracting and on what scale? East Busway maintenance, for example is already contracted out, and that still sucks pretty bad too.

Even this discussion was pretty broad (but that is to be expected), but if you read between the lines of her discussion on sub-contracting, she has a point. Ms. Robinson is the first candidate to specifically discuss inefficiencies at the Port Authority.
The big question is, will she have the political muscle, and the time to devote to a true solution when there are plenty of other problems, and technically, she would not hold the mantle for transit in Pittsburgh.

Ms. Robinson's website, as with every other candidate website is not detailed, and I'm sure this is purposefully done. She has a section called "What I stand for" which again is very general and does not mention transit or transportation at all.

In my assessment, like the other candidates, transportation and transit are not hot button issues (other than staying away from them) for her. However, I think Ms. Robinson is aware of some of the problems that the Port Authority has, and thus far has been the most willing to admit to those problems. She certainly sounded like she was willing to give Dan Onorato her input on those issues, and from what I have been able to gather up to this point, that is more than our current mayor.

Transportation* and the Mayoral Race Part 1

2009-04-14T20:41:00.008-04:00

It's hard to focus on just transporation for something as "small" (relatively speaking) as a Mayoral campaign. The Port Authority which serves as the mass transit provider for Pittsburgh is not confined to the city limits and is not controlled by the mayor. However, given Pittsburgh's current position as an older city with lots of aging infrastructure (bridges, tunnels and curves oh my!) and with a half billion dollar (and unpopular for that matter) transit project going on within the city limits, these issues have high billing in this election.

This post is meant to be as non-biased as possible. I will do my best to pick apart each bit of information that I do get as evenly as possible. The first post will describe the plan of our incumbent mayor Luke Ravenstahl.

I have contacted his re-election office with the simple question of "What are your plans for transportation infrastructure and transit if re-elected as mayor?" To this point I have not received a response.

There is however the "infrastructure wish list" which was published as just that, a wish list for stimulus funds, which were at that time in the pipeline, and Pittsburgh was taking its place in line. The stimulus money has since been doled out, but I think this list provides a good blueprint of where his administration stands on these topics. Most of the items on this list address current infrastructure (Greenfield bridge repairs, major sewer repairs, etc.) . I certainly can't say anything bad about that, lord knows we have lots of old infrastructure in Pittsburgh.

However, I see little imagination, and little planning for the future in this list. Where's the transit expansion? Where's the commuter rail line Bill Peduto talked about? Maybe there's another wish list out there. If there is I sure can't find it.

Additionally, if you look on the "issues" section of his re-election page, you find his "Blueprint for Pittsburgh's Renaissance." (As an aside, saying Pittsburgh is undergoing a renaissance, is absolutely ludicrous, and actually hurts the recovery efforts of the city. Get the city out of Act 47, and stop the population loss, and then we'll talk). Nowhere in this blueprint is the word transportation or transit even mentioned. The number seven point on his "blueprint" got me excited. However, like all his other points, transportation or transit were not mentioned.

From what I was able to gather (and that's not a lot), transportation, transit and infrastructure are not too high on his list. My guess he is willing to let Dan Onorato fight those battles. I will update this column when someone from Mr. Ravenstahl's campaign responds to my question.

*For the purposes of these posts I will consider transportation to be an all inclusive term to include transportation infrastructure, and transit.

Take a Moment

2009-04-09T12:51:00.005-04:00

There's a lot that people don't like about law enforcement, from the policies the enforce, to rights violations. Those can sometimes be valid points. However, just for one day, put that aside, and take a moment to honor the men who died. For all that is wrong with law enforcement, these Pittsburgh Police Officers exemplified what law enforcement agencies try to be. They died, doing their job, doing what they thought was right, protecting public safety from a right wing racist nut.

Remember that today.

One reason I have fallen in love with this city and am now so proud to say I AM FROM PITTSBURGH, is because of the sense of community. The fact that we come together when the chips are down, better than any other city or place that I have ever lived in my entire life. Let's not disappoint today Pittsburgh!

That's Disconcerting

2009-04-08T12:32:00.002-04:00

This post fits in well with my post about "My Dirty Transit Secret". It's indicative of the struggles that I have personnally had in trying to find a job, even in a mid sized city (approx 300,000) as Pittsburgh is.

Mass Transit Magazine had an article from USA today talking about job migration to the suburbs. It's not a new problem, but it's disconcerting that it doesn't seem to be going away. It talks about several contributing factors, mainly taxes and overall labor expenses. When you give a strong incentive for companies to move to the suburbs, combine that with municipal authorities who have a weak incentive for any transit friendly planning, and you get the modern American office park (like the one I work in), with sprawling green lawns, parking lots that have a bigger footprint than the building they serve and no access or logical connection with any form of transit.

The one caveat (and perhaps silver lining) to this story is that the data was collected between 1998 and 2006. As the article states, this trend bucked the "DotCom Bubble Burst". However, I imagine that changed when the real estate bubble burst, because unlike the popping of many other economic bubbles in the past, the recession has hit the very heart of suburbia. It no longer makes financial sense for many people to live in the suburbs and drive absolutely everywhere (especially for people who were living beyond their means in suburban "dream homes"). Pittsburgh has gotten a lot of attention recently for a reverse migration. Check out this article.

If this trend of suburban migration is reversed (and I hope it is), we need a long term incentive that will keep people in Pittsburgh long after the bursting of the real estate bubble. In my mind, a key incentive is mobility.

How do you manufacture mobility you ask?

No, not by making cars and building highways.

Why by expending transit options of course. Additionally, as I have said before, sometimes you have to bring the transit to the people, other than the people to the transit. Build a supporting infrastructure (T.O.D.) that will allow people to have a desirable level of mobility using transit.

Not In My Back Yard!

2009-04-03T12:30:00.003-04:00

I was reading an article @ Mass Transit News' website and stumbled across an article about how California's planned HSR (High Speed Rail) corridor to San Fransisco is under fire from some of the people it is designed to serve....damn NIMBY's.

When I rant, I generally try to at least have a positive conclusion, or a solution instead of just talking about the problem with no answers. This time, a good old fashioned rant is what is in order. Let's just put things in perspective here for a minute. President Obama has initiated transportation funding the likes of which hasn't been seen in decades (if ever). California has been able to see a HUGE chunk of that money ($8 Billion). Other states would KILL for that much stimulus money to launch their own projects. The scale of this project is unprecedented, and will be a GIANT leap forward in developing our national transportation infrastructure. The project can provide a competitive and sustainable alternative to Californians who feel their only efficient travel options right now are cars or planes.

Apparently, just about everybody in California was on board for the project. Then...somebody made the HUGE mental leap that the right-of-way was going to have to go somewhere, and that somewhere was going to be near some homes. These homeowners people quickly forgot about all the benefits of the project and suddenly became the worst kind of people in my book, selfish Americans. A very specific kind of Selfish American, the NIMBY*.

The NIMBY is, in my mind, the greatest roadblock to progress in America. No public improvement can be made without a NIMBY raising a stink and using various arguments including my personal favorite: "I don't care about the greater good, what about my property value?"

Through years of exhaustive research I've been able to isolate two types of NIMBY:

The Direct NIMBY, and Indirect NIMBY.

The direct NIMBY is someone who would be more directly affected by a project, for example, a new light rail line that goes through their neighborhood and they do not want the construction hassle and noise associated with this new development A direct NIMBY is more the out of sight, out of mind, as long as the project doesn't immediately disrupt their happy little bubble, they will generally not complain too much about a project.

The indirect NIMBY is generally the more hard line of the two. The indirect NIMBY does not wish to expend any effort (including financial effort) to support any sort of project. Meaning, even if this new light rail line does not come within miles of the indirect NIMBY's house, this NIMBY is against it because they do not like light rail, and they see public money, and in turn their own money going to support this project, and that is just not right in their mind!

Of course, this posting is a pleasant mix of sarcasm , humor, and a dash of truth. Don't lose sight of the message , however. We as a nation are presented with a great opportunity, I can only hope we don't squander this opportunity for the greater good by bowing of the demands of a very vocal, and selfish minority.

*Disclaimer: I'm not ignorant to the fact that the government can screw people when working on projects that will require construction on or near some one's property. From a personal perspective, I have a co-worker who had the town she lived in offer her $1.00 (that's right, a dollar) for property damage associated with digging a new sewer line through her property. That's not where my concerns lie with property owners; I understand the concept of fairness. My concerns lie with people who really won't be losing that much (maybe they have to deal with a little more noise, or maybe their pretty views from the back deck will be obstructed) but are willing to hold up a huge project whose benefits for the greater good well outweigh the inconvenience to the minority.

My idea for Heavy Rail in the East End Part 7

2009-03-26T22:01:00.003-04:00

OK, I swear that this is really the last one. There are some important parts and issues relating to the actual operation of the service that need to be addressed.

Dispatching

As with all railroads, this plan would require the lines to be dispatched. Basically, a dispatcher is someone who prioritizes, and coordinates the movement of trains and the use of track by maintenance crews. The entire Greensburg Line is dispatched by Norfolk Southern, and a small portion of the New Ken to Hazelwood Line (From the Strip District to Hazelwood) is dispatched by CSX. The remaining portion of the New Ken to Hazelwood Line is owned by Carload Express (AVR) and is very lightly used and does not currently require the use of a dispatcher. Given the current situation there are several options for dispatching.

1. Use dispatching services of host railroads: This option would not require the Port Authority (or whatever regulatory body would govern the commuter service) to hire dispatchers or maintain the infrastructure that goes along with it. However, in this case, the devil's in the details. Both CSX and NS use their own separate rule book to govern their operations. That means that any time a train would move from the tracks of one railroad to the other, they would be required to change the rules that governed their movement on the fly. This can be done, but is cumbersome. Additionally, this means that our system would be subject to multiple rules (as I said, each Railroad has their own set of rules) Another concern is who would take over the responsibility of dispatching the line to New Kensington. I doubt that a railroad would take on that responsibility for free. As it stands now, NS dispatches most of the territory, and the additional territory could be assigned to them.

2. Create a separate dispatching system: For my two cents this is the better option. As I said, the system would have to purchase the infrastructure to dispatch and pay people to do it, however, from an operations perspective this is much more efficient. This way, there would be no transition "between rulebooks", and one unified rulebook of choice could be chosen (i.e. a train going from New Ken to Hazelwood would not have to transition to an entirely set of operating rules part way through the trip). Additionally, for the case of the current NS owned parts, freight trains that would operate on the line during off-peak hours could be dispatched by Port Authority dispatchers, and operate under their (Port Authority's) rules. Additionally, the sparse freight traffic on the AVR portions of the system, again could be dispatched by Port Authority dispatchers.

Signaling

Signals are used (not unlike traffic lights) to govern movement of trains (when to go, when to stop, when to slow down and prepare to stop). They are, an EXTREMELY expensive infrastructure cost, both in initial investment, and in maintenance. Many lightly trafficked lines do not use signaling, however, for an operation such as the one I have been proposing, signaling of the route is a must.

The good news is, part of the job is done. All of the NS controlled track is already signaled, and a small portion of the CSX (from Hazelwood to the Strip) is signaled. However, the entire line to New Kensington is not. Signaling would have to be installed along this track. Luckily for us, we don't have to look any further than the Pittsburgh Technology Center. Union Switch and Signal (a division of Ansaldo) is located there and their bread and butter is building signaling systems for railroads. What better than to get a more or less local company to provide the signaling for the project?

Vehicles

This is where things get a little sketchy. Vehicles would be the biggest question mark for the project. Thus far, the plan has called for the use of DMU's (Diesel Multiple Units), basically single, self propelled rail vehicles, that can operate singly in tandem. These are a less expensive option to a regular "train" consisting of a locomotive and cars.

The problem with DMU's was that they have, for the most part, been unable to meet FRA (Federal Railroad Administration) crash worthiness. As a result, most current operations, like New Jersey's Riverline, and San Diego's Sprinter, have extreme restrictions and cannot operate anywhere close to freight trains, because the vehicles they use are considered to be "Light Rail" vehicles (Think The "T").

A company called Colorado Railcar Company built a demonstration DMU that toured the U.S. in 2004 (including a stop in Oakmont). This was the first DMU to be FRA compliant, meaning it could operate inter-mixed with freight train traffic. That was the good news. The bad news came in the end of 2008 when the economy and delays on orders caused Colorado Railcar to go out of business, and with it went the primary vehicle option for heavy rail commuter service in the East End. Like I said, there are options, the Port Authority could purchase rail vehicles that are considered to be "Light Rail". Siemens Transportation and Bombardier both make such vehicles, but that would preclude any freight trains from operating anywhere near these things, and that would make NS in particular, a lot less likely to go along with this plan.

In my mind, the best option is to wait and see. There are a number of fledgling commuter systems in the U.S. that had pinned their hopes on Colorado Railcar, meaning the demand is there. If the demand is there, someone will be there, sooner or later to answer that demand, whether it be a start up company or one of the international players. Another potential answer is after market modifications to current designs. One of the most promising is a heavy rail vehicle currently in use in Australia, and built by Bombardier, called the VLocity. Being the Mechanical Eng, I mean History Major that I am, I was unable to find out how this vehicle stands up to FRA crash regulations. Of the types of vehicles I was searching, however, it is certainly the heaviest and most robust.

This post is certainly looking ahead, we have not moved beyond the study to find out if we want to study this option study. In a way that could be good, because there are many obstacles, and many operational questions that need answered. I just hope this project isn't too young to miss the pro-transit/anti-car wave that is slowly gripping the nation.