Connect '09 Recommendations Announced

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

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

Check out my BRT system map for Pittsburgh here.

A Different Take on Inter-Connection

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

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.

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

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!