Something from Nothing

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

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.

LRT System Redux

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.

Potential Side Effects

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".

BRT: Deserving of of its Poor Reputation?

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

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?)

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 Maglev again??? Are you freakin' kidding me!!???

I was perusing the land of transit-hate known as The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, and found a very interesting, and I have to say disturbing article about the Pittsburgh Maglev project. This project that somehow seems to cling to life is ready to receive another shot in the arm.

Before I bash this project (and I will), I will tell you that I am not against MAGLEV technology. It's potential to move people between cities cleanly and VERY quickly (in excess of 200MPH) is very attractive. I also think that the fact that the main proponent company named MAGLEV Inc. is local company in McKeepsort is great as well.

The only problem is, the Maglev is a TERRIBLE idea for a local rapid transit. It's incredibly expensive, and I think would be a better application over a long distance route (from Pittsburgh to Philly.)

According to an article in the Pittsburgh Business times from '07, the last cost estimate done for the project was done in 2003, and at that point it was over $3 Billion for the 54 mile proposed line. If we all know anything about transit cost estimates, is that they tend to run over, just a little bit. They run over even more during times when material costs are high. Just look at the NSC (North Shore Connector), three years ago it was supposed to cost $435 Million, barely 3 years later, the cost is now $552 million.

Imagine the inflation on $3 Billion over 6 years. That's assuming that they start tomorrow. Who knows the actual date that construction would begin. By that point, more years could elapse and more inflation could occur.

Price alone should not necessarily kill the project, but look at what you are getting for the cost. You are getting a single route from Greensburg to the airport, with stops in Monroeville, Downtown, and the airport. Just how many people would really need to take the trip to the airport these days? Flights are waaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyy down. The only real potential would be as a service to daily commuters from Greensburg, and perhaps from the airport (but I can't say how much of a market there really is for that) It could certainly attract riders in that capacity, but I don't know if that would outweigh the costs. The way the route is set up, I don't really see an additional value to it. Additionally, if it is only operating in this capacity, how much money is wasted by not operating during off-peak or off rush hour time periods?

There is enough transit half-assery in Pittsburgh already. You've got a number of incomplete and non-integrated( The T, and Busways that don't interconnect in any way) modes of transit already in place in Pittsburgh. We don't need a $3 Billion + addition to that list. Additionally, we've already spent a half a BILLION dollars to get across the Allegheny River. Do we really want to call that good enough? In my mind, and like I said in my post yesterday, one of the few silver linings about the NSC is at least it could be a spring board for expanding the T into the North Hills, or in the general direction of the airport. There is a limited chance that would take place if the NSC were the only major project, but there is a ZERO chance if the NSC was competing with a multi-billion dollar project in the Maglev.

I like the Maglev, its a great concept for intercity travel, but it's the wrong form of transportation at the wrong time in Pittsburgh.

My Dirty Transit Secret

So here I am, blogging/bitching about how transit does not get enough attention and funding, and how more people should drive less and use public transportation more frequently. Well, I should come clean.

I live a double life. In my ideal (weekend) life, I either walk, or hop on the busway or another bus to get to things that I need to. (That is slowly becoming easier with continuing development in East Liberty, and that pace will hopefully quicken) Life is good.

Then there is my dirty little secret. 5 days a week, I get in a car, and I drive 40 minutes in the car, by myself to work and back. Don't worry, I hate it. It's stressful, tiring, and long. In fact, I daydream about being able to hop on the busway, or any other form of public transit and sit back, and relax, read, listen to music etc, while I am taken to work.

Why do I live this double life you ask? Because I have to. I really tried to find a way to make it work using mass transit, but I can honestly say it would not work. I would have to take a Port Authority bus to Pittsburgh Mills, wait (and I mean wait), get a Westmoreland transit bus to New Kensington, (wait again), and then take another Westmoreland County bus the remaining distance to work. If it were to work for me, I would have to leave three hours before work started. That would put the start of my journey at 5 A.M. Even if I were committed (or crazy) enough to undertake that daily sojourn, it would not be possible, because of how early my trip would have to start.

My goal is to at some point take a job in Pittsburgh that is more commuter friendly. For now I am stuck. Even if I wanted to move to a location closer to work, where I could take public transportation, I would have to get in my car anyway to run errands because the area is so rural.

What's my point? Plan development intelligently. The office park I work in was created for people to drive to individually, access to public transit was not even an afterthought, it was NEVER considered. Now we're paying. From a completely practical perspective, gas won't be cheap forever (thank god my car is fuel efficient). At some point $50.00 a tank for a small car will become the norm again. This is not to mention the other effects (the least of which not being my sanity).

Sure we have to bring transit to the people, but in some cases, you need to bring people to the transit. Part of a good T.O.D. plan is to integrate workplace space, so people can live shop AND work. Part of building a good transit infrastructure is integrating development that supports public transit, not development that barely takes transit into account, or does not take it into account at all.

My hope is that some day office parks like the one I work in now will be considered relics of a bygone era.

Putting all our eggs in one basket Part Duex.

I originally posted this back in November, but have decided that there are things I don't like about it, so I've highlighted changes in bold vs. the original post. A map of the updated post is on my Google Maps Page (check the links)


This phrase usually has negative connotations; a colloquialism used to caution people about concentrating too much on one option, or putting too much emphasis on one way of solving a problem.

What we've had in Pittsburgh is the opposite, we spread ourselves to thin. We need to put all our eggs (or most of them) in one basket.

Why am I talking in all these wonderful generalities you may ask? Well that's because I am talking about our Rapid transit "system" in Pittsburgh. I've gone into reasons why we don't have an integrated system before so I'm not going to beat that dead horse anymore. Instead, I want to offer constructive ideas on how to reach an integrated separated grade transit system.

I was inspired by some posts on another Pittsburgh transit blog (sorry, don't remember which one) where readers were giving their best shot at designing a light rail system that would tie in with the current T. (Honestly, this post was the reason I started blogging in June. I never actually got around to this post until now however.)

So...instead of actually doing work while at work, I decided to give mass transit design a try.

First, a few "ground rules"

General:

-It is currently designed as an LRT (Light Rail Transit) system, but could be implemented as a BRT (Bus Rapid Transit). Integration dahntahn would be a potential issue, but at least it would be a single mode expansion.

-The old route designators would be replaced by simple color codes. (I like history as much as the next guy, but I am a big fan of the K.I.S.S. principle, Keep It Simple Stupid)

-The goal is an integrated system, i.e. you can get on a train in Mt. Lebanon, and take it, without getting off, to ohhh, say RIDC Park.

-The system should use existing ROW's (Rights of Way) as much as possible. This includes current railroad ROW's and as much existing Busway as possible.

-This is not a full "fantasy" system, but a compromise between the bounds of reality and a complete "fantasy" system

Black Line:

-This line comprises what is currently the MLK Busway. It would start at Library, use the Overbrook Line, come through downtown and then continue East on the current Busway. No major changes would be made to stops in the East End. The goal, however, would be to reach Monroeville at some future time.

Gold Line:

-This line would start at the North Shore Casino (hopefully someday the Airport or West End), travel through dahntahn, hang a left at Steel Plaza, and continue east on what is currently the MLK Busway.

-At the Neville St. ramp, the Gold Line would parallel the current CSX track, tunnel under N. Oakland, and have a station stop serving Oakland somewhere in the area of Panther Hollow. It would be ideal to share the railroad tunnel, but unfortunately, Amtrak trains, freight trains and trolleys don't mix well. A separate tunnel would have to be bored, an expensive proposition I know. However, it's a relatively short distance, and at least there's no river above it.

-The line would continue to parallel CSX tracks into Hazelwood. Again, Hazelwood would be a GREAT spot for some T.O.D. An excellent way to use the brownfield that used to be J&L steel

-Ideally, the line would extend to Homestead, but that would involve building a bridge, and that costs $$$$$. There is an existing railroad bridge by the Glenwood Bridge, but it is in active use by freight trains. Again, freight trains and trolleys don't mix.

-"Hanging a left at Steel Plaza" would require the operator to change ends in a "pocket track" between Steel Plaza and 1st Avenue, a slow and costly move, especially during peak hours. Instead of this, the Gold line take over the route of the 47S and would go from the new Casino through Downtown to Steel Plaza and terminate at South Hills Village via the Overbrook line.

Blue Line

-This line would start at South Hills village, travel through Mt. Lebanon, and Dahntahn, sharing what is now the MLK Busway with the Black and Gold (get it?) lines. It would continue to share with the black line to Homewood, and would then take up the ROW of the old Pennsylvania Railroad Brilliant Branch. Portions of this line are in use, the wye in Homewood is used to turn the daily Amtrak train, and the western end is used by the Allegheny Valley Railroad to service the scrap yard in Sharpsburg. However, it looks as though the ROW is generally wide enough to support both the heavy rail and light rail.

-Once again, ideally the route would then cross the Allegheny and continue to RIDC park. The issue with this is, once again, a separate bridge would have to be built next to the Allegheny Valley Railroad Brilliant Bridge. This would be a perfect bridge to use if it wasn't in use by the AVR, and yet again, freight trains and trolleys don't mix. The bridge would work easily as #1 It is a former double track bridge with only one track in use and #2, the scrapyard only receives sporadic service, which could be separated because it operates at night.

-If a bridge wouldn't work out, a park and ride in the area of Washington ave. could be build to attract riders in lieu of taking it all the way to RIDC park. Getting to the other side of the river should be easy, however RIDC would be rough because of the land acquisition that would be involved and the sprawl of RIDC park itself, another option is to have service end at Aspinwall or even the Waterworks mall.

Green and Red Lines - I won't go into too much details on these because they are existing routes, but this will suffice to address the issues of covering existing service.

-Green Line would be the current 52A, and no changes would be made to its route.-This route would take on the route to Hazelwood and Homestead. It would begin at South Hills Junction, go through Allentown, downtown, and continue east on the current MLK Busway. At Neville Street it would either begin to parallel the AVR/CSX tracks and continue through a seperate tunnel under Neville, or would continue at grade on Neville to Panther Hollow for an Oakland stop. (I don't like at grade, but a tunnel would be very expensive. Neville is not that heavily traveled and is relatively short, and again would be a huge cost savings.) The line would then continue to parallel the AVR/CSX to Hazelwood where an excellent opportunity for T.O.D. exists at the old J & L site.

-The route would ideally continue to Homestead but either a new bridge would have to be built or the tracks could potentially use the Glennwood bridge at grade(it was originally built with trolley tracks). I generally try to avoid at grade operations but it would be for a short period and would save a huge expense.

-Red Line would be the current 47S, that travels from South Hills Village, via the Overbrook Line to the new Casino. -This route would run as the "Gold Line" between South Hills Village and the new Casino via the Overbrook line
Guess where I got this map!!!

I think this would be a huge gain for a (relatively) small investment. It would give you a much greater increase in areas serviced and make travel across the county easier. More importantly than that, it gives the same results that the Spine Line Study advocated 15 years ago. Offer Oakland and its 20,000+ employees and students an alternative to driving or street buses that don't do enough to take traffic off the streets. Throw in some T.O.D sites at underutilized stations, and you have an even bigger gain. By digging as infrequently as possible, and using primarily existing ROW's, the greatest costs associated with building a seperated grade transit system are minimized.

It doesn't hurt to dream...

T.O.D.'s working out well for East Liberty

Apparently the rumors are true, Target, the Rich man's Wal Mart is coming to East Liberty.

Today's Post Gazette and the Pittsburgh Business Times reported that rumors which had been floating around for a while have been confirmed. The new Target is supposed to be open in late 2010, and be located near the newly built East Liberty shopping area that already includes a Whole Foods, Borders, and other up-ity stores.

This is exciting news for many reasons, some transit related, and some not.

1st and foremost, it will bring approx 200+ jobs to the East Liberty Area, and will provide a huge boost to an area that is already on the rise. Even more important, in my mind, is the fact that it will help battle urban sprawl. One of the many reasons sprawl has become so prevalent in our area, is that it's hard to find a lot of the conveniences (large chain stores, etc.) without having to drive outside the city to a mall or large shopping center.

No more my friends! This could help bring additional people to the city to shop, helping other businesses. It could also help attract residents to the city that may have previously used the reason that shopping was not convenient as a reason not to move to the city, or to leave.

Now, onto the transportation related benefits. Apparently, one of the reasons 'Sliberty was chosen was because of easy access to the Busway n'at. This is a great example of T.O.D. (see my KILLER article on Transit Oriented Development) and how it's working. The area around the East Liberty Busway stop is BOOMING, and this will only add to the success. Now people can use transit to come from downtown, Oakland, or other areas in the east end. They can come right to the East Liberty stop, get off, do their shopping, hop back on another bus, and be home in 10 minutes. It's better than driving a car!

If there is one shortcoming I could point to, it's that East Liberty is just one neighborhood. There are many others in need of and ripe for development. Hopefully people will see the success of what has happened in East Liberty and want to expand it to other areas of the city (Hazelwood, for example).

I complain alot about Pittsburgh, and it makes me glad to blog about something positive!