Really? You're using this?

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.

Keeping MAGLEV Inc. Afloat

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.

The Saga Continues

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?

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.

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.

Blog This!

Options for intelligent, qualified transit analysis in Pittsburgh are pretty much non-existent. I talked a little bit about what Joe Grata's retirement has meant to real transportation media coverage late last year and it seems that the Post Gazette has no intentions of replacing Joe Grata with someone else to provide transportation/transit analysis.

That means that for now, we are stuck with the opinions in the editorial sections from the two big papers in Pittsburgh (We get it, people aren't happy about the North Shore Connector).

There are plenty of people out there with an opinion (myself included), but there are not plenty of people out there who have a QUALIFIED opinion about transit/transportation with the ability to broadcast their message. The Post Gazette, and the Trib continue to alert people of the various campaigns against potholes, and all the many many lane restrictions that can be found in Pittsburgh. But neither of them have consistent and qualified analysis.

What's my solution? Why Blogging of course. Check out PG and The Trib's website and you will see blogs galore (although The Trib's seems to be a liiiiitle shorter). In my mind, that's a pretty slick idea. Alot more newspaper readers are doing their reading on-line, and a sanctioned blogger is less expensive than a real live journalist. Why, even Pittsburgh's great sports curmudgeon Bob Smizik, who accepted PG's buyout has his own blog now.

Who is to say it couldn't work for transportation/transit issues? A blogger could give the PG a level of analysis that it has lost since Joe Grata left, and for the Trib, whose writers looooove to hate transit, a sanctioned blogger could give them a new perspective on transportation and transit.

Filthy Lies: Where's the Truth in Transit Planning?

So I was reading a post on Tube City Almanac about the rising cost of completing the Mon-Fayette Expressway, and one point in particular struck me. The author was talking about the over-inflated per day usage forecasts, and it got the little hamster in my head running.

Why is it that every transportation (that includes highways) forecast for usage or ridership is always waaaaaaaaaaaay off? It seems every forecast, even well beyond our fine city are hopelessly optimistic. This fact is commonly used as fodder by car and sprawl lovers to prove that we should "stop wasting our time on mass transit" and build more highways. My point is not to say that, but to say that mass transit administrations (PITTSBURGH ESPECIALLY!) should not give anti-transit people any more ammunition.

Look at the North Shore Connector; despite reducing the length and stops on its route (to lower the overall price tag so as to get government funding) they estimated the daily ridership around 10,000 riders per day. While it can't yet be proven or dis-proven, it seems optimistic for 1.2 miles and 2 stops. Sadly, that is far from the only example. The West Busway was projected to have 50,000 riders a day!!!!! WHAAAA????!!! So far, it attracts around 8500 riders a day. Granted, the plan for the busway was 8 miles, but I question if three miles would have made up the difference (although the last three miles would have been the most important to efficiency, the section that took the busway into the city was excluded, now you have buses entering general traffic, and losing all the advantages of a separated grade system. See my post "Missing the Point" about a lack of an integrated system).

The Wabash Tunnel is yet another example, Port Authority said it felt that approx. 2500 vehicles per rush hour would use the tunnel. It turns out, and depending on who you listen to, the tunnel hosts more like 100-300 vehicles per rush hour. Even the East Busway, which is relatively successful has never met expectations for daily ridership.

Again, I ask why? I dug around on the Internet and found this is a systemic problem. Pittsburgh is not alone by a long shot, there is a great report here called "Transit Cooperative Research Program Synthesis 66". It's basically a survey taken from various transit agencies around the country, and they focused on research methods. It brought up some very interesting points.

One point stuck in particular stuck out in my mind. There is no standardized method for gathering and applying data. Various transit agencies have various methods/formulas/criteria for determining potential ridership. For example, one transit agency may use population densities at the origin and terminus of a proposed route, along with traffic density on surrounding routes (bus routes, rail routes, highways etc.). Another transit agency may only factor in population densities at the origin and terminus of a proposed route. In my mind, there is clearly something wrong with this approach, if I am a federal panel reviewing a research study on a potential project, how am I supposed to trust the conclusions presented if I don't understand the methodology and data used to reach the conclusion was gained?

I didn't find this anywhere in the report, but in my expert opinion, I think that transit research, both here and elsewhere in the country is treated as a means to an end, and not as objective research to prove or disprove a theory or proposition. In other words, instead of saying we have an idea for a new transit project, and we want to validate it, agencies say, we have an idea for a new transit project, let's make a report that will back up our idea. It's subjective, and it is not a realistic measure of a project's potential success. I'm sure agencies use this process because it produces better, more immediate (relatively speaking) results, but in the long run, it hurts everyone. It adds ammunition to the arguments of anti-transit groups/people, and it makes those that might normally support large capital projects be skeptical of them.

How do we solve these problems? Well, the first part is easy, again relatively speaking. Standardize methods. I'm not going to attempt to lay out what these standards might be, but in my mind it's common sense. I understand there are individual factors facing each project, but there are also common traits among them all.

The second part is harder, and I think goes well beyond public transit agencies, to most government agencies. Get rid of the subjective nature of transit research and reports. Don't even ask me how to accomplish this. It seems that people in transit agencies, just like government at large have agendas.

Either way, how can you expect the public to support mass transit, when all they see is overspending, and inaccurate/overinflated research? It's just one piece of the puzzle for what is wrong with mass transit, but if we could solve it, that's one less piece of the puzzle to solve later!

The Great Tunnel Bailout of 2009

Just when you thought the North Shore Extension might go away for a while, the much maligned light rail extension rears its ugly head again. Apparently, the Port Authority is faced with a pretty significant decision come March of this year.

If the Port Authority doesn't receive another $117.8 million cash infusion, the North Shore Extension will be brought to a grinding halt.

SERENITY NOW!

The project, originally estimated around $435 million, has seen its costs sore to around $552 million. If the Port Authority is not able to make up the funding shortfall by March, they may need to mothball the entire project, according to Steve Bland.

I don't even know where to start my rant! You have a large cost project, that nets you next to nothing in stops, and population served, and now this high cost low gain project is in financial jeopardy.

As much as I think the North Shore Connector has given mass transit in Pittsburgh a black eye, I think stopping now would be incredibly foolish. From reading the article in the Post Gazette, it would cost an additional $21.3 million to stop work, and an addition $3 million each month that no work goes on. The longer this thing drags on unfinished, the less chance some intellegent mass transit plans of the future would have of coming to fruition.

The Port Authority needs to take one for the team, and lobby aggresively to get the needed funding. The one silver lining to this dark cloud is that there's a new sheriff in town, who has already stated that infrastructure and transportation are going to be major focuses during his term. As much as I hate to say it, this project needs to get done, or a better project of the future may not get the same chance the North Shore Connector did.