Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree that the North Shore station feels the most impressive from the platform, however did you actually exit and walk around the area? It's essentially PNC Park and parking lots. I love that a transit project was completed in Pittsburgh, but I'm terribly disappointed in how much it failed to live up to it's potential (especially after seeing how cheap aerial gondolas are in comparison...a fairly comprehensive system could have been built for the same price).
it would probably be more economical to extend an oakland-downtown bus rather than run a new bus direct as is the nature of transit. seat turnover is important. if you try to have too many disparate routes you end up with a lot of door to door service at great cost and not enough frequency.
This used to exist with the 500 and 501. I'd settle for that, but I'd love a route that takes the busway, Boulevard of the allies, or the parkway, which is surprisingly not ridiculously busy between downtown and Oakland during rush hour.
The most likely solution is a Northside bus that runs local and then turns express from Downtown to Oakland once BRT is fully implemented along that corridor.
I fail to see how connecting allegheny west to downtown and oakland via the spine line doesn't address any needs of a core area.
As previously indicated, I was referring to your proposal for a "one stop extension of the current alignment." Obviously that doesn't include the Spine Line to Oakland.
Quote:
the problem is less the upfront expense and more the lack of commitment to finishing the job.
Those are not discrete issues. The sheer scale of the funding required to tunnel from Downtown to Oakland means it would take a sustained local commitment and lobbying effort spread over many years. That in turn means the project also has to survive the results of many consecutive elections at multiple levels of government, and that is what doomed it the last time.
Quote:
remember, in today's dollars, the west busway cost nearly half a billion dollars..certainly enough to have built another section of the spine line.
That wouldn't be nearly enough to tunnel from Downtown to Oakland, which really can't be broken up into smaller segments (no one is going to fund a tunnel that gets only halfway between them).
Quote:
the nsc is the spine line, really, just not as originally envisioned.
Missing the tunnel to Oakland and not going into the North Side are not minor departures from the Spine Line. You've maybe saved a little on the cost of the North Side part by getting under the river, although modifying the tunnel to continue into the North Side would be really expensive. However, with the above-general-inflation increases in construction costs, the delay probably means in total you haven't really made any progress in reducing the total cost of getting from the North Side to Oakland. So as far as funding is concerned, you are still pretty much at square one.
Quote:
the gondola is an excellent application for mt washington to downtown and certainly would improve the transit options there.
I really don't understand why you are insisting on that particular route. That is not an important transit need in Pittsburgh.
You should really look at how cities like Caracas, Medellin, and Rio di Janeiro are using gondolas. They aren't just little skilifts for tourists.
Quote:
I don't find you're north side gondola to be the right application of the technology.
Well, why not? What I proposed would provide three stations on the North Side, including one along I-279 that could be used for park and rides, then a station and transfer point at Penn Station/East Busway, then another station and transfer point at Steel Plaza/T, which would be a suitable place to continue service to Oakland. Total trip time from the farthest station to Steel Plaza should be around 10 minutes, wait times less than 1 minute, capacity should be around 4000 people per hour per direction, operating efficiencies should be extremely high. And it would be an amazing ride.
So exactly why don't you think that isn't a good application of the technology?
I'm highlighting this one just because it happens to resemble the North Side part of what I proposed. My proposed North Side line would be about 2.1 miles, with five stations in total (it would share the Steel Plaza station with a line to the Hill and Oakland). The Rio system is also about 2.1 miles and has six total stations:
But there are some differences. I'm proposing to use a slightly more robust technology, which is a bit faster, a bit more smooth, and has a bit higher peak capacity. That also means somewhat higher costs (opinions vary on whether that extra cost is worth it, and I could be persuaded the technology Rio used is adequate, or indeed that an even more robust technology would be a better value).
Also as is typical with the South American systems, they built HUGE and expensive stations. You can see one in the background here:
That's not necessary for the technology itself--the relevant governments in South America are basically using these stations to provide fancy new community centers for the relevant neighborhoods. I would propose far more discrete and modest stations--they should look decent, but don't need to serve any additional purposes.
Those are not discrete issues. The sheer scale of the funding required to tunnel from Downtown to Oakland means it would take a sustained local commitment and lobbying effort spread over many years. That in turn means the project also has to survive the results of many consecutive elections at multiple levels of government, and that is what doomed it the last time..
This used to exist with the 500 and 501. I'd settle for that, but I'd love a route that takes the busway, Boulevard of the allies, or the parkway, which is surprisingly not ridiculously busy between downtown and Oakland during rush hour.
The most likely solution is a Northside bus that runs local and then turns express from Downtown to Oakland once BRT is fully implemented along that corridor.
is there a reason that a northside-downtown-oakland bus couldn't use one of the routings you mentioned? local to downtown, express to oakland? seems like a cheap and easy BRT...which brings into question, how much really needs to be spent on a BRT project is stopping patterns are really the problem rather than traffic? for all its problems, Pittsburgh has done a very good job actually getting projects done despite unfavorable demographic trends in the past. the problem has largely been how the money has been spent rather than not getting projects done. is another moderately expensive BRT project really the solution?
is there a reason that a northside-downtown-oakland bus couldn't use one of the routings you mentioned? local to downtown, express to oakland? seems like a cheap and easy BRT...which brings into question, how much really needs to be spent on a BRT project is stopping patterns are really the problem rather than traffic? for all its problems, Pittsburgh has done a very good job actually getting projects done despite unfavorable demographic trends in the past. the problem has largely been how the money has been spent rather than not getting projects done. is another moderately expensive BRT project really the solution?
I guess the immediately responsible reason is the PAT cuts, since at least a non-express route did use to exist. BRT could involve simply optimizing the routes and stops, but they're also talking about things that cost money like platform based pay stations, extra lanes to let buses queue jump at bottle necks, and equipping buses with transmitters to tell traffic lights to extend a green light or shorten a red light for them.
I guess the immediately responsible reason is the PAT cuts, since at least a non-express route did use to exist. BRT could involve simply optimizing the routes and stops, but they're also talking about things that cost money like platform based pay stations, extra lanes to let buses queue jump at bottle necks, and equipping buses with transmitters to tell traffic lights to extend a green light or shorten a red light for them.
I hesitate to call transit first technology (the transmitters) BRT but that would certainly be a useful start. Philadelphia was able to get TIGER funding to implement just such a technology on a few of its routes. In the end it should lower operating costs and provide a benefit to riders on existing services. It would be a good idea even if the other stuff isn't implemented. If the route's last stop is, say, steel plaza (before going express) it might look a little like the following: 20 on along the local route in the northside, 15 off downtown, 8 on downtown..another 5 at steel plaza (perhaps people who used the free T service from the north shore or connecting from the south hills)...12 off in oakland, 6 back on before the route terminates at bakery sq.
As previously indicated, I was referring to your proposal for a "one stop extension of the current alignment." Obviously that doesn't include the Spine Line to Oakland.
and why not? I think, perhaps, by taking a short term view you're shortchanging the additional mobility. It seems that the idea is to eventually extend the T to the west busway (formerly the airport busway) on its way to the airport. this would not preclude that, but simply put at least one stop of that alignment in an existing neighborhood...the immediate added utility would be limited to travel to/from downtown and a potential express bus connection at steel plaza, but eventually it would provide a direct connection to oakland and possible the airport. the operating cost of the one stop would be minimal and the people forced to transfer now would be reduced.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
... that is what doomed it the last time.
and yet a piece of it was built
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
That wouldn't be nearly enough to tunnel from Downtown to Oakland, which really can't be broken up into smaller segments (no one is going to fund a tunnel that gets only halfway between them).
the problem with the cost number is that the costs for this item have gone up more than the value of the dollar so the inflation rate understates how far that $500 mil would have gone. it's about 2 mi to oakland ave which might make a decent breaking point, it seems feasible that half a billion in the 90's could have funded that. I'm also not convinced that all of it has to be buried. perhaps it could be mainly submerged downtown and in oakland with street running in between.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
Missing the tunnel to Oakland and not going into the North Side are not minor departures from the Spine Line. You've maybe saved a little on the cost of the North Side part by getting under the river, although modifying the tunnel to continue into the North Side would be really expensive.
allegheny west and manchester are both in the north side and are not precluded from an extension of the existing alignment, neither is chateau.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
I really don't understand why you are insisting on that particular route. That is not an important transit need in Pittsburgh.
You should really look at how cities like Caracas, Medellin, and Rio di Janeiro are using gondolas. They aren't just little skilifts for tourists.
I'm using it as an example, it's you who thinks it's without merit, I guess I hadn't realized no one lives on mt washington, thanks for letting me know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
Well, why not? What I proposed would provide three stations on the North Side, including one along I-279 that could be used for park and rides, then a station and transfer point at Penn Station/East Busway, then another station and transfer point at Steel Plaza/T, which would be a suitable place to continue service to Oakland. Total trip time from the farthest station to Steel Plaza should be around 10 minutes, wait times less than 1 minute, capacity should be around 4000 people per hour per direction, operating efficiencies should be extremely high. And it would be an amazing ride.
So exactly why don't you think that isn't a good application of the technology?
You originally stated: "I think it likely that a simply one stop extension of the current alignment probably makes the most sense and is the most likely."
If you had stated instead, "I think it is likely that [full implementation of the Spine Line concept to at least Oakland] makes the most sense and is the most likely," I would have had a different response, namely that I don't think that is necessarily very likely because it is a very expensive proposal and there is a long history of it being proposed but not done.
Quote:
I think, perhaps, by taking a short term view you're shortchanging the additional mobility.
It is more that to the extent the claimed benefits of some particular extension of the NSC depend on other, much more expensive, projects also being built, I am discounting those claimed benefits by the likelihood of those projects being funded. In that sense I am not rejecting longer term thinking, but I am also not willing to assume that all our wishes and hopes for the future will be realized.
Quote:
It seems that the idea is to eventually extend the T to the west busway (formerly the airport busway) on its way to the airport.
This notion has been talked about but rejected in prior studies. It really doesn't make sense, and I think it has been offered mostly as a rationalization for the alignment of the NSC, which in truth served other purposes.
Quote:
but eventually it would provide a direct connection to oakland and possible the airport.
I don't think you are entitled to claim it "would" provide a direct connection to Oakland. That is your hope, but that same hope has been thwarted for a century and may never happen.
So these are both mere possibilities, and I wouldn't classify either as more likely than not in the conceivable future, although at least going to Oakland would make sense (the airport really doesn't).
Quote:
the operating cost of the one stop would be minimal and the people forced to transfer now would be reduced.
But the capital costs would be high and I rather doubt that argument (reducing transfers for a few people) would be sufficient to get the necessary funding. So I don't think it is "very likely" to be done.
Quote:
and yet a piece of it was built
But no, not really.
The Spine Line was killed. The NSC then arose, and it bears some resemblance to part of the Spine Line, but was also crucially different in important respects. Both killing the Spine Line and proposing the NSC with these crucial differences were dictated by political considerations, so you really cannot claim the political history supports the notion that "a piece of the Spine Line was built". That wasn't what the politicians were doing at the time, and they knew it.
Quote:
the problem with the cost number is that the costs for this item have gone up more than the value of the dollar so the inflation rate understates how far that $500 mil would have gone.
But that is answering the wrong question. How much it would have cost in the past to resurrect the Spine Line, using some bits of the NSC, is not a useful question to answer, because we can't do that in the past. The meaningful question is how much that plan will now cost in the future. And unfortunately, the additional costs of relevant items is going to largely cancel out any cost savings from using bits of the NSC.
In other words, the costs of the delay while the NSC was being funded and built, which is about 15 years and counting at this point, are very much real. And those costs of delay mean we really haven't made progress in cutting the total costs of the Spine Line by building the NSC.
Quote:
it's about 2 mi to oakland ave which might make a decent breaking point, it seems feasible that half a billion in the 90's could have funded that. I'm also not convinced that all of it has to be buried. perhaps it could be mainly submerged downtown and in oakland with street running in between.
As an aside, I again fail to see how what that project would have cost in the 1990s matters, because we can't fund and build it in the 1990s. Also, I don't think any alignment between Downtown and Oakland Ave would only be 2 miles--I think it would be closer to 3.
Anyway, in 2003 the Eastern Corridor study did an updated look at the Spine Line. They actually looked at the capital costs of several options.
One was of just building underground to Oakland, deferring later segments further to Wilkinsburg--that came in at $1.5 billion (all the way to Wilkinsburg was $2.5 billion).
Going underground to Oakland then doing a surface route in Oakland (and abandoning any plan to continue to Wilkinsburg) was $1.2 billion (a savings of $300 million). They were pretty skeptical about this option being a good idea, citing ridership concerns and increased vehicle costs.
Your idea to run surface in the middle with underground on both ends is a little different, but I suspect it would have cost out at around the same $1.2 billion, and would have raised some of the same concerns.
Again, this is all in 2003. Proposed right now, it undoubtedly would be a lot more.
Quote:
allegheny west and manchester are both in the north side and are not precluded from an extension of the existing alignment, neither is chateau.
Right, but that isn't part of the current NSC, and may never happen.
The NSC itself, therefore, is not the same thing as the North Side part of the Spine Line plan, and it will cost more money, which may or may not ever be available, to try to use the NSC to do something equivalent to what the North Side part of the Spine Line would have done.
Quote:
I'm using it as an example, it's you who thinks it's without merit. I guess I hadn't realized no one lives on mt washington
Don't be silly--of course people live on Mt Washington and commute to Downtown.
I just don't understand why you are insisting on using an aerial gondola for that particular purpose as somehow being an obviously better use of the technology. People on Mt. Washington already have the Mon Incline to get down the slope, and from there they can use the T (or walk) to Downtown. This may be an upgradeable transit route, but it hardly represents the same need as, say, upgrading the routes available from the North Side to Oakland.
So it really just strikes me as strange you would look at a North Side to Oakland route in comparison to a Mt Washington to Downtown route, and be more excited about the Mt Washington to Downtown route. And that is really independent of what technology we happen to be talking about.
Quote:
I'm not buying you're numbers mainly.
Here are the numbers I was using (note this is from a person who is actually pretty skeptical about this particular variant):
There are lots of sources on the less than 1 minute wait time.
Quote:
you're proposing 1 minute headways?
"Headways" is a bit of a funny concept as applied to gondola systems, since in motion, they are attached to the same cable and move at a fixed distance. But yes, they would be leaving/arriving in stations less than one minute apart.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
