A proposed Pittsburgh gondola route (Allentown, Washington: transferring to, purchase, construction)

[rhondee]

I think it's an excellent idea like everyone else, but who do you propose this to get it seriously considered. Do you go to Allegheny County Commissioner ? Right now with the PAT demise I keep hearing unfortunately, there is no interest in diverting fed funds to mass transit, they want the $ to go to roads. It's a shame b/c it's very likely a much less costly alternative, and I think people would actually kinda enjoy the experience of public transit for once in their life.
Should a public petition for support be started?

[Impala26]

As I was saying to Brian earlier, here is my slapdash map of Pittsburgh Transit:

Pittsburgh Mass Transit

If you overlay that map with Brian's gondola route, you can really see how it could tie together transit in the region. It also shows you other things such as the need to truly link all the different busways seamlessly in Downtown, the short geographical distance between the end of the East Busway and the Monroeville Mall area, and the apparent dearth of any sort of mass transit north of the city (I really don't consider an HOV lane to be "mass transit"). One could see how there might be demand for "collector" type areas in the Mon Valley, in the Ohio Valley, and various parts in the north.

Also, I threw the AVRR in there for *@^% and giggles...

[rhondee]

[quote=Impala26;15501514]As I was saying to Brian earlier, here is my slapdash map of Pittsburgh Transit:

Pittsburgh Mass Transit

If you overlay that map with Brian's gondola route, you can really see how it could tie together transit in the region. It also shows you other things such as the need to truly link all the different busways seamlessly in Downtown, the short geographical distance between the end of the East Busway and the Monroeville Mall area, and the apparent dearth of any sort of mass transit north of the city (I really don't consider an HOV lane to be "mass transit").

Heck, I rarely see the HOV lane used at all because there are hardly any express buses that use it. One express bus that goes from the north suburbs onto the HOV bypasses a Park n ride that is only 1/2 mile away from it leaving alot of people underserved -what a waste

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by rhondee

I think it's an excellent idea like everyone else, but who do you propose this to get it seriously considered.

So the City has released a request for qualifications as a first step to developing MOVEPGH, which would be a 25 year integrated, multimodal transportation plan for the City. The RFQ is to select the group that will develop the plan. I brought this to Steven Dale's attention, because I was hoping some people who are familiar with gondolas might be interested in bidding for the contract. And regardless of who is selected, I'm planning to try to get this technology on their radar screen, whether through a letter, attendance at a public meeting, or so on.

Just by way of background, urban gondolas have already been implemented in several cities, but haven't yet seen much penetration in Western Europe or North America. So one possible scenario is that the technology will take off and eventually Pittsburgh will follow along. But I'd like Pittsburgh to get out ahead and become a groundbreaking North American city in this area, and I really think we are the ideal city to do it. So that will be my pitch--and you never know, someone might buy it.

As for funding, one of two things is possible. I think there is a good chance the next multi-year federal transportation bill will have a decent amount of funding for which this would qualify. Again, the pitch would be that for not that much money, this could launch a transformative technology for not just Pittsburgh but the United States in general.

If that doesn't work, we could also look at a public-private partnership. I think it would be important to have this integrated into the existing system, including payment technology, but you could still do that and have a private partner. I honestly think that once this was up and running, it could operate at a decent profit--gondolas are cheap to operate and low-maintenance, and I think the demand would quickly be there.

So that's the plan. If nothing else, I am hoping to build awareness of the technology and its possibilities in the local community, so if and when someone does pitch a gondola project, there are a bunch of people willing to consider it seriously.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Impala26

[H]ere is my slapdash map of Pittsburgh Transit. If you overlay that map with Brian's gondola route, you can really see how it could tie together transit in the region.

Great! I believe you could save a version and invite me as a collaborator, if you wanted to merge the maps. In any event, anyone can save both to My Maps and then overlay them. I agree the result is very informative.

It also shows you other things such as the need to truly link all the different busways seamlessly in Downtown, the short geographical distance between the end of the East Busway and the Monroeville Mall area, and the apparent dearth of any sort of mass transit north of the city (I really don't consider an HOV lane to be "mass transit"). One could see how there might be demand for "collector" type areas in the Mon Valley, in the Ohio Valley, and various parts in the north.

Agreed all around. I continue to think joining up the East and West Busways through Downtown should be a high priority. As I mentioned above, I'd be thinking about expanding this gondola system through the North Side, and then you could even bring it back over to Mt Washington and then maybe complete the circle. I'd also think about expanding it east from Oakland through the planned new development of the Hazelwood LTV, then over to the Waterfront, then back over to the Carrie Furnace LTV to maybe terminate at the end of the East Busway. All these are just ideas, but it is amazing what you can contemplate when hills and rivers are not such a big deal.

Also, I threw the AVRR in there for *@^% and giggles...

Call me crazy, but I think it might actually happen this time.

[rhondee]

FOR BRIANTH
yeah I think the Burgh would be perfect for urban gondola b/c of all the hills and the already compact urban area that is hard to widen roads because of hills and rivers.
FOR IMPALA26 nice map!!

[PAS36BH]

this is a great idea DON"T GIVE UP....MAKE IT HAPPEN

[Drover]

When I first saw this thread I was thinking "boat" gondolas and expected to find plans for a water-taxi system. "Lawrenceville to downtown in 7 minutes! South Side Works to downtown in 4!"

BTW, tunneling doesn't have to be that expensive if you use the trench-and-cover method along established street corridors, though relocating utilities can be a PITA. It would of course be horribly disruptive for traffic to close 5th and/or Forbes section by section. But it doesn't have to be the "bore" type of tunneling being done under the river unless it's being done under, say, a river.

Alas, I don't see how a cable-gondola system would be part of a "rapid" transit system lest I'm severely underestimating how fast these things can move, especially taking into account staging times. They might be a good alternative during heavily congested hours where indeed it might could move people faster than traffic, but not sure how useful it would be versus conventional buses or just plain hopping in your own car during the rest of the day.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Drover

BTW, tunneling doesn't have to be that expensive if you use the trench-and-cover method along established street corridors, though relocating utilities can be a PITA. It would of course be horribly disruptive for traffic to close 5th and/or Forbes section by section. But it doesn't have to be the "bore" type of tunneling being done under the river unless it's being done under, say, a river.

It is true cut-and-cover can be much less expensive than bore, but it is still likely to be much more expensive than stringing a cable system. In Pittsburgh, favoring cut-and-cover would also be highly route-limiting: you can't really go from Downtown to Oakland via the Hill that way, for example, nor directly into the South Hills, nor (as you note) under rivers . . . .

Alas, I don't see how a cable-gondola system would be part of a "rapid" transit system lest I'm severely underestimating how fast these things can move, especially taking into account staging times.

So boarding should be very quick with very short wait times--it should take about a minute or less from stepping on to the platform before you are leaving the station. The operating speed of the technology I would recommend is about 24 kph, or about 15 mph, plus again around 1 minute per station (so the whole 5.77 mile route with eight intermediary stops should take somewhere around 30-35 minutes to complete, and most riders would likely be doing only a fraction of that).

Anyway, that real-world operating speed is actually pretty competitive with surface transportation in urban areas even during uncongested times, unless you are talking about something like freeways, busways, or subways. And you can also do straight-line routing that would otherwise be extremely costly, which cuts actual travel times. And it would be fun!

They might be a good alternative during heavily congested hours where indeed it might could move people faster than traffic, but not sure how useful it would be versus conventional buses or just plain hopping in your own car during the rest of the day.

The primary purpose would indeed be to move commuters during congested hours. But I wouldn't discount the secondary purposes entirely: part of the idea would be to give people living Downtown, on the Hill, in Oakland, the South Side, and the South Side Slopes a handy, no-driving way to get to destinations like Downtown, the Consol/former-Civic Arena site, Oakland, and that end of the South Side. Plus it would serve visitors with similar transportation needs, in addition to being a cool ride. And one of the nice things about the technology is that the marginal operating costs are very low, so operating during off-peak hours really doesn't cost you much, and hence off-peak service can add to net revenues even if it is somewhat light.

This is also a big picture issue. Places like Downtown, Oakland, and the South Side really should be places where many residents (and visitors) can go carless, perhaps with occasional use of something like Zipcar (and of course taxis and such). But to make that work, you really need to provide them with decent public transit to at least nearby destinations. We've got some significant gaps in our rapid transit network right now, and this would be a relatively inexpensive (and fun!) way of filling many of those gaps.

[Drover]

Sorry but I still don't see how 15mph is "competitive" with surface transportation in a "rapid" transit context. A neat toy in lieu of buses that would otherwise have to fight congestion during peak hours... sure. A "rapid" form of transit... eh, not seeing it. And best I could see you'd have to operate it at full capacity all the time (either full capacity or zero capacity, no in-between), which you don't have to do with conventional surface transit.