What are YOUR suggestions for improving Pittsburgh's mass transit system. (Oakland: construction, taxi)

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by feanix

Can you post studies you agree with then? Something people can sink their teeth in and read? (Not being snarky, it is a genuine request.)

If someone has done a study like that of PAT, I'm not aware of it off the top of my head.

I will give you agreement that on some levels this study is flawed, yet it is no more flawed than the bike study you cited in another thread without questioning its validity.

There are certainly a lot of rankings and other studies that I post here which aren't necessarily all that solid in terms of methodology. I think I've been pretty consistent about stating that what I usually find significant about such things is the mere fact of the media coverage, and sometimes some of the underlying data is also interesting. But I'd be the first to admit that absent a solid methodology, you shouldn't be relying on such things to make important decisions.

I tend to agree with what they suggest. I also agree with the idea of PPPs coming in.

I can't claim to know their whole agenda, but I think there is very good reason to be skeptical about the two things I noted (outsourcing bus services and using smaller buses). I also think the absence of discussions of the differences in operating-efficiency, including labor-efficiency, between different modes is really glaring. Even without doing a study, I am pretty sure that is a big part of why some of the bigger, denser systems are relatively operating- and labor-efficient.

Which brings me to PPPs. I definitely think they are a good idea, but we should have some firm ideas of what we should expect to get out of them. The best cases for PPPs tend to be when the private partner is contributing some capital to help develop a system, and in exchange will get the right to some revenues from that system. That can work, but you usually have to be talking about cases where revenues are likely to be substantial relative to operating costs. I think there are opportunities like that in Pittsburgh, but the people who are really hostile to PAT tend not to be big fans of capital-intensive transit projects. So we should watch out for that.

[Jimrob1]

Is Portland the only city in America that keeps increasing its transit options and extending its rail lines? For some reason I would have though Pittsburgh, would be a city that would have pushed for more rail and transit service.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Jimrob1

Is Portland the only city in America that keeps increasing its transit options and extending its rail lines? For some reason I would have though Pittsburgh, would be a city that would have pushed for more rail and transit service.

No, recently other cities have also been expanding rail and other capital-intensive transit services. The reasons why Pittsburgh is lagging are complex, but ultimately I think it is because of politics.

[Jimrob1]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

No, recently other cities have also been expanding rail and other capital-intensive transit services. The reasons why Pittsburgh is lagging are complex, but ultimately I think it is because of politics.

It probably is politics. Strange how politics is why Portland has all these never ending transit projects, yet Pittsburgh's transit is hampered by its politics.

[BrianTH]

Portland has something called Metro, which is a directly-elected regional government, originally created by a state ballot measure, with authority over land and transportation planning, and is basically in charge of federal transportation spending in the area as well.

In contrast, while we have a regional planning body, the real authority is split between local municipalities, counties, and the state. That makes for lots of infighting and partisan gamesmanship, and it takes a rare conjunction of events for a major transit project to somehow get through all the necessary hurdles to become a reality.

[raubre]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Portland has something called Metro, which is a directly-elected regional government, originally created by a state ballot measure, with authority over land and transportation planning, and is basically in charge of federal transportation spending in the area as well.

In contrast, while we have a regional planning body, the real authority is split between local municipalities, counties, and the state. That makes for lots of infighting and partisan gamesmanship, and it takes a rare conjunction of events for a major transit project to somehow get through all the necessary hurdles to become a reality.

That sounds like another reason why (a whole different topic) in which a city-county merger would be beneficial here.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by raubre

That sounds like another reason why (a whole different topic) in which a city-county merger would be beneficial here.

Indeed. But I also have some hopes for CONNECT, which is a coalition of the City and all the adjacent municipalities. Basically, CONNECT has roughly double the potential of the City acting alone when it comes to coordinating (and lobbying) on transit issues.

[pman]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Right, but is that fringe benefit costs for active workers per trip, or all fringe benefit costs per trip?
I'm not sure which of my points was the second point,

that is your second point, which I put in bold, and the most important question.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I just don't see any sign yet that the Allegheny Institute was approaching the issue in that way. Instead, they seem to have a particular agenda in mind, and are trying to conform the facts to that agenda. Hence, I'm just going to stop trusting their analysis, barring some revelation about their methodology that makes them look more trustworthy.

it seems there is some useful information in there but there are some key assumptions that need to be made clear.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

No, recently other cities have also been expanding rail and other capital-intensive transit services. The reasons why Pittsburgh is lagging are complex, but ultimately I think it is because of politics

Dallas and even houston have been improving their systems. interestingly, it's not like pittsburgh hasn't done anything, they've opted for bus rather than light rail. over the years the city has added the T, improved, extended, and added new busways. the problem seems to lie on the cost and funding side for operations...and most notably the nsc. was this the best use of half a billion for PAT? of course, portland is a growing place as are the other places I mentioned with few, if any, of the legacy cost problems that afflict older cities. sadly, in roads and transit, federal policy rewards building new over improving/maintaining old.

[BrianTH]

Yeah, the NSC actually represents a considerable transit investment--it just isn't going to be all that transformative, given the amount spent. And as we have discussed here before, it was a very, very political process that led to the NSC.

[pman]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Yeah, the NSC actually represents a considerable transit investment--it just isn't going to be all that transformative, given the amount spent. And as we have discussed here before, it was a very, very political process that led to the NSC.

wouldnt most of the shortfall disappear if the local match was increased to 20 pct from the minimum 15 pct?