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.
The large busses are fine for some of the routes, but PAT should make more use of smaller vehicles to cover the spread out areas of the county.
PAT could get more coverage and more loyalty, as well as more support from the taxpayers if they went more places. But its crazy to take a 50 seat bus on a regular all-day route out Old Leechburg or Middle Road.
I've seen minibuses being used as feeder routes to major stops. The smaller buses also give an advantage of more manouverability on the hilly terrain.
Definitely expand service on the 71 routes. I can't tell you how many times I have been passed up in Oakland by a 71B or D because they couldn't fit anyone else on them. For some reason there seems to be a TON of Negley buses that are never full, something that I don't understand yet the Highland Park and Hamilton buses run few and far in between (most fun I have had was waiting 90 minutes during a snowstorm for the bus to finally come.)
Definitely expand service on the 71 routes. I can't tell you how many times I have been passed up in Oakland by a 71B or D because they couldn't fit anyone else on them. For some reason there seems to be a TON of Negley buses that are never full, something that I don't understand yet the Highland Park and Hamilton buses run few and far in between (most fun I have had was waiting 90 minutes during a snowstorm for the bus to finally come.)
I shocked at the 71D being full whenever I use that line it always has an accordion and comes just as bout as often as a 71A and this was even before the new 3-door accordions started showing up...
The slowest Oakland buses to me are 54 and 75...its a crime how slow those 2 are....Ive seen 2 of every 71 before even 1 54 or 75 comes
WHat's the reason for having the "When to pay" structure the way it is now? In Chicago, we always pay when we board. We get in through the front doors, and exit through the middle ones.
It eliminates some congestion downtown, so people don't have to spend more time in a tight area fumbling for change and such.
Perhaps if fewer people are paying with cash that won't be an issue.
Just as a comparison, Seattle uses the same payment structure we do, so it can't be totally illogical (?)
We need to do anything possible to make riding the bus/T easier to understand. This is especially important as our roads are already tangled like spaghetti and it's kind of hard to understand how to get around in general. Mark routes and stops well. At very minimum, post maps and schedules at high-ridership stops. Implement more BRT and use these principles. Use uniquely-colored/designed buses for some routes.
I like the proof-of-purchase thing too.
Ideally, development patterns should change too (more transit-oriented-development, less sprawl), or use congestion charges, etc.
Just as a comparison, Seattle uses the same payment structure we do, so it can't be totally illogical (?)
I agree it's not totally illogical. It could, however, use some change to make it better. I would agree that Connectcard, if they work the same way as chicago transit cards, would make things more efficient.
PAT used to run minibuses (AKA Mid Bus Shuttle Transit Vehicles) but phased them out with the system redesign and funding cuts:
I think it is true that in a more widespread system there could be more use for them, but when they are cutting down to only the highest volume routes there isn't much to gain, and I gather you lose some maintenance and training efficiencies and such.
That's certainly true enough, but they can provide more efficient service between locales where the number of riders isn't as high.
Efficient may be a matter of perspective but running smaller buses in less dense areas may not be efficient...at least not in the way articulateds might be but if it were a feeder system to a more efficient system...perhaps
Bb-i don't like the $3 base fare. That would make travelling from lawrenceville to downtown and back $6 which is as much as it costs to park. Perhaps $3 at peak and $1 off peak might induce more riders off peak when pat has extra assets.
If the guv can hand over $4 million per job to lure Shell, I'm sure he could hand over $4 million per job for the Port Authority. That would allow LRT to be built to the Airport, Cranberry and the Waterfront (East Busway), possibly potentially maybe theoretically creating all kinds of other jobs, even more than an ethylene cracker.
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.
