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.
For commuter rail, Downtown is so small it is really all within walking distance of Penn Station and Steel Plaza (and from Steel Plaza in particular, you could also transfer to the T). Local transit is a different matter, but I guess I am not seeing why it would make sense to use these services for both commuter rail and local transit.
it's not commuter rail, really, it's a lot more like njt's riverline which does exactly what I mentioned. it's a hyrbrid service, transfers are inconvenient, and while downtown is small, it still adds convenience and high value real estate. I'm surprised how closed you are to the idea since you originally suggested it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
It has sometimes been sold that way, but I prefer to think of it as just a straight commuter rail proposal. I mean it is coming all the way from Arnold, which is around 20 miles from Downtown.
which is no different than baltimore's light rail and shorter than njt's riverline. it's roughly half the distance of septa's thorndale line. there's no reason it shouldn't legitimately thought of as a hybrid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
So for actually providing upgraded local transit to the Strip and Lawrenceville, I think a separate service is likely the way to go. It is possible that could all end up sharing track, but I'd have to see the efficiencies of such an approach demonstrated first.
not really. it's just fine to have it serve the strip, particularly if the goal is to make the downtown end of the strip essentially an extension of downtown...and I don't see why it shouldn't be. yes, for lawrenceville you'd probably want something else, perhaps the streetcar I proposed.
Commuter rail, also called suburban rail, is a passenger rail transport service that primarily operates between a city center, and the middle to outer suburbs beyond 15 km (10 miles)
That's exactly why I pointed out that everything from Verona/Oakmont and beyond is outside 10 miles.
Quote:
I'm surprised how closed you are to the idea since you originally suggested it.
I'm not sure which idea you are alleging I proposed, and I am now closed to. In the passage you were quoting, I was referring to the idea of running AVR (and maybe Greensburg line) trains along the streets of Downtown. I'm pretty sure I never proposed that idea. As for being closed to it, I don't think that is true, but I am not seeing much justification either (particularly with respect to the AVR, if it comes all the way to Steel Plaza).
Quote:
there's no reason it shouldn't legitimately thought of as a hybrid.
I'd turn that around. Clearly it is AT LEAST commuter rail. But what is your reason for calling it a "hybrid"?
Of course there are no fixed details. But the proposed schedule would start very light and is obviously focused on commuters. The main routing is based on getting people from beyond ten miles up the Allegheny Valley into Downtown. In fact, I think it is pretty indicative they haven't even settled on a routing within the City to get to Downtown--that is a fairly good indication that they are not particularly focused on serving any sort of local transit needs.
I'm not saying it is inconceivable some people could end up taking it from, say, a stop in the Strip or Lawrenceville to Downtown. But I don't think it can be reasonably said that is an essential part of its purpose, particularly considering that it may not even have such a stop depending on how it is realized.
Quote:
it's just fine to have it serve the strip, particularly if the goal is to make the downtown end of the strip essentially an extension of downtown.
So the AVR is going to be asking people 10-20 miles up the AV to pay something like $15 to get to Downtown. Even with a successful redevelopment of the near-Strip (which hasn't happened yet), it is still quite likely that most of its AV commuters are going to want to go all the way to Downtown.
It isn't impossible that you could both serve those commuters and also pick up and drop off people along the Strip. But you would have to be VERY careful about that, because if you added much time penalty and crowding, you could render your AV service non-viable.
Of course with shared tracks, maybe you could run express and local and such. I wouldn't rule that out either, but I'd like to see studies suggesting it really was more efficient to do it that way.
Quote:
yes, for lawrenceville you'd probably want something else, perhaps the streetcar I proposed.
So why aren't you using that for local service in the Strip instead?
That's exactly why I pointed out that everything from Verona/Oakmont and beyond is outside 10 miles.
again, it's a hybrid type of service. techically, it's all commuter service since commuter is only a derivative of commuted fare so all the people with monthly bus passes are also commuters. so if you want to be an ass, the word commuter is probably not very descriptive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
I'm not sure which idea you are alleging I proposed, and I am now closed to. In the passage you were quoting, I was referring to the idea of running AVR (and maybe Greensburg line) trains along the streets of Downtown. I'm pretty sure I never proposed that idea. As for being closed to it, I don't think that is true, but I am not seeing much justification either (particularly with respect to the AVR, if it comes all the way to Steel Plaza).
certainly you proposed street running for avrr and certainly you are closed to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
I'd turn that around. Clearly it is AT LEAST commuter rail. But what is your reason for calling it a "hybrid"?
it will combine typical suburban rail characteristics with those of light rail in the city. if you insist on being obtuse, I cannot help you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
Of course there are no fixed details. But the proposed schedule would start very light and is obviously focused on commuters. The main routing is based on getting people from beyond ten miles up the Allegheny Valley into Downtown. In fact, I think it is pretty indicative they haven't even settled on a routing within the City to get to Downtown--that is a fairly good indication that they are not particularly focused on serving any sort of local transit needs.
ACTUALLY, all indications show they are very concerned with in city routings much to the contrary of your claims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
I'm not saying it is inconceivable some people could end up taking it from, say, a stop in the Strip or Lawrenceville to Downtown. But I don't think it can be reasonably said that is an essential part of its purpose, particularly considering that it may not even have such a stop depending on how it is realized.
they're banking on it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
So the AVR is going to be asking people 10-20 miles up the AV to pay something like $15 to get to Downtown. Even with a successful redevelopment of the near-Strip (which hasn't happened yet) it is still quite likely that most of its AV commuters are going to want to go all the way to Downtown.
redevelopment is the driver behind the proposal. nobody said they wouldn't want to go downtown.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
So why aren't you using that for local service in the Strip instead?
there's no reason that the strip couldn't be served by both (one close to the river, the other on liberty ave) sharing downtown trackage. in fact, that's exactly what I'm saying. It's something that has only been made possible by the potential of running mixed traffic.
so if you want to be an ass, the word commuter is probably not very descriptive.
Using terms according to their standard definitions is "being an ass"?
Quote:
certainly you proposed street running for avrr and certainly you are closed to it.
Well, I know the AVR group itself proposed running on the street to get over to the Busway, and then on the Busway on its way to Steel Plaza. That, of course, is different from running in the streets Downtown, which is what we were discussing.
And again, I'm really not closed to it. I just don't see the justification as yet.
Quote:
it will combine typical suburban rail characteristics with those of light rail in the city.
As proposed I don't think that second claim is accurate--none of the proposed alternatives had many stops in the City, and I think in general what they plan for the City portion is consistent with just regular commuter rail.
Quote:
if you insist on being obtuse, I cannot help you.
No need to get all huffy.
Quote:
ACTUALLY, all indications show they are very concerned with in city routings much to the contrary of your claims.
Well, they certainly need some plan for getting their AV riders Downtown. But I don't see them showing any particular concern about serving riders originating in the City bound for Downtown. But perhaps you can show me what you have in mind.
Quote:
they're banking on it.
Again, show me what you have in mind.
Quote:
redevelopment is the driver behind the proposal.
I don't think that is accurate. I'd say the driver behind the proposal is that the AVR tracks in question are underutilized, and it has found investors interested in using them for a commuter rail service, and the AVR thinks it can serve its freight customers solely at night. So the AVR wants to get more return on assets it owns, and the investors think they can make money operating commuter rail.
Of course various stakeholders in the City might be interested in the redevelopment potential, as might stakeholders in other municipalities along the proposed route, and so on for the County, state, and feds. But that's not how this all started.
Quote:
nobody said they wouldn't want to go downtown.
OK, so that's the tradeoff: if it is trying to provide local service in the Strip, that could conflict with providing commuter rail service from the AV.
Quote:
there's no reason that the strip couldn't be served by both (one close to the river, the other on liberty ave) sharing downtown trackage.
Sure, that's one possibility. Another possibility is that your light rail line could continue through Downtown, and the AVR commuter service could just go to Steel Plaza or Penn Station. Whether or not it would make sense to try to link the AVR commuter with your light rail line for running through Downtown would depend on the details of that light rail line, how it would affect service on both the AVR portion and the light rail portion, and so forth.
Quote:
It's something that has only been made possible by the potential of running mixed traffic.
That's true. However, the Denton County decision has other implications besides that, which may prove relevant even if the idea of taking the commuter rail services through Downtown doesn't prove worthwhile.
Using terms according to their standard definitions is "being an ass"?
this statement certainly fits the bill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
Well, I know the AVR group itself proposed running on the street to get over to the Busway, and then on the Busway on its way to Steel Plaza. That, of course, is different from running in the streets Downtown, which is what we were discussing.
but not inherently different than the street running in the strip they've proposed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
And again, I'm really not closed to it. I just don't see the justification as yet.
open your mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
As proposed I don't think that second claim is accurate--none of the proposed alternatives had many stops in the City, and I think in general what they plan for the City portion is consistent with just regular commuter rail.
it is most certainly accurate. first of all, it IS light rail since they are proposing to use light weight rail vehicles. your claims about commuters are irrelevant since commuters are simply people who commute (in this case, by the classic definition, via commuter fare instruments). baltimore's light rail is in the same ballpark and does exactly what we're talking about, runs in the street downtown...same with the riverline. it can be considered commuter rail regardless of whether it stops at 21st and 16th on its way downtown or bypasses the strip entirely as you envision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
Well, they certainly need some plan for getting their AV riders Downtown. But I don't see them showing any particular concern about serving riders originating in the City bound for Downtown. But perhaps you can show me what you have in mind.
I don't believe I said they're targeting commuters heading downtown from 16th st (though if people pay and there's space, why not). the strip offers an offpeak destination for weekend service, the potential for in city ridersip (particularly off peak), the potential for future office space, and perhaps most importantly, an ass load (look it up, wikipedia must have a definition somewhere) of developable space.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
I don't think that is accurate. I'd say the driver behind the proposal is that the AVR tracks in question are underutilized, and it has found investors interested in using them for a commuter rail service, and the AVR thinks it can serve its freight customers solely at night. So the AVR wants to get more return on assets it owns, and the investors think they can make money operating commuter rail.
andthe flip side being....land value! btw, looked what I found. apology accepted
Quote:
And like other cities with underutilitized rail, such as Camden and Trenton, N.J., whose River Line commuter link serves as the model for the Pittsburgh project, Peterson said, this screamed for a passenger opportunity.
OK, so that's the tradeoff: if it is trying to provide local service in the Strip, that could conflict with providing commuter rail service from the AV.
could is the key word, you don't actually know that it would.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
Sure, that's one possibility. Another possibility is that your light rail line could continue through Downtown, and the AVR commuter service could just go to Steel Plaza or Penn Station. Whether or not it would make sense to try to link the AVR commuter with your light rail line for running through Downtown would depend on the details of that light rail line, how it would affect service on both the AVR portion and the light rail portion, and so forth.
which is exactly what I've been saying all along. this was the only really relevant part of the reply in retrospect since it acknowledges that you don't know and that yes, there are alternatives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
That's true. However, the Denton County decision has other implications besides that, which may prove relevant even if the idea of taking the commuter rail services through Downtown doesn't prove worthwhile.
but not inherently different than the street running in the strip they've proposed.
Do you mean not technologically different? That's true. Of course it is potentially quite a different practical situation, in many ways.
Quote:
open your mind.
It isn't closed--I am asking for a reasonable justification for your suggestion the AVR should circulate Downtown streets, which is all that openmindedness requires.
Quote:
first of all, it IS light rail since they are proposing to use light weight rail vehicles.
Oh, if all you mean is they are planning to use non-FRA-compliant DMUs, then OK. I was referring to the sort of service they were planning.
Quote:
your claims about commuters are irrelevant
Using the standard definition of "commuter rail" as I gave it above, it certainly is relevant. In fact whether or not you like that definition is just semantics. The practical point is this service is oriented around riders coming from a significant distance up the AV who will want to get Downtown in a timely fashion, and this service will need to compete with driving as an alternative. Those facts certainly are relevant to designing how it functions within the City.
Quote:
it can be considered commuter rail regardless of whether it stops at 21st and 16th on its way downtown or bypasses the strip entirely as you envision.
The Steel Plaza plan isn't my vision--it is just the latest (as far as I know) preferred alternative of the AVR group.
In any event, the question again isn't the semantics, but how making your proposed stops in the Strip (and circulating Downtown streets? Are we still talking about that?) would affect the viability of serving AV commuters.
Quote:
(though if people pay and there's space, why not).
Well, to start with, that stop is going to add time to the trip for AV commuters, and there may well not be space, particularly if you price it at all reasonably for the distance. But of course the real question is what will it take to get to 16th, and then on to Downtown, and how will all that in total affect AV commuters.
Quote:
the strip offers an offpeak destination for weekend service . . . the potential for future office space, and perhaps most importantly, an ass load (look it up, wikipedia must have a definition somewhere) of developable space.
I don't think it is likely the Strip, even given the culmination of current development plans (which may take a long time) will ever generate more than a tiny fraction of the demand for riders from the AV as Downtown.
Quote:
the potential for in city ridersip (particularly off peak)
Again, it is not clear to me why you would want to use trains originating in Arnold for this purpose. If you are talking about a different service sharing some trackage, I've noted before I'd have to see the studies indicating that really was efficient.
Quote:
btw, looked what I found. apology accepted
Are you talking about this?
Quote:
A local match from Westmoreland and Allegheny counties along with the city of Pittsburgh is expected to be generated solely from the value of the real estate of the rail line — $30 million — in their communities to the overall package
Because I already said this:
Quote:
Of course various stakeholders in the City might be interested in the redevelopment potential, as might stakeholders in other municipalities along the proposed route, and so on for the County, state, and feds. But that's not how this all started.
I stand by those statements in their totality, of course (I won't ask for your apology for omitting them--I wouldn't want to act like an "ass").
Quote:
so to imply that land development isn't a factor seems somewhat offbase in my opinion.
Good thing I didn't say that, then.
On the other hand, you said:
Quote:
redevelopment is the driver behind the proposal.
Not a factor, not something to consider, but "the driver". I don't think there is any way to square that blanket statement with the far more complex picture in the article you cited.
Quote:
could is the key word, you don't actually know that it would.
Right, so are you actually arguing with me? That's all I have said--I'd want to see studies.
Quote:
this was the only really relevant part of the reply in retrospect since it acknowledges that you don't know and that yes, there are alternatives.
That's exactly what I have been saying all along. I don't know why you got so huffy about it.
i got through 7 pages of this fantastic thread. i cant read all 11 - but i do empathize with h_curtis and understand his concerns. cautious optimism is best, as one would learn from numerous projects that either failed to live up to their expectations, or never saw the light of day.
personally, if TODAY everything conceived in the video existed and the place was teeming with shadysiders waging war with plastic, i would still be wary in east liberty as i have had my share of negative experiences there. the have-nots (and i say this delicately) will not disappear. im hoping the continuous improvements will trickle down to provide a better way of life for those wiling to take advantage of those opportunities.
the youtube video is great. urbanites or people who have a genuine interest in the well-being of our city wouldnt help but be excited. the designers of the East Liberty transit center are schlepping it to the DPW today, in fact - the first real step at getting the city government involved...
i got through 7 pages of this fantastic thread. i cant read all 11 - but i do empathize with h_curtis and understand his concerns. cautious optimism is best, as one would learn from numerous projects that either failed to live up to their expectations, or never saw the light of day.
Thank you for putting it so nicely. "Cautious optimism", is exactly the right wording and that is exactly where I am with East Liberty. I will confess, my optimism isn't all that strong, due to the amount of government housing they seem to like to squeeze in over there. Also, what is to be done with Larimer? It has possibilities and is pretty small, so it really could be cleaned up. Problem is, MOST people with the pockets to clean up these buildings probably won't invest in homes right next to section 8 plans. Noticed I said, "most". Sure there are some, but most won't. I know I won't buy a property next to a section 8. They are too hard to turn. You can rent them through section 8 and get your government check, but do we want more and more government housing in one area? Seems that is the plan for the most part. As I have said countless times, downtown East Liberty has the most promise of all. Much more so than Walnut Street, but sadly it will never reach its potential because the money that is required to do so is quite a lot and to invest that much you will need to rely on those with money to spend. This is purely a business standpoint and isn't some personal view. As an investor, I wouldn't do it, but some are putting the money out there. I know at least one of the investors in East Liberty declared bankruptcy in their past. Never know if it will happen again.
the Downtown-based Mosites Co. outlined plans for the first of three buildings planned as part of the Eastside III mixed-use development in East Liberty. The first building would contain 109 apartment units and 2,000 square feet of retail space at South Highland Avenue and Stevenson Place.
It would be part of the larger $65 million Eastside III development that is to include 360 apartments and 40,000 square feet of retail space. A 278-space parking garage is under construction.
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.
