Is Oakland-Downtown BRT really worth 200 million?

[pman]

the current routing is essentially a spur...the central northside would be a straightmove from the tunnel

[ferraris]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I think it's basically impossible to do this, unless you consider Allegheny Station to be a spur. You'd basically need to have a rapid turn of nearly 180 degrees to get properly oriented to hit the Central North Side. Even Allegheny West would require a 90 degree turn.

I think you could add a t stop in Manchester fairly easily though. Drop it down to street level and have it cross under 65 on Fontella Street. Then have it bear left on Ridge, and run it up Fulton Street. Put a stop around North, and another around Liverpool. Of course, then you're pretty much stuck, since the rail lines mean you can't go much further north, and without leveling a block you can't turn west, and why would you need a stop in Chateau anyway?

Perhaps a better way to do it would be 65 to California to Lincoln, jumping back on 65 again after Ben Avon. This would make the T into a pretty good commuter line for everywhere from Sewickley to Brighton Heights. The use for Marshall-Shadeland would be somewhat limited though. You could route it from Marshall to Brighton, but it would then have a somewhat awkward time turning in Brighton Heights. But I just don't see any way to make the T as they routed it work with the bulk of the Lower Northside.

Allegheny Station certainly does make it tricky to expand without leaving it as a spur. Is a tunnel under the railroad tracks possible? A short tunnel at the end of Fulton would align nicely with California Ave on which the line could continue for a while. From the end of Fulton diagonally to Marvista and California is only 310 meters according to google.

Using 65 may be easier since it's roughly at an equal elevation with Allegheny Station, but I think the jump from 65 over to California could be tricky. Of course it could just stay on 65, but that wouldn't be any better than using the 279 HOV lane really.

[szug-bot]

but for what you guys are talking about - will you get ridership???? those places are not dense enough, are they? people from the Ohio River suburbs wont drive and park in manchester to board the T. i realize there are manchesterians now who would love that service, but enough of them to so that rider fees + subsidies will pay for it?

if i were to hear some kind of plan, i would expect it wouldnt win my heart over for expanding the T or similar service in that direction.

this got me thinking of using Chateau as some kind of transit hub. maybe a park and ride for express buses to oakland or downtown? (maybe someones already figured that out and that exists).

[ferraris]

Originally Posted by szug-bot

but for what you guys are talking about - will you get ridership???? those places are not dense enough, are they? people from the Ohio River suburbs wont drive and park in manchester to board the T. i realize there are manchesterians now who would love that service, but enough of them to so that rider fees + subsidies will pay for it?

A short 2 stop extension would probably not gain many riders. If it extended further along the Ohio, or even over the airport, I think you would see people starting to use it instead of driving, though.

I'd argue that BRT between Downtown and Oakland isn't going to gain many riders either. People who commute to downtown from the east are either already using the east busway, or are unlikely to be wooed by a trip that's 10 minutes faster. People who commute to Oakland from other directions aren't going to care because again, it will only save them maybe 10 minutes, and they'll still have to transfer downtown.

if i were to hear some kind of plan, i would expect it wouldn't win my heart over for expanding the T or similar service in that direction.

What about Eschaton's idea of extending up Fulton, then the 300m tunnel I suggested under the railroad tracks to California & Marvista? From there it looks like the turns are gentle enough to stay on California/Lincolon/Church/Center (all of these are the same street essentially) until somewhere in Emsworth, where it would switch over to Rt. 65. Follow 65, with room for park and rides, to Sewickley and then cross the Ohio and head to the airport.

Granted it wouldn't be cheap, but you'd serve Manchester, California-Kirkbride, Brightwood, Brighton Heights, Bellevue, Avalon, Ben Avon, Emsworth, and Sewickley. I think that's a good mix of demographics that it wouldn't be very controversial. Also the park and rides on 65 would be easily accessible from 79. I'd much rather see this line incorporated slowly in $200M chunks than BRT between Oakland and Downtown.

this got me thinking of using Chateau as some kind of transit hub. maybe a park and ride for express buses to oakland or downtown? (maybe someones already figured that out and that exists).

I'm not against park and rides all together, but I think any extension that primarily serves park and riders is a poor extension.

[szug-bot]

ferraris, What about Eschaton's idea of extending up Fulton,

gosh darn it, i just dont know.

this thread is incredible for brainstorming ideas (i even think no one even got snippy!), and has been very educational.

i think some of the people who contributed here can make an excellent case for item A, item B, or whatever, at a PAT public meeting. its important that the passion continues. its one thing to be educated, 'in the know', then just say "but it wont happen", another to follow through. you gotta push, and bother people, and schmooze.

(i dont do that, but then again, theres nothing i really am that passionate about except for people parking where they are blocking sight distances, or on curbs and sidewalks (destroys the curb, and could damage the sidewalk)).

i do hope that some progress in our mass transportation/transportation system(s) might be born from this very forum! there just might be an informal "citizens for better transporation" type group in the area. if not, there definitely are at least 6 or 7 people who seem to know enough about how things work w/ PAT to make it quite a think tank.