2015 Pittsburgh MSA Population Estimates (Washington: tax, delivery, public transportation)

[whiskey&raybans]

In my opinion, the most depressing result of a stagnant or declining population is that there is no need/no funds for more light rail. I'm dyyying for the T to be extended ...and I don't foresee this happening in the near future.

I see it as a catch-22: more millennials would consider Pittsburgh if the light rail was more extensive with airport and east end access, however funding a more extensive light rail would only be viable if there was more of a demand for it.

[Geeo]

I was reading somewhere this week (forget what media it was) that there is a consortium here that traveled to Denver a couple years ago to see how they put together their massive transit plan. It includes commuter rail, light rail and buses. Salt Lake City is building an extensive system, too.

The catch is that the federal government no longer funds the bulk of the cost, so local and regional taxpayers usually vote for a .4% increase in the local sales tax to fund the projects. It's really the only viable way these days to do things like this.

In this anti-government/anti-tax/what's in it for me environment, though, it remains to be seen if something like this would fly in this area. I hope it would, because it would benefit everyone, whether they use it or not.

[Goinback2011]

Why not reinstall street cars between downtown and the east end?

[_Buster]

I really don't get the idea of building a light rail line to the airport. For it's cost, it would not be used by vast majority of city & county residents since they do not have nearby access to the existing light rail. A busway to the airport does make some sense to avoid traffic jams, and the cost is alot lower than rail. I think for light rail to the airport to be useful, it first has to cover much more of the city itself.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Goinback2011

Why not reinstall street cars between downtown and the east end?

I like street cars, but they're really a gimmick in modern urban development. They're no faster than buses (since they go on city streets) low capacity, and unlike buses cannot be rerouted if there's construction on an emergency. They're actually cheaper to run if the lines already exist, but they're much more expensive to set up than buses.

If we want to set up a true mass transit system, we need grade-separated rail. nothing less will suffice.

[Goinback2011]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I like street cars, but they're really a gimmick in modern urban development. They're no faster than buses (since they go on city streets) low capacity, and unlike buses cannot be rerouted if there's construction on an emergency. They're actually cheaper to run if the lines already exist, but they're much more expensive to set up than buses.

If we want to set up a true mass transit system, we need grade-separated rail. nothing less will suffice.

The T is no faster than busses using the busways. Right of ways on the surface can be established for streetcars. Digging underground or elevation just magnifies costs.

[I_Like_Spam]

Originally Posted by Goinback2011

The T is no faster than busses using the busways. Right of ways on the surface can be established for streetcars. Digging underground or elevation just magnifies costs.

Its actually significantly quicker on the busway. About 16 minutes to town from Wilkinsburg on the bus, 25 minutes from northern Bethel Park for the same 8 mile trip.

[I_Like_Spam]

Originally Posted by whiskey&raybans

In my opinion, the most depressing result of a stagnant or declining population is that there is no need/no funds for more light rail. I'm dyyying for the T to be extended ...and I don't foresee this happening in the near future.

I see it as a catch-22: more millennials would consider Pittsburgh if the light rail was more extensive with airport and east end access, however funding a more extensive light rail would only be viable if there was more of a demand for it.

A much greater population is just one criteria needed to make a large expansion of light rail viable.


The other criteria is to have enough of the population traveling along the route to make the whole thing viable.


To get light rail out to Cranberry, you'd need a lot of people heading south to town every day (for work) as well as a lot of people heading north to Butler County.

[Geeo]

I think we have the population, but the density would be the deciding factors on feasibility. It's much more efficient for public transport if you have 3,000 people per square mile rather than 200 people per square mile. Stations can be walkable for denser populations (city and inner suburbs), but not for areas where everything is spread out and unwalkable. Park and ride lots would probably work better in the less dense areas.

And it should be on its own right-of-way. I know people are harking back to the romantic days when the streetcars plied actual streets, but don't forget that in the 40s and 50s Pittsburgh had a fraction of the cars it has today. Trolleys would be stuck inthe same traffic as everyone else. Most families, even if they had a car, had just one back in the day. Today, three and four-car families are not unusual.

[SteelCityRising]

It took me 40 minutes today to get from Walnut Street in Shadyside to a client on Isabella Street on the North Shore. Forty minutes. It wasn't even rush-hour, either. This city is only going to grow so much until the traffic problem gets addressed. I'd be totally in favor of an additional 1% sales tax to fund more transit options.