America's Most Miserable Cities - Pittsburgh Didn't Make the List (Lebanon: taxes, living)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
According to the GAO study, BRT offers no appreciable advantages over LRT than cost. Ridership, speed, etc., are roughly equal.
The downside of BRT is that the ability of the routes be changed in response to population migrations means that there is less investment and economic development along BRT corridors than along LRT or HRT corridors. In fact, population mobility as a result of the construction of such things as the Parkway West and Parkway North has been nothing but bad news for downtown Pittsburgh because it makes it cheap and easy to live outside.
Most people who push for BRT are only hoping to add more traffic lanes to existing road systems. If the BRT fails, it can become an HOV lane.
According to the GAO study, BRT offers no appreciable advantages over LRT than cost. Ridership, speed, etc., are roughly equal.
Joe would have to provide a citation or link for me to evaluate this claim. I will again note, however, that "BRT" is broad enough to include things very different from Pittsburgh's busways, so I would be cautious about citing general statistics with respect to BRT to draw conclusions about Pittsburgh's busways in particular. I would additionally note that these comparisons are often misleading, at least when interpreted in certain ways: they typically look at BRT versus light rail in corridors where light rail would makes sense in the first place, but BRT has viable applications where light rail does not. That was my point above: Pittsburgh's busways have the potential to provide rapid transit to a lot more people than light rail could.
Quote:
The downside of BRT is that the ability of the routes be changed in response to population migrations means that there is less investment and economic development along BRT corridors than along LRT or HRT corridors.
Again, this may be true in some cases of "BRT corridors", but in cases like the Pittsburgh busways (or the similar busways in Ottawa and Brisbane), that is demonstrably not accurate. Which makes perfect sense: that sort of busway is also an embedded committment to rapid transit, so logically should stimulate development in the same fashion. Which it does.
Quote:
Most people who push for BRT are only hoping to add more traffic lanes to existing road systems. If the BRT fails, it can become an HOV lane.
This may be true of other people, but I was specifically proposing expanding and upgrading Pittsburgh's busways, not merely adding lanes to existing roads.
Again, this may be true in some cases of "BRT corridors", but in cases like the Pittsburgh busways (or the similar busways in Ottawa and Brisbane), that is demonstrably not accurate. Which makes perfect sense: that sort of busway is also an embedded committment to rapid transit, so logically should stimulate development in the same fashion. Which it does.
Tell me. What development has occurred along the East Busway that you can attribute to the Busway, itself? I've traveled it since it first opened and I can't say that I have seen any great boom in terms of economic development.
Which notes, among other things, that some major cities that constructed BRT eventually converted them to HOV lanes because ridership did not justify keeping the roadways exclusive to BRT.
There is also a lot of useful information about Pittsburgh in the rebuttal.
As noted in the report I quoted above, a Port Authority study found $302 million in new development during the 1980s and 1990s in the vicinity of the East Busway, 80% near stations, after it was opened. And of course development along the East Busway is continuing--for example, the East Side development was something like a $30 million project, recently we have been discussing the millions being invested in redeveloping Hamnett Place in Wilkinsburg, and so on. Of course it is impossible to say definitively what role the East Busway has played in any given project, but that is true for all transit-stimulated development.
As for the GAO report, as I suspected it reviewed a large range of BRT options, not just Pittsburgh-style busways. With respect to the stimulated development issue, it simply reported what transit officials had said, and the results were actually fairly nuanced:
Quote:
Transit officials we interviewed disagreed on the extent that Bus Rapid
Transit could spur economic development. For example, officials in Dallas
said they had not experienced development near their Bus-HOV stations
that they could trace to the Bus Rapid Transit service. However, the
Director of the Cleveland Bus Rapid Transit project cited development
already occurring in the Euclid Avenue corridor in anticipation of the Bus
Rapid Transit line. Here the Bus Rapid Transit line would operate much
like a Light Rail system, with the same kind of fixed route on city streets
and identifiable station structures that allow for transit-oriented
development on Light Rail routes.
In commenting on a draft of this report, FTA officials said that Light Rail’s
economic development impact comes about, in part, because of the high
capital investment that gives a sense of permanence. Rail’s economic
development impact at stations also results from a pattern of rail service
where there is excellent service to rail stations but much poorer service
requiring a transfer beyond the stations. According to FTA officials, most
development attributed to rail service occurs within walking distance of
the rail station. In contrast, bus service that can leave the guideway and
eliminate the need for a transfer places less emphasis on the stations as a
focus for economic development. This may diffuse the economic
development impact of Bus Rapid Transit guideways and stations.
As I noted before, Pittsburgh-style busways also represent high embedded capital investments, so it isn't surprising they have also been correlated with local development. However, I actually hadn't thought before about how eliminating the need for transfers, as I was discussing before, would tend to spread stimulated development out farther. In a case like Pittsburgh's, I think that is clearly a positive aspect, since it would be nice to restimulate development in our existing local neighborhoods where possible.
Finally, an argument from an organization called "Light Rail Now" may not be unbiased on these issues--again, there is a lot of what I consider unnecessary rivalry between light rail and BRT. I would also note that to the extent they discuss Pittsburgh, they focus on the West Busway and largely omit discussion of the East Busway.
As I suggested above, the West Busway, as opposed to the East Busway, is indeed a poor example of what is possible with Pittsburgh-style busways, and that is because in order to save costs they stopped the Busway short of Downtown and required the buses to go through mixed traffic on West Carson Street and the Fort Pitt Bridge instead. That is obviously the exact opposite of what you would want when the very idea is to bypass congestion.
Which leads me back to where we started. The East Busway is an excellent proof of the concept, and rather than trying to add a lot of light rail (aside from maybe extending the T to Oakland), I would like to see Pittsburgh upgrade and expand the Busway system. Among other things, that would include completing the West Busway all the way into Downtown, thereby finally unlocking its potential.
As noted in the report I quoted above, a Port Authority study found $302 million in new development during the 1980s and 1990s in the vicinity of the East Busway, 80% near stations, after it was opened.
Finally, an argument from an organization called "Light Rail Now" may not be unbiased on these issues--again, there is a lot of what I consider unnecessary rivalry between light rail and BRT. I would also note that to the extent they discuss Pittsburgh, they focus on the West Busway and largely omit discussion of the East Busway.
Oh, right! The Port Authority does an unbiased study of its own "investment" and that is unbiased but Light Rail Now's study is? Seems that you like to pick and choose you studies. Also, for those of us who actually have lived along the East Busway, it was there for 10 years before there was any real growth surrounding the stops, and that was in East Liberty and it was predominantly a result of the fact that Whole Foods became a magnet for other development (or do you think that people buy a case of wine at the neighboring LCB store and then schlepp it to Wilkinsburg on the bus.
Quote:
As I suggested above, the West Busway, as opposed to the East Busway, is indeed a poor example of what is possible with Pittsburgh-style busways, and that is because in order to save costs they stopped the Busway short of Downtown and required the buses to go through mixed traffic on West Carson Street and the Fort Pitt Bridge instead. That is obviously the exact opposite of what you would want when the very idea is to bypass congestion.
I guess you missed the point where it was discussed that ridership along the East Busway is only a fraction of what was projected when the project was started. Or maybe the fact that projected ridership for LRT was greater. I think it is interesting that the arguments you make for the East Busway ignore the fact that it is a former railroad bed. So are you saying that LRT would have been less successful along the same route? If not, then my point remains that BRT has a single advantage over LRT (which matters to the mindless people who run PAT), which is lower capital costs. Simply put, they were too cheap to do LRT (except when it comes to the bore to the shore which is, per mile, one of the most expensive public transportation projects ever undertaken).
Quote:
Which leads me back to where we started. The East Busway is an excellent proof of the concept, and rather than trying to add a lot of light rail (aside from maybe extending the T to Oakland), I would like to see Pittsburgh upgrade and expand the Busway system. Among other things, that would include completing the West Busway all the way into Downtown, thereby finally unlocking its potential.
Again, the East and West (in part) Busways are former railroad ROWs. So tell me why LRT would not have been as successful. As for BRT, one of the advantages is route flexibility. So you want to tell me how you would move the ROWs? Where is the flexibility in either BRT (except that it allows former chief executives to get into town faster).
Finally, ask yourself this: How likely is someone wanting to visit Pittsburgh likely to look up a bunch of bus schedules? Then ask yourself how likely it is that someone visiting DC, Boston, or Chicago might Google a map of the Metro, Subway or EL?
Finally, ask yourself this: How likely is someone wanting to visit Pittsburgh likely to look up a bunch of bus schedules? Then ask yourself how likely it is that someone visiting DC, Boston, or Chicago might Google a map of the Metro, Subway or EL?
Match point.
THEY NEVER DO. I have never ever looked up a city's bus schedules that I'm unfamiliar with. Navigating buses of an unfamiliar city is a nightmare, no one should be expected to do.
Light rail, trains, etc. with CLEAR stations is the ONLY way that works.
In my opinion, if a city's options consist of buses, I consider it a very archaic public transportation network...more in common with third world countries of 20-30 years ago. Sadly, the mass majority of third world countries have significantly better transit & subway systems than the majority of U.S. cities.
Also, for those of us who actually have lived along the East Busway . . .
I live along the East Busway, but I would suggest that our subjective impressions aren't really that useful.
Quote:
[R]idership along the East Busway is only a fraction of what was projected when the project was started.
Transit services in general attracted fewer riders than projected through the 1980s and 1990s, in part thanks to declining real gas prices and the suburbanization of jobs. And the bottomline is that the East Busway has about as many rider as the T with far fewer miles.
Quote:
I think it is interesting that the arguments you make for the East Busway ignore the fact that it is a former railroad bed. So are you saying that LRT would have been less successful along the same route?
For people living within walking distance of the East Busway, light rail would have been just as good and maybe slightly better. But again, for people living farther away who currently use buses that just get straight onto the Busway, they would have had to use shuttle buses and made transfers instead, and they would have been worse off.
Of course the way this would really play out, due to people's aversion to such transfers, you would have to extend the light rail system a lot farther in order to attract the same ridership. Which, again, is what happened with the T.
Quote:
So you want to tell me how you would move the ROWs? Where is the flexibility in either BRT (except that it allows former chief executives to get into town faster).
Obviously with Pittsburgh-style busways, the part of a route along the busway is going to remain the same, which will apply to the busway-only routes as well. But for routes which start local and then get on the busway, the local part prior to getting on the busway is flexible.
Quote:
How likely is someone wanting to visit Pittsburgh likely to look up a bunch of bus schedules?
As an aside, of course you can't make all your transit decisions just to cater to visitors, and in fact if you actually live in DC, Boston, or Chicago, you might well use buses (I did while living in both DC and Chicago).
But in any event, there is no reason you couldn't treat at least the busway-only routes just like light rail on one simple map. Of course to really make that work, you would have to bring together the T and the Busways Downtown, which is what I am suggesting that we do.
Light rail, trains, etc. with CLEAR stations is the ONLY way that works.
But have you ever used a busway like Pittsburgh's East Busway? Because it is really functionally the same from a convenience and simplicity standpoint (e.g., you do in fact get on and off at clear stations, just like it was light rail).
But have you ever used a busway like Pittsburgh's East Busway? Because it is really functionally the same from a convenience and simplicity standpoint (e.g., you do in fact get on and off at clear stations, just like it was light rail).
I have. I lived on the Busway route for almost 10 years. But one of the things that the GAO report acknowledged is that people have a perception of buses that is less favorable than rail. This includes issues like noise, pollution, cleanliness and whether the service is reliable.
When I lived in NYC I took the bus all the time. But the fact is that I have never looked up any bus schedule in any city that I have visited before traveling or planning my travels. I will look up subways and other mass transit and I suspect others will, as well.
But one of the things that the GAO report acknowledged is that people have a perception of buses that is less favorable than rail. This includes issues like noise, pollution, cleanliness and whether the service is reliable.
OK, but then we should think about smart ways to change people's perceptions. Because I have used both light rail in many other cities and the East Busway, and there is really no notable difference in service quality or reliability.
Edit: Actually, I would note I much prefer the East Busway to Washington's Metro. Of course part of the problem is that the Metro is overcrowded at peak times, but it also seemed subject to lots of service interruptions that rarely happen on the East Busway.
Quote:
I will look up subways and other mass transit and I suspect others will, as well.
Again, if you put the Busways on a simple visitor's transit map with the T, I think visitors would use them. All subject, of course, to the requirement that we actually fully integrated the Busway system Downtown.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 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 1.5 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.
