Final Port Authority Proposal (Wilkinsburg, Liberty: live, cost, buses)

[Geeo]

It's all a matter of money and who's going to pay for it. The federal government no longer foots 80% of the bill for capital improvements like this. I think the Northside extension of the T was the last one. The price in the mid-90s for the entire Spine Line from the Northside to Oakland (underground) was well over $1 billion, and probably double that today. From now on, each individual state will have to come up with at least half the money for new projects. That puts a huge burden on the state and local government, so because of that I don't see any new projects like the T in our lifetime. However (there's always a "however), local jurisdictions are free to raise the money on their own through taxes and floating bonds to pay for it. Again, I don't see that happening here, because there would be the usual screaming about new taxes and "why should I pay for it if it doesn't serve my area?" But the truth is that we all pay for highways, bridges and airports even if we don't use them. Much like public schools, public transport is a necessity that increases property values and makes the region a better place to live, so we all benefit.

[ferraris]

I've actually heard of people searching out places that don't have bus access so people from out of the area with less money cannot afford to come in. So it may not always increase property values. I do think with things like Ligh Rail and Subways there is perhaps less of a stigma though.

[Geeo]

I guess there are people who think that way, and it's unfortunate. But Pittsburgh has such a high per capita transit ridership, I don't think it's the norm in thinking here. In the East End, people from all walks of life utilize the buses and busway simply because the service is frequent and fast and parking in downtown and Oakland is at a premium. And the express buses from the suburban park and ride lots to the city are usually at capacity. And the T has been over capacity since it opened.

[BrianTH]

Given the costs of streetcar systems (even at a sizeable discount to modern light rail, they are still pretty expensive), I can't see us funding big loops anytime soon. And I guess I don't see those loops as a priority: we are still struggling to get true rapid transit on just our main routes, so I see a short streetcar line down, say, Carson Street, as more a tourist gimmick than anything else.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by ferrarisnowday

I've actually heard of people searching out places that don't have bus access so people from out of the area with less money cannot afford to come in.

I think that attitude is largely a product of a particular era, and is likely to fade over time.

[Impala26]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Given the costs of streetcar systems (even at a sizeable discount to modern light rail, they are still pretty expensive), I can't see us funding big loops anytime soon. And I guess I don't see those loops as a priority: we are still struggling to get true rapid transit on just our main routes, so I see a short streetcar line down, say, Carson Street, as more a tourist gimmick than anything else.

I may have said so or not, but it was more or less "my vision" for the city. As in, if I were helping to run things. However, you're right in that it's too expensive for the problems we have at hand. Clearly the most important transit corridors at this current juncture that need addressing are west and how to deal with the Fort Pitt tunnel, east with Oakland-Squirrel Hill-Shadyside and the Parkway East and tunnel, and the Allegheny Valley. Those are the top three corridors I see as in need of improvement. I don't travel it as much, but I'm under the impression that Parkway North and its corridor would be in better shape than these three.

I don't like the idea of a new streetcar system built somewhere being an "attraction". This city has plenty of attractions as we speak. Even I, the forward thinking infrastructure-nut that I am, think if this were the aim that this would be a waste of money where other transportation issues are far more pressing. It is simply my opinion that a street-level light rail system running from Downtown to Oakland and beyond could be built in the foreseeable future, could "fit" more easily within the well-established east neighborhoods, and would have price tag far less than some other form of light rail: be that a subway or using some other ROW.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I think that attitude is largely a product of a particular era, and is likely to fade over time.

I certainly don't feel this way, those feelings certainly seem antiquated. However, I assume people moving from fairly rural areas may find the urban bus less appealing.

[Geeo]

Just read through the Port Authority plan that was approved by the board today. Definitely the bigest change since the Port Authority was formed in 1964. It makes a lot of sense. More rapid bus service in the highest-ridership corridors, streamlined routes (no more confusing off-shoots), and better names to routes that identify where they're going. Looks like the most important routes have 20-hour/day service.

[pman]

Originally Posted by Geeo

Just read through the Port Authority plan that was approved by the board today. Definitely the bigest change since the Port Authority was formed in 1964. It makes a lot of sense. More rapid bus service in the highest-ridership corridors, streamlined routes (no more confusing off-shoots), and better names to routes that identify where they're going. Looks like the most important routes have 20-hour/day service.

I have to tip my hat to them, they're actually trying something new...something that's difficult for any transit agency.
regarding expansions: I though t I read that the spine line was suppsoed to carry somthing like 80k riders. if that's true, it's most likely eligible for funding even if it is $2 or $3bn. Extending the T to, say, the east busway probably makes a lot of sense. for relatively little tunneling you get to a dedicated Right of way with catenary poles already installed. On top of that, it would share tunnel the current T lowering allcoated costs and giving riders a dedicated right of way through downtown to the stadiums. Lastly, if intercity rail is ever funded, there may be a reason to stop at Penn Station. I'd imagine the throough operation could lower unit costs for the current T.

[BrianTH]

pman,

If you are talking about running the T along the East Busway past Downtown into the East End (I wasn't sure, but it is a common suggestion), I am actually very much opposed to that. We've got a great opportunity for transit oriented development if we run a T extension more directly to Oakland, and we'd be blowing that opportunity if we used the East Busway alignment: not only is the East Busway already serving that function to a great degree where possible, but a lot of it is running in gorges or next to cliffs. Moreover, the East Busway alignment is a pretty bad way to get to Oakland . . . in fact long term, it makes much more sense as an Oakland bypass.

So if we do this, I very much hope we do it right, meaning a new, more direct, path to Oakland.

[Blackbeauty212]

Not to mention the Speed of the T on the East Busway would not be able to reach that of the Buses themselves becasue of all the Twist and turns on the busway, the T would constantly have to slow down <20mphs to make the turns and slowing everything behind it....

I see some buses go 50 mph around the bend underneith the Bloomfield Bridge, a T car could never make that speed around the been, it would come off the tracks...

One of the Bright spot of the Busways is speedy travel, that needs to be maintained.