How did Pittsburgh initiate it's Light Rail construction? (Butler, Rochester: living, low cost)
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.
I wouldn't suggest it for Oakland, just for downtown. How many people ride the 28X from Oakland vs downtown? I'm thinking it's probably actually more from Oakland, so send the bus directly there and skip downtown.
As I recall they actually had more boardings in Downtown, in part because with the Robinson loop you were starting to get really ridiculous times from Oakland. They are cutting out the Robinson loop in the new TDP, but they are also going to be upgrading the Downtown-Oakland bus routes. So I think a combined Downtown and Oakland route will remain a good idea.
Quote:
Running from the end of the T is at least something you can do, well, okay not NOW, but when the actual construction that's underway is done, instead of just dreaming. Maybe I'm wrong in thinking that trip could be faster, but it seems to me it could shave significant minutes vs the driving on the streets in the bus.
I really don't get this distinction. The North Shore T is on the wrong side of the river, so you would need a new bridge over the Ohio to connect the West Busway to that end of the T. Getting to that new bridge on both sides would require some additional busway. So the necessary infrastructure package is the same either way: a new bridge plus some additional busway. You would maybe need a little less additional busway doing it your proposed way, but that would end up being a trivial cost savings at best in light of all the other things you would need to do.
Or are you suggesting the airport route should just be redirected over existing surfact streets to the end of the T, say over the West End bridge? I think that would REALLY be terrible for that route: it wouldn't have significant time savings even with ideal coordination, and the added transfer would simply be deadly for ridership.
In fact if you wanted to limit the utility of the airport shuttle in that way, why not just have them dump off at the Station Square T stop?
Quote:
As far as eventually, I think that bridge is tough. If it really has to land way out at Blvd of the Allies, then you're going to have a severe restriction on the ramps to the Ft Pitt Bridge and to the connector that goes to the Parkway East. Those are at the end of Stanwix. There's nothing straight out from Stanwix, exactly, but you have to get over the other 2 or 3 lanes of Parkway East traffic somehow.
So the four-lane mixed-traffic bridge they were thinking about did in fact require quite a bit of snarl on the Downtown side--it was doable, but you could see why locals weren't thrilled. The two-lane bus-only bridge I am suggesting to connect to a Stanwix bus corridor would be completely different, however: you would have no need for interchanges in perpendicular directions, and it would have a much smaller footprint overall thanks to being roughly half as wide. I also doubt it would have to land as far out as B.o.A, but even if so it would only be a relatively narrow span coming down.
Quote:
And the roadway on the other side of the river isn't there yet, apparently.
Right, there is a usable right-of-way, but not an actual busway.
Quote:
In other words, we should never have high hopes of anything logical or well-studied happening.
Regrettably true, but I think it is worth noting that a lot of our recent problems with intelligent spending of transportation dollars are traceable in part to the federal level: we basically went through a period in which the only way to use certain federal funding was to do fairly unintelligent stuff. I have some hope that we will see more intelligent and better-coordinated federal funding going forward, at least for a while.
Quote:
I still really do want to know, if anyone has a good answer, how you're supposed to deal with an unfamiliar bus route. It's intimidating. This is why rail is more appealing. Set stops are far less intimidating. Even with the busway, outside of those stops you still have the street stops, which is why while more flexible I really hope you don't want to advocate yet another busway (North? Where would you put it?) that would likely take up tracks to put a roadway. Use the tracks!
Again, I think what you are talking about is really driven by the set stops with prominent stations, not buses versus trains. In other words, if you have those set stops/stations, then I don't think it particularly matters whether those stops/stations are served by vehicles on tires or vehicles on rails: that isn't the important part.
And in fact what I am trying to do is create a system in which many visitors to Pittsburgh wouldn't have to use any other sort of service, whether riding light rail or buses. Think of it this way: we are actually something like 80% of the way toward having a continuous service like that all the way from the airport through Carnegie, Downtown, East End, and finally to Swissvale. The 20% that is missing is the connection between the current end of the West Busway at West Carson and the current end of the East Busway at Penn Station--about three miles. Admittedly that is the most expensive three miles of this service to build, which is why it hasn't been done yet, but the plan I have been sketching is designed to fill that three-mile gap.
And now contemplate what would happen if that three-mile gap was filled: a person could get on a bus at the airport only knowing the station they were looking for along this route, including Station Square, a couple Downtown stops, Shadyside, and East Liberty. Again, functionally I think that would work for them just like a light rail line that ran all that way serving the same stations.
Of course maybe a light rail line running all that way would be a little bit better still for that hypothetical visitor (although I am not sure that approach would be better for the local commuters using this same infrastructure for reasons I suggested above). But now look at feasibility! If you let me fill in the 20% gap I described, I can get you that route done for a few hundreds of millions of dollars--expensive yes, but possible. If you wanted to do that with light rail, you'd have to spend many, many billions. That is not primarily because of the costs of the technology: it is because my system is already 80% done, and this hypothetical rail system is at best like 5% done (and that is assuming it makes sense to use the North Shore Connector at all, which I don't think it really does).
And to me that is the real big picture: between the existing busways we already have a lot of very usable rapid transit infrastructure, but they are missing the key part in the middle connecting them together. So even holding aside expanding that busway system (in other words, I'm going to drop the North Busway for now as an unnecessary complication to this particular discussion), I think providing that missing connection should be an extremely high priority for our system. And then if you want to start spending the many billions necessary to reduplicate all that with rail, fine--but in the meantime for a relatively small sum we could already be operating a pretty darn good rapid system capable of serving both visitors and commuters alike.
I really don't get this distinction. The North Shore T is on the wrong side of the river, so you would need a new bridge over the Ohio to connect the West Busway to that end of the T.
In addition to cost concerns, any new bridge over the Ohio would have to be west of the West End Bridge. A bridge east of the WEB would do damage to the classic view of the city from the WE overlook, and would likely engender a huge level of opposition, which would make it a non starter.
Tiger Beer sets out some other practical advantages of rail that BrianTH suggests are trumped by dedicated busways, but I think the real allure of rail is embedded in this (maybe inaccurate) perception of permanence. It's all in our heads.
I agree that is an important factor to consider, but I also think it isn't at all clear that busways in particular are at a disadvantage to light rail when it comes to this factor. My understanding of the relevant studies is that the perceived permanence of busways has in fact helped spark transit-oriented development. It just has a somewhat different pattern than rail TOD, precisely because you don't have to be within walking distance of a busway station to have transfer-free use of it.
Now to be sure if you are relying on a transfer-free connecting route to a busway, you are in fact subjecting yourself to the whim of rerouting. On the other hand, from a system perspective that approach has widened the TOD zone considerably. So this remains more of a trade-off situation than a strict one-is-obviously-better situation.
So, for example, I would again agree that rail between Downtown and Oakland via Uptown/the Hill would be preferable to even the highest-end bus service from a TOD perspective. That is because that is a narrow-enough strip of land that you don't really get any advantage from the fanning out possibilities of the bus approach, and so the train approach likely dominates. But again the farther you get from concentrated situations like that, the more benefit I think shifts in favor of the TOD pattern of busways.
In addition to cost concerns, any new bridge over the Ohio would have to be west of the West End Bridge. A bridge east of the WEB would do damage to the classic view of the city from the WE overlook, and would likely engender a huge level of opposition, which would make it a non starter.
Yeah, I'm assuming this new bridge would be somewhere pretty close to the current terminus of the West Busway, landing somewhere in Chateau. You would then have to run the busway over to the terminus of the T between the Casino and Heinz.
So you would need more busway, but I do think you are talking about saving maybe a mile or so of additional busway with that approach, thanks to the T running out a bit west on the North Shore. Still, that would be such a small part of the costs of either project that I just don't see that being the deciding factor. And come to think of it, without knowing anything about the rights of way you would need to do that run from Chateau to the T, it could well end up being more expensive.
Oh, I get it now. Your desire is to connect the West and East busways as a continuous route. No need to wait for a bridge and roadway that aren't there. This could be done with a simple route change with straight-through (instead of roundabout) routing through downtown. I mean, apart from the current construction for the T it's already there. You're coming over the Ft Pitt Bridge. Straight up Liberty, and hey, there's the busway. Done! A new bridge actually almost makes it more complicated. Seems to me it's simply that we don't have bus routes that do that, not that we need more infrastructure to do it. I guess there is a route or two that does this now, even, so instead the only change needed is to play that up. Yeah, okay, it would be nice to give the bus a dedicated lane on Liberty (a la High Street in Columbus, or, I'm sure, other places), but is there room? Geez I've walked that street so many times, used to walk it every day, and I can't remember if there are truly 4 lanes all the way up. I know down near the Point there are, and down near Grant there are. Maybe I always see cars stopped (or perhaps some actual legal parking?) Get rid of that and maybe you can do it, to the expense of a fair amount of extra car congestion. I'm sure that bit wouldn't bother you.
Interesting point about the West End view. I don't think the bridge would need or want to be so close to the West End Bridge as to be in the view towards downtown, but any bridge messes with that, including another one across the Mon. I'm sure I could be wrong about the utility of such a connection. If they would do buses right for downtown, it shouldn't be necessary. It seemed like a logical extension to me, though, it being the closest spot, if treated as an extension of the T, not as a typical bus route. I'd certainly ride it that way.
So I'd say get rid of the talk about the pie in the sky bridge and just focus on making the routing and stops through downtown make sense. Things like getting most/all buses in one place, at least for a segment of downtown, would be good, although really, somehow we're going to have to deal with the crowds of people. There are already big crowds. I suspect that plays into the decision to scatter the stops.
BTW, yes, I agree it has to do with set stops vs the actual method of transport. But buses are assumed (and generally proven, at least around here) to have confusing stops. If you're trying to get to 5th and Craig, and you don't know where that is, and there's nobody waiting when the bus arrives, the driver will blow right through there and you'll get who knows where before you figure that out. Perhaps this will be somewhat addressed by cutting out stops every 10 feet and thus they can be more compelled to at least slow down at each stop. With fewer stops too, perhaps a system can be worked to tell you what the next stop is, another feature of trains that's lacking in most buses.
If you're trying to get to 5th and Craig, and you don't know where that is, and there's nobody waiting when the bus arrives, the driver will blow right through there and you'll get who knows where before you figure that out. Perhaps this will be somewhat addressed by cutting out stops every 10 feet and thus they can be more compelled to at least slow down at each stop. With fewer stops too, perhaps a system can be worked to tell you what the next stop is, another feature of trains that's lacking in most buses.
I regularly ride on the EBO, 67's, 61's, 71's, 74A, and 68G buses. All of these routes usually have both audio and visual indicators of the upcoming stops. The main exception is the older buses which do not have the internal display boards and possibly may be missing the audio system as well. The audio portion often is set to only call out high-traffic or major intersection stops (which would include 5th and Craig), but it can be set at the driver's discretion to call out all stops. There is even a driver on the 71A who calls out every stop, along with landmarks and businesses available at that stop (e.g., "5th and Bigelow, Soldiers and Sailors Hall, William Pitt Student Union, Pennsylvania Athletic Association, access to Hillman Library..."). I agree that cutting out the stops every 10 feet is an improvement, but even as it stands, there is plenty of time after the display board and/or speaker calls out the stop to ring the call bell before the bus reaches it.
You're coming over the Ft Pitt Bridge. Straight up Liberty, and hey, there's the busway. Done! A new bridge actually almost makes it more complicated. Seems to me it's simply that we don't have bus routes that do that, not that we need more infrastructure to do it.
To be clear, I think we need a continuous two-way bus-only path connecting the West Busway to the East Busway, not just routes that follow mixed-use streets along such an alignment. You've explained part of why I think we need that yourself (the need for simple and reliable routes and stations), and there is also the time factor.
So you can in fact do part of that by converting a couple lanes on Stanwix and Liberty to a street-level bus-only path, which I have proposed above. But there is no way you could do something like that on the Fort Pitt Bridge, or indeed any other existing relevant bridge, because they are all over capacity with mixed use traffic as it is. So you definitely do need a new bridge to make this work, because there is no other viable way of getting that two-lane bus-only path connected all the way through.
Quote:
Yeah, okay, it would be nice to give the bus a dedicated lane on Liberty (a la High Street in Columbus, or, I'm sure, other places), but is there room? Geez I've walked that street so many times, used to walk it every day, and I can't remember if there are truly 4 lanes all the way up. I know down near the Point there are, and down near Grant there are. Maybe I always see cars stopped (or perhaps some actual legal parking?) Get rid of that and maybe you can do it, to the expense of a fair amount of extra car congestion. I'm sure that bit wouldn't bother you.
So Stanwix and Liberty are both five lanes curb-to-curb for the entire path I am laying out. According, you can in fact put in a two-way bus system and keep them as usuable streets as well. Obviously some parking and some traffic would have to be relocated elsewhere, but we actually have tons of capacity Downtown for both.
Quote:
So I'd say get rid of the talk about the pie in the sky bridge and just focus on making the routing and stops through downtown make sense.
I guess I am not willing to call the bridge pie-in-the-sky when we were SO close to getting it once before, and it makes so much sense. And I would stand by the idea of at least thinking in longer systematic terms: the bottomline is that it makes no sense to have built all these miles of busways and then stop them three miles short of each other in the Downtown region. So we need to be planning for how to finish that project, even if we can only do it in pieces.
Quote:
BTW, yes, I agree it has to do with set stops vs the actual method of transport. But buses are assumed (and generally proven, at least around here) to have confusing stops. If you're trying to get to 5th and Craig, and you don't know where that is, and there's nobody waiting when the bus arrives, the driver will blow right through there and you'll get who knows where before you figure that out. Perhaps this will be somewhat addressed by cutting out stops every 10 feet and thus they can be more compelled to at least slow down at each stop. With fewer stops too, perhaps a system can be worked to tell you what the next stop is, another feature of trains that's lacking in most buses.
I agree this is how people who don't regularly use the busways perceive buses, and with good reason because that is the only sort of bus service they have seen on a regular basis. Hopefully the Rapid Bus plan in the TDP will be well-funded and well-implemented, because that could do a lot to help change that perception.
I wonder if the busways have been more of a diversion to adequate transit development in Pgh. I get the impression someone actually believed that busways were cheaper but I don't know if they really have the same ridership gain as light rail has in other cities despite the traffic separation.
Maybe someone's already answered this; I didn't read through the whole thread yet because it's pretty dense and I'm kind of in a hurry at the moment... but what's the practical difference other than some people's aesthetic preferences for trains? Functionally speaking, they have the same benefits, namely a dedicated right-of-way to keep it out of traffic, and fixed, immovable routes around which to create transit-oriented development. And weren't the busways built so that they could be converted to rail (or dual-use) and integrated with the existing T lines? The hard work of acquiring the rights-of-way and building the basic infrastructure, right down to the stations, has already been done. At this point it's just a matter of laying down the rails and stringing the catenary lines. Not cheap I'm sure, but most of the infrastructural needs are already there.
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.
