Pittsburgh-Oakland Connector- the commuter rail line that should have been number 1 (Millvale: ski resort, install)

[grimacista]

I can see why private investors would be interested in collecting some part of fares but I am worried about a situation where people taking the T would have to transfer to another system using a different fare structure if the 'Spine Line' operator were not affiliated with the Port Authority. I don't know whether that would be as helpful for ridership numbers.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey

An EMU is not a Light Rail its an Electric Heavy Rail

OK, but I don't see why that would be justified for the Pittsburgh airport either. To my knowledge there is no existing heavy rail to the airport, nor electrified heavy rail anywhere in the area, and I don't see it being worth the expense to build all that just for an airport shuttle when the 28X is perfectly decent as is, and again could be upgraded further in a way that would leverage existing rapid transit infrastructure.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by grimacista

I can see why private investors would be interested in collecting some part of fares but I am worried about a situation where people taking the T would have to transfer to another system using a different fare structure if the 'Spine Line' operator were not affiliated with the Port Authority. I don't know whether that would be as helpful for ridership numbers.

Again there is no particular reason it would have to work like that. Presumably by this point PAT would be operating on a Smart Card system, and you can use those to cover multiple systems (as I believe is done in some areas already). You might have to work out some revenue deal, but to the riders it could be seamless.

[Impala26]

Just hearing talk of this project has me excited to say the least. I want to echo once again the concerns about how exactly such a project would tie in to the city's existing transit network.

Undoubtedly the underground "spine line" as light rail connecting to the existing network downtown is quite obviously the first idea to consider. While it's easy to consider because it makes logical sense, we're stilling dealing in a world of politics and limited funds. From what I've read of past studies, even a cut-and-cover (what was done with the subway downtown) project along the Forbes/Fifth corridor to Oakland would cost significantly more than the much decried North Shore Connector project (~$1.2 Billion).

I've been quick to question the idea that such a project definitively should be in the form of underground light rail. The terrain of the immediate area leads me to question where perhaps an elevated option (for light rail or otherwise) could be an easier to implement or more cost-effective option. I merely offer this as an alternative to be considered if it indeed would be less expensive than tunneling underground. Obviously the least expensive option would be a surface line, but that's the inherent problem we are dealing with in this corridor: several already-dense transit arteries navigating hilly terrain.

When Colwell Street was mentioned in this report, I will be the first to admit that my reaction was "uh... what street?" Now looking on a map however I realize that for the Uptown section of this project, this could me the most viable option as it's not really trafficked. However, new infrastructure would be required as the street stops short of the Birmingham Bridge let alone the heart of Oakland.

In my history class we had a pretty appropriate guest speaker: Dan Gilman the Chief of Staff for the office of Bill Peduto. One of the main points of his conversation centered around Peduto's proposed cross-town commuter rail in the East End. The project would effectively link whatever new development at the LTV site in Hazelwood and PTC with CMU/Forbes-at-Craig and ultimately Bloomfield and Lawrenceville. I love the idea of this project, but again I am concerned about future connections with both the current light rail system (as this project would be distinctly different) and a new Downtown-Oakland system.

Perhaps my fears are overblown, but the big concern I voiced to Mr. Gilman was a lack of a master plan for all these transit systems. With the potential to have light rail, rapid bus/busways, commuter rail, and possibly a people-mover (see Morgantown Personal Rapid Transit) it might form a confusing amalgam of transit in the future. However, maybe trying to unify transit under one mode e.g. light rail, might be less beneficial than expected.

Needless to say, I'm eager to see these projects play out and the future of development in the Hill, Uptown, and along the Mon.

[BrianTH]

So looking through the documents, one of the ideas they had for the Oakland-Downtown connector was to start underground on the Downtown end (which it has to do if you want it to link up with the existing T system at Steel Plaza), then emerge above ground for the last few stations on the Oakland end. Add to that a Colwell alignment for the underground part (also part of that particular plan I believe), and I wonder if you are talking about significantly less than the original estimated bill for a purely underground Forbes or Fifth Avenue line.

Part of Peduto's idea is sorta in the possible plan for an Oakland shuttle system: they discuss using either their preferred automatic people-mover (APM) technology or DMUs on the existing heavy rail line along the same route from the ALMONO (Hazelwood LTV) site to CMU. As sorta emerges in the discussion, it is not clear that is worth doing in terms of extra ridership if you did their Second Avenue to CMU APM line, which would allow you to shuttle people from ALMONO to the Second Avenue terminus originally and eventually extend the APM from there into ALMONO.

Generally, after reading through all that stuff I am beginning to think they are on to something with incorporating a bunch of different technologies. It would be nice if we could have a comprehensive transit web using just a couple main technologies, but the topography and patterns of needs just make that prohibitively expensive. So if you start chopping things up into conceptually distinct systems that don't really NEED to be integrated, you can build a lot more for less money.

So, for example, this Oakland APM network isn't really conceived as part of PAT's service: it is just a shuttle for getting around the hospitals, universities, tech-centers and such in Oakland and its immediate surroundings. Accordingly, it doesn't really need to be integrated with the technology PAT is using for its services. And as long as that Oakland system is mostly privately funded, you aren't necessarily taking anything away from other projects (unlike, say, the North Shore Connector).

Incidentally, they also discuss using gondolas as part of the Oakland system (for the part going up the Hill toward Petersen and for getting from Second Avenue over to the South Side). That's yet another technology, but their point is that if it is the cheapest way of dealing with those particular needs, and if you are just talking about little discrete spurs anyway, why not?

So as of right now, I am starting to get into the "let a thousand flowers bloom" mindset when it comes to these issues. Systems that need to work together should use compatible technology, but otherwise I say go for whatever works and get it built. Heck, we could end up with one of the most "fun" urban transportation systems around (inclines, gondolas, what's next?).

[ferraris]

Gondolas?

[BrianTH]

That would be fun, but maybe not so practical for the Hill. The idea is more this:





http://wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/731lexington/images/roosevelt_tram_bloomberg_3apr04_s.jpg (broken link)

[AaronPGH]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Heck, we could end up with one of the most "fun" urban transportation systems around (inclines, gondolas, what's next?).

I vote hot air balloons and/or twisty slides.

[fleetiebelle]

Zip lines. Totally. You could get from Mt. Washington to the North Shore in a flash.

[BrianTH]

One word:

Cannons.