Another article on Allegheny Riverfront Vision, focused on transit

[grimacista]

Where would this trolley connect to the MagLev?

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by grimacista

Where would this trolley connect to the MagLev?

Hah!

(And for the record--probably by walkway from circa Penn Station, along with the East Busway)

[pman]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I thought a big part of the cost difference was you typically had to excavate deeper for T-style light rail, which in turn implicated all sorts of utility issues.

I don't see why that would be the case.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I agree you wouldn't necessarily call it "commuter rail", but it is definitely designed as a commuter service. And I really doubt that a modern electrified streetcar would be more expensive overall, once you factor in the tunneling and such you would need to link up with the T.

tunneling is a one time capital expense, generally associated with higher ridership.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I'm agreeing on electrification, but I don't think that is the only incremental cost. And it certainly wouldn't be the only incremental cost if you wanted to actually link up to the T.

that and stations would be the incremental costs relevant to starting the project.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Fine, but that's Seattle. We have excess surface capacity along the route I described, and we don't have much money for infrastructure projects, so it makes sense that we would do it differently.

not sure I agree with that. If Pittsburgh is successful in revitalizing it's downtown and the Strip, excess fixed guideway surface transit won't seem like such a good idea.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

That's a nice feature, but I haven't seen anyone claim it actually means trolleybuses are overall more efficient to operate than trolleys.

that's a bit of a blanket statement. it really depends on the line. without grade separated ROW, obviously it would mean it's more efficient to operate. OTOH, if it is grade separated, as it is here, it just means it's cheaper to run and only more efficient in its use of resources (in this case, the capital budget).

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Yep, as I n oted they can be preferable if you don't want to--or can't--pay for the rails. If we can get someone else to pay for them, though, then that solves that problem.

yep, and so long as it's compatible with the rest of the system, you've insured against failure.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Yep, but I am assuming these will be electric trolleys.

I was undert the impression they were going to buy deisel vehicles.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Wait, I thought we were talking about trolleys versus trolleybuses here. We have no trolleybuses, so either way you are talking about something new to the system.

actually, we've been talking about everything from electrified LRT (T style) to trolleybuses to buses to deisel light rail.


You can run them along the same routes, but wouldn't you have a platform height issue? In any event, I was explaining how they could be used in a much, much bigger way than along the T routes, namely through the existing bus network that uses the Busways (which is not limited to just the Busways themselves, particularly not if your trolleybuses are multimode).

Originally Posted by BrianTH

But in any event, comparisons to completely different transportation services in other cities just aren't illuminating.



I agree it should be electrified. I just don't think that is the only difference between making it compatible with the T, and it certainly isn't the only difference if you wanted to actually link it to the T, which would require a tunnel that would make no particular sense for Pittsburgh.

I'm sorry that you don't feel that you can learn from other cities btu to each their own. I don't agree that connecting the intercity station to downtown and the north shore doesn't make any sense.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by pman

I don't see why that would be the case.

I'm not an engineer, so I am probably not the right person to ask. I think it has something to do just with the weight of the vehicles, as well as their width and length, all of which allows you to do something called "shallow slab" construction that just tracks the existing grades and such. This was widely reported with respect to the Portland Streetcar project, I believe, and apparently they were in fact able to save a lot of money.

tunneling is a one time capital expense, generally associated with higher ridership.

I don't know what you mean by "generally associated with higher ridership". You use a tunnel when for some reason a dedicated ROW on the surface isn't viable, and there is enough projected ridership to make it an economic solution despite the high costs. A tunnel isn't going to somehow draw more riders than any other dedicated ROW (probably less, in fact).

In this case, a decent dedicated ROW on the surface is viable, and there probably wouldn't be enough riders to justify the costs of a tunnel in any event. So there isn't going to be a realistic case for investing in the tunnel.

that and stations would be the incremental costs relevant to starting the project.

Again I believe you are wrong about that, in that modern streetcars can use the much less expensive "shallow slab" construction method.

not sure I agree with that. If Pittsburgh is successful in revitalizing it's downtown and the Strip, excess fixed guideway surface transit won't seem like such a good idea.

You have to understand Pittsburgh's Downtown streets and their usage. Liberty (in the relevant part) and Stanwix are wide streets that are underutilized. The reason why is a complex story, but it basically boils down to the fact that the modern system of highways, bridges, and riverfront boulevards makes them not particularly useful for getting to the major entrance/exit points Downtown, and of course Downtown is so compact there isn't much need for people to drive point-to-point Downtown. More people living Downtown and in the Strip isn't really going to change all that.

without grade separated ROW, obviously it would mean it's more efficient to operate.

That would be one factor, but I suspect it would be swamped by things like energy efficiency, replacement, and maintenance costs.

and only more efficient in its use of resources (in this case, the capital budget).

Right, but capital costs are definitionally different than operational costs. I'm happy to agree that trolleybuses can be a more economic solution in many applications, but because of capital costs, not operating efficiencies.

yep, and so long as it's compatible with the rest of the system, you've insured against failure.

I'm not sure that is true, absent a tunnel. I also think it would remain true you would be sacrificing some compatibility with buses to make it compatible with the T.

But even if this claim was true, what if they won't pay for that? Public resources for public transportation are very limited here, and we have a lot of unmet needs. So you can't just talk in theory about what would be optimal for this little 2.4 mile route without considering how the costs of whatever you are talking about will mean other things going undone.

I was undert the impression they were going to buy deisel vehicles.

What gave you that impression? I'm not saying you are wrong, but I only recall hearing that about the AVR part.

actually, we've been talking about everything from electrified LRT (T style) to trolleybuses to buses to deisel light rail.

In that particular part of the conversation, we were specifically discussing the operating efficiencies of trolleys versus trolleybuses. In this case, you can't cite the ability to use vehicles from elsewhere in the system in favor of either.

I'm sorry that you don't feel that you can learn from other cities btu to each their own.

Of course I didn't say that. I said "comparisons to completely different transportation services in other cities just aren't illuminating." It isn't the fact that these projects are in different cities per se that makes them inapplicable, it is the fact that the intended uses and the specific context of these services are so different that makes these comparisons inapplicable.

I mean suppose I told you about how we use buses for parking shuttles at the Pittsburgh airport with great success, and then argued that NYC doesn't need subways in Manhattan, it could just use buses like we do at our airport. You'd rightly tell me I was nuts, and it wouldn't be because "you don't feel that you can learn from other cities". It would be because you can't compare our airport parking shuttle service to the service being provided by NYC's subways.

I don't agree that connecting the intercity station to downtown and the north shore doesn't make any sense.

I'm not sure what you mean. If you are talking about the train/bus station, of course it already IS Downtown, so doesn't need to be connected TO Downtown. And the T is of limited use getting AROUND Downtown, so there isn't much sense in connecting to the T for just that purpose.

In contrast, it is true this would provide a marginally better option for getting from the train/bus station to the North Shore. But why is that a particularly important need? Business interests and their associated county politicians wanted to route the T to the North Shore because they imagined people from the South Hills using it to get to the stadiums, a casino, a new concert venue, and so forth. That was a pretty weak case already given the costs, and now we are talking about what . . . people taking an intercity bus/train to Pittsburgh to go see a Steelers game?

Yeah, OK, maybe a few people will do that. And maybe they would rather pick up the T on the spot than walk the 5 minutes over to USX to get the T. But there is no way that counts as the sort of use that justifies a high-cost, resource-consuming, tunnel project.

[Impala26]

To clarify what I know of the plan (and this is tentative, subject to change stuff), the AVR commuter rail would be a diesel-powered light rail vehicle, while the streetcar would be a catenary-powered low-floor streetcar.

It's my opinion that it is not vital for this system to be "T-compatible". Like Brian has stated, the overhead of reconstructing the Steel Plaza-Penn Station tunnel, coupled with whatever new construction would be required to get that alignment over/under Liberty and Penn Avenues to it's new ROW on Smallman seems excessive. Maybe for future planning purposes consider this, but this doesn't seem necessary at the time. I would rather new tunnels from Steel Plaza being extended EASTWARD towards Oakland and hopefully a Colwell Street ROW where it could be run on the surface to save costs. Plus, I'm not convinced that current T-style vehicles are all that great, especially after I read somewhere a report about the vehicles being relatively inefficient. Sorry I don't have the exact reference on that. I also have the opinion that the low-floor vehicles would be inherently more inviting, not to mention building simpler stations and being easier to access with wheelchairs and bicycles.

I think in the streetcar plans there was more serious consideration for a "Triangle Loop" of some sort linking Downtown, the Strip, Lawrenceville, Bloomfield, Oakland, and Uptown. Still, in these plans and others (Oakland-Downtown Circulator) I have yet to see any intuitive connections offered that link the South Side to either Downtown or Oakland. I still think the aerial tramway idea could be the most feasible given that any new development of this nature would presumably require additional bridges and tunnels. A tramway could ignore water and terrain and for the most part buildings. I'm not sure of the laws regarding "air space" like that over properties however.