Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
The highway infrastructure is by far the worst of the five.
Partly do to terrain and above average public transportation usage. Infrastructure would include bridges and tunnels and pittsburgh has no shortage of both. 10 lane highways do not impress me especially if it destroyed the original city
Yes, Pittsburgh does have great transit infrastructure. It would have been even greater had they just built rail and not done all that failed Skybus experimentation in the 1970s. Skybus was a tremendous distraction, not to mention being a tremendous waste of money. Of the cities listed, Pittsburgh, with its hilly topography and pockets of high density is the most suitable for rail transit. It is surprising the City has yet to fully capitalize on this leaving densely populated/trafficked neighborhoods such as Oakland stuck with only buses (now BRT).
Cleveland has slightly more rail transit milage than Pittsburgh: 32 miles/Cleveland vs. 26.2 miles/Pittsburgh, but Pittsburgh has a higher overall transit usage rate, esp with Martin Luther King East Busway which is very heavily used -- but I still would rather it be converted into LRT rail and connected to the T rail network which would be much more effective esp in directly connecting T riders with the densest, most popular Pittsburgh neighborhoods: esp Shadyside and East Liberty.
Speak for yourself. I worked in downtown for many years. The Martin Luther King busway is way faster than light rail. I can get from Wilkinsburg Station to Penn Station in downtown in less than 20 minutes. Light rail vehicles rarely reach top speeds of 70mph during morning rush. The busways also allow other transit lines to bypass Pittsburgh's narrow streets and clogged interstates. Not to mention emergency response times.
Speak for yourself. I worked in downtown for many years. The Martin Luther King busway is way faster than light rail. I can get from Wilkinsburg Station to Penn Station in downtown in less than 20 minutes. Light rail vehicles rarely reach top speeds of 70mph during morning rush. The busways also allow other transit lines to bypass Pittsburgh's narrow streets and clogged interstates. Not to mention emergency response times.
How do you know this to be true? If rail trains stopped at exactly the same number of station stops of the MLK, which it likely would, how would rail be slower? If you are comparing the existing T LRT to the MLK, it is a faulty comparison. The T LRT, aside from the downtown subway (which LRT trains can use that MLK buses cannot) and the 2-station North Shore extension in 2012, is based on an ancient 120-year-old rail infrastructure whereby South Hills stations are much closer spaced and with more tightly curved rail lines, meaning slower speed -- than the current MLK buses. This, and not to mention the greater speed and convenience of riders in Station Square and in the South Hills (and the North Shore) being able to pass through downtown (grade-separated, thus no traffic or traffic lights) accessing places like the Strip District, Shadyside, East Liberty, Wlikinsburg, etc with a one-seat ride... Again, your logic is faulty. In fact, with off-board, non-farebox passenger paying, plus the aforementioned grade-separated/traffic-free access to downtown locations, rail would be significantly faster to downtown alone than the current MLK buses.
How do you know this to be true? If rail trains stopped at exactly the same number of station stops of the MLK, which it likely would, how would rail be slower? If you are comparing the existing T LRT to the MLK, it is a faulty comparison. The T LRT, aside from the downtown subway (which LRT trains can use that MLK buses cannot) and the 2-station North Shore extension in 2012, is based on an ancient 120-year-old rail infrastructure whereby South Hills stations are much closer spaced and with more tightly curved rail lines, meaning slower speed -- than the current MLK buses. This, and not to mention the greater speed and convenience of riders in Station Square and in the South Hills (and the North Shore) being able to pass through downtown (grade-separated, thus no traffic or traffic lights) accessing places like the Strip District, Shadyside, East Liberty, Wlikinsburg, etc with a one-seat ride... Again, your logic is faulty. In fact, with off-board, non-farebox passenger paying, plus the aforementioned grade-separated/traffic-free access to downtown locations, rail would be significantly faster to downtown alone than the current MLK buses.
You forget though that people would have to transfer at a light rail station vs the bus just jumping on the Busway. The actual Busway route busses are something like 1/2 the passengers. The rest of the passengers on the route are in Local Busses that are express to Downtown.
But that’s really not here nor there for architecture.
How do you know this to be true? If rail trains stopped at exactly the same number of station stops of the MLK, which it likely would, how would rail be slower? If you are comparing the existing T LRT to the MLK, it is a faulty comparison. The T LRT, aside from the downtown subway (which LRT trains can use that MLK buses cannot) and the 2-station North Shore extension in 2012, is based on an ancient 120-year-old rail infrastructure whereby South Hills stations are much closer spaced and with more tightly curved rail lines, meaning slower speed -- than the current MLK buses. This, and not to mention the greater speed and convenience of riders in Station Square and in the South Hills (and the North Shore) being able to pass through downtown (grade-separated, thus no traffic or traffic lights) accessing places like the Strip District, Shadyside, East Liberty, Wlikinsburg, etc with a one-seat ride... Again, your logic is faulty. In fact, with off-board, non-farebox passenger paying, plus the aforementioned grade-separated/traffic-free access to downtown locations, rail would be significantly faster to downtown alone than the current MLK buses.
The subway within Downtown and the Northshore is free of charge. The LRT vehicles are slow and can never reach the speed of articulated buses. The ride is fast and convenient and the busway stops within downtown allow access to the subway. Shadyside, East Liberty, Homewood and Wilkinsburg are well served by the busway and the amount of transit oriented development is more pronounced in these areas. The busway is an asset. I was referring to Pittsburgh alone. The light rail routes outside of downtown utilize the old streetcar routes....not to mention weather related shutdowns that cause major backups......this never happens on the Martin Luther King, West or South busways.
You forget though that people would have to transfer at a light rail station vs the bus just jumping on the Busway. The actual Busway route busses are something like 1/2 the passengers. The rest of the passengers on the route are in Local Busses that are express to Downtown.
But that’s really not here nor there for architecture.
I think I get your argument and if I do, isn't it a bit self-defeating? What you are describing is the general way rail rapid transit works: it is a high-capacity trunk line operation where passengers either are collected by other transit forms near their homes -- usually via a feeder bus -- or deliver themselves to rail stations (car, bike, scooter, on foot, etc). I say self-defeating because my observation and understanding of Pittsburgh's busways, esp MLK/East -- which I readily acknowledge are high-quality; the best true BRT around esp in speed compared to others (notably Cleveland's highly-touted but uber-slow Healthline), is that it behaves similar to rail -- that is, my assumption (I could be wrong) is that more neighborhood/suburban passengers are delivered/deliver themselves to busway stations.
Why do I think this? Don't some outer stations have parking lots for commuters? More importantly, though, is the fact that the MLK has spawned significant Transit-oriented development (TOD), esp around the East Liberty station where several apartment buildings have gone up in recent years. The concept of TOD, of course, is to have as many commuters as possible living within a short walk of a transit station. Given these facts, I'm guessing the percentage of those commuters catching buses at their door that get onto the busway and jet into downtown is relatively small. If this wasn't the case, then why does the MLK have rail-like stations to begin with? -- if everybody just hopped on buses from front-door or corner bus stops which, then, hopped on a limited-access roadway, stations like East Liberty would not be needed. In fact many major cities, Cleveland included, already have so-called 'freeway flyer' buses that gather suburban and/or neighborhood passengers then speed in (most of the time, anyway) along freeways. NOTE: as good as MLK has done attracting TOD, many university studies have shown that an MLK/East rail line would attract many times more and in more locations.
T trains along the MLK would no doubt utilize off-vehicle boarding from platforms for speedy, step-less boarding through several doors, as opposed to front-door only ground-level boarding currently used on MLK buses where, I'm guessing, each passenger must pay his/her fare. Also, consider the fact of the much higher capacity of the trains -- the much roomier T rail car likely has the capacity of 1.5 buses, meaning the coupled 2-car trains the T runs at rush hour = 3 buses load-wise (more seats, wider-spaced seats, and more space for standing passengers).
Then there's the speed/safety factor. The electrified LRT trains, where drivers only control train speed (if that) and don't have to steer, can have much faster acceleration/deceleration and can achieve much higher speeds safely than busway drivers who, not only are required to steer but must slow down to adjust to various road conditions whereby trains are usually protected by signaling systems that slow trains down when their engineers are going to fast over various track sections. And, again, there's the greater connectivity of an MLK T LRT with the current South Hills system allowing for 1-seat rides through the Golden Triangle promoting greater connectivity and commuter convenience.
The subway within Downtown and the Northshore is free of charge. The LRT vehicles are slow and can never reach the speed of articulated buses. The ride is fast and convenient and the busway stops within downtown allow access to the subway. Shadyside, East Liberty, Homewood and Wilkinsburg are well served by the busway and the amount of transit oriented development is more pronounced in these areas. The busway is an asset. I was referring to Pittsburgh alone. The light rail routes outside of downtown utilize the old streetcar routes....not to mention weather related shutdowns that cause major backups......this never happens on the Martin Luther King, West or South busways.
Again, you're comparing apples to oranges. Yes, as of now, T trains through the river tunnel to Northside do go a bit slow -- I believe PAT is working on speeding them up... But the comparison is irrelevant since we are talking about laying rails along the MLK roadway, so the trains would face the exact same conditions as the current buses, that is, they would have the same limited number of widely-spaced station stops as the busway buses, allowing the trains to at least, achieve the same speed as buses. There is no plausible argument that such MLK trains would be slower than the current buses. If anything, as I noted in detail above, they would not only be faster, but have a much larger capacity, and thus, have the ability to move many more people -- likely by the thousands per hour -- than the current buses.
How do you know this to be true? If rail trains stopped at exactly the same number of station stops of the MLK, which it likely would, how would rail be slower? If you are comparing the existing T LRT to the MLK, it is a faulty comparison. The T LRT, aside from the downtown subway (which LRT trains can use that MLK buses cannot) and the 2-station North Shore extension in 2012, is based on an ancient 120-year-old rail infrastructure whereby South Hills stations are much closer spaced and with more tightly curved rail lines, meaning slower speed -- than the current MLK buses. This, and not to mention the greater speed and convenience of riders in Station Square and in the South Hills (and the North Shore) being able to pass through downtown (grade-separated, thus no traffic or traffic lights) accessing places like the Strip District, Shadyside, East Liberty, Wlikinsburg, etc with a one-seat ride... Again, your logic is faulty. In fact, with off-board, non-farebox passenger paying, plus the aforementioned grade-separated/traffic-free access to downtown locations, rail would be significantly faster to downtown alone than the current MLK buses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheProf
I think I get your argument and if I do, isn't it a bit self-defeating? What you are describing is the general way rail rapid transit works: it is a high-capacity trunk line operation where passengers either are collected by other transit forms near their homes -- usually via a feeder bus -- or deliver themselves to rail stations (car, bike, scooter, on foot, etc). I say self-defeating because my observation and understanding of Pittsburgh's busways, esp MLK/East -- which I readily acknowledge are high-quality; the best true BRT around esp in speed compared to others (notably Cleveland's highly-touted but uber-slow Healthline), is that it behaves similar to rail -- that is, my assumption (I could be wrong) is that more neighborhood/suburban passengers are delivered/deliver themselves to busway stations.
Why do I think this? Don't some outer stations have parking lots for commuters? More importantly, though, is the fact that the MLK has spawned significant Transit-oriented development (TOD), esp around the East Liberty station where several apartment buildings have gone up in recent years. The concept of TOD, of course, is to have as many commuters as possible living within a short walk of a transit station. Given these facts, I'm guessing the percentage of those commuters catching buses at their door that get onto the busway and jet into downtown is relatively small. If this wasn't the case, then why does the MLK have rail-like stations to begin with? -- if everybody just hopped on buses from front-door or corner bus stops which, then, hopped on a limited-access roadway, stations like East Liberty would not be needed. In fact many major cities, Cleveland included, already have so-called 'freeway flyer' buses that gather suburban and/or neighborhood passengers then speed in (most of the time, anyway) along freeways. NOTE: as good as MLK has done attracting TOD, many university studies have shown that an MLK/East rail line would attract many times more and in more locations.
T trains along the MLK would no doubt utilize off-vehicle boarding from platforms for speedy, step-less boarding through several doors, as opposed to front-door only ground-level boarding currently used on MLK buses where, I'm guessing, each passenger must pay his/her fare. Also, consider the fact of the much higher capacity of the trains -- the much roomier T rail car likely has the capacity of 1.5 buses, meaning the coupled 2-car trains the T runs at rush hour = 3 buses load-wise (more seats, wider-spaced seats, and more space for standing passengers).
Then there's the speed/safety factor. The electrified LRT trains, where drivers only control train speed (if that) and don't have to steer, can have much faster acceleration/deceleration and can achieve much higher speeds safely than busway drivers who, not only are required to steer but must slow down to adjust to various road conditions whereby trains are usually protected by signaling systems that slow trains down when their engineers are going to fast over various track sections. And, again, there's the greater connectivity of an MLK T LRT with the current South Hills system allowing for 1-seat rides through the Golden Triangle promoting greater connectivity and commuter convenience.
Park and ride lots are fairly recent. Most buses terminate at the busway especially inner-city buses. There is a bus route (P1 East Busway, P2 Limited stops, P3 Oakland)that specifically serve the busway.The frequency is every 3 -5 minutes during the height of rush hour. Suburban buses use the busways during rush hour to avoid city traffic. Most do not stop on any of the busway platforms. The busway is safe and I cannot recall any fatal accidents attributed to driver error on any of the busways. The port authority drivers speed down the busway at 7am....like no other. Wilkinsburg to downtown in 15 minutes including stops.
Soon all fairs will be paid prior to boarding on all platforms. The pandemic slowed the progress of the upgrade but it's coming soon. The port authority did add the electronic screens displaying the exact time that the bus will arrive.
The amount of suburban users getting door to downtown service is quite high especially considering Westmoreland County transit authority buses. Most of the larger suburbs have multiple express buses that utilize the busway. I used to watch the packed buses pass by. Many serve the eastern suburbs like Monroeville and Penn Hills. The usage is well rounded but the pandemic changed things. Downtown Pittsburgh used to fill up with white collar workers. Many still work from home including myself.
I think I get your argument and if I do, isn't it a bit self-defeating? What you are describing is the general way rail rapid transit works: it is a high-capacity trunk line operation where passengers either are collected by other transit forms near their homes -- usually via a feeder bus -- or deliver themselves to rail stations (car, bike, scooter, on foot, etc). I say self-defeating because my observation and understanding of Pittsburgh's busways, esp MLK/East -- which I readily acknowledge are high-quality; the best true BRT around esp in speed compared to others (notably Cleveland's highly-touted but uber-slow Healthline), is that it behaves similar to rail -- that is, my assumption (I could be wrong) is that more neighborhood/suburban passengers are delivered/deliver themselves to busway stations.
Why do I think this? Don't some outer stations have parking lots for commuters? More importantly, though, is the fact that the MLK has spawned significant Transit-oriented development (TOD), esp around the East Liberty station where several apartment buildings have gone up in recent years. The concept of TOD, of course, is to have as many commuters as possible living within a short walk of a transit station. Given these facts, I'm guessing the percentage of those commuters catching buses at their door that get onto the busway and jet into downtown is relatively small. If this wasn't the case, then why does the MLK have rail-like stations to begin with? -- if everybody just hopped on buses from front-door or corner bus stops which, then, hopped on a limited-access roadway, stations like East Liberty would not be needed. In fact many major cities, Cleveland included, already have so-called 'freeway flyer' buses that gather suburban and/or neighborhood passengers then speed in (most of the time, anyway) along freeways. NOTE: as good as MLK has done attracting TOD, many university studies have shown that an MLK/East rail line would attract many times more and in more locations.
T trains along the MLK would no doubt utilize off-vehicle boarding from platforms for speedy, step-less boarding through several doors, as opposed to front-door only ground-level boarding currently used on MLK buses where, I'm guessing, each passenger must pay his/her fare. Also, consider the fact of the much higher capacity of the trains -- the much roomier T rail car likely has the capacity of 1.5 buses, meaning the coupled 2-car trains the T runs at rush hour = 3 buses load-wise (more seats, wider-spaced seats, and more space for standing passengers).
Then there's the speed/safety factor. The electrified LRT trains, where drivers only control train speed (if that) and don't have to steer, can have much faster acceleration/deceleration and can achieve much higher speeds safely than busway drivers who, not only are required to steer but must slow down to adjust to various road conditions whereby trains are usually protected by signaling systems that slow trains down when their engineers are going to fast over various track sections. And, again, there's the greater connectivity of an MLK T LRT with the current South Hills system allowing for 1-seat rides through the Golden Triangle promoting greater connectivity and commuter convenience.
Yeah but there are like 4 cities where capacity limits even remotely matter. So if a 1 seat bus ride is faster than Bus—>Rail then that’s what matters even if technically a rail routes capacity us 225,000 while a Busway is technically 95,000. Since it’s really never going to reach that level
1. Pittsburgh
2. Baltimore
3. Cleveland
4. Detroit
5. Saint Louis
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 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 2 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.
