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.
They advocate for it to be converted to light rail because it's sexier than a busway. I know plenty of folks who will glady ride the T, but wont ride the bus on the street beside the T line due to the perception that the bus is for poor people.
I wrote about this widespread phobia nine years ago, and it does mean that transit agencies spend tons of money that could be better spent elsewhere trying to lure those better-off riders on board:
This may sound like humblebragging, but I seem not to have been infected by that virus*, perhaps because I was riding the buses in my hometown of Kansas City once I was old enough to travel around the city alone but not old enough to drive yet. I think more parents should expose their kids to buses (other than school buses) in the fashion my mother did, where she would take me on the bus downtown when she went shopping there (and she had access to a car).
*I took the photo of that bus at the top of the article just before boarding it for the last leg of my journey home (I would ride the subway up from Center City to Olney station to transfer to one of two bus routes that connected the station to my home).
I wrote about this widespread phobia nine years ago, and it does mean that transit agencies spend tons of money that could be better spent elsewhere trying to lure those better-off riders on board:
This may sound like humblebragging, but I seem not to have been infected by that virus*, perhaps because I was riding the buses in my hometown of Kansas City once I was old enough to travel around the city alone but not old enough to drive yet. I think more parents should expose their kids to buses (other than school buses) in the fashion my mother did, where she would take me on the bus downtown when she went shopping there (and she had access to a car).
*I took the photo of that bus at the top of the article just before boarding it for the last leg of my journey home (I would ride the subway up from Center City to Olney station to transfer to one of two bus routes that connected the station to my home).
I was touched by the virus* when I was younger and would drive from my old neighborhood to a few neighborhoods over to catch light rail....literally driving by the bus stop at the end of my street. I got over that pretty quickly and became a daily rider of the bus.
I know several C-D Pittsburghers have advocated the MLK Busway BRT over light rail, but I still refuse to believe the current BRT is "faster" than LRT trains operating on the exact same grade-separated ROW and connecting with the current T rail at the Penn Station terminal. Trains can operate faster and, more importantly, safer on rails than buses on a curvy, hilly, 2-lane roadway, esp in inclement weather (which is considerable in Pittsburgh, esp during the long winter season). Add to this the fact that a 2-car train (even a single railcar) offers far more capacity than a bus.
Once buses leave the MLK ROW at Penn Station, they must navigate downtown streets dealing with traffic congestion, pedestrians and traffic lights, whereas the trains would dive underground at Penn Station and remain grade-separated throughout downtown, and offering speedy through service to other T branches... And once again, the direct connect-ability of MLK-East trains to the T network is far more desirable.
I use both modes of transportation.
LRT trains are not faster than articulated buses on a dedicated road way. In addition the MLK East Busway is on a "flat" 150 year old rail right of way (Pennsylvania Railroad). Topography is not an issue with the busway.
Inclement weather, downed trees, and power related issues can interrupt rail service. The East Busway has never experienced a total shutdown during rush hour.
Multiple transit authorities utilize the busway as a non stop route to the eastern suburbs. These buses bypass city (East End) congestion.
The articulated buses run every 2-5 minutes during rush hour.
The East Busway is also vital for timely emergency medical and police response.
The MLK busway can integrate better into the existing and future rail systems. The busway is fine as is considering the amount of TOD going on at the moment.
LRT trains are not faster than articulated buses on a dedicated road way. In addition the MLK East Busway is on a "flat" 150 year old rail right of way (Pennsylvania Railroad). Topography is not an issue with the busway.
Inclement weather, downed trees, and power related issues can interrupt rail service. The East Busway has never experienced a total shutdown during rush hour.
Multiple transit authorities utilize the busway as a non stop route to the eastern suburbs. These buses bypass city (East End) congestion.
The articulated buses run every 2-5 minutes during rush hour.
The East Busway is also vital for timely emergency medical and police response.
The MLK busway can integrate better into the existing and future rail systems. The busway is fine as is considering the amount of TOD going on at the moment.
You really believe a bus on a 2-lane road (with merely a painted center line facing oncoming bus traffic), which can be slick or have other surface issues in weather, is safer than a train on rails?
Also, you didn't address the much larger capacity of a 2-car train, the connectivity with the rest of the rail network or the greater speed of trains through downtown given the T's grade-separated subway (as opposed to the current buses which much navigate slow street traffic in the Golden Triangle.
Obviously, East Liberty TOD growth has been fantastic around the MLK bus station -- I can't deny that, which is great... If Pittsburgh is happy with their MLK buses, OK,... but you'll never convince me they're superior to rail, especially given the fact that Pittsburgh already has a rail system with a downtown subway with which an MLK LRT can connect.
You really believe a bus on a 2-lane road (with merely a painted center line facing oncoming bus traffic), which can be slick or have other surface issues in weather, is safer than a train on rails?
Also, you didn't address the much larger capacity of a 2-car train, the connectivity with the rest of the rail network or the greater speed of trains through downtown given the T's grade-separated subway (as opposed to the current buses which much navigate slow street traffic in the Golden Triangle.
Obviously, East Liberty TOD growth has been fantastic around the MLK bus station -- I can't deny that, which is great... If Pittsburgh is happy with their MLK buses, OK,... but you'll never convince me they're superior to rail, especially given the fact that Pittsburgh already has a rail system with a downtown subway with which an MLK LRT can connect.
I use both modes of transportation and stand by my previous response. I am not easily convinced. I never said that the LRT is superior to rail. The current BRT setup is definitely more efficient and less prone to breakdowns and disruptions during rush hour. In twenty years the MLK East Busway never had a total shutdown. The RED, BLUE and Silver lines cannot say the same.
Capacity is not an issue because the buses are run back to back as needed. The downtown loop does not impact arrival and departure times.
Pittsburgh's public works and the Port Authority is top notch when it comes to ice and snow clearance. We have no choice. Pittsburgh buses rarely have "issues" with surfaces.
One Billion Dollars can be used to extend the existing light rail through the northside and out to the new airport (2025).
Capacity is not an issue because the buses are run back to back as needed.
But doesn't this lead to bus bunching, a situation often found on bus systems? Does the MLK have a traffic signal system for bus spacing and safety? . . . Rapid transit systems are superior regarding this because their signaling creates safe spacing between trains, allowing for the much greater capacity trains travel at higher speeds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wpipkins2
The downtown loop does not impact arrival and departure times.
I'm not quite sure what the downtown loop is, but I'm talking about passenger distribution within downtown, and there's simply no way a bus, stopping at traffic signals and negotiating traffic, both automotive and pedestrian, can move through Pittsburgh's core, picking up and discharging passengers, faster than trains moving through the grade-separated subway tunnels Pittsburgh already has.
I also forgot to mention the fact that Pittsburgh's LRT has high-platform boarding capability which it obviously utilizes downtown and would likely do so out on the MLK grade-separated route. Level boarding allows for greater train speed because of lesser station dwell time due to more efficient passenger ingress, egress, and also provides superior disability access. Cleveland's Healthline BRT has specially designed low-floor articulated buses that board passengers through the front and rear entrances from elevated platforms, whose heights, though, are considerably lower high-platform trains, such as those in the T subway (and elsewhere on the T). From what I recall, the MLK busway uses regular buses -- both standard size and articulated -- boarding from street level platforms, no?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wpipkins2
One Billion Dollars can be used to extend the existing light rail through the northside and out to the new airport. (2025).
As I noted, such an extension is desirable and should be sought, but quality transit in a worthy city as Pittsburgh, or in any rail transit city, should not be posited as an either-or proposition. Pittsburgh should shoot for both.
Pittsburgh has a multimodal transportation network. This is not unique. NYC and LA have heavy rail and bus rapid lanes that coexist. Pittsburgh's port authority has massive infrastructure including LRT (Three Lines), busways (MLK East, South and West) and a funicular incline (Very Unique). I would assume that Pittsburgh infrastructure costs are higher considering the bridges and tunnels needed for these projects.
Pittsburgh streets are very narrow. Sophisticated smart traffic signals filter traffic into downtown. The current University Line currently under construction will link Oakland - Uptown - Downtown on dedicated lanes through a high traffic area. The new University Line buses will control traffic signals through the Fifth and Forbes Ave corridor similar to Cleveland's Healthline.
The University Line, Subway and MLK East Busway intersect downtown. In addition Amtrak will add additional service to Harrisburg - Philadelphia - New York City in 2025. The expanded service calls for substantial modernization of the current Amtrak station. The MLK East busway and Amtrak can share a "new" Penn Station.
Are there any current systems in the US that have a mass transit highway like Pittsburgh's MLK East busway, but that also has light rail integrated into the road surface and uses both buses and light rail trains? that would be interesting, but it might bring up some problems. Does any part of Baltimore's system have something like this? I kinda thought that it did but maybe I was confused about how it worked. Or maybe L.A. has some section of their system like this?
If Pittsburgh's T could expand to get a line to Oakland, via the existing busway, it might be worth it even if it causes some problems. Having a T line in Oakland would be huge for transit in the city.
Are there any current systems in the US that have a mass transit highway like Pittsburgh's MLK East busway, but that also has light rail integrated into the road surface and uses both buses and light rail trains? that would be interesting, but it might bring up some problems. Does any part of Baltimore's system have something like this? I kinda thought that it did but maybe I was confused about how it worked. Or maybe L.A. has some section of their system like this?
If Pittsburgh's T could expand to get a line to Oakland, via the existing busway, it might be worth it even if it causes some problems. Having a T line in Oakland would be huge for transit in the city.
I believe Los Angeles has a grade separated section.
The University bus rapid line to Oakland is currently under construction.
I thought a Penn Station expansion to the Strip District-Lawrenceville-Bloomfield-Baum Center Corridor would serve more people. It would also serve the heavily populated border of Shadyside and Oakland.
The Dr. MLK Jr. East Busway is fine. BRT > Light rail. The "T" is dreadfully slow---much slower than BRT in our city. Granted heavy rail would be better than BRT, but it is also cost-prohibitive.
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.
