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 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.
I haven't ridden the T in quite a while, but it has always mystified me as to why trains operate so incredibly slowly, even through tunnels and on straightaways, esp compared to other cities. I thought it was supposed to be "rapid transit" but not Pittsburgh, where you wonder whether drivers just aren't well trained or experienced or whether they're hellbent on giving riders a tour.
I haven't ridden the T in quite a while, but it has always mystified me as to why trains operate so incredibly slowly, even through tunnels and on straightaways, esp compared to other cities. I thought it was supposed to be "rapid transit" but not Pittsburgh, where you wonder whether drivers just aren't well trained or experienced or whether they're hellbent on giving riders a tour.
The slow speed is partly due to the amount of stops on each route. Some years back the Port Authority eliminated stops to increase speed along the lines. Even with the elimination of stops the T cannot compete with our East Busway.
I haven't ridden the T in quite a while, but it has always mystified me as to why trains operate so incredibly slowly, even through tunnels and on straightaways, esp compared to other cities. I thought it was supposed to be "rapid transit" but not Pittsburgh, where you wonder whether drivers just aren't well trained or experienced or whether they're hellbent on giving riders a tour.
Pittsburgh's downtown subway (a Holy Grail the city pursued starting in 1911) is better understood as analogous to Boston's Green Line, Philadelphia's similarly colored trolley subway, and the Newark City Subway — that is, it's a trolley subway; the lines that feed it from the south used to operate in the street in the Golden Triangle, and at least one of them has significant stretches of in-street running still.
So it's really not "rapid transit" at all, nor was it designed to be. The MLK East Busway, OTOH, was designed to be actual rapid transit; it was the one (or now the first) physical manifestation of a rapid bus transit proposal there known as Skybus. But since the busway was designed for speed from the get-go, of course it will beat a light rail route that wasn't.
Pittsburgh's downtown subway (a Holy Grail the city pursued starting in 1911) is better understood as analogous to Boston's Green Line, Philadelphia's similarly colored trolley subway, and the Newark City Subway — that is, it's a trolley subway; the lines that feed it from the south used to operate in the street in the Golden Triangle, and at least one of them has significant stretches of in-street running still.
So it's really not "rapid transit" at all, nor was it designed to be. The MLK East Busway, OTOH, was designed to be actual rapid transit; it was the one (or now the first) physical manifestation of a rapid bus transit proposal there known as Skybus. But since the busway was designed for speed from the get-go, of course it will beat a light rail route that wasn't.
But Philly's subway surface lines in the 1-mile subway stretch between 15th and 30th streets run much faster (very fast, in fact, often competing with parallel 'express' el trains in that stretch), and are more rapid-transit like, than the T, when there's not train bunching under Market Street, despite the fact that 5 SEPTA s/s routes interline that stretch. SF's Muni Metro LRT's move pretty fast (faster than the T) under Market Street despite a more similar configuration to Boston and Philly with 5 or 6 routes interlined. (I can't speak on Newark's subway b/c I've never ridden) By contrast, the Pittsburgh T has only 2 routes (interlined just south of the Mt. Washington tunnel north into downtown, and a short section the South Hills, plus there is also slowness on the Overbrook (now Silver) Line, where IIRC, PAT transit rebuilt and removed several stations to make the line faster. T trains also move molasses-like on the long, spanking new tunnel under the Allegheny River to North Side.
It's hard for me to wrap my head around a city going to the extreme expense as Pittsburgh to upgrade its few surviving interurban trolley routes in downtown subways -- including the aforementioned, near $700M mile-long tunnel under the river in the 2000s, to not have it be considered rapid transit and be designed as slower than a BRT route, as good as the MLK is -- and MLK is very good for what it is.
But Philly's subway surface lines in the 1-mile subway stretch between 15th and 30th streets run much faster (very fast, in fact, often competing with parallel 'express' el trains in that stretch), and are more rapid-transit like, than the T, when there's not train bunching under Market Street, despite the fact that 5 SEPTA s/s routes interline that stretch. SF's Muni Metro LRT's move pretty fast (faster than the T) under Market Street despite a more similar configuration to Boston and Philly with 5 or 6 routes interlined. (I can't speak on Newark's subway b/c I've never ridden) By contrast, the Pittsburgh T has only 2 routes (interlined just south of the Mt. Washington tunnel north into downtown, and a short section the South Hills, plus there is also slowness on the Overbrook (now Silver) Line, where IIRC, PAT transit rebuilt and removed several stations to make the line faster. T trains also move molasses-like on the long, spanking new tunnel under the Allegheny River to North Side.
It's hard for me to wrap my head around a city going to the extreme expense as Pittsburgh to upgrade its few surviving interurban trolley routes in downtown subways -- including the aforementioned, near $700M mile-long tunnel under the river in the 2000s, to not have it be considered rapid transit and be designed as slower than a BRT route, as good as the MLK is -- and MLK is very good for what it is.
The T is highly successful and is faster than vehicular transit. The investments in infrastructure was needed and the North Shore usage beat expectation. It is faster to utilize the T in and around downtown / northshore. Our streets are narrow and heavily congested during rush hour. The Liberty Bridge and Tunnels - Washington Road / Rt.19 is a nightmare during peak times. The T is comfortable, convenient and efficient. The Busway is simply faster and less prone to disruption. In addition the busway is better integrated into the urban fabric.
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.
