Future Pittsburgh T Lines (Penn: apartment, costs, airport)

[BrianTH]

Here is someone making the safety argument (I have no independent opinion on that subject):

Why the FRA is Bad for America, in 10 Seconds - Forbes

[pman]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Here is someone making the safety argument (I have no independent opinion on that subject):

Why the FRA is Bad for America, in 10 Seconds - Forbes

what he's arguing (and correctly so) is that the onerous FRA crash standards, which rely on mass rather than energy management, actually make us less safe than if the equipment had no mass requirements but had to meet crash management standards (which uses lighter, cheaper materials). there are a host of other reason why the FRA is bad (the agency operates like it's 1925, which I guess is an improvement over 1889)..things like locomotive inspections are required daily, in britain it's 55 hours. it seems to matter not that steam locomotives are no longer operated, that fail rates on diesels (and electrics) have fallen through the floor, etc. that said, there's no reason to think that a well managed mixed traffic line isn't safe even if it's less safe and more expensive than it would be using modern equipment. think of the extra fuel expended to move the large amount of extra steel required.

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Yep. I also think highway-median commuter rail is terrible (it does very little to encourage development around stations).

So I think you are right to be looking where you are looking, but whether it is feasible or not will depend on the particular circumstances of each line.

In Atlanta, we have stretches of median positioned rail. Where it goes below grade, you build the station above. In other places the track rises and veers off. And it's not so bad as we have a long stretch where the train can cover a lot of ground with no stops making it somewhat express.

That would be great, because I'd love to see commuter rail along the Ohio Valley, and that may be too busy of a freight route to share tracks.

Seems like the Ohio Valley is left out of a lot of development discussions. There is a lot of interesting real estate down there.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by pman

that said, there's no reason to think that a well managed mixed traffic line isn't safe even if it's less safe and more expensive than it would be using modern equipment. think of the extra fuel expended to move the large amount of extra steel required.

Agreed. I wasn't trying to question the fundamental safety of mixed-traffic lines, just noting that given the FRA's current less-than-rational regulations, a commuter rail plan for a freight line that is only lightly used anyway may have incentives to go with a time-segregation approach.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by MathmanMathman

And it's not so bad as we have a long stretch where the train can cover a lot of ground with no stops making it somewhat express.

That doesn't address the problem of such an approach generally being bad for attracting nearby development.

Seems like the Ohio Valley is left out of a lot of development discussions.

Ironically I think that is in part because at least some stretches are doing relatively well (e.g., around Sewickley). But other sections do indeed simply get overlooked.

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

That doesn't address the problem of such an approach generally being bad for attracting nearby development.

Not all development needs rail, besides, at points, commuter rail's purpose is to get people further out to important points quickly. It's not necessarily a bad thing. Commuter rail with frequent stops would be effectively slow and discourage ridership for some.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by MathmanMathman

Not all development needs rail

No, but if you are going to invest in rail, you should try to get as much out of it as possible.

commuter rail's purpose is to get people further out to important points quickly. It's not necessarily a bad thing.

Defined that way, it is indeed a pretty bad thing--that is describing mindless sprawl.

I'd suggest instead that the point of commuter rail should be to encourage dense development along the relevant corridors such that we can improve transportation efficiency and optimize land-use. And in areas like Pittsburgh, it can specifically be used to unlock the value of the many existing communities that were originally developed along rail corridors, but were undermined by the mass shutdown of local rail transportation in the era of highway-fed, autocentric, greenfield sprawl.

Commuter rail with frequent stops would be effectively slow and discourage ridership for some.

Stop frequency is a different issue, although I would suggest in the long run you would ideally use separate express and local service to address this problem. Again, it is largely a waste of the potential of commuter rail if you aren't using it to help build densely along most of the relevant corridor.

[airwave09]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I have no idea if places like Mars, Valencia, and Gibsonia are suitable for that sort of development pattern, but it would be cool if they were.

I don't know about the terrain, but the north hills is much less developed in the east around the route 8 corridor. So I imagine you would have somewhat of a blank slate to work with when it comes to new TOD along that line.

[airwave09]

Originally Posted by pman

I'd consider that proposal unrealistic. NS is not going to hand over even an unused railbed along one of its main line. those days are over. FWIW, there used to be a federal st station in addition to penn station. in the old days, of course, it would have been possible to have commuter rail stop at federal st, penn station, and station sq (PLE) via the tunnel (now used by the T). Anyway, if you want a realistic map, I'd take that into consideration. I also think that you'd get more ridership from a T extension that operated via federal st rather than along the highway median.

Assuming that would be the case, is the rail on the opposite side of the Ohio (and Neville Island) also owned by Norfolk Southern? I'm wondering if this would be a more feasable route for an airport line to take.

setting that aside, the proposed mars line here might make a lot of sense sharing city ROW with the AVRR line, coming over the 33rd st bridge and into the city using AVRR's right of way and terminal (whether that be street running or the proposed steel plaza station).

You know, I completely forgot about that bridge, it doesn't show up on the map unless you go to satellite view. I think that would be a great alternative route to get across the river without having to go all the way down to the chunnel.

[pman]

Originally Posted by airwave09

Assuming that would be the case, is the rail on the opposite side of the Ohio (and Neville Island) also owned by Norfolk Southern? I'm wondering if this would be a more feasable route for an airport line to take.

I'll look later

Originally Posted by airwave09

You know, I completely forgot about that bridge, it doesn't show up on the map unless you go to satellite view. I think that would be a great alternative route to get across the river without having to go all the way down to the chunnel.

glad I could be of service. while I'm at it, I might suggest that the two prongs of chunnel service be the current alignment plus a variation on both our suggestions. diverge north and (ideally) stop dead center allegheny ctr if possible (if not, follow your alignment), head east under the park to north ave, under north ave to ~ james, stop (AGH), and continue one more stop ACROSS the bridge with the final stop ~ spring garden and vinial (mmm beer). short and sweet.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Defined that way, it is indeed a pretty bad thing--that is describing mindless sprawl.

I'd suggest that is not necessarily the case, a lot would determine station placement. if you have big park n rides at highway exits, sure, but if the goal is to provide a faster ride to existing places (like butler) the impact could be the opposite of sprawl. in practice, sprawl is often the result and probably goal (see nj) as you usually get the park n ride stations.