Buncher plan for Strip District property could stop AVRR commuter rail! (Reading: neighborhoods, compensation)

[eschaton]

I don't know if anyone caught this article in the Post Gazette, but some of the quotes are a bit scary to me as a Lawrenceville resident and mass-transit advocate.

The railroad and Buncher also are locked in a property dispute. The parties are awaiting the U.S. Surface Transportation Board's ruling on whether the railroad owns an easement on Buncher property between 16th and 21st streets -- something that the railroad says could derail Buncher's project but that the URA says would not.

If Buncher loses the legal case, development would have to be planned around the easement, said Robert Rubinstein, the URA's acting executive director. Mr. Peterson said his company obtained the easement in the 1990s from Conrail, a successor to the Pennsylvania and other northeastern railroads. It wants to preserve the easement for possible establishment of commuter rail service between the Allegheny Valley and Downtown.

...

Mr. Peterson said many residents in the Allegheny Valley would benefit if he's able to establish a commuter line from the Allegheny Valley and across the Buncher site to Downtown. He said he wouldn't operate the passenger line himself but would sell it to another company for about $35 million. He said he might be willing to forgo his current easement, though, if the city offered him an alternate route for the commuter line and he received other compensation.

I remembered noting on the small plans that Buncher distributed there was no sign of the AVRR rail track. I hoped that I was wrong on the implications on this, but it looks like I was not.

[BrianTH]

There are at least three or four different ways the AVR could serve Downtown, and going into this site may be the worst of them since it would end up stopping short of Downtown (their claimed easement only gets to 16th). Reading between the lines, I more see this as the AVR group trying to use this opportunity to get a deal on the sort of route they would really want.

[ctoocheck]

I don't think this would prevent any opportunity of new transit in the corridor. I'd hope Buncher works with the Allegheny Riverfront Plan and Green Boulevard teams to encourage some sort of transit development. I think it's in their interest in developing the site. Perhaps light rail along Smallman (or even through this site-just not commuter rail) or something similar would be a better idea anyway.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by ctoocheck

Perhaps light rail along Smallman (or even through this site-just not commuter rail) or something similar would be a better idea anyway.

I'd tend to agree. And I would also like to see an incline up to the Hill.

[pman]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

There are at least three or four different ways the AVR could serve Downtown, and going into this site may be the worst of them since it would end up stopping short of Downtown (their claimed easement only gets to 16th). Reading between the lines, I more see this as the AVR group trying to use this opportunity to get a deal on the sort of route they would really want.

as I've pointed out, this is largely incorrect since it can run at grade downtown. reading between the lines, what this says is they have NOT decided to use the busway at 26th st. there's absolutely no reason it could not run down smallman st all the way to 11th and run via duquesne or at grade to penn station (among other things)

[LEFT]Mr. Peterson said many residents in the Allegheny Valley would benefit if he's able to establish a commuter line from the Allegheny Valley and across the Buncher site to Downtown

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/...#ixzz1zURJDEHR

gonna have to side against buncher[/LEFT]

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by pman

as I've pointed out, this is largely incorrect since it can run at grade downtown. . . . there's absolutely no reason it could not run down smallman st all the way to 11th and run via duquesne or at grade to penn station (among other things)

Well, the AVR is claiming a RIGHT to run to 16th Street (not along Smallman, I might note--your proposal is actually an example of a route that would NOT pass through the development site). It may be technologically possible to extend that line further into Downtown, but they wouldn't have the legal rights to do that. Similarly, it currently doesn't have a legal right to run your proposed route.

Of course maybe they could get the necessary legal rights to run your proposed route, but I would put that into the general category of using this opportunity to try to work out a deal on a route.

what this says is they have NOT decided to use the busway at 26th st.

Right, I don't think they have made any decision on which route they will use to get Downtown. I strongly suspect they do want to get all the way to Downtown, however, and they will need some sort of deal to accomplish that.

[pman]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Well, the AVR is claiming a RIGHT to run to 16th Street (not along Smallman, I might note--your proposal is actually an example of a route that would NOT pass through the development site). It may be technologically possible to extend that line further into Downtown, but they wouldn't have the legal rights to do that. Similarly, it currently doesn't have a legal right to run your proposed route.

not sure what you're getting at here, if they can't run through the buncher site, they can't take up the issue of running through downtown with the city. he specifically says it will prevent them from running through the buncher site to downtown.

[ctoocheck]

Originally Posted by pman

not sure what you're getting at here, if they can't run through the buncher site, they can't take up the issue of running through downtown with the city. he specifically says it will prevent them from running through the buncher site to downtown.

Keep in mind this is talking about the AVRR commuter rail proposal, NOT a potential light rail line -- 2 different things.

[gg]

Buncher doesn't exactly do great things. I mean they have that HUGE riverfront property next to the 62nd St. Bridge and it is ON the river with a view of it. They are building commercial storage. Yes, it is next to the Sunoco tanks, but we are talking about a really large piece of property that would have plenty of room for a buffer. Storage on the river. Could have been really cool and.. oh maybe I didn't mention, totally riverfront. They could have had docks there. What could have been. Too late now.

[pman]

Originally Posted by ctoocheck

Keep in mind this is talking about the AVRR commuter rail proposal, NOT a potential light rail line -- 2 different things.

actually, it IS light rail...that's why they initially proposed a temporal separation (light rail trains run during the day, freight (traditionally compliant) at night. denton has successfully been allowed to run light rail on the same tracks as freight. as has been discussed, commuted fares generally apply to people commuting to and from work on any form of transit...the word itself derives from the railroads use of commuted fares when the railroads created suburbs.
curtis-yeah, buncher is pretty meh. having so much land being tied up in the hands of people without much vision (pens, buncher, steelers, et al) isn't helping matters much.