Hypothetical Light Rail Map (Liberty, Houston: to live, buses, train)

[I_Like_Spam]

Originally Posted by zman63

Pittsburgh used to have a good rail system. So did a lot of other cities. Big oil, automakers and insurance companies are the reason cities like pittsburgh paved over the trolley system they had. It was all about money. Americans have had the wool pulled over their eyes forever. .

yes, it was about the money- but people did have a pretty substantial increase in their incomes in the 50's and 60's, as America rose out of the days of deprivation of the Great Depression and WWII.

But I don't think anyone had the wool pulled over their eyes. Many wanted to drive, they wanted to live in outlying areas where they could have a little lawn to mow, a little privacy from neighbors, and they could suddenly afford it with a substantial increase in income. Its a lot more convenient to get in a car and drive to a store or to work on their own timetable than to wait for a streetcar. And in the outlying areas, the streetcar routes didn't run, those were the days before park and ride.

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by zman63

Pittsburgh used to have a good rail system. So did a lot of other cities. Big oil, automakers and insurance companies are the reason cities like pittsburgh paved over the trolley system they had. It was all about money. Americans have had the wool pulled over their eyes forever. Even the 1949 rail map is better than what we have today.

The 1949 trolley map went to heidelberg, neville isle, emsworth, coraopolis, kennywood, oakmont , wall, etna , aspinwall and mckeesport.

GM was behind the demise of some trolley systems but I don't see any evidence that they targeted Pittsburgh. That might be the reason why Pittsburgh's trolley lines lasted longer than many others. I'm guessing that Pittsburgh just ran them till their wheels fell off and didn't upgrade. Replacing them with buses was more cost effective. And I_Like_Spam is right. We and other cities could have kept the trolley systems but we bought into the auto-centric lifestyle with a home in the burbs.

A rail system like Atlanta's would be great as it is a good alternative during traffic congested rush hours and an easier way to avoid the hassles of getting to downtown and back as well as parking for special events.

[zman63]

Originally Posted by MathmanMathman

GM was behind the demise of some trolley systems but I don't see any evidence that they targeted Pittsburgh. That might be the reason why Pittsburgh's trolley lines lasted longer than many others. I'm guessing that Pittsburgh just ran them till their wheels fell off and didn't upgrade. Replacing them with buses was more cost effective. And I_Like_Spam is right. We and other cities could have kept the trolley systems but we bought into the auto-centric lifestyle with a home in the burbs.

A rail system like Atlanta's would be great as it is a good alternative during traffic congested rush hours and an easier way to avoid the hassles of getting to downtown and back as well as parking for special events.

If you look at the new plan and the old 1949 plan, which one do you think would be the cheapest to build?

If you couldn't have the new plan, but you could have the 1949 route plan, would you take it over what we currently have for buses?

I believe you could do away with buses for either of the plans (other than adding an airport line to the '49 map).

I really do like the new plan a lot.

[SteelCityRising]

Can I ask why so many on here have such an aversion towards light rail? Whenever a topic like this arises many dismiss it and say "more buses, please". How will adding more and more buses onto already congested streets fix our congestion woes? We need transit that operates in its own dedicated right-of-way AWAY from other vehicles. We need to improve upon the Busways, develop BRT that will NOT interfere with existing traffic, and invest in light rail.

[pman]

Originally Posted by I_Like_Spam

yes, it was about the money- but people did have a pretty substantial increase in their incomes in the 50's and 60's, as America rose out of the days of deprivation of the Great Depression and WWII.

But I don't think anyone had the wool pulled over their eyes. Many wanted to drive, they wanted to live in outlying areas where they could have a little lawn to mow, a little privacy from neighbors, and they could suddenly afford it with a substantial increase in income. Its a lot more convenient to get in a car and drive to a store or to work on their own timetable than to wait for a streetcar. And in the outlying areas, the streetcar routes didn't run, those were the days before park and ride.

sometimes, in retrospect, progress isn't always progress. not all of the old trolleys should have survived but some should have survived and I'd argue that some of the old commuter rail should have survived (shadyside, after all, gets its name from the PRR commuter station of that name). Pittsburgh is well suited to trolley service. busy enough buses are often too small, not busy enough for a robust rapid transit system...though the spine line as proposed, north side to downtown to east liberty via oakland, would have been a wise investment.

[I_Like_Spam]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

Can I ask why so many on here have such an aversion towards light rail? .

Its a whole lot more expensive than the alternatives, tunnels, bridges, digging up roadways, property acquisition- all bring up the price. And no one can be certain about what future traffic will like. The number of people needing to go to town in the future might not be as high as it is now- telecommuting seems to be a future trend. Further, new cars that drive themselves by computer are coming, they are advertised to be able to increase road capacity as they can operate a lot closer to other cars.

Buses are a relatively inexpensive depreciable asset using roads we already have- after a while they get towed out to the junkyard, pounded into cubes and forgotten about.

[EveKendall]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

Can I ask why so many on here have such an aversion towards light rail? Whenever a topic like this arises many dismiss it and say "more buses, please". How will adding more and more buses onto already congested streets fix our congestion woes? We need transit that operates in its own dedicated right-of-way AWAY from other vehicles. We need to improve upon the Busways, develop BRT that will NOT interfere with existing traffic, and invest in light rail.

I think a light rail system would be great. However, I just cannot see the funds for this coming any time soon, and it is an expensive endeavor. However, improving the bus system does seem feasible--more buses, better routes, better drivers, etc.--and should be relatively cheap and a priority for the city. I know traffic is an issue but the buses stopping at every corner makes that worse. This seems completely unnecessary.

[Moby Hick]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

How will adding more and more buses onto already congested streets fix our congestion woes?

Adding more buses onto congested street will fix congestion if people from the cars go onto the buses instead. It's pretty simple math, one bus holds dozens of people. You can, if you have $2.50, go on a bus to see for yourself, but if you try the 61's through Oakland at rush hour you might not physically fit on the bus. Adding more buses to the streets gives bus riders more options and makes it more likely that someone will find a way to get somewhere without a car.

It's a pretty safe bet that Oakland and downtown would be completely unworkable from a traffic standpoint without the buses and that parking would be even worse. You can tell this by common sense or by looking at how much worse traffic got during the transit strike in 1992 (ask your older neighbors).

A light rail would be great, but when people start talking about buses as the problem, it reinforces my fear that the light rail is something put up by people who don't like transit to serve as a smokescreen. They'll cut the transit we actually by promising improvements they know they cannot fund.

[jay5835]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

We need transit that operates in its own dedicated right-of-way AWAY from other vehicles. We need to improve upon the Busways, develop BRT that will NOT interfere with existing traffic, and invest in light rail.

I'm having a hard time visualizing this. Where would you put this "dedicated right-of-way" such that it would "NOT interfere with existing traffic"?

And where would the light rail go?

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by jay5835

I'm having a hard time visualizing this. Where would you put this "dedicated right-of-way" such that it would "NOT interfere with existing traffic"?

And where would the light rail go?

The way it works in Houston is the LRT has the right-of-way at every street, complete with warning lights and a crossing bar.


Houston's METRO Light Rail, Fannin @ 610 Crossing - YouTube