This will probably be our transit expansion (Pittsburgh, Washington: neighborhoods, construction)

[Copanut]

How many people from Crafton and Sheraden do you think go to the airport?

[I_Like_Spam]

Originally Posted by Copanut

How many people from Crafton and Sheraden do you think go to the airport?

I don't know, but probably more than from other areas, particularly looking at those traveling by bus.


Folks looking for service jobs are more likely to seek them on the same side of town as they are already at.

[that412]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I take the 28X to the airport pretty frequently, and those Robinson stops are heavily used by employees who work at the various retail establishments out there. Without some alternate means to get from downtown to Robinson, they'd kinda be screwed.

There's still the 29, the schedule could just be tweaked to run a little more frequently and on weekends, and the route could be adjusted to serve more of the mall area.

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by JoeP

Well there's a big difference if light rail is above or below ground of course.

The Cleveland BRT looks good and if significantly less expensive that rail, not a bad option.

Pittsburgh deserved to get rail decades ago though.

Pittsburgh wasted a lot of time with Skybus. It should have just opted for conventional rail transit. During that time Atlanta built its MARTA HRT and it has proven very useful. A high speed rail connection between downtown and the airport is great for visitors and the lines extending further out are great ways to the airport for the locals. Expensive, but the long term benefits are huge.

If I were to put in just one rail line, it would be from the airport to Heinz Field, PNC Park, David L Lawrence, Downtown, Duquesne U/Consol Energy, Carlow U, Pitt, Library, CMU, Chatham U, ..., out to Monroeville. It would help Pittsburgh's Visitor Business scene as getting to and from the airport would be a breeze from some of the more important points. The T doesn't seem as valuable that way. Having a rail line to and from the airport has made traveling to certain cities much more appealing.

Another waste of time was the Maglev project. It was supposed to go from Monroeville to the airport and might have covered what I described above. But the Federal government dragged the selection process out and it was eventually dropped. Even if Maglev had not proved to be a good system, at least the RoW would have been laid out for a conventional rail route.

Anyway, an Airport-Monroeville route (high speed), connecting with The T, still wouldn't be adequate but it would be a big help none the less.

[AaronPGH]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I take the 28X to the airport pretty frequently, and those Robinson stops are heavily used by employees who work at the various retail establishments out there. Without some alternate means to get from downtown to Robinson, they'd kinda be screwed.

They'd need to beef up Robinson service on alternate routes, obviously.

[Impala26]

Originally Posted by ferraris

Why couldn't surface rail be put on fifth or forbes?

Originally Posted by MountainDewGuy

Forgive my ignorance, but why is surface rail next to impossible but rapid bus transit is not?

Surface rail on Fifth/Forbes COULD be done, but the only form it could take would be a streetcar. Streetcars would NOT be "rapid transit" by any means, so putting in all new rail infrastructure in the roadways for little gain does not make any real economic sense. The whole emphasis on BUS rapid transit stems from the fact that buses have greater flexiblity in the sense that beyond the dedicated lane(s)/busway, they can use any other legal roadway, unlike a train. This means that they're routing beyond the designated BRT system has greater flexibility as well, and the system could be adjusted more easily to meet transit demands.

That's the main crux behind the benefit of a BUS-oriented rapid transit system. Not to mention being more economical cost-wise for capacity.

[MountainDewGuy]

Originally Posted by Impala26

Surface rail on Fifth/Forbes COULD be done, but the only form it could take would be a streetcar. Streetcars would NOT be "rapid transit" by any means, so putting in all new rail infrastructure in the roadways for little gain does not make any real economic sense. The whole emphasis on BUS rapid transit stems from the fact that buses have greater flexiblity in the sense that beyond the dedicated lane(s)/busway, they can use any other legal roadway, unlike a train. This means that they're routing beyond the designated BRT system has greater flexibility as well, and the system could be adjusted more easily to meet transit demands.

That's the main crux behind the benefit of a BUS-oriented rapid transit system. Not to mention being more economical cost-wise for capacity.

Ok, thanks for the follow up. How does the rapid transit line work with traffic signals? Or does it not need to be subjected to them?

[pman]

Originally Posted by that412

It does seem like a lot, but I don't think we can underestimate the impact of every-five-minute, subway-like service during rush hours between Oakland and Downtown.

increasing service frequency does require new buses but would it really require $150 million worth? I just expected the rapidbus option to be less expensive, this is almost as much as a streetcar. i have to wonder if this is the right way. for all the hoopla cleveland's BRT line carries less than 15k people a day. couldn't you just rationlize some routes, create a new map, and save tens of millions of dollars and carry the same number of riders? is it better to spend $150 million on the rapid bus project for $150 million for the AVRR rail project? which one adds more new riders?

aaron's point about the airport is right on though I think the TDP already addressed it, new buses for the airport line and no stop in robinson (which would get alternate service) but they kept things as is due to budget constraints.
couple points about transit:
streetcar:
narrow car body means you can dedicate an eight foot lane rather than a 12 foot lane necessary for a dedicated bus line...this could be important where streetscape is limited. they can also seat more people than a bus since they are fixed guideway.
bus: can operate on city streets and be mixed into a larger fleet (not that specialized buses for BRT undermine this advantage) improving flexibility
gondola: most effective where grade or other geographic factors make surface travel inadequate
light rail: best where bus capacity is stretched but demand not great enough for full subway. portland's blue line carries 65k people vs cleveland's 14.6k people on the health line.
heavy rail: best where demand is very high. fastest of the bunch
commuter rail: most effective at moderate distances where the number of people moved can be consolidated on a labor hour basis. latrobe to pittsburgh comes to mind. the further out you go the less it matters that the rail route isn't entirely direct.

[MountainDewGuy]

Originally Posted by Impala26

Wherever you've read that quote, it must be referring to SURFACE rail. That would be next to impossible between Downtown and Oakland (save for maybe Second Avenue corridor up Junction/Panther Hollow). The most recent estimate I heard for just a simple cut-and-cover subway rail line (2.5 to 3 miles) between Downtown and Oakland would cost anywhere from $1.2 to $1.5 BILLION. That's the reason it's not being considered in the near-term.

$1.5 Billion would break down to $100 per Pittsburgh resident per year for the next 50 years. To me the cost is worth it. This does not take into account an expected increase in population, federal/state subsidies or any, added taxes or operational income. Plus, the reduction of traffic and pollution ads a value too. The cost of the North Shore Connector was over $500M, and that is primarily used to bring people to football and baseball games.

[Copanut]

Can't they just schedule more bus routes? It's only 4 miles.