Bill Peduto Has Big Plans For Transportation/Funding (Pittsburgh, Wilkinsburg: 2013, city hall)

[MonVoyage]

So I stumbled across this article:
Trains, buses, bikes make up vision for travel between Oakland, Downtown | TribLIVE

Peduto says he wants to expand the T and create commuter rail between Lawrenceville and Hazelwood via Oakland, amid other improvements.

I am wondering, though, what you think of these ideas, and if you think they can/will happen. I'm also wondering about people's different ideas for funding sources for a hypothetical rail expansion. With state funding passing (barely) and federal funding in short supply, are there any more local sources that may be tapped for funding?

If any expansion of the T were to happen, undoubtedly revenues would have to be raised. Maybe there are more creative sources of funding out there that haven't been thought of, or utilized by other cities but not implemented here locally...

Thoughts appreciated.

[ferraris]

So I'm supportive of the county executive's plan to build a Bus Rapid Transit system that would be using dedicated lanes to connect Downtown and Oakland,” Peduto said. “My goal with that is to include stops in the Hill and Uptown and incorporate transit-oriented development plans to rebuild those corridors.”

I'm not sure how you could include a BRT stop in the hill without adding unnecessary time to the trip.

“I've talked about putting bike lanes along the busways. The throughways are already there. There would be a construction cost, but it might be something where we could charge for a yearly pass,” Fitzgerald said

A big plus to cycling is that it is free. Make the pass too expensive and people won't buy it, make it too cheap and it won't cover the costs. And how would you enforce it? There's no free way of enforcing it. And what would need to be "constructed" anyway besides painting the lanes in? Are the busways so narrow that new pavement would have to be put down?

“(Expanding the T) is real. Now is the time for planning. We've had discussions on how to run it through the North Side neighborhoods to get to 279 or to run it along 279.”

I'll say it again. This is boneheaded. I know it's a quote from Fitzgerald, but I'm very worried that Peduto might go along with it.

Peduto said dedicated bike lanes, or a “bike freeway system,” could be funded by installing red-light cameras at intersections and using the ticket revenue for infrastructure.

This is a good way to quickly make himself an unpopular mayor. Traffic tickets should not be seen as a revenue source. We're going to rely on people breaking the law to fund our transportation system? If you want funding for something like this, find it in the city's existing budget or put up a levy to fund it.

Bricker said the city needs to dedicate money to build bike lanes that have physical barriers from cars.

I definitely agree with this. I see people driving in and parked in bike lanes far too often. When I bike I mostly stick to the riverfront trails since they are completely separated from cars.

[zman63]

Originally Posted by MonVoyage

So I stumbled across this article:
Trains, buses, bikes make up vision for travel between Oakland, Downtown | TribLIVE

Peduto says he wants to expand the T and create commuter rail between Lawrenceville and Hazelwood via Oakland, amid other improvements.

I am wondering, though, what you think of these ideas, and if you think they can/will happen. I'm also wondering about people's different ideas for funding sources for a hypothetical rail expansion. With state funding passing (barely) and federal funding in short supply, are there any more local sources that may be tapped for funding?

If any expansion of the T were to happen, undoubtedly revenues would have to be raised. Maybe there are more creative sources of funding out there that haven't been thought of, or utilized by other cities but not implemented here locally...

Thoughts appreciated.

I think this will happen after consolidation of the municipalities and school districts into the city. You are right the funding is going to have to come from somewhere. There is no way just the city is able to pay or just the county alone. They will use the money saved when these governments and school districts merge. I expect there to be forced consolidation over the next 5 to 10 years. Property tax dollars will probably be shifted toward this. The city will have a larger pool of residents paying down its pension and school debt while having the ability to fund infrastructure and transportation improvements.

[I_Like_Spam]

Originally Posted by zman63

I think this will happen after consolidation of the municipalities and school districts into the city. .

I think that if the city is able to takeover the surrounding municipalities, this kind of project will be a lot less likely.

People that live a long way from town or Oakland are a lot less likely to see this as an essential program and their votes will have to be pandered to by whomever runs for political office.

Further, there will be little money saved by this kind of takeover- establishing city fire stations in areas with only volunteer forces now, merging police departments, and other necessary details to bring the various suburbs into sync with the city will cost a bundle. This looks like a mythical windfall.

[Goinback2011]

City of Pittsburgh population: 306,211
Allegheny county population: 1.229 million

For the basic arithmetic-challenged, there are about 923,000 more people outside the boundaries of the City in Allegheny County than inside the boundaries.

Sorry, Charlie, maybe you can incorporate Wilkinsburg or Duquesne. I've read they have some big bills they'd like someone else to pay too.

[zman63]

Originally Posted by I_Like_Spam

I think that if the city is able to takeover the surrounding municipalities, this kind of project will be a lot less likely.

People that live a long way from town or Oakland are a lot less likely to see this as an essential program and their votes will have to be pandered to by whomever runs for political office.

Further, there will be little money saved by this kind of takeover- establishing city fire stations in areas with only volunteer forces now, merging police departments, and other necessary details to bring the various suburbs into sync with the city will cost a bundle. This looks like a mythical windfall.

I don't see the suburbs voting for the T or consolidation. The latter is going to be forced and the the T will be one of the outcomes 20-30 years from now. They have been talking about consolidation of this county since the 1950s. The rand study agrees it must be done, but nobody wants to touch it with a 10 foot pole. People will adapt to the new setup. I don't see a mass exodus to the neighboring counties like most people on there think would happen. Most wouldn't have the ability to do such a thing anyways. This is the only way to fix things and expand public transportation.

[I_Like_Spam]

Originally Posted by zman63

I don't see the suburbs voting for the T or consolidation. The latter is going to be forced and the the T will be one of the outcomes 20-30 years from now. They have been talking about consolidation of this county since the 1950s. The rand study agrees it must be done, but nobody wants to touch it with a 10 foot pole. People will adapt to the new setup. I don't see a mass exodus to the neighboring counties like most people on there think would happen. Most wouldn't have the ability to do such a thing anyways. This is the only way to fix things and expand public transportation.

I'm not arguing that consolidation might not happen.

But just pointing out that after consolidation, the folks being consolidated will still have a vote- they won't being taken over as conquered territories, and won't be that happy about focusing the limited tax dollars to just a narrow sector in town and will want money in their own communities.

And further, the residents of the new city wards would outnumber the current city residents by a wide margin. Any politicians elected will have to appeal to much different electorate

[zman63]

Originally Posted by Goinback2011

City of Pittsburgh population: 306,211
Allegheny county population: 1.229 million

For the basic arithmetic-challenged, there are about 923,000 more people outside the boundaries of the City in Allegheny County than inside the boundaries.

Sorry, Charlie, maybe you can incorporate Wilkinsburg or Duquesne. I've read they have some big bills they'd like someone else to pay too.

When corbett was cutting education money even the top tier school districts like North Allegheny were struggling with budgets and keeping its buildings open. You are right, Wilkinsburg and duquense would like somebody else to pay the bills. It will be the 923,000 residents you just mentioned.

Im telling you before any public transportation expansions you are going to see forced consolidation. People aren't going to like it, but it will be the right thing to do. I just cannot see the county and city going on in its current setup. We have too many entities and school districts that need bills paid and no money in their little municipality to do it. Its basic arithmetic, add more taxpayers.

[zman63]

Originally Posted by I_Like_Spam

I'm not arguing that consolidation might not happen.

But just pointing out that after consolidation, the folks being consolidated will still have a vote- they won't being taken over as conquered territories, and won't be that happy about focusing the limited tax dollars to just a narrow sector in town and will want money in their own communities.

And further, the residents of the new city wards would outnumber the current city residents by a wide margin. Any politicians elected will have to appeal to much different electorate

And in a nutshell you just described why this city and county has had so many problems with economic, jobs and population growth over the last 50 years.

[I_Like_Spam]

Originally Posted by zman63

. Its basic arithmetic, add more taxpayers.

You wouldn't be adding new taxpayers at all, just shuffling them around.

Moving money from your shirt pocket to your wallet doesn't change the amount of cash you have on hand.

And eliminating local involvement in the entire appropriations process, shuffling it to a centralized city hall, isn't likely to produce efficiency. Consolidating services can, of course. But many municipalities are already doing this voluntarily with police, fire or other functions.