Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To briefly review, there was a community meeting late in April to discuss the latest drafts from this project. Although so far they don't seem to have released the materials form the meeting online, here is an article discussing the contents, focused on transit issues:
One innovative element is the “green boulevard” along the river which will be a multi-modal route incorporating a commuter rail, and bicycle and pedestrian paths to connect the neighborhoods of the Strip District and Lawrenceville. The lush, shady, verdant route will provide a safe way for people of all ages to enjoy active transportation: getting exercise while getting around.
Additionally, the Riverfront Vision plan calls for a trolley / streetcar system. This idea seems to have been buzzing around for several years now, but Steve Quick, one of the principals on the design team excitedly pointed out that things were on track to have trolleys operational far sooner than anyone had anticipated. He added that these would be great for the city because “everybody loves to ride trolleys.”
Streetcar enthusiasm is sweeping the nation and at least 22 cities are planning to have working streetcar lines in the next two years. I spoke with Lena Andrews of the Urban Redevelopment Authority who said that Pittsburgh is likely several years away from realizing this technology. Still ahead is a costly and time-consuming engineering analysis before the city can apply for federal funding and tracks can be laid.
. . .
Pittsburgh’s current public transportation system includes buses, bus rapid transit, limited light rail, and two funicular railway lines. The landscape offers tremendous potential to incorporate other methods of people-moving, including boats, ferries, and an aerial tram like the ones in Portland and New York. Currently a lack of docks and loading ports prevents a ferry system from being realized, but if docks were constructed, ferries and boats could stimulate development along the riverfront. Incorporated into the larger transit system, ferries could do much to alleviate the car traffic that is clogging the roadways, especially the commuters from the suburbs who have few options but driving.
Kinda a mixed message on the speed at which a trolley system could be developed, but I hope they push it as fast as possible, because I think federal funding will become available for such projects.
I left in the discussion of the idea of water taxis/ferries because I find it interesting. However, having seen a little on the economics of such services I am not-so-convinced they actually make much sense in Pittsburgh (I think rail-based services along the rivers are likely to beat them on costs and capacity). On the other hand, I remain convinced aerial trams could be a great solution to some specific transit needs in Pittsburgh.
so long as the trolley runs in its own ROW, otherwise it's an awful idea. trolleys are terrible when mixed with traffic, they are unable to avoid obstacles and stack up more often than buses. They only really offer a benefit when demand is sufficient they can carry more people than a bus. usually in places like this, they aren't being used for transportation functions but economic development, siphoning off money that could be used for real transportation problems. it's based on questionable studies that show trolleys generate investment but the devil is in the details and as often as not, trolleys are built as part of redevelopment projects and so it's likely the trolley wasn't the generator of investment, but went along with it. In Buenos Aires they built a waterfront trolley and the waterfront boomed...of course, no one rides the trolley as it runs from nowhere to nowhere and people are building on the waterfront because it's new land and also policed by the non-corrupt naval prefect. not saying this is necessarily a bad idea, but should be approached with skepticism. just laying tracks doesn't mean investment nor utility, it needs to go from someplace to somewhere in a reasonable amount of time, reliably. and should Pitt expand use of a new type of vehicle or should this link in with the T network?
I think connecting Downtown to the Strip with a trolley makes ample sense because that is an area where we want to add a lot of new residents and new retail, but it is going to be important to minimize the amount of new parking/driving that will involve. Specifically, residents will likely need to commute Downtown for work and entertainment, and the Strip will hopefully become a retail destination for people working/living Downtown, and I think if well-done a trolley could serve those purposes. I'm generally sympathetic to the idea that Bus Rapid Transit could serve similar purposes in theory, but this seems like a case where the better brand image and implied permanency of trolleys (and potentially lower operating expenses, and arguably better ridership experience) would be worth any additional expense.
And it might not be that much more expensive than BRT, particularly since we are talking about a relatively short stretch, plus I would hope they could use some sort of public-private partnership to take on some of the costs. Moreover, recent spending decisions by the Feds suggest to me they like trolleys.
I'm actually becoming fine with the idea of this sort of project not integrating with the T or other existing public transit services. The T and the Busways are really suitable for commuter purposes, and this is instead about local/circulator purposes. In fact I know they are thinking this could eventually loop through Oakland, and I could also see it going through Downtown to the South Side eventually as well (I haven't given up my vision of a new bus/trolley bridge over the Mon at Stanwix). So it would be part of its own little planned system, but that is OK because it wouldn't really be serving as part of the same commuter network as the existing rapid transit services.
Finally, I agree that having its own ROWs, at least for some parts of the route (where congestion is likely) would be ideal, and I don't see why that is impossible. And you could share those ROWs with buses.
I always think it's a shame when I take the T to see the empty half of the Steel Plaza station, with all its signage about linking up to the EBO and Penn Station. Some of the infrastructure's already there, it's just not being used.
I always think it's a shame when I take the T to see the empty half of the Steel Plaza station, with all its signage about linking up to the EBO and Penn Station. Some of the infrastructure's already there, it's just not being used.
Unfortunately it is single-track under USX, which just kills the ridership possibilities.
I think connecting Downtown to the Strip with a trolley makes ample sense because that is an area where we want to add a lot of new residents and new retail, but it is going to be important to minimize the amount of new parking/driving that will involve. Specifically, residents will likely need to commute Downtown for work and entertainment, and the Strip will hopefully become a retail destination for people working/living Downtown, and I think if well-done a trolley could serve those purposes. I'm generally sympathetic to the idea that Bus Rapid Transit could serve similar purposes in theory, but this seems like a case where the better brand image and implied permanency of trolleys (and potentially lower operating expenses, and arguably better ridership experience) would be worth any additional expense.
And it might not be that much more expensive than BRT, particularly since we are talking about a relatively short stretch, plus I would hope they could use some sort of public-private partnership to take on some of the costs. Moreover, recent spending decisions by the Feds suggest to me they like trolleys.
given the short distance, if the project doesn't include a ROW, I'd imagine it would be far cheaper and more effective just to run a bus. I'd need to see a more detailed plan to comment specifically, but adding rail for rails sake is expensive and frequently puts development interest ahead of current users of a given system. they reference Portland but Portland is building a system, in Pittsburgh, that means extending the T...not building a separate "little system"
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
Finally, I agree that having its own ROWs, at least for some parts of the route (where congestion is likely) would be ideal, and I don't see why that is impossible. And you could share those ROWs with buses.
yep, in fact, one could start with buses and add rails later to save money.
I'd need to see a more detailed plan to comment specifically, but adding rail for rails sake is expensive and frequently puts development interest ahead of current users of a given system.
I do think this would be more about successful development of that particular area than about upgrading the overall system. However, if they could get a lot of funding from a public-private partnership, I have no particular problem with that approach since it wouldn't necessarily be taking resources away from other upgrade projects.
Quote:
they reference Portland but Portland is building a system, in Pittsburgh, that means extending the T...not building a separate "little system"
I've come around to the view that the local topography and development patterns in Pittsburgh don't really lend themselves to a fully-integrated system, and that instead we should embrace using a bunch of different technologies as suitable.
Quote:
yep, in fact, one could start with buses and add rails later to save money.
That's again part of why I would explore public-private partnerships--you could well end up with having the public authorities on the hook for less money by going straight to trolleys to begin with.
Edit: Oh, and from a local perspective, we should also keep an eye on what the Feds are funding, because targeting some of that funding can also end up adding to the total size of the local transit pie.
Is this trolley idea supposed to be an actually useful piece of transit infrastructure or is it primarily designed to simply 'be there' to make prospective residents and merchants feel that the neighborhood is 'hip'? I.E. will you actually be able to take it from somewhere to somewhere or does it go from nowhere people are to nowhere people want to go?
Is this trolley idea supposed to be an actually useful piece of transit infrastructure or is it primarily designed to simply 'be there' to make prospective residents and merchants feel that the neighborhood is 'hip'? I.E. will you actually be able to take it from somewhere to somewhere or does it go from nowhere people are to nowhere people want to go?
Details are in short supply, but last I heard it was going to start as a line from Butler and 40th to the Convention Center. Assuming that is correct, and that they develop the Strip/Lawrenceville as planned, that should be useful, in both direction, for the purposes I suggested above. But it would be nice it eventually extended deeper into Downtown.
Is this trolley idea supposed to be an actually useful piece of transit infrastructure or is it primarily designed to simply 'be there' to make prospective residents and merchants feel that the neighborhood is 'hip'? I.E. will you actually be able to take it from somewhere to somewhere or does it go from nowhere people are to nowhere people want to go?
Having attended the meeting, I was sure to push a few transit-related questions.
One, it seems the Allegheny Valley Commuter Rail might be implemented the earliest, in comparison to the streetcar. It will use was is essentially a diesel-powered light rail vehicle. I'm very excited to see how this part of the project moves forward, as it is to me a great development for the Allegheny Valley rather than the endless construction of Route 28. Plans are for probably about three stations between the 62nd Street Bridge and Downtown, one in Oakmont, one in New Kensington, and one in Arnold.
As for the streetcar, the focus on the meeting was how Downtown, Lawrenceville, and Oakland form a "New Golden Triangle" of sorts, both geographically and economically. While the plan calls for the Strip-Lawrenceville streetcar first, it ultimately envisions a triangular loop linking these areas via the streetcar. Frankly I think that's a fantastic idea, and would serve not simply as a real-estate developer pman argued, but a practical and "fun" way of getting around. I think while BRT is possible and cheaper, there is a certain appeal of quiet, larger streetcars that can't be overstated. Keep in mind many of the plans for the Allegheny Riverfront Vision are long-term: 20, 30, 40 years down the road.
Even though it seems a long way off and vague, I was happy to see an excitement amongst the leaders and an eagerness to get into details about these projects rather than shy away from specifics.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
