Pittsburgh's North Shore light rail opens

[Cirrus]

North Shore Connector makes rush-hour debut (http://old.post-gazette.com/pg/12086/1219580-147.stm)
Monday, March 26, 2012

The $523.4 million North Shore Connector made its rush-hour service debut this morning, attracting modest crowds of commuters who used it to get from North Shore parking to Downtown.

The connector is a 1.2-mile extension of the Port Authority's Light Rail Transit system that serves a new Gateway Center Station, Downtown, and stations near PNC Park and Heinz Field. All Red and Blue line service to Downtown will continue to the North Shore, reversing direction at the elevated station near the football stadium.

[Jonboy1983]

The next time I'm out there visiting my parents, I'll have to hop on the T, and take a ride to the North Shore just to check it out.

What the Port Authority should do, since they don't have any money for any needed further expansion, they should reroute their bus lines to provide feeder service to the LRT system...

They really need to expand to other parts of the metro area tho. Oakland, the Airport, and the North Hills are all in need of an expansion. Perhaps they could convert some of the system to heavy-rail, but I guess that's not likely. I would like to see a heavy-rail/metro line linking Oakland and Downtown tho.

[bobdreamz]

just curious but why does a 1.2 mile light rail extension cost almost a half billion dollars?

[SnyderBock]

It looks like it's all grade-separated, downtown type mass transit. Including some really nice new stations and one nicely reconstructed station. It also crosses over a river, so that's probably an expensive bridge. The stations and bridge could easily be $250 million. Add the other $250 million in to cover engineering, design, and the grade-separated light rail construction.

Seems reasonable, considering.

[Bronxwood]

It looks like it's all grade-separated, downtown type mass transit. Including some really nice new stations and one nicely reconstructed station. It also crosses over a river, so that's probably an expensive bridge. The stations and bridge could easily be $250 million. Add the other $250 million in to cover engineering, design, and the grade-separated light rail construction.

Seems reasonable, considering.

The north shore connector uses tunnels, one for each way. Not a bridge. So there goes more than half the bill. This thread is worthless without pics, just sayin...

[OhioGuy]

^^

I couldn't find any video news stores on the local tv stations, but I did find a photo gallery on the local CBS affiliates website. Considering the grainy image quality, I'm guessing these are screen captures from video the station shot, but like I said, I couldn't find any video news stories.

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/photo-galleries/2012/03/25/north-shore-connector-opens-to-public/

[Bronxwood]

Looks nice from the few pics and video I've seen. Here's a few I found:

http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/news/2012/03/13/north-shore-connector-gearing-up-for.html?s=image_gallery

and a video from cbs pittsburgh:
http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2012/03/26/public-reaction-positive-as-north-shore-connector-opens/

[Jonboy1983]

just curious but why does a 1.2 mile light rail extension cost almost a half billion dollars?

You know, that's a REALLY good question. I was wondering that myself. When this thing was formally proposed back in the mid 1990s, it was estimated somewhere in the $140 to $340 million range. Then costs pretty much doubled (construction costs, steel and concrete materials as well).

Because of the really steep price tag this project came with, a number of people are criticizing it, saying it's a half-billion dollar expansion to nowhere.

Something else, by the way, this is only half of a bigger project. They proposed to build an extension of the T to the Lawrence Convention Center which would have cost an estimated $80 million. That, however, was abandoned when costs started to go skyward and when companies submitted bids that were far above the estimated costs. At the time, I think the estimates were around $320 million and the lowest bid came in about $20 million more than that. Even after they dropped the $80 million extension to the Convention Center, the estimated cost still soared to over $400 million. I think it was then when construction began. You know what happened next? Yep, the costs rose to over a half billion dollars which actually threatened to end the project leaving 2 empty tunnels under the Allegheny River to nowhere. I forget how the project kept going tho. If memory serves me correctly, I think they used some of the stimulus money from Obama's bailout bill to cover the rest.

You know what irks me? They actually had some funding in the form of grants as well as a few other sources back in the 1940s and before that to build a subway line between Downtown and Oakland and possibly extending to East Liberty. Why on earth did they not follow through with that? That is an extremely high priority -- NOW -- and it's going to cost probably about double what this project cost if not more...

[fflint]

A couple articles quoted parking lot operators saying they have seen a big increase in business as commuters park near the new stations and then take the subway into downtown Pittsburgh.

This extension north of the river is a great start. Now it's up to Pittsburghers to utilize the infrastructure they've got and create demand for more.

Found this pic of the new North Side Station on flickr:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7204/6878332564_34a0cf6146_b.jpg

[Urbana]

Wow, Looks great!
Unfortunately the only use of the extension is to shuttle drivers into downtown. If only we could have more:rolleyes:.

[Cirrus]

just curious but why does a 1.2 mile light rail extension cost almost a half billion dollars?
Because it's a subway under a river.

The "normal" costs for light rail on the surface do not apply.

[M II A II R II K]

g71YTBvWP6M

[tdawg]

That station looks great. The T features prominently in a highly-underrated Russell Crowe-Elizabeth Banks movie called "The Next Three Days."

[J. Will]

What's the service frequency?

[N830MH]

That station looks great. The T features prominently in a highly-underrated Russell Crowe-Elizabeth Banks movie called "The Next Three Days."

Yeah, it's look so incredible! Is that free ride? How much longer will be last?

[Jonboy1983]

The red line has more of a heavy rail-type schedule. 20-minute headways during rush hour and 30 minutes during off-peak. The Blue line librairy line has 40 minute headways throughout the schedule, and the South Hills Village blue line has even more of a heavy-rail type frequency; 8-12-minute headways during the rush hour...

All are according to trains outbound from Allegheny Station.

I imagine there's going to be frequency reductions on the T should they have to cut service later this year due to the massive deficit. I guess I could see them trimming back the BLSV frequencies a little. If they do go through with that, they really should consider rerouting the buses to provide feeder routes to the T.

[Evergrey]

That station looks great. The T features prominently in a highly-underrated Russell Crowe-Elizabeth Banks movie called "The Next Three Days."

I was surprised that film met with such tepid reception. I would say "The Next Three Days" utilized the Pittsburgh cityscape more effectively than any other film.

[Centropolis]

Slick looking line.

[Dan78]

You know what irks me? They actually had some funding in the form of grants as well as a few other sources back in the 1940s and before that to build a subway line between Downtown and Oakland and possibly extending to East Liberty. Why on earth did they not follow through with that? That is an extremely high priority -- NOW -- and it's going to cost probably about double what this project cost if not more...

If you really want depressing, take a look at the 1925 4-line heavy-rail subway plan. Way more ambitious than anything planned today. This is from Report on A Recommended Subway in the First and Second Wards of Pittsburgh, or Proposed First Step in a Rapid Transit Program by city engineers Daniel L. Turner and Winters Haydock (1925). Courtesy of the Carnegie Library.

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6153/6170008689_b28c0f1aa8_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/37073171@N08/6170008689/)
1925 Pittsburgh Subway Plan (http://www.flickr.com/photos/37073171@N08/6170008689/) by dckellyphoto (http://www.flickr.com/people/37073171@N08/), on Flickr

That said, I like the look of the new underground station and hope this isn't the end of extensions for the "T" system. However, PAT is in serious trouble and is cutting bus service left and right to cover budget shortfalls, so maybe this is it for a while. I think they should have done an Oakland/Squirrel Hill extension first, but the city clearly thinks that the stadiums, science center, and casino are a priority or the universities.

Regarding the price tag: not sure why, but U.S. rail construction costs, particularly subway, are much higher than the rest of the developed world. My Spanish friend said the same underground extension done in Spain (a country not unfamiliar with unions, red tape, and regulations) would have cost 1/5 as much, tops.

[Jonboy1983]

If you really want depressing, take a look at the 1925 4-line heavy-rail subway plan. Way more ambitious than anything planned today. This is from Report on A Recommended Subway in the First and Second Wards of Pittsburgh, or Proposed First Step in a Rapid Transit Program by city engineers Daniel L. Turner and Winters Haydock (1925). Courtesy of the Carnegie Library.

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6153/6170008689_b28c0f1aa8_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/37073171@N08/6170008689/)
1925 Pittsburgh Subway Plan (http://www.flickr.com/photos/37073171@N08/6170008689/) by dckellyphoto (http://www.flickr.com/people/37073171@N08/), on Flickr

That said, I like the look of the new underground station and hope this isn't the end of extensions for the "T" system. However, PAT is in serious trouble and is cutting bus service left and right to cover budget shortfalls, so maybe this is it for a while. I think they should have done an Oakland/Squirrel Hill extension first, but the city clearly thinks that the stadiums, science center, and casino are a priority or the universities.

Regarding the price tag: not sure why, but U.S. rail construction costs, particularly subway, are much higher than the rest of the developed world. My Spanish friend said the same underground extension done in Spain (a country not unfamiliar with unions, red tape, and regulations) would have cost 1/5 as much, tops.

:previous: Aww! Now I'm pissed...

That looks like something along the lines of what WMATA has in Washington DC, several heavy rail lines that intersect each other at a variety of locations, including the CBD.

Why didn't they construct it THEN?!

Regarding the ungodly cost of building transit systems, why on Earth is there such an unreasonable price tag on US transit sytem construction while the rest of the world can do things for way cheaper? We need to do something to bring our costs down so that we can get necessary projects rolling!

[ardecila]

Regarding the ungodly cost of building transit systems, why on Earth is there such an unreasonable price tag on US transit sytem construction while the rest of the world can do things for way cheaper? We need to do something to bring our costs down so that we can get necessary projects rolling!

Lots of reasons. Unions, contractors, and greedy engineers, with Buy America thrown in for good measure. Since infrastructure funding is now no longer a given in DC, transit advocates have to side with these groups to get any funding at all, even if it means that the projects cost 50-100% more than they would overseas.

In several areas, the unofficial alliance between engineers and big contractors is coming to light. I'm reminded of the Bay Area, where a small group of engineering and construction firms have taken advantage of the region's environmental consciousness to swindle the public into paying billions for seriously overbuilt BART extensions. Also in the Bay Area, Parsons Brinckerhoff's crazy plans for high-speed rail through San Jose.

Then there's something called "scope creep", which is when new and usually unnecessary features get added to a project either to satisfy community groups or simply "because the engineers say we need it". In many cases, the project can be simplified and trimmed back without much loss.

It's not just transit projects, either... the Big Dig stands as the country's biggest and most notorious piece of porkbarrel infrastructure spending, but overseas it would have been accomplished for a fraction of its $12bn cost. Pretty much anything underground in America will cost an arm and a leg, and I think it's high time we started tackling this problem head-on, because sooner or later many cities will need to start putting a few things underground.

[fflint]

I read in an article last week that Pittsburgh did, in fact, discontinue a couple bus lines that basically ran the same route as the new connector--something about people standing at bus stops, not realizing the bus wasn't coming.

Since the new light rail line is free, it would make a lot of sense to beef up feeder bus lines on the north shore and have everyone roll into downtown via the subway.

[Busy Bee]

Lots of reasons. Unions, contractors, and greedy engineers, with Buy America thrown in for good measure. Since infrastructure funding is now no longer a given in DC, transit advocates have to side with these groups to get any funding at all, even if it means that the projects cost 50-100% more than they would overseas.

In several areas, the unofficial alliance between engineers and big contractors is coming to light. I'm reminded of the Bay Area, where a small group of engineering and construction firms have taken advantage of the region's environmental consciousness to swindle the public into paying billions for seriously overbuilt BART extensions. Also in the Bay Area, Parsons Brinckerhoff's crazy plans for high-speed rail through San Jose.

Then there's something called "scope creep", which is when new and usually unnecessary features get added to a project either to satisfy community groups or simply "because the engineers say we need it". In many cases, the project can be simplified and trimmed back without much loss.

It's not just transit projects, either... the Big Dig stands as the country's biggest and most notorious piece of porkbarrel infrastructure spending, but overseas it would have been accomplished for a fraction of its $12bn cost. Pretty much anything underground in America will cost an arm and a leg, and I think it's high time we started tackling this problem head-on, because sooner or later many cities will need to start putting a few things underground.

Ezra Klein (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/are-americas-subways-and-roads-overpriced/2011/12/06/gIQAZKhPaO_blog.html?referrer=newstrust) had a good article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/are-americas-subways-and-roads-overpriced/2011/12/06/gIQAZKhPaO_blog.html?referrer=newstrust) about this issue back in December in the Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/). Unfortunately you need a subscription to read the whole article... anybody have one? Anyways, Klein sites a somewhat tongue and cheek article by David Levinson, a transportation expert at U of Minnesota. His article:


Transportation costs too much
By David Levinson
November 22, 2011


When I was growing up (in suburban Maryland), there was an ad on local TV from Crown Books. Founder Robert Haft asserted "books cost too much", which led him to create Crown Books, and helped put independent booksellers out of business decades before Amazon became villain #1 among the literati.

Transportation costs too much.

Yet unlike independent booksellers, we weep not for the independent contractors and businesses that charge so much for transportation infrastructure, equipment, and operations.

Signalized intersections (~$175K),
buses (~$400K),
roundabouts (~$300K),
loop detectors (~$5K) (ed. installed),
diamond interchanges (~$9M),
bridges to nowhere Houlton, Wisconsin (~$668M),
light rail lines (~$1.4B),
high-speed rail lines (~$100B), etc.

are just some of the all quite pricey elements of transportation in early 21st century America. It sure seems like we should be able to build this cheaper. Think about it, $175K for 12 lightbulbs on a timer. What's going wrong?

I have several hypotheses (please add others in the comments):

Standards have risen. Our obsession with safety, features, environmental protection, and quality drive up the cost. Engineering design is often 20% of project costs. If only we would tolerate a few more deaths, a bus without AC, pollution, and frequent breakdowns, our initial costs would be lower. But when do reasonable investments become gold plating? Does the firetruck really need to do a 360 degree turn on the cul-de-sac, or can it back out?

Principal-agent problem. Public works agencies are spending Other People's Money, and so are less motivated to get value for dollar than an individual consumer on their own. This principal-agent problem prevails in lots of organizations, but especially so in public works where the bias is not to have a failure. There was an old saying in business, no one ever got fired for buying IBM. The same holds in public works, where rocking the boat with new or innovative technologies is not sufficiently rewarded.

Thin markets. There is no Amazon.com or eBay for public works. I cannot go on Amazon and buy a transit bus or an interchange. The internet has not driven down prices in this field the way it has in so many others. As a result a few vendors can collude or orchestrate higher prices than would be faced in a more competitive market.

There are in-sufficient economies of scale. When everything is bespoke, there is no opportunity for standardization and economies of scale. While many rail against cookie-cutter design, it is only with cookie-cutters that we get lots of cookies.

Projects are scoped wrong. We have investments that don't match actual demands. And this is not just for megaprojects. We have big buses serving few passengers. We have overgrown highways. We have a fear of building too small and having congestion or crowding so we build too big.

Benefits are concentrated, costs are diffuse. As a result, the known beneficiaries lobby hard for projects, but not just to build it, but to build it in a way that is expensive. Costs are diffuse, it is seldom worth the taxpayer's time to oppose a project just because of its costs, which are spread among millions of other taxpayers.

Decision-makers are remote. Remote actors cannot have precise information about local conditions, and in the absence of a free market in transportation (there is generally one buyer, who is generally a government agency), prices are not clear. As a result these remote actors misallocate because they are misinformed. This notion derives from the Economic calculation problem and Hayek's Fatal Conceit.

No one actually does B/C analysis. A recent headline in the San Jose Mercury News says:

Bay Area transportation projects to be judged on benefits vs. costs - :

""Talk to any business person about not having a benefits-vs.-cost discussion and they'll say, 'Duh, you mean you don't do that?' " said the commission's executive director, Steve Heminger. "They insist on it, but in the transportation profession it is not all that common. ... This levels the playing field.""

Heminger was appointed executive director in 2001 and hired in 1993, and only *now* they are doing benefit/cost analysis. At any rate, looking at the ratios presented in the story, they are clearly doing it wrong. Whether it is common or not I will leave to politicians or political scientists, however it has been the textbook procedure for a very long time. I suppose it is progress to at least acknowledge using B/C analysis even if the implementation is flawed


We are simultaneously spending too much and not spending enough. Because we mis-prioritize where the money is spent, we have inadequate resources for other things. We cut corners.

My favorite example is the bus stop sign which says "bus stop". While this is better than no bus stop sign, or one that said "Buses Don't Stop Here", it is still quite uninformative, it doesn't say which bus stops here, when it stops, where it is going, what is the frequency, when it operates. Why don't we have better bus service operations? In part because the scarce resources that could be devoted to that are instead spent on expensive new capital investments that serve a much smaller fraction of the population.

We can all think of things that we would like the transportation system to do, that are technically feasible, but it doesn't, because resources are scarce. They are scarce because of misallocation.

The costs of gold plating are several. Money spent on project X cannot be spent on project Y. This is the monetary opportunity cost of misallocation. Land devoted to project X cannot be devoted to project Y. More land also means greater distances to traverse. This is a spatial opportunity cost.

There is a tension between the risk of gold plating (focus on benefits to the exclusion of cost) and of corner cutting (focusing on costs to the exclusion of benefits). But there is available to us a balance, building something which maximizes the difference between benefits and costs, not just looking at benefits or costs. Insufficient attention is placed on the trade-off, too much on the ends by advocates of one side or the other.

When we are out-of-balance, people distrust that their tax money is wisely spent. If people see lots of examples of mis-expenditure, they will cut how much they are willing to allocate to transportation. Mis-expenditure thus causes the system to deteriorate in two ways. First it reduces inputs to the system, money that could be spent. Second it allocates money away from genuine public needs (starting with adequate maintenance and operation of existing facilities) and towards unnecessary wants, thereby increasing unmet needs.

We need to break this cycle of distrust if we want to adequately fund transportation needs (not wants). This requires institutional changes in how transportation services are provided. Asking the same people for more money is unlikely to be very successful. As has been mis-attributed to Benjamin Franklin: Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

[Jonboy1983]

Lots of reasons. Unions, contractors, and greedy engineers, with Buy America thrown in for good measure. Since infrastructure funding is now no longer a given in DC, transit advocates have to side with these groups to get any funding at all, even if it means that the projects cost 50-100% more than they would overseas.

In several areas, the unofficial alliance between engineers and big contractors is coming to light. I'm reminded of the Bay Area, where a small group of engineering and construction firms have taken advantage of the region's environmental consciousness to swindle the public into paying billions for seriously overbuilt BART extensions. Also in the Bay Area, Parsons Brinckerhoff's crazy plans for high-speed rail through San Jose.

Then there's something called "scope creep", which is when new and usually unnecessary features get added to a project either to satisfy community groups or simply "because the engineers say we need it". In many cases, the project can be simplified and trimmed back without much loss.

It's not just transit projects, either... the Big Dig stands as the country's biggest and most notorious piece of porkbarrel infrastructure spending, but overseas it would have been accomplished for a fraction of its $12bn cost. Pretty much anything underground in America will cost an arm and a leg, and I think it's high time we started tackling this problem head-on, because sooner or later many cities will need to start putting a few things underground.

Seriously. This country really needs to stop screwing itself in the ass so that we can not only fix our failing infrastructure, but also to build newer infrastructure to accomodate future demand.

I remember a while back I read an article in either the PG or the Tribune-Review about how slow the T is, especially along its at-grade alignment with Broadway Avenue in Beechview. Suppose it were elevated instead? I'm talking about a 2.2 mile section from Dormont Junction to just over the bridge from the Fallowfield Station.

[ardecila]

I'm not familiar with the alignment in question, but there are probably ways to speed up that travel time for 10% of the cost of a new elevated structure. Stop consolidation, exclusive lanes, signal priority, restricting right/left turning movements for drivers, better police enforcement of regulations, or improving a parallel road to reduce the traffic on Broadway Ave.

There's a saying amongst German transportation planners... Organization before electronics before concrete. You need to try the cheap solutions first and re-organize what you already have before pushing for the megaproject. The problem is, often the cheap solution steps on somebody's toes. Many of the solutions I listed above would permanently inconvenience drivers to assist the transit service.

I think transit advocates need to start having these battles, though. The drivers coming through the corridor may have slower trips, but the businesses and residential properties in the area will benefit from the faster transit service.

[Cirrus]

Organization before electronics before concreteEasy to say that when you've got cities filled with massive rail networks already. Pittsburgh has no such luxury.

The real question here is whether this billion dollar shuttle is a one-time project or part of a larger program to make Pittsburgh's diminutive subway actually useful. If the former, then it's probably true that a cheaper solution could have been advanced. If the latter, this was an expense that had to happen.

[miketoronto]

Pittsburgh has to worry about operating what it has instead of expansion at the moment.
With weekend LRT service already operating at dismal service levels, and more cuts planned, something has to be done to ensure the LRT that is currently there is getting properly utilized.
And running trains once an hour on Sunday's on one entire line most of which was just rebuilt a few years ago, is not using this infrastructure to its fullest.

[Jonboy1983]

Pittsburgh has to worry about operating what it has instead of expansion at the moment.
With weekend LRT service already operating at dismal service levels, and more cuts planned, something has to be done to ensure the LRT that is currently there is getting properly utilized.
And running trains once an hour on Sunday's on one entire line most of which was just rebuilt a few years ago, is not using this infrastructure to its fullest.

You're certainly right about that. That's why I say that instead of proposing further cuts to buses/LRT, why don't they reroute buses to feed into the LRT system in different places (Dormont Jct, South Hills Jct. South Hills Village! etc)? You'll maximize ridership for both the bus routes and LRT lines by doing that...

[Jonboy1983]

Easy to say that when you've got cities filled with massive rail networks already. Pittsburgh has no such luxury.

The real question here is whether this billion dollar shuttle is a one-time project or part of a larger program to make Pittsburgh's diminutive subway actually useful. If the former, then it's probably true that a cheaper solution could have been advanced. If the latter, this was an expense that had to happen.

Pittsburgh used to have an inter-city/regional trolley system. Then they did away with it after WWII or right around then and decided that buses were the way to go. I'm thinking that was a huge mistake, but I guess that's just me...

Even with what they used to have, why did they have trolleys runing up to Butler and New Castle as well as a slew of other places? Why those and not multi-car commuter trains like in some of the other larger cities? Pittsburgh was one of the biggest cities in the country at that time...

[miketoronto]

You're certainly right about that. That's why I say that instead of proposing further cuts to buses/LRT, why don't they reroute buses to feed into the LRT system in different places (Dormont Jct, South Hills Jct. South Hills Village! etc)? You'll maximize ridership for both the bus routes and LRT lines by doing that...

This would have to be done with good scheduled connections, as many Pittsburgh bus routes do not run frequently enough. So as long as timed connections are used, it could work.

People would probably take a while getting used to it. But taking buses out of downtown for the most part I am sure would either result in the use of much less buses to operate the services, or allow increased frequency in services.

Aside from a one seat ride, I never did get why Pittsburgh did not feed all South Hills buses into South Hills Junction, instead of sending all the buses into downtown.

[Jonboy1983]

:previous: The only thing you'd need Downtown really are the buses that run on loop routes (i.e. Mon Wharf vicinity to Allegheny River Blvd, the Lower Hill, out to the Strip, Oakland-Shadyside-Squirrel Hill, etc). I agree tho that all of the suburban bus routes, especially those in the South Hills should have either been rerouted to terminate at South Hills Junction (for those areas closer to Downtown) or even South Hills Village or Library for some of the further outlying suburbs like Peters Township.

Instead, most of these people have pretty much been cut off by the transit cuts. Not so smart transit systems planning on their part...

[Cirrus]

Pittsburgh has to worry about operating what it has instead of expansion at the moment.
While it is true that Pittsburgh has major operational problems, it is not an 'either or' question.

1. Capital expansion budgets and operations budgets are separate. Most of the money used to pay for the expansion (especially the federal and state contributions) would not be available if it wasn't used for expansion. You can't just move all the money over to running buses more often. It doesn't work that way. Much of the money that comes to Pittsburgh for capital expansion projects must either be used for capital expansion projects, or be given back.

2. One of the reasons Pittsburgh has problems operating its system is because not enough people use it, because it isn't a very good system. The best long term solution to this problem is to expand it so more people feel it is "their" system, rather than something only "other people" use. This is why transit cuts on the level Pittsburgh has seen would never be tolerated in a city like Toronto - because the Toronto population wouldn't stand for it.

In other words, putting an end to system expansion in Pittsburgh in order to fund operations would be an extremely short-sighted decision that would be counterproductive in the long term, and isn't possible anyway because much of the money for the expansion would simply go away if it weren't used for expansion.

[fflint]

Pittsburghers need to use the transit infrastructure they've got, and eventually demand more. While locals may think PAT sucks, especially after recent cuts, it could be worse: Cincinnati, a city comparable in size and geography, has no light rail system at all, and unsurprisingly, much lower transit ridership overall.

Pittsburgh has some good transit on (and under) the ground--it just needs to be better utilized, which would then allow future expansion, which would make it even more convenient, drawing even more riders. It's a virtuous cycle, and in part, we're talking about a cultural issue as much as a planning issue.

Start with young people and newcomers--do the big universities and hospitals offer free or steeply discounted transit passes to students, workers and visitors? Big downtown employers? That would be a start--get new arrivals, younger people, and office workers accustomed to taking transit now, and build the ridership (and demand) going forward from there.

[Evergrey]

"Demand" is not the problem. Pittsburgh has long been a strong transit market (which has eroded recently due to PAT death spiral cuts). The problem is poor organizational management by PAT... which has squandered lots of money on ridiculous projects (like the barely-used Wabash HOV Tunnel)... and is being crushed by legacy costs (pensions). PAT also suffers tepid support from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania... whose transit funding is ad hoc and now under assault by our new Tea Party overlords.

I agree with Cirrus that service cuts shouldn't mean cessation of infrastructure expansion... but admittedly the optics are not good when a half-billion dollar tunnel of questionable merit opens at the same time thousands of people are seeing their bus routes eliminated.

[AaronPGH]

Evergrey is right on the money. The majority of downtown employees take transit. It's a very transit-minded city. The system is just being starved on both ends through lack of state funding and inept leadership. This year will be make or break for the future of the system with Corbett's decision on how to (or not to) fund it permanently.

BTW - rode this thing today for the first time. The new stations are slick as hell. Gateway especially. Definitely one of the sexiest subway stations I've seen in the US.

http://i.imgur.com/RgHVO.jpg

[J. Will]

Evergrey is right on the money. The majority of downtown employees take transit.

Do you have an actual source for that? Metro Seattle has a much higher transit share than Metro Pittsburgh, but last I checked downtown Seattle only had a 40% transit share for downtown workers. I'd be very surprised if Pittsburgh had a share over 40% for downtown workers.

[AaronPGH]

Do you have an actual source for that? Metro Seattle has a much higher transit share than Metro Pittsburgh, but last I checked downtown Seattle only had a 40% transit share for downtown workers. I'd be very surprised if Pittsburgh had a share over 40% for downtown workers.

This link says 50%:
http://forbesfunds.org/files/Transit_Talking_Points.pdf

Pittsburgh Downtown Partnership study says 53%:
http://www.downtownpittsburgh.com/news/pdp-study-profiles-downtown-pittsburgh-residents-commuters-and-workers

Parking is very expensive in Pittsburgh, and our highway connections to the city are congested and narrow – most being two lanes in each direction with tunnels and bridges that clog up. So, almost everyone that lives in the city core, along a busway (East and West), or along the T (South), that's their mode of transit into the city. Parking leases are $250+ per month and rising as the downtown work force continues to grow.

[miketoronto]

Pittsburgh actually has a strong transit culture for an American city, and as stated has high transit usage for downtown bound trips.

Pittsburgh is one of the few cities I have been to in the rust belt area, where you get the sense that transit is used by everyone, not just the poor.

[Doady]

Pittsburgh actually has a strong transit culture for an American city, and as stated has high transit usage for downtown bound trips.


The Pittsbrugh metropolitan area has a pretty average transit ridership for a US metropolitan area.

[AaronPGH]

The Pittsbrugh metropolitan area has a pretty average transit ridership for a US metropolitan area.

Sure, the metro. Nobody in Washington, PA is riding any transit. But that is not the case in the core of the city or the areas clustered around busways and LRT.

[miketoronto]

The City of Pittsburgh is actually in 18th place of cities with the highest transit usage rates for work trips.
18.03% of city residents use transit to get to work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._cities_with_high_transit_ridership

The rest of the region is another story. But they don't to bad even in the suburban areas.
One thing I find interesting about Pittsburgh transit planning is the hills. Even along the LRT network, there are a lot of neighbourhoods which require a long walk up stairs or up hilly streets to access LRT. Does not make the best climate for transit :)

One thing I noticed when in Pittsburgh, was that off peak LRT ridership seemed very thin. I don't know if this is just a result of the downtown not being very active at night in parts, or just people driving more in the evening than taking LRT even to downtown. It could also be the affect of reduced service levels.

[Jonboy1983]

The City of Pittsburgh is actually in 18th place of cities with the highest transit usage rates for work trips.
18.03% of city residents use transit to get to work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._cities_with_high_transit_ridership

The rest of the region is another story. But they don't to bad even in the suburban areas.
One thing I find interesting about Pittsburgh transit planning is the hills. Even along the LRT network, there are a lot of neighbourhoods which require a long walk up stairs or up hilly streets to access LRT. Does not make the best climate for transit :)

One thing I noticed when in Pittsburgh, was that off peak LRT ridership seemed very thin. I don't know if this is just a result of the downtown not being very active at night in parts, or just people driving more in the evening than taking LRT even to downtown. It could also be the affect of reduced service levels.

How about the lack of using the buses to provide feeder service to the LRT system? I know that at this point I'm pretty much beating a dead horse since I've posted it at least a few times. Still, Port Authority isn't known for it's brilliance or ingenuity...

[fflint]

I was mistaken in thinking Pittsburghers didn't properly utilize their transit system, in part because I thought that was the reason some in the news reports were afraid the new light rail connector would be a failure. If ridership isn't an issue, then why would the new LRT line fail? I don't understand.

[miketoronto]

How about the lack of using the buses to provide feeder service to the LRT system? I know that at this point I'm pretty much beating a dead horse since I've posted it at least a few times. Still, Port Authority isn't known for it's brilliance or ingenuity...

I agree they should be doing that.

Sadly inter-modal connections like this are not something American transit systems are known for.
The planners really need to start thinking outside of what they have been doing for the past 30 years.

I have been looking at the T station locations on google maps. I have to say that many of the small low level suburban stops (which really are just a wood platform on the side of the tracks) have creepy access roads to the subdivisions. Many have access walkways which go through overgrown areas full of bushes and trees. I am sure that is not to comfortable for women walking alone at night, etc.
This for example does not look pleasant to walk through at night.
http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?msid=212278035587262346137.0004bce5d794e498234cc&msa=0&ll=40.349175,-80.028543&spn=0.000697,0.00142

[ardecila]

Because it's so short and doesn't really provide access to any big new parts of the city or suburbs. On the othe hand, the stadium access should provide a big ridership boost.

[Cirrus]

Sadly inter-modal connections like this are not something American transit systems are known for.

Another generalization based probably on hearing one thing about one system somewhere.

[miketoronto]

Another generalization based probably on hearing one thing about one system somewhere.

No it comes from actually having studied this kind of stuff in school.
Are you aware many transit systems in the USA are not even allowing free transferring between rail and bus or even sometimes between bus routes?

It is a system that also affects other systems in the world, particular in Australia.

[M II A II R II K]

Auckland is the worst case when it comes to traveling between zones.

[Cirrus]

No it comes from actually having studied this kind of stuff in school.
Congratulations. And I'm a professional transportation planner actually working in the United States.

What you say does happen sometimes, in some places. But it is by absolutely no means broadly true of most systems in the country, or true in the same ways at the same places.

Your problem is not that you say incorrect things. It's that you say things that are correct about particular places and apply them universally to everyone. You repeat this pattern so often that you have totally destroyed your credibility to speak about broad patterns.

[Jonboy1983]

I agree they should be doing that.

Sadly inter-modal connections like this are not something American transit systems are known for.
The planners really need to start thinking outside of what they have been doing for the past 30 years.

I have been looking at the T station locations on google maps. I have to say that many of the small low level suburban stops (which really are just a wood platform on the side of the tracks) have creepy access roads to the subdivisions. Many have access walkways which go through overgrown areas full of bushes and trees. I am sure that is not to comfortable for women walking alone at night, etc.
This for example does not look pleasant to walk through at night.
http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?msid=212278035587262346137.0004bce5d794e498234cc&msa=0&ll=40.349175,-80.028543&spn=0.000697,0.00142

I agree that there are some access points that are either trecherous or creepy. Port Authority might be dropping some of those stops due to lack of ridership. They hinted at something of that sort before when stakeholders (particularly transit users) raised issues regarding the speed of the overall system.

In some of the other urban/suburban parts, I do see where they could build another terminal for bus access to accomodate several bus routes. They do that in a suburb of Philadelphia. Are you familiar with the 69th Street Terminal in Upper Darby Township? Numerous urban and suburban bus routes originate/destinate there along with the Market/Frankfort EL train, the Norristown Speed Line and a series of trolley lines.

Examples of some Pittsburgh area stations where I could see this working include:

Allegheny Station
South Hills Village
Washington Junction
South Hills Junction
Library

I'm proposing a heavy rail/metro line solely underground that would run from the Mexican War Streets on the North Shore, under the Allegheny River, loop through Downtown under the Blvd of the Allies, back up along Grant Street and under Steel Plaza (perpendicullar to the T, and beneath it), out along Centre Avenue through the Hill, North Oakland, and East Liberty, ending with the East Liberty BRT stop. Just 2 blocks away is a bus garage. I think it could be converted into a heavy rail maintenance facility and bus garage, similar to what SEPTA has with the 69th Street terminal...
Another generalization based probably on hearing one thing about one system somewhere.

No it comes from actually having studied this kind of stuff in school.
Are you aware many transit systems in the USA are not even allowing free transferring between rail and bus or even sometimes between bus routes?

It is a system that also affects other systems in the world, particular in Australia.

Congratulations. And I'm a professional transportation planner actually working in the United States.

What you say does happen sometimes, in some places. But it is by absolutely no means broadly true of most systems in the country, or true in the same ways at the same places.

Your problem is not that you say incorrect things. It's that you say things that are correct about particular places and apply them universally to everyone. You repeat this pattern so often that you have totally destroyed your credibility to speak about broad patterns.

Well, you guys probably know more about the subject than I do, and I carry a MA in geography and planning from West Chester University of PA. I took a transportation planning course as well as a slew of other planning classes and intermodal facilities was brought up time and time again. It seems that most of the big cities utilize more intermodal connections/transferrs, but I doubt if they're free. I know there's a fee here in Philadelphia if you're transferring from a regional rail line to, say, a bus or trolley line in Center City (or to another bus). Regional rail, though and to my understanding, I think is free when transferring...

[miketoronto]

Congratulations. And I'm a professional transportation planner actually working in the United States.

What you say does happen sometimes, in some places. But it is by absolutely no means broadly true of most systems in the country, or true in the same ways at the same places.

Your problem is not that you say incorrect things. It's that you say things that are correct about particular places and apply them universally to everyone. You repeat this pattern so often that you have totally destroyed your credibility to speak about broad patterns.

I did not apply it universally to everyone. I said "Sadly inter-modal connections like this are not something American transit systems are known for."

I did not say all American systems don't integrate transit routes well, etc.
But overall there is a lot of work to do in the USA when it comes to integration.

Some systems do well. Others do not.

[glowrock]

I'm not familiar with the alignment in question, but there are probably ways to speed up that travel time for 10% of the cost of a new elevated structure. Stop consolidation, exclusive lanes, signal priority, restricting right/left turning movements for drivers, better police enforcement of regulations, or improving a parallel road to reduce the traffic on Broadway Ave.

There's a saying amongst German transportation planners... Organization before electronics before concrete. You need to try the cheap solutions first and re-organize what you already have before pushing for the megaproject. The problem is, often the cheap solution steps on somebody's toes. Many of the solutions I listed above would permanently inconvenience drivers to assist the transit service.

I think transit advocates need to start having these battles, though. The drivers coming through the corridor may have slower trips, but the businesses and residential properties in the area will benefit from the faster transit service.

Good luck with that in Pittsburgh's case, ardecila. That specific section jonboy referred to is along a narrow street with a narrow ROW, throw in some pretty steep grades and steep hills to the east and a nice little dropoff to the west down towards Liberty Ave... Frankly, it's amazing Pittsburgh has ANY real rail transit, especially in the South Hills. The topography is just not really suited for any sort of transportation, roads being included! :)

Aaron (Glowrock)

[miketoronto]

I agree that there are some access points that are either trecherous or creepy. Port Authority might be dropping some of those stops due to lack of ridership. They hinted at something of that sort before when stakeholders (particularly transit users) raised issues regarding the speed of the overall system.


That would be interesting. The only issue I would have is that some areas would lose access to transit if a stop is removed. Although I guess they take all that into account before.

[glowrock]

"Demand" is not the problem. Pittsburgh has long been a strong transit market (which has eroded recently due to PAT death spiral cuts). The problem is poor organizational management by PAT... which has squandered lots of money on ridiculous projects (like the barely-used Wabash HOV Tunnel)... and is being crushed by legacy costs (pensions). PAT also suffers tepid support from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania... whose transit funding is ad hoc and now under assault by our new Tea Party overlords.

I agree with Cirrus that service cuts shouldn't mean cessation of infrastructure expansion... but admittedly the optics are not good when a half-billion dollar tunnel of questionable merit opens at the same time thousands of people are seeing their bus routes eliminated.

This. Period. Honestly, PAT needs to be completely overhauled in terms of management and it's overall structure. It's unfeasible right now, and with the State basically cutting off most transit funding, PAT will likely damn near disappear without a major overhaul of its legacy costs (which seem to have actually been going down, rather than up, lately. Perhaps the pensioners are finally starting to, well, die off? :))

Lastly, it is a simple fact that transit options here are going to be relatively slow no matter what happens, at least without 100% grade-separation. Between the curves, the steep grades all over the place, the narrow ROW's, it's just not a place amenable to high-speed transportation. And yes, that includes, trains, buses, and cars! Heh

Aaron (Glowrock)

[ardecila]

Good luck with that in Pittsburgh's case, ardecila. That specific section jonboy referred to is along a narrow street with a narrow ROW, throw in some pretty steep grades and steep hills to the east and a nice little dropoff to the west down towards Liberty Ave... Frankly, it's amazing Pittsburgh has ANY real rail transit, especially in the South Hills. The topography is just not really suited for any sort of transportation, roads being included! :)

Aaron (Glowrock)

Several of the proposed ideas could work. I'm not fixated on exclusive lanes. Certainly signal priority should be considered, since it can be installed for $1 or $2 million and greatly impact travel times. Stop consolidation is another one - with fewer stops to make, the trams can move faster. If those stops also have fare machines so that passengers have already paid when they board, that can speed things up even more (obviously this is not necessary unless the stop has more than 5 or 10 people waiting for each tram).

[Wizened Variations]

We can build government railroads far cheaper than we do now.

A) Work 24x7. This may sound silly, but, in much of the world, large scale construction is done 24x7. The same tools can theoretically be used by 3 different crews.

B) Have larger crews per shift. User less huge excavators, bull dozers, etc., and more small front end loaders, etc.

C) Lay a cheap track first, then upgrade the track while a second cheap track is laid next to it. Get the now improved track into service, even if reconditioned railcars are used. Build stations with 2 electrified tracks (4 tracks stations are the best because Express trains move many more people faster). Upgrade the 2nd to high speed electrified service. Run new trains on the one track. Then finish the 1st.

In the 1870s '80s and 90s this type of buildout was routine.

People in the US have forgotten what really needing to get something done in a hurry means. We are a nation of talkers, lint salespeople, and, bulls******. We, today, too often act as though 'talk' =s buildout. However, talk is cheap and infrastructure expensive, so this is understandable.

Of course this would require reducing regulations, shortening environmental statement times, achieving quicker compromises, etc. Until we as a nation do more of this, we will have problems like this on almost all new government transportation buildouts.

It is TOO profitable for TOO many companies and individuals NOW to change this...

[Jonboy1983]

Good luck with that in Pittsburgh's case, ardecila. That specific section jonboy referred to is along a narrow street with a narrow ROW, throw in some pretty steep grades and steep hills to the east and a nice little dropoff to the west down towards Liberty Ave... Frankly, it's amazing Pittsburgh has ANY real rail transit, especially in the South Hills. The topography is just not really suited for any sort of transportation, roads being included! :)

Aaron (Glowrock)
That's just along Boradway Avenue in Beechview. I also included Dormont Borough there, too, where there are several dangerous at-grade crossings, some only 30 or 50 feet apart! If you were to elevate the rail infrastructure there, AND remove some of the less popular stops, you could not only boost speed of the LRT line but also improve connectivity among the residents and commuters in general in that neighborhood.
That would be interesting. The only issue I would have is that some areas would lose access to transit if a stop is removed. Although I guess they take all that into account before.
That's where the bus feeder routes would come into play. Suppose a station is eliminated. If they were to reroute the buses, perhaps a bus could run and provide access that once was initially lost.

Example, Englert Street used to have trolley service on the Overbrook Line before it was overhauled. Since this line has been upgraded to have LRT service, that station went away. However, it is still served via BRT on the South Busway.
Several of the proposed ideas could work. I'm not fixated on exclusive lanes. Certainly signal priority should be considered, since it can be installed for $1 or $2 million and greatly impact travel times. Stop consolidation is another one - with fewer stops to make, the trams can move faster. If those stops also have fare machines so that passengers have already paid when they board, that can speed things up even more (obviously this is not necessary unless the stop has more than 5 or 10 people waiting for each tram).

I can see this working in a few areas. Call me crazy, but I think it will only go so far along the Red Line in Dormont and Beechview, again pertaining to the high-density of the neighborhoods. if I recall, the ROW is on a relatively level grade other than the ravine by Fallowfield Station.

[Jayayess1190]

My video on it:

L1Y6LuNO3hI

Plus photos:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7046/7068962953_61cd6f58ec_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/m877/7068962953/)
Red Line CAF's arrive at Allegheny Station (http://www.flickr.com/photos/m877/7068962953/) by jayayess1190 (http://www.flickr.com/people/m877/), on Flickr

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6050/7025550511_27fa096412_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/m877/7025550511/)
Blue Line heads onto the el (http://www.flickr.com/photos/m877/7025550511/) by jayayess1190 (http://www.flickr.com/people/m877/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7085/7077661015_8f1470b994_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/m877/7077661015/)
Gateway Re-opened (http://www.flickr.com/photos/m877/7077661015/) by jayayess1190 (http://www.flickr.com/people/m877/), on Flickr