PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown III

[hammersklavier]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

To be blunt, the T is pretty crappy technology. It has very little to commend it over BRT, particularly electrified BRT.

Quite the opposite, actually: Pittsburgh's T, like Boston's Green Line, Philadelphia's Subway-Surface Lines, and San Francisco's Muni Metro, is one of the systems that informed the development of light rail in other American and Canadian cities -- particularly Seattle, Denver, Salt Lake, Houston, Dallas, Phoenix, and even Baltimore and Buffalo in the US, and Edmonton and Calgary in Canada -- with varying degrees of success. The real problem Pittsburgh's T has is really that it doesn't really link the most popular parts of town together; were, for example, Oakland, Wilkinsburg, and East Liberty linked to Downtown via the T, I am sure the system would be much more popular. Frankly, I think Pittsburgh should think about what Ottawa recently did, where they converted their busway to a light rail line. But that almost certainly requires a more expansive rethink of what the city wants out of the T system as well.

Pittsburgh also historically had extensive commuter rail. Off the top of my head, I am aware of six (!!) commuter rail lines the PRR used to run into Penn Station (five of which I'm pretty certain I've figured out), as well as commuter rail offered by the P&LE and B&O. Modern commuter rail is not so hard to invest in -- Utah's FrontRunner is perhaps a standout example, and so is Nashville's starter line in how to do it cheaply, and there's plenty of corridors to play around with in the Pittsburgh metro. And of course, on top of that, all of Pittsburgh's peers -- New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, Baltimore/DC -- have extensive commuter rail systems. To say it would not work in the Burgh is frankly provincialism at its worst.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

Quite the opposite, actually: Pittsburgh's T, like Boston's Green Line, Philadelphia's Subway-Surface Lines, and San Francisco's Muni Metro, is one of the systems that informed the development of light rail in other American and Canadian cities -- particularly Seattle, Denver, Salt Lake, Houston, Dallas, Phoenix, and even Baltimore and Buffalo in the US, and Edmonton and Calgary in Canada -- with varying degrees of success.

I don't know the details of all those other systems. What I do know is the T uses slow, low-capacity vehicles on a non-standard gauge. That's all very limiting. And with electrified articulated buses, you are not really losing much if anything to commend the T.

and there's plenty of corridors to play around with in the Pittsburgh metro.

As I understand it, most of the lines you'd really want to use for commuter rail, the freight operators who own the lines don't want to share because they have plenty of freight traffic already. And for the same reasons it is expensive to build any conventional surface transportation around here, it would be expensive to build more heavy rail lines--too many tunnels, bridges, winding paths, and so forth required.

And commuter rail economics is--interesting. You can end up with pretty large subsidies for not a lot of passengers who are not necessarily the population who needs to be subsidized (the subsidies are necessary because otherwise the ticket prices would be so high the ridership would drop way down, ticket prices would have to be higher still, and then you get system death). That's not always true if you have the right density levels, but that leads to . . . .

all of Pittsburgh's peers -- New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, Baltimore/DC -- have extensive commuter rail systems. To say it would not work in the Burgh is frankly provincialism at its worst.

It depends on what you mean by not working. Every CSA you named is much larger in population than Pittsburgh's, and has a very different topography and development pattern. For example, I believe Philly has the smallest CSA population on your list of "peers", and it is about 2.7 times the size of the Pittsburgh CSA, and also with about 2.6 times the weighted average density.

Weighted average density is a useful measure in this context because it really captures whether a lot of people actually live near each other for transit routing purposes. Unfortunately, although Pittsburgh has the 21st biggest CSA population, it is only something like 50th in weighted average density.

That's just the mathematical representation of what I noted before--our topography breaks up our development patterns in a very unusual way. And the result is mile for mile of commuter rail, you are going to string together a lot less potential riders in Pittsburgh than in most cities of its population size, or indeed some smaller ones too.

I don't love being so dismal on Pittsburgh rail transit issues, but after a lot of thinking about it I have come to the conclusion it does no good not to acknowledge them. The practical consequence of these sorts of issues is if you put together a rail transit proposal for Pittsburgh and it goes into a competitive process with other rail transit proposals from other more conventional cities, particularly higher population ones--it is going to end up scoring poorly in terms of expected rider benefits as a ratio of both capital and operating costs.

So I do think we need to get creative, and think about what transit technologies can really work efficiently for us at a cost we can get funded.

[hammersklavier]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I don't know the details of all those other systems. What I do know is the T uses slow, low-capacity vehicles on a non-standard gauge. That's all very limiting.

Gauge turns out to be (almost) a non-issue with light and heavy vehicles. Recall here that Philadelphia uses the exact same non-standard gauge, and it's never been considered a problem. Also line speed isn't on the vehicles: it's usually on the maintenance (or lack thereof) of the railbed and railhead. (Where it isn't, it's on track geometry.) This is a problem historically associated with the CTA and increasingly with the underfunded (again) MTA -- again, symptomatic of lack of investment in the system. These problems are, again, hardly limited to Pittsburgh's T system, and are part and parcel of every large mass transit system in the country.

As I understand it, most of the lines you'd really want to use for commuter rail, the freight operators who own the lines don't want to share because they have plenty of freight traffic already.

Keep in mind here that Chicago, Boston, DC/Baltimore, LA, San Francisco, Seattle, Montréal, Toronto, and Vancouver all have commuter rail lines that share ROW with freight mainlines. (New York and Philadelphia are interesting; the only reason they do not is because of changes in traffic patterns associated with the formation of Conrail.) Oftentimes, as is the case with Chicago's Metra, the commuter rail operator will subcontract ops out to the freight railroad, too!

And commuter rail economics is--interesting. You can end up with pretty large subsidies for not a lot of passengers who are not necessarily the population who needs to be subsidized (the subsidies are necessary because otherwise the ticket prices would be so high the ridership would drop way down, ticket prices would have to be higher still, and then you get system death). That's not always true if you have the right density levels, but that leads to . . . .

But that's the chicken-and-egg problem, isn't it? Most mass transit riders are relatively poorer and curry little political power. It's hard to get good mass transit rolling because it's too politicized, but the best way to do so is to provide mass transit options that the people who usually control the purse strings want to ride. This has worked across the country, in states as diverse as California (Metrolink is a recent network) and Texas (so is Trinity Rail Express). It has worked in cities with the same size population as Pittsburgh as well (the Salt Lake CSA, which Frontrunner serves). And it has worked in conurbations with relatively challenging topography. The big issue with commuter rail is that it's a loss leader: while it tends to have relatively poor financial performance by most metrics, it makes up for it by having better publicity and by offering a good-quality mass transit option to wealthier suburbanites, which in turn makes them more disposed to funding mass transit in general, which the agencies (if they're smart) can then plow into the financially-better-performing core service. There is no reason whatsoever this dynamic cannot work in Pittsburgh as well. And as a side effect, commuter rail can help provide a value platform for rehabilitating its down-on-the-luck towns like Brownsville and Charleroi.

It depends on what you mean by not working. Every CSA you named is much larger than Pittsburgh's, and has a very different topography and development pattern. Philly has the smallest CSA on your list of "peers", and it is about 2.7 times the size with about 2.6 times the weighted average density.

Weighted average density is a useful measure in this context because it really captures whether a lot of people actually live near each other for transit routing purposes. Unfortunately, although Pittsburgh has the 21st biggest CSA population, it is only something like 50th in weighted average density.

That's just the mathematical representation of what I noted before--our topography breaks up our development patterns in a very unusual way.

Honestly, I'm not in love with your model. Suburban transit works best not with a high average density but rather a high nodal density, meaning that the population naturally clusters around suburban nodes. High nodal density makes it easy to locate stops (the nodes, duh) and use the nodes as a platform for leveraging value. And -- unlike weighted average density, a measure that frankly would privilege Las Vegas (a supremely poorly laid-out city for good mass transit) -- Pittsburgh would punch above its weight in terms of nodal density, because the nodes of nodal density are artifacts of prewar development patterns, which Pittsburgh and environs have quite a lot of.

I don't love being so dismal on Pittsburgh rail transit issues, but after a lot of thinking about it I have come to the conclusion it does no good not to acknowledge them. The practical consequence of these sorts of issues is if you put together a rail transit proposal for Pittsburgh and it goes into a competitive process with other rail transit proposals from other more conventional cities--it is going to end up scoring poorly in terms of expected rider benefits in comparison to both capital and operating costs.

So I do think we need to get creative, and think about what transit technologies can really work efficiently for us at a cost we can get funded.

I think you're being overly pessimistic on Pittsburgh tbh. The metro's mill towns and old railroad suburbs contribute to an elevated nodal density, which means that Pittsburgh can get much more bang for its transit buck than either a city like Phoenix with little nodal differentiation in its conurbation or a city like Buffalo with a relatively limited metropolitan area. TBH, as far as cities that could support commuter rail but don't currently have it go, I would say that Pittsburgh is probably the third most cost-effective (after Atlanta and Detroit, but before St. Louis, Cleveland, Columbus, Indianapolis...).

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

Also line speed isn't on the vehicles

Their max speed is something like 65 mph.

Keep in mind here that Chicago, Boston, DC/Baltimore, LA, San Francisco, Seattle, Montréal, Toronto, and Vancouver all have commuter rail lines that share ROW with freight mainlines.

Right, it isn't impossible in general. It is just that in Pittsburgh, there are no important lines the freight operators are willing to share, and building more lines isn't feasible for all the usual reasons around here.

Most mass transit riders are relatively poorer

And ride the bus.

My point was specific to commuter rail.

but the best way to do so is to provide mass transit options that the people who usually control the purse strings want to ride.

So you spend $10-$15 per rider subsidizing a lightly used commuter rail line, with most of those riders being higher income. What exactly does this accomplish? Is your idea those few higher-income riders will now vote to also increase bus funding, and by more than the subsidies we diverted to use on them, and that there will be enough of them to make that a policy?

You'd need to be getting a LOT of riders for that to even be plausible, and if you were getting that many riders we wouldn't need such big subsidies.

which in turn makes them more disposed to funding mass transit in general

Again, a couple thousand higher-income people in Allegheny County get subsidized commuter rail. Your theory is this small amount of people will now have the will and political clout to vote for more funding for PAT buses that actually go where poorer people live?

Honestly, I'm not in love with your model. Suburban transit works best not with a high average density but rather a high nodal density, meaning that the population naturally clusters around suburban nodes.

That's exactly what WEIGHTED average density, rather than regular average density, attempts to represent mathematically. If everyone is clustered in dense nodes, you will get a high weighted average density. If there are more low-density smears and fewer such high density nodes, you will get a lower weighted average density.

Pittsburgh would punch above its weight in terms of nodal density

I really doubt it based on the statistics I have seen and what I am about to discuss. But if you have actual empirical evidence of that, feel free to show it.

because the nodes of nodal density are artifacts of prewar development patterns, which Pittsburgh and environs have quite a lot of.

The Pittsburgh MSA has more people living in postwar developments than many people seem to understand, due to shifting population patterns. Basically, most of the prewar developments started rapidly depopulating while other parts of the MSA were still growing. And many are still growing--see Cranberry, Peters, and so on.

So there used to be a rail service up through towns like Valenica and Mars. But these days far more people live in Cranberry.

The metro's mill towns and old railroad suburbs contribute to an elevated nodal density

Again, you are largely talking about areas which have experienced mass depopulation postwar.

You mentioned Brownsville, for example. Its population peaked at about 8000 in 1940, and in 2010 was down to 2300.

You also mentioned Charleroi--peaked at about 11,500 in 1920, down to 4100 in 2010.

You can go right down the list.

Meanwhile, I mentioned Cranberry. Only about 3600 in 1960, over 28,000 in 2010, likely well over 31,000 in 2020.

Peters was about 3000 in 1950, 21,000 in 2010. And so on.

Again, I really don't LIKE any of this. But the postwar rapid depopulation of these communities you are talking about combined with the autocentric development in the communities I am talking about is precisely why our average weighted density is so low. And I am pretty sure if you ran the actual numbers, so would be what you are calling nodal density, because you are mostly thinking of nodes that have experienced mass depopulation.

And the cost of continually trying to ram a square peg into a round hole is we won't get funding for a square peg. Cities with actual square holes will get it instead.

[BrianTH]

By the way, you can probably use the City of Pittsburgh itself as a proxy for all this. That is actually being generous in terms of relative trends because the City includes some better off areas and postwar development areas. But generally you can at least use it to sort of track what has happened with prewar areas in terms of share.

So as I mentioned, the City peaked at about 52% of Allegheny County population in 1910, and was down to 27% in 2010.

The City in 1910 was right about 7% of the state population in 1910. In 2010 it was about 2.4%.

The City in 1910 was 0.58% of the U.S. population in 1910. In 2010 it was about 0.099%.

Of course the City plus other existing developments as of 1910 would be higher in absolute terms in all these calculations. But in terms of relative decline in share, the trend will be very similar, and possibly worse.

OK, now you can imagine an alternative history where for that century we weren't neglecting transit infrastructure investment and investing so much in automobile infrastructure. In that alternative reality, the Pittsburgh area would not be so smeared out today, and it probably would have lots of nice dense nodes.

But that's not what we did, and the result is what we have today. And now if you run the ridership numbers on the lines we should have built in 1910, they will score a lot worse than they would have scored back then. All while those areas have experienced a large loss of relative political weight at the County, State, and federal level. So we are looking at using far less political weight, to achieve less in terms of rider benefit, at a higher cost. When we couldn't get it done originally with much better numbers.

Once again, this all sucks. But, we can't go back in time, we have to try to figure out what will actually work going forward from here.

[BrianTH]

Just to avoid ending on a completely sour note, some positive trivia.

As many may be aware, the 9.1 mile East Busway gets about the same daily ridership as the entire 26.2 mile T system, circa 25,000.

People will then respond the East Busway should be converted to T and it could do even better.

But, it turns out only about half the East Busway daily ridership (right around 12,500) is on the P1/P2, the lines that actually just run back and forth on the East Busway like a train would.

The other half of the East Busway ridership is on the twelve bus routes that use the East Busway on only part of their route, either originating elsewhere and getting on the East Busway (like my own P71), or in the case of the P3 getting off the Busway to go to Oakland.

And that's something only BRT can really do! You could convert these routes to shuttles which terminate at the Busway, then require transfers to the hypothetical T, but that would suck and very likely would reduce ridership.

And again that particular advantage of BRT, the ability to share infrastructure such as a busway without transfers, is directly benefiting about half the East Busway's ridership!

So, using the right technology for Pittsburgh is not just about getting funding--although for sure that matters. It also really is better for riders too.

[BrianTH]

Also very good news!

https://twitter.com/TransitCenter/st...51080964759553

Federal judge upholds use of Pennsylvania Turnpike toll revenue to fund transit, rejecting lawsuit from truckers and the "National Motorists Association"

[eschaton]

The one relatively high density area which lacks rapid transit in Pittsburgh is Bellevue/Avalon. Which is why it makes sense to eventually - funding permitting of course - extend the T up that direction. Thankfully the T is actually pointing in that direction already, making it one of the simplest places we could extend light rail.

But further suburban lines? No. There's not just enough density in our suburbs to make these lines work. You could do park and rides of course, but they don't solve traffic woes in the longer run. And you could of course infill along new transit lines at higher densities. The problem is, you can do the same thing along the existing transit lines much more cheaply.

[BrianTH]

The AirMall at PIT is apparently doing well financially, but as part of the terminal redesign they are also looking to revamp the retail experience:

https://www.post-gazette.com/busines...s/201904050081

[BrianTH]

So it looks like someone is buying the East Liberty Lutheran Church site, at Penn and Euclid (based on the Under Contract status). Not exactly my favorite church building and a prime location (right across from the upcoming Penn Plaza redo), so I am hoping this is for development purposes:

https://www.loopnet.com/Listing/5707...gh-PA/3669516/

https://www.google.com/maps/place/57...!4d-79.9282405

[Urbanthusiat]

Looks like we'll see some co-living units in Pittsburgh: http://fortune.com/2019/04/02/real-e...ing-expansion/

A 'Co-Living' Provider for Millennials Has Big Expansion Plans

With America’s major cities dealing with a shortage of affordable housing and steadily climbing rents, a slew of companies have entered the “co-living” space in recent years. Taking cues from the “co-working” phenomenon exemplified by WeWork, they’ve looked to build community-oriented living arrangements and shared living spaces, at prices that are more affordable for urban millennial renters.

New York-based Common, which launched in its home town in 2015, claims to be the largest co-living operator in the U.S., with 700 beds in 25 properties across six cities. And it’s now plotting its largest expansion yet, Fortune has learned. Common is teaming up with real estate developers in Philadelphia, Atlanta, Pittsburgh and San Diego on $300 million worth of new properties in those cities over the next three years. The projects will more than quadruple Common’s current footprint—adding more than 2,200 beds for rent across the four new markets.

...

Beyond Philadelphia, the company is pursuing a $75 million expansion in Atlanta that will bring about 600 beds; another $75 million worth of projects in Pittsburgh that will add more than 300 beds; and $60 million worth of investments in San Diego that will produce another 300 beds.

“All of these cities have scale…they have transit, and they have a really vibrant cultural scene,” Hargreaves says of Common’s selection of its new markets. Those are all important considerations for the company’s tenant base, who have a median age of 30 and a median income of $70,000 per year but can still find city rents to be out of reach.

[BenM]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

The AirMall at PIT is apparently doing well financially, but as part of the terminal redesign they are also looking to revamp the retail experience:

https://www.post-gazette.com/busines...s/201904050081

But they didn't answer the truly important question. Where are the statues of Franco and George going to wind up?

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

So it looks like someone is buying the East Liberty Lutheran Church site, at Penn and Euclid (based on the Under Contract status). Not exactly my favorite church building and a prime location (right across from the upcoming Penn Plaza redo), so I am hoping this is for development purposes:

https://www.loopnet.com/Listing/5707...gh-PA/3669516/

https://www.google.com/maps/place/57...!4d-79.9282405

Hopefully whoever gets the property will work out some deal with the city to get the property realigned so that the wide turn lane is eliminated. I know there are already plans to do that with the new LG development on the southern side of the intersection. Having a tight corner there on all sides would look so sweet.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Having a tight corner there on all sides would look so sweet.

Seems like a pedestrian/safety issue as well. If stuff is being developed on both sides you would want convenient and safe crossing.

[Zachary R. English]

Carlow University has announced plans to develop the surface parking lot on Fifth across from Craft. 225,000 square feet. 6-8 stories. Retail and parking. Carlow would occupy 100,000 sq ft and the rest would be commercially available.

http://https://www.post-gazette.com/...s/201904080121

[Austinlee]

Originally Posted by Urbanthusiat

Looks like we'll see some co-living units in Pittsburgh: http://fortune.com/2019/04/02/real-e...ing-expansion/

Wow, this is interesting. I have never heard of this before.
I actually think 70k is more than enough to live in a half decent neighborhood in Pittsburgh. Surprised we are in there with more expensive cities. I will be interested to see if they have success with this business model.

[eschaton]

It looks like there is finally a solid plan moving forward to fill in the blank spot along Forward Avenue where the Squirrel Hill Theatre used to be. The new plan is a joint Action Housing/Brandywine Agency project, which will build a new six-story apartment building called Flats on Forward. The development will include 11,000 square feet of retail space, 24,000 square feet of office space on two floors, and 43 units of low-income housing, which will presumably be on the upper three floors. This is the second low-income development Action Housing has done on this block, as the 33-unit Krause Commons was also their project (IIRC, senior housing). Brandywine will manage the retail and office space, with Action Housing only responsible for the rentals.

While I certainly think that Squirrel Hill is stable enough to handle additional units of low income housing, I have to admit I'm perplexed that a market-rate new construction apartment in Squirrel Hill was apparently not tenable.

[eschaton]

Also, the URA April agenda for tomorrow is online. Not really all that much in terms of new news other than Flats on Forward. The rehab of 412 Boulevard of the Allies is moving along, as is the sale of the plot for the new South Side Works apartment building. It looks like a portion of the still vacant SSW waterfront is to be sold to build a clubhouse for the marina - not the highest and best use, but better than the vacant lot there currently.

[guyFROMtheBURGH]

Per Pittsburgh Business Times, a new R&D center will open at Stacks at 3 Crossings for the CMU spin off. They'll be training surgical robots there. The future is here, people!

https://www.bizjournals.com/pittsbur..._news_headline

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by Austinlee

Wow, this is interesting. I have never heard of this before.
I actually think 70k is more than enough to live in a half decent neighborhood in Pittsburgh. Surprised we are in there with more expensive cities. I will be interested to see if they have success with this business model.

I think these developments will be pretty big with those who work in the service industry. Waiters, bartenders, etc.

They're doing two great looking projects in Philly: