It makes a little more sense if you imagine it as a link to an AVR commuter rail system. But overall, I agree it isn't the most promising idea for getting rapid transit to Oakland--for me less because it would require DMUs (which I think are perfectly decent transit trains albeit unnecessarily pricey due to FRA regs) but rather because of the route.

Yeah, I think the route up Boundary and through Oakland via Neville would be an effective, central course without causing too much upheaval at all due to the line's presence -- serving both Pitt and CMU well, and also serving the UPMC developments in Shadyside/Centre Ave.

It's definitely not an ideal route to serve Oakland, but may be the most realistic option, considering the existing rail and rail-friendly infrastructure (and the non-existing infrastructure as well... namely hills, streets, buildings, houses, etc.).

And yeah, a commuter rail line serving the region has the potential to do so much to tie the region together. It could do much to alleviate traffic on the parkway west and 28 for sure.

But is there really enough demand in the Pittsburgh region to justify large-scale commuter rail? Basically, is Pittsburgh even big enough to actually support such a system? I have my doubts.

Right, it just always seemed like they were talking about it as a stand alone service between Hazelwood and Lawrenceville... which puzzled me. Still, if it were linked to the larger AVR commuter system, it still wouldn't be feasible to operate it like a LRT system between Lawrenceville and Hazelwood (which is essentially what they were proposing) -- making short trips between stops over a relatively very short distance. That's just not realistic for a DMU train system anyway, is it?

And I agree that the route is questionable to provide the best link to Oakland. Just not sure going up through the Hill is nothing more than fantasy. I like your gondola ideas though...

Hate to burst the bubble on this one, but it is not a cut and cover tunnel under Neville. It is actually 60+ feet below grade for most of its alignment underneath Oakland. It is also not wide enough for 2 tracks as it sits currently. So the only way to make this possible would be to hand-widen the tunnel for its length (~3000 ft). You would also need to put a station underground to serve Oakland. At Fifth and Neville, that's about 70ft below ground. IMO its just not cost effective. And, as some others have mentioned, I just don't think it would be used enough to justify its cost. I'd still say the best, most cost effective (although very expensive) way to do it is run up 5th ave the whole way from town through Oakland.

:previous: I think for right now, there might be just enough for at least commuter rail network (trains running at select peak travel times). This service could be used as an engine to drive economic development and community planning projects to bring in more people and jobs to the region.

Altho, having a comprehensive LRT system wouldn't be bad either. Dallas has one. Granted, it's a much larger metro area, but still, if Pittsburgh were to have a comprehensive transit system, particularly rail for its "trunk" lines, I think such a system could enhance the overall vitality of the region...

The studies I have seen indicate that there likely is enough potential demand for commuter rail along the AVR and NS corridors, and I suspect conditions have only gotten more favorable. Specifically, back in 2009 they estimated 2700 daily riders for the AVR and 1500 for the NS, and in that version they didn't have the trains getting all the way to Steel Plaza (as was envisioned last I knew), and since then plans have moved forward to build out along the AVR (e.g., the Allegheny Riverfront plan and the ongoing developments in Oakmont/Verona). Of course you could start modestly and expand service over time.

Big-picture-wise, these ideas are viable in part because our topography and local transportation history has led to concentration of development along certain paths, including those. Obviously it has been a rough few decades for some of those areas, but the potential for redevelopment remains high as the tide turns back to growth in the metro.

I take it the NS line is the Pittsburgh-to-Greensburg line. That has less ridership potential than the AVR corridor? I wouldn't have guessed that. Then again, there seems to be growth along the AVR corridor while not so much growth along the Pennsylvania RR corridor...

Yep, which means the AVR scores better in terms of operating and maintenance costs per rider, although the NS plan would require a lower capital investment (mostly because the AVR trackage would need about $50M more work).

Here is the 2009 study if people are interested:

http://www.westmorelandtransit.com/p...RT_6-25-09.pdf

[QUOTE=glowrock;5679373][QUOTE=PghSH22;5679360]

Wow, comparisons of Pittsburgh with places like Rome, Manhattan and Seoul? Are you freaking kidding me? Not to mention that none of these places have topographical challenges quite the way Pittsburgh's got them?


Im pretty sure I didn't compare Pittsburgh to those cities, and even specifically mentioned that I do not think it is possible to compare them due to the size differences. I was using my experience living in very well connected cities as a reference for why it is so apparent to me how terribly connected pittsburgh is when I go home. And if you wanted to compare, Rome and Seoul certainly have just as many topographical challenges as Pittsburgh, if not more. But we're not comparing here....... My point was that while Pittsburgh has pocketed walkable communities, these communities are not well connected or serviced to make neighborhood hopping throughout them very feasible without your own car. I think that is pretty apparent.



Walkability and connectivity are two different things. I do not think Pittsburgh will ever be fully "walkable" from one end to the other (which I never said) because of its natural geographical barriers. I was emphasizing the need for better public transportation between the different neighborhoods and areas of the central core. You can reference walking commuters surveys all day but its a reality that the personal car is king when getting around Pittsburgh, and that really is a shame in my opinion. While Pittsburgh may compare well to similarly sized cities in the United States and against larger sunbelt cities, that doesn't mean its situation is in a desirable state. I can't imagine how much more pleasant of an experience it would be for city residents and tourists alike to have quick and cheap access to all of the major neighborhoods within city limits. It would make Pittsburgh feel more like a single city rather than a collection of small towns.

I'm not sure where these homicidal cab fleets do their business in Manhattan as I haven't seen or heard any of that in the 2 years I've been here. The majority of Manhattan is not super crowded with crazy traffic and death cabs as many people often believe. Outside of the main tourist/corporate zoned of midtown, it is very pleasant to walk around and assuredly safe. It is very possible to be the only person on a street in the villages at any time of the day. This obviously has nothing to do with Pittsburgh but I feel the need to dispel the misconceptions a lot of people have of new york as some sort of unsafe traffic nightmare. Obviously there are accidents and many more here than in other cities due to the much larger population, but it certainly isn't a visible risk that people here deal with on a daily basis.

Why aren't the rivers better utilized for transporting from one neighborhood to another? I know there's some river taxi fleets, but I've never used one nor do I know anyone who has. Or even how/where to get one. Was thinking something higher capacity and with a regular schedule.

Well, it would be really slow for the distance traveled and not feasible right now due to the current state of Pittsburgh's riverfronts. We really are still VERY disconnected from the riverfronts. There are very few places where a neighborhood connects with and provides access right to the river -- and these "neighborhoods" are the North Shore, Station Square, and maybe include Southside Works.

Basically, where would a river taxi dock? And what would a passenger do to get to their destination once they got off the water taxi... where would they be and how would they get to where they wanted to go?

For instance, there is no infrastructure for a water taxi to dock downtown. And if someone wanted to go from the Southside to Oakland, why would they take all the time to board a boat, ride across a relatively small body of water, get off the boat, and then have to take a bus into Oakland? Much faster and easier to drive across the Birmingham or Hot Metal Bridge. Same goes for if someone wanted to travel from farther down or up any of the river valleys... just not an efficient or effective way of getting around Pittsburgh.

I've never been to Seoul, but I've been to Rome. Compared to Pittsburgh, Rome has a lot of nice big contiguous relatively flat spots. Compare:

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=rome&l...gl=us&t=p&z=12

with:

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=pittsb...nsylvania&z=12

Incidentally, the economics of water taxi service tend to be pretty bad from a cost per rider perspective.

[QUOTE=BrianTH;5684909]I've never been to Seoul, but I've been to Rome. Compared to Pittsburgh, Rome has a lot of nice big contiguous relatively flat spots. Compare:

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=rome&l...gl=us&t=p&z=12

with:

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=pittsb...nsylvania&z=12

Rome also has 2,000 + years of historically significant architecture/subterranean archaeological sites to contend with in between the famous 7 hills is it built around http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_hills_of_Rome

There really isn't any city on earth that has to contend with such difficult preservation issues when constructing modern conveniences such as roadways, train lines, subways etc. Again, this was not the point that I was making at all, as I clearly stated that Pittsburgh should not be compared to these cities. My mentioning them was simply used as a point of reference to explain an opinion. The main point that I was making has obviously been lost in this bizarre deflection of the fact that Pittsburgh is severely lacking in public transportation/connectivity/accessibility throughout its neighborhoods.

This is very true, and we talked a bit about the problem's roots in the region's challenging topography and development history.

The lack of connectivity between neighborhoods and municipalities in greater Pittsburgh is quite evident... not just when you are trying to get around, but also in the attitudes and lack of basic familiarity with neighboring communities displayed by the population. Pittsburgh is very fractured -- that's a fact, due to the physical structure of the land and to the types of settlements and industries which characterized and developed the region -- but we can't continue to use it as an excuse and allow the billion municipalities that comprise the region to act independently to the detriment of the greater whole.

Connecting these billion communities via smart transit needs to be one of the first steps, in my opinion.

Hee hee... for some reason, a friend of mine emailed me this 8 year old "article" today...


Urban Planner Stuck In Traffic Of Own Design

http://www.theonion.com/articles/urb...n-design,1704/

MARCH 10, 2004 | ISSUE 48•17 ISSUE 40•10

PITTSBURGH, PA—Bernard Rothstein, an urban planner and traffic-flow modulation specialist with the Urban Redevelopment Authority, found himself stuck in rush-hour traffic of his own design for more than an hour Monday.

http://o.onionstatic.com/images/arti...0x1000_q85.jpg
Rothstein contemplates traffic-flow problems

"This happens every weeknight," Rothstein said, inching through the Allegheny Center district he designed in 1987. "When will I learn to avoid this part of town during rush hour?"

The gridlock-bound Rothstein, who has worked in urban planning for 24 years, passed the time by devising possible modifications to his original design.

"A direct path to I-279 and wider on-ramps would have helped, for starters," Rothstein said, drumming his fingers on the steering wheel. "Sure, a six-lane street wouldn't look as nice as that tree-lined square with the fountain—Jesus, lady! Move!—but with six lanes, I wouldn't be sitting here breathing fumes."

I agree with this notion completely, Private Dick. One of the biggest issues is that Pittsburgh is fractured, not just geographically but also culturally. It really does make it difficult to convince enough people that such niceties as legitimate transit connections between and amongst the various neighborhoods is really necessary. Don't get me wrong, I'm definitely not one who abides by that sort of backwards-logic, but I also realize that it does make things extremely difficult, both from an engineering (solvable, thankfully) and political (not as easy to solve!) perspective.

I've only lived here for a year (in fact, today is my one-year anniversary of living here! :banana:), and I've witnessed the fracturing myself numerous times. People tend to stick to their own neighborhoods, regarding the major highways and especially the bridges and tunnels almost as if I might view a national border. There is an extremely provincial attitude that prevails amongst the long-time residents here that does make it difficult to get many projects going forward, especially those involving connecting various neighborhoods. Hopefully, with the influx of new residents (especially those NOT from SW PA), this will change over time. I don't expect any revolutionary changes for quite a number of years, however...

Aaron (Glowrock)

Lot 24

4/18/12
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8162/6...10039088_b.jpg


4/26/12
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7250/6...8f31e621_b.jpg

That may well be true, but I don't see what that has to do with topography affecting walkability, which was Aaron's point I believe.

I agree nothing much should turn on this, but I do think this is a lesson in not unnecessarily bundling together walkability and transit issues.

Aaron was suggesting that I was trying to suggest that Pittsburgh should be equally measured against Rome Seoul and manhattan, which I wasn't and have now stated three times. Also stated multiple times was the fact that I wasn't necessarily commenting on only walkability, but more so connectivity. My point was that since Pittsburgh as a whole is naturally very unwalkable, it therefore would greatly benefit better transportation to increase accessibility throughout. I was directly responding to a comment that said Pittsburgh is "incredibly walkable", which I strongly disagree with. If a city is not walkable do to natural or boundaries then it is very reasonable to suggest that public transportation can and should help the situation. I do not not see how that is unnecessarily bundling walkability and transit issues, as they both determine how a population moves throughout a city and can affect one another. I think the lesson here is to actually read what someone posts before mischaracterizing it with defensive comments that aren't relevant to the original argument.

It appears that several of us read your Post #913, which was purportedly a critical response to Evergrey's Post #909, in a similar way. Perhaps it was all a misunderstanding, but in that case I would suggest taking my comment as constructive criticism, rather than simply blaming your audience.

Congrats, Glowrock! I agree that the continuing trend of non-SWPAers moving to Pittsburgh will transform the region and break down provincialism and hyper-localism. As a non-SWPAer, I have always used the entire region as my playground... unencumbered by perceived psycho-geographical barriers.