PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown II

[GeneW]

Originally Posted by Evergrey

Starve investment in Pittsburgh passenger rail infrastructure to the point where train travel from the city becomes non-competitive... and then you can cut the service by claiming it's not competitive. It's an innovative strategy that really forward-looking governments use.

Yea, that was basically my reaction. You make train travel as unattractive and noncompetitive in price as possible and then act surprised that no one uses it.

[Found5dollar]

Ok, seriously guys, you need to head to East Liberty soon There is so much development going on it is next to impossible to figure out where one development ends and the other begins. i went to Target this morning and was absolutely shocked at everything that was happening. The two big news items I noticed were:

A) Bakery Square 2.0 has begun demolition on the Reizenstein School. looks like ground breaking will be in March. http://www.cpexecutive.com/cities/pi...ound-in-march/

B) a new development was just announced with big banners on the building across the street from Target. Alphabet City Co.will develop the three buildings at the corner of Penn ave and Penn circle into a retail and office project with 9,200 to 10,000 square feet of rentable space per floor. This whole Alphabet City development company seems to have a history with Walnut Capital... i am intrigued... http://www.oxforddevelopment.com/alp...-east-liberty/

floor plans and such can be found here: http://www.alphabetcityco.com/conten...ast-liberty-pa

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Evergrey

Starve investment in Pittsburgh passenger rail infrastructure to the point where train travel from the city becomes non-competitive... and then you can cut the service by claiming it's not competitive. It's an innovative strategy that really forward-looking governments use.

Exactly my thought.

The contrast with the Philly-Harrisburg route is illuminating. They have invested a lot in upgrading that line, and now it is very well-used with frequent service. Of course Pittsburgh is not the same size market as Philly, and upgrading the line on to Pittsburgh will be more expensive and challenging, but still, it indicates the demand is there if you give it a chance.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Found5dollar

a new development was just announced with big banners on the building across the street from Target.

I was bummed to find out his plan is to demo the building on the corner, which is a nice old building and serves as a sort of gateway into the historic core of East Liberty:

http://goo.gl/maps/lk9u1

On the plus side, the Oxford Development post had this information:

Meanwhile, a plan to replace a long-closed PNC Bank branch with a movie theater and apartments is moving ahead after preliminary terms were reached with a senior lender, said Nate Cunningham, director of commercial real estate with ELDI, whose organization is developing the project with Blasier Urban LLC. He called it a “huge” step forward in generating full financing.

It is nice to see what I know of as "The Odeon" is making progress on financing:

http://www.theodeonbuilding.com/

However, it looks to me like they have also eliminated what used to be a plan to preserve some historic facades along Penn as part of the project.

New:



Old:

[Jonboy1983]

Originally Posted by GeneW

Yea, that was basically my reaction. You make train travel as unattractive and noncompetitive in price as possible and then act surprised that no one uses it.

I'm not sure if our state is just STUPID or if they just don't give two shits about our infrastructure...

I'm actually beginning to think that that McCormick-Taylor HSR study some years back was a forgery. Is Harrisburg even paying attention at the strides Pittsburgh is making economically? US Airways discontinued air service about 5 years ago, and without decent rail transportation, the strongest economy in the state will be completely isolated from the state capital unless you drive or rely on subpar bus service (yes, it's subpar because it's popular among winos and other low-lifes -- based on personal experience!!)

If Allegheny County was smart (I know they're not, so this argument is moot), they'd begin discussions with Cuyahoga County to develop some inter city initiative to improve rail transportation with Cleveland. Pennsylvania and Ohio should really be in a discussion here, but I take it neither party is at all interested. They'd rather shoot themselves in the foot with a rocket launcher...

Regarding the latest East Liberty development, wow!

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I was bummed to find out his plan is to demo the building on the corner, which is a nice old building and serves as a sort of gateway into the historic core of East Liberty:

Yeah, I'd like to see them keep at least that 3-story, front portion of the Yen's building, and demo the long 2-story, rear portion. You just can't get old buildings of that quality back. Really, the rest of that block between Yen's and what I think was called the Liberty Building on the corner, could be knocked down without much loss, as those low commercial buildings seem to have been altered over the years beyond repair... or at least what would be feasible to repair.

The Odeon development looks to be a huge addition to the neighborhood, and I'm particularly interested in that amazon chick stepping off the sidewalk.

[glowrock]

Give East Liberty another 2-3 years and I think it's going to end up being pretty freaking amazing. The Odeon project looks fantastic, no doubt about it!

As for the state and the situation with Amtrak, let's face facts, Corbett just couldn't give two shits about Pittsburgh. He doesn't really care about anything other than the oil & gas companies, quite frankly. He's so biased it's not even funny, and hell, I'm IN that industry!

Corbett's a useless sack of crap, period. Once he goes away (hopefully!), then there's a chance of getting better rail service. Until then, I think we're more or less screwed.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[Austinlee]

WHAT?!?!

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

Yeah, I'd like to see them keep at least that 3-story, front portion of the Yen's building, and demo the long 2-story, rear portion. You just can't get old buildings of that quality back. Really, the rest of that block between Yen's and what I think was called the Liberty Building on the corner, could be knocked down without much loss, as those low commercial buildings seem to have been altered over the years beyond repair... or at least what would be feasible to repair.

Agreed all around.

[BrianTH]

You would think I would have learned by now this forum doesn't autoshrink large images.

[East Edge]

The East Liberty transformation has been exciting to watch and I am pleased to see such a high caliber of development taking place over there. WOW that odean looks GREAT! But to Glowrock's comment in the place being pretty amazing in a few years, I agree, but once that happens can we please shift our focus of assistance, tiffs, subsidies, etc, elsewhere in the city where it really needs it? I think that enough has taken place over there now for the private market to take over and invest in an area that in the past was so vulnerable. Meanwhile, neighborhoods elsewhere are slipping into the abyss.

I get that you need to keep building off of the strong areas to have the best impact but lets identify someother strategic investment centers to seed development in and around those neighborhoods. South, West, North...

We can now see what a huge focus like East Liberty did to solidify Shadyside and Highland Park, imagine what that same impact to do shore up the West End, or to the Southside by focusing on the Hilltop neighborhoods. Uptown between Downtown and Oakland could make alot of sense too, maybe around improved transit between these 2 financial centers. Lets work to create a market in these places too.

[BrianTH]

I'm definitely not opposed to looking for development opportunities in the Hilltop and West End that would benefit from public support. But I think it is worth noting there are still lots of areas to the North and East where some public component is likely to remain necessary for an extended period of time (e.g., Homewood).

I'd also note that things like TIFs are not a zero-sum game.

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I'm definitely not opposed to looking for development opportunities in the Hilltop and West End that would benefit from public support. But I think it is worth noting there are still lots of areas to the North and East where some public component is likely to remain necessary for an extended period of time (e.g., Homewood).

I'd also note that things like TIFs are not a zero-sum game.

I think the West End would be a great place for a relatively small amount of public investment that could be a starter fund for substantial private dollars. The proximity to downtown, the low cost of housing, the relatively good housing stock conditions, they all lead me to believe that it could be an area on the rebound in the next couple of years.

As for the Hilltop areas (Arlington, Knoxville, Belzhoover, etc...), while there are areas that are certainly going to continue their downward trajectory, I believe the continuing gentrification of the South Side is going to head on up to the top of the Slopes at some point. The areas closest to the Slopes will likely see some reinvestment soon, while it will certainly take longer in some other areas. Allentown seems to be somewhat holding its own, though, and I'm glad to see it. Belz, well, who knows what will happen there. It's so bombed out that perhaps it might only take a relatively small amount of new blood to start a slow revitalization of the neighborhood? Not sure...

Aaron (Glowrock)

[gallacus]

So, I'm all for increasing rail options into Pittsburgh, the more rail the better IMO, but the more I ask myself why I think that way, mostly it's just because I feel emotional about it. Riding on a bus is depressing, but riding on a train is really fun, almost a romantic way to see the country from a vantage point you can't get otherwise. I really have no economic or feasible reason for wanting more rail other than that. So, my question is, are you all the same? Or is there some reason why it is actually better to spend a gagillion dollars on rail when you could just slap a bus on a highway and call it a day? Both options get people from A to B, just seems like improving rail infrastructure is ridiculously expensive, especially between here and Harrisburg.

[Grego43]

Originally Posted by gallacus

So, I'm all for increasing rail options into Pittsburgh, the more rail the better IMO, but the more I ask myself why I think that way, mostly it's just because I feel emotional about it. Riding on a bus is depressing, but riding on a train is really fun, almost a romantic way to see the country from a vantage point you can't get otherwise. I really have no economic or feasible reason for wanting more rail other than that. So, my question is, are you all the same? Or is there some reason why it is actually better to spend a gagillion dollars on rail when you could just slap a bus on a highway and call it a day? Both options get people from A to B, just seems like improving rail infrastructure is ridiculously expensive, especially between here and Harrisburg.

Take your thoughts further...slap a bus on a highway and remove planes from the air and end the huge subsidies to airport infrastructure. Put more cars on the roads and remove big expensive busses. Put horse and buggy sets on the ground and get rid of the cars. Trains (when they are done right) are about moving large numbers of people quickly, efficiently, and with short head ways. Most of the first, second and some of the third world does it, but with the exception of the NEC, the US is woefully behind.

[gallacus]

Originally Posted by Grego43

Take your thoughts further...slap a bus on a highway and remove planes from the air and end the huge subsidies to airport infrastructure. Put more cars on the roads and remove big expensive busses. Put horse and buggy sets on the ground and get rid of the cars. Trains (when they are done right) are about moving large numbers of people quickly, efficiently, and with short head ways. Most of the first, second and some of the third world does it, but with the exception of the NEC, the US is woefully behind.

Ok, I see your point there, you have to draw the line somewhere, but unless I'm wrong trains have no real advantage over buses, especially when taking into consideration the topography between here and Harrisburg. It would cost an amazing amount of money to get the train between here and Harrisburg to rival a bus in terms of speed, let alone to surpass it. Planes, on the other hand, are inherently much faster. So, in my mind, trains to buses end up being somewhat of an apples-to-apples comparison, whereas the others (buses vs. planes, cars, buggies, etc.) are not. Ultimately, it just seems like the logical thing to do to abandon passenger rail in this area. And again, I say this as somewhat of a rail enthusiast. I take the train whenever possible, knowing fully that it will make my trip more expensive and take longer.

[Jonboy1983]

Originally Posted by gallacus

So, I'm all for increasing rail options into Pittsburgh, the more rail the better IMO, but the more I ask myself why I think that way, mostly it's just because I feel emotional about it. Riding on a bus is depressing, but riding on a train is really fun, almost a romantic way to see the country from a vantage point you can't get otherwise. I really have no economic or feasible reason for wanting more rail other than that. So, my question is, are you all the same? Or is there some reason why it is actually better to spend a gagillion dollars on rail when you could just slap a bus on a highway and call it a day? Both options get people from A to B, just seems like improving rail infrastructure is ridiculously expensive, especially between here and Harrisburg.

Originally Posted by Grego43

Take your thoughts further...slap a bus on a highway and remove planes from the air and end the huge subsidies to airport infrastructure. Put more cars on the roads and remove big expensive busses. Put horse and buggy sets on the ground and get rid of the cars. Trains (when they are done right) are about moving large numbers of people quickly, efficiently, and with short head ways. Most of the first, second and some of the third world does it, but with the exception of the NEC, the US is woefully behind.

Yep, that's how I feel as well. I love gliding along a steel rail observing the change in aesthetic scenery as I travel from place to place. On a bus, I don't see much, and for a good amount of the trip, some wino uses my head as a makeshift pillow. Not fun!! I'd rather pay the extra few bucks and have a better experience!

Ever listen to the 1971 song "City of New Orleans?" That song made me fall in love with rail travel. I think trains drive economic growth and reinvestment in our urban centers. They also bring something else to the table that is not quantifyable... In addition to bringing reinvestment to some places, those said places just seem more vibrant, more alive...

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by gallacus

So, my question is, are you all the same? Or is there some reason why it is actually better to spend a gagillion dollars on rail when you could just slap a bus on a highway and call it a day? Both options get people from A to B, just seems like improving rail infrastructure is ridiculously expensive, especially between here and Harrisburg.

I've read a lot of the literature on this issue, and I do think there is a reasonable answer to your question, and it comes down to passenger rail, when done right, being a much more efficient and effective competitor versus airplanes than buses for intercity travel. That's through a combination of factors including the quality and reliability of service, speed, secondary economic effects which can be monetized (e.g., commercial development in and around stations), and various operating efficiencies (including electrification, which is getting all the more important as petroleum products become more expensive and carbon pricing becomes more and more likely).

And that superior ability to compete with airplanes is very important when you realize there are significant capacity constraints in our air system which themselves would take "gagillions" of dollars to address. Accordingly, when you contemplate a future of rising demand for high-speed intercity travel (as the United States becomes ever more populous and affluent), and take proper account of the costs of meeting that demand with airplanes versus trains, it becomes pretty obvious it is foolish to insist on a plan of entirely meeting that demand with airplanes, when we know of a variety of specific sorts of situations in which highspeed trains can compete economically and effectively with airplanes.

[gallacus]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I've read a lot of the literature on this issue, and I do think there is a reasonable answer to your question, and it comes down to passenger rail, when done right, being a much more efficient and effective competitor versus airplanes than buses for intercity travel. That's through a combination of factors including the quality and reliability of service, speed, secondary economic effects which can be monetized (e.g., commercial development in and around stations), and various operating efficiencies (including electrification, which is getting all the more important as petroleum products become more expensive and carbon pricing becomes more and more likely).

And that superior ability to compete with airplanes is very important when you realize there are significant capacity constraints in our air system which themselves would take "gagillions" of dollars to address. Accordingly, when you contemplate a future of rising demand for high-speed intercity travel (as the United States becomes ever more populous and affluent), and take proper account of the costs of meeting that demand with airplanes versus trains, it becomes pretty obvious it is foolish to insist on a plan of entirely meeting that demand with airplanes, when we know of a variety of specific sorts of situations in which highspeed trains can compete economically and effectively with airplanes.

So, what you're saying is, our elected officials should be thinking about the future, long-term benefits of rail infrastructure investment instead of a cheap, quick fix? Dammit, why does it always come down to that.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by gallacus

but unless I'm wrong trains have no real advantage over buses, especially when taking into consideration the topography between here and Harrisburg. It would cost an amazing amount of money to get the train between here and Harrisburg to rival a bus in terms of speed, let alone to surpass it.

I think you are wrong here. It would indeed take a decent amount of money to get high-speed rail between here and Harrisburg (then on to Philly and other points east, although much of that is already upgraded), but if it was done, the train would be MUCH faster than a bus, and for the other reasons I noted above would be a much better competitor with airplanes. Of course this is also just one link in the chain--in the long run, fast enough trains could compete for passengers from, say, Chicago to Philly.

Planes, on the other hand, are inherently much faster. So, in my mind, trains to buses end up being somewhat of an apples-to-apples comparison, whereas the others (buses vs. planes, cars, buggies, etc.) are not.

So trains are "inherently" faster than buses (e.g., modern trains are easily capable of regularly operating at speeds of 150 mph or more). On the other hand, planes are only faster than trains once they are flying, and the total trip time for planes is encumbered by the time-consuming periods before and after the actual flight. That's part of why high-speed trains have proven effective competitors with planes whenever the routes in question are not too long--below a certain trip length, the airplanes don't make up enough time in the air to offset the extra time they take before and after.

I take the train whenever possible, knowing fully that it will make my trip more expensive and take longer.

But it shouldn't be that way. Trains with little or no operating subsidies are taking market share away from airplanes in many different cases around the world, and even in some cases in the United States. The problem is you are looking at passenger rail service that isn't even up to the standards of a century ago, let alone today, and comparing it to modern alternatives. But when given a real chance, modern passenger rail technology is in fact perfectly capable of competing with the alternatives in the right circumstances--and in fact the relative success of the Philly to Harrisburg section, which is not even all that great by modern standards, is itself proof of that fact.