PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown II

[markson33]

I also really like the idea of going up through the Bluff and then out to Bakery Square, then come back on Penn Avenue. It seems to me that, because of cost, it makes the most sense to have the whole thing above ground - essentially a true trolley line. It might be cool to have a monorail too, which I would think would be cheaper than a standard rail line.

[Johnland]

Great pics Xchris125. You really captured some terrific scenes in old Pittsburgh. I especially love how new modern is juxtaposed against bricky old. So Pittsburgh. And yes, that map on the sidewalk at the new station is perfect. Someone had some design smarts.

As for the station itself, I like the steel and glass. I think they maybe should've used stainless steel rather than the white. Stainless would've been more minimal and truer to Steel Town. (can something be 'more minimal' - oh well)

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by Minivan Werner

The other day I was thinking of a rail connection essentially following 5th Ave.. It could be an elevated track through the Bluff and then moves below the street level just before it enters Oakland. And from East Liberty on it would be at-grade. This doesn't do much for the Hill, but wt least it connects Duquesne, Carlow, Pitt & CMU all to downtown.

Not bad, Minivan Werner. For The Hill, perhaps there could be a streetcar from Downtown up to The Strip district, and then an incline like that which has been discussed can connect The Hill to the streetcar?

I'm not really sure which alignment to use for the Downtown-Oakland-East Liberty connector, quite frankly. Any potentially logical alignment's going to involve narrow ROWs and a LOT of elevated/tunnel sections, and is therefore going to be very, very expensive...

Aaron (Glowrock)

[Jonboy1983]

How would you elevate such an alignment? Would this extend an existing LRT line from Steel Plaza? I wonder where the tunneling would go, where it would become elevated/at grade, etc. I'm trying to get an image of what this would look like...

I guess a line underneath/above 5th Avenue through the Bluff and out to Oakland would be the better alignment as opposed to Centre Avenue. I was thinking of the idea of serving both Consol Energy Center AND the new arena development...

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by Jonboy1983

How would you elevate such an alignment? Would this extend an existing LRT line from Steel Plaza? I wonder where the tunneling would go, where it would become elevated/at grade, etc. I'm trying to get an image of what this would look like...

I guess a line underneath/above 5th Avenue through the Bluff and out to Oakland would be the better alignment as opposed to Centre Avenue. I was thinking of the idea of serving both Consol Energy Center AND the new arena development...

Maybe extending the LRT from Steel Plaza would be the best, but I'm not really sure. With the 5th Ave. ROW being so constricted through the Bluff to pretty much Oakland itself, definitely an elevated system would be needed. Ah well, so the cost doubles, no biggie! Unfortuantely, I can't think of a single corridor between downtown, oakland, east liberty, etc., where above-ground and/or underground tracking won't be needed. Damn it, sometimes it would be nice if Pittsburgh had less hills and wider ROWs! Haha

Aaron (Glowrock)

[Minivan Werner]

Originally Posted by Jonboy1983

How would you elevate such an alignment? Would this extend an existing LRT line from Steel Plaza? I wonder where the tunneling would go, where it would become elevated/at grade, etc. I'm trying to get an image of what this would look like...

Haven't given much thought about how to connect Steel Plaza to 5th Ave.. Maybe utilizing Chatham Center in some way as the place where the rails go from sub-level to elevated, since it's just a 4 story parking structure at its base.

Moving it back to below grade would be somewhere at the point just before 5th Ave starts to bend as it climbs up the hill into Oakland. Plenty of space there to have the elevated lines move back to below grade.

I don't see an elevated line as being an option for Oakland, I think it'd detract far too much from the area. And the traffic at street level is too heavy for at-grade street car-type lines.

[BrianTH]

Or you could look at an alternative technology, like aerial gondolas:

http://gondolaproject.com/2010/08/16...burgh-gondola/

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UT...f7a17fe19&z=13

They are potentially a cost-effective way of dealing with topographic challenges and crowded surface routes.

[George Woods]

Compared with the astronomical logistics and cost of these alignment ideas, sending the T out to Oakland, East Liberty, Wilkinsburg, and Swissvale along the East Busway would be nothing. The ROW has been in place, and in use, for decades. "Low-hanging fruit" would be an under-statement. When the T was built in the 80's, it was supposed to go there, but the suburbanites in the South Hills who were on the Port Authority board nixed that. If you look at the busway, you can clearly see that it was over-engineered to hold the weight of LRTs. The now-unused Penn Station is where the trains emerge from the tunnel beneath the Steel Building and start their trip down the busway. All they'd have to do is lay the tracks on it and run the wires. It already serves the burgeoning areas in the East End, its stations are well-established, and people already ride the FUCK out of it. When I worked Downtown, I'd have to let more than one bus pass me up at 6:00 AM because they were too full to accommodate even one more person. It took under TEN minutes to get from Shadyside to Downtown or vice versa in rush hour! It's the closest thing Pittsburgh has to honest-to-goodness, big-city mass-transit, and I never even hear anyone talk about it!

[George Woods]

Also, now that the T goes under Mazeroski Way and banks left to enter the Northside Station, if it were to be able to divert to the right and emerge at the entrance to the 279 HOV ramp, it could just fly out to Ross Township's park 'n' ride lot. They could put a huge garage there, a la the South Hills Village one, and the North Hills would have trolley connection to Downtown using a tunnel that's already done, and a ROW that's already there. They'd just need to lay rails. And if the thing is ever to go to the airport, it only makes sense to use the West Busway, which flies beneath all the traffic, and then make use of the bus-only ramp from the busway to the parkway (which the 28X uses) to complete the journey along the parkway corridor. Still not cheap, but pocket-change compared with any alignment on the northern bank of the Ohio and BACK over. That's lunacy.

[AaronPGH]

I run my mouth constantly about how amazing the east busway is. I ride it almost every day – it's ALWAYS packed. It's impossible for me to drive from my house in Friendship to my office faster than taking the busway. Why the Port Authority doesn't do special branding for their busways is beyond me. I think it's a missed opportunity. I wait longer for NYC subways than I do buses on the EBA.

[George Woods]

^ Agreed. I've often marvelled at the Port Authority's total lack of busway promotion. But you know, honestly, maybe they just realize that it would be a disaster if they added any MORE riders to it. They don't have any money for any more buses!

[Austinlee]

Originally Posted by AaronPGH

I run my mouth constantly about how amazing the east busway is. I ride it almost every day – it's ALWAYS packed. It's impossible for me to drive from my house in Friendship to my office faster than taking the busway. Why the Port Authority doesn't do special branding for their busways is beyond me. I think it's a missed opportunity. I wait longer for NYC subways than I do buses on the EBA.

Sooo it's ALWAYS packed but you wonder why they don't do advertising or some kind of branding? Sounds like you addressed your own concern and that everyone who needs to know about it already does.
Or maybe you just mean that PAT should tout its success? I understand that this is a pretty big selling point for the densely populated east end.

[BrianTH]

The basic problem with running the T down the East Busway is that the East Busway is actually so successful at what it does that running the T down it wouldn't really add much value. Conversely, the big problem with the East Busway as local transit is its alignment between Shadyside and Downtown: it is running in a gorge and then next to a cliff, and effectively misses all the big population concentrations and areas with redevelopment potential in that zone. Of course providing the T along the same alignment wouldn't remedy that problem.

I do think there is potential for electrifying the East Busway and running trolleybuses along it. But if there is going to be a new rapid transit line heading eastward out of Downtown, it would be far, far preferable if it did not use the East Busway's alignment, and instead went through the heart of either the Strip and Lawrenceville, or the Hill-or-Bluff and Oakland (and in fact it would be nice to do both).

[AaronPGH]

Originally Posted by Austinlee

Or maybe you just mean that PAT should tout its success? I understand that this is a pretty big selling point for the densely populated east end.

This is what I meant. That, and it could have a big halo effect on the rest of the PAT system if we dressed it up and branded it like we do the T. Maybe we could call it the "B"! . A lot of people who have never set foot on the busways are always harping about how we need more rail because we only have the T. Little do they know we already have something *better* than the T (in my opinion). We could use to be a little more proud of the busway system than we are, and use the hype over it to build more. We were the first in the US to build this thing – three years after Curitiba launched theirs. That's kind of a big deal.

[markson33]

I've got to agree with Brian here. The east busway works as it is and already serves Centre Avenue. Switching it out for LRT is just a way to improve something that may not need improving.

A new LRT should serve some areas that aren't directly connected to the busway - specifically Oakland. There needs to be direct access to Oakland via the bluff. I don't know much about LRT engineering, but I don't see why the ROW up 5th in the Bluff would be too small to be cost effective.

[BrianTH]

By the way, the Transit Development Plan (TDP) that PAT commissioned and has now partially implemented does in fact seek to promote the East Busway a bit more. The East Busway is being phased into "the Purple Line", and that is why routes which use the East Busway now have the "P" prefix (so the EBA became the P1, and the Lincoln Park Flyer is the P17).

Edit: Incidentally, I think another thing we could do would be to complete the West Busway all the way into Downtown over its own Mon Bridge (as originally planned), then run bus lanes up Stanwix and over Liberty to connect to the East Busway at Penn Station. You would then have a continuous East-West Busway system you could mark on maps, with a transfer point to the T at Gateway. Of course that is much more than a mere rebranding exercise, but it would also upgrade express bus service from Downtown and the East End to the airport, as well as unlock more of the TOD potential of the West Busway.

[AaronPGH]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

By the way, the Transit Development Plan (TDP) that PAT commissioned and has now partially implemented does in fact seek to promote the East Busway a bit more. The East Busway is being phased into "the Purple Line", and that is why routes which use the East Busway now have the "P" prefix (so the EBA became the P1, and the Lincoln Park Flyer is the P17).

I didn't know that. Nice! Also agreed with Brian on leaving the EBA as-is. Swapping out 60mph buses for a slow LRT system seems foolish.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by markson33

I don't know much about LRT engineering, but I don't see why the ROW up 5th in the Bluff would be too small to be cost effective.

They've looked at a surface T option in that area in the past, and the big problem is that if it has to stop for lights and such, it isn't going to be a huge upgrade over just a BRT solution, and in fact will lack some of the advantages of a BRT solution such as being able to collect a bunch of different East End bus routes (that BRT plan is already in the TDP as part of the Rapid Bus plan).

Oakland really needs rapid transit that doesn't have to mix with other surface traffic. That either means tunneling (which is expensive), or aerial gondolas (much less expensive, but not yet taken seriously in the U.S. although they are already being used to good effect elsewhere).

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

The basic problem with running the T down the East Busway is that the East Busway is actually so successful at what it does that running the T down it wouldn't really add much value. Conversely, the big problem with the East Busway as local transit is its alignment between Shadyside and Downtown: it is running in a gorge and then next to a cliff, and effectively misses all the big population concentrations and areas with redevelopment potential in that zone. Of course providing the T along the same alignment wouldn't remedy that problem.

I do think there is potential for electrifying the East Busway and running trolleybuses along it. But if there is going to be a new rapid transit line heading eastward out of Downtown, it would be far, far preferable if it did not use the East Busway's alignment, and instead went through the heart of either the Strip and Lawrenceville, or the Hill-or-Bluff and Oakland (and in fact it would be nice to do both).

Right. The East Busway is great at what it does, but totally misses the very large population of riders (1/4 of the total PAT ridership) in Oakland and Squirrel Hill. It just isn't realistic for someone who lives in either of those neighborhoods to take a bus to the busway station in Shadyside or East Liberty and then board to shoot downtown. Meanwhile, the bus routes that have service between Oakland/Squirrel Hill and Downtown are ridiculously unreliable and understandably slow, considering the dense population, hilly terrain, and numerous meanders along the route (ever watch the accordion buses trying to crawl through traffic and tight turns in Squirrel Hill? -- Who the fuck thought that would be a good idea?). Let's not even get into how slowly arduous and long a journey to the airport from Oakland/Squirrel Hill is on the 28X Airport "Flyer".

Though it would be cool, I don't think we're going to see light rail anytime soon serving the East End, and I'm not convinced that it's the best option anyway, if an effective BRT system between Oakland and Downtown (which then connects with the West Busway and out to the airport), can be built.

Link which has probably been posted before, but interesting to revisit:

Proposed BRT Downtown-Oakland corridor
http://www.portauthority.org/paac/po...T/BRTForum.pdf

BRT systems
Bogota
http://www.streetfilms.org/bus-rapid-transit-bogota/

NYC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEs_HBTZwg8

Paris
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PP9l0oUpZ44

[George Woods]

Yeah, it's a shame our topography (which is beautiful) makes things so hard. I've also thought it would be cool for the T to branch off from the First Avenue station and head down Second Avenue because it would be relatively easy. But, again, it would serve almost nobody, because all the easy routes are in ditches too narrow for development. Pittsburgh was perfectly suited for railroads, huh? Honestly, I think we should just accept that Pittsburgh has two employment centers. Those who want nice neighborhoods to live in, which are convenient to Oakland, have the East End; and those who need to be conveniently close to Downtown have great options, too: Strip, Northside, Southside, Hill, Downtown, Mt. Washington, along the T, etc. The Hill doesn't need the T because it's already one of the few neighborhoods that are close enough to both job centers to need no more transportation options. I just don't think the farthest-away and highest-up East End neighborhoods will be as convenient for Downtown workers anytime soon.