Submitted by MWBartko t3_10kc3qj in pittsburgh
What would be the best route?
What stops do you hope would be a long the way?
If this isn't the next big expansion for the T that you want what would your pick be for a new T line?
Comments
AirtimeAficionado t1_j5ps1uo wrote
This isn’t really the problem, there is space, it’s just that it would be expensive, and the T isn’t all that fast (45mph on the high end), so covering the ~15 miles would take longer than a bus. If we ever invested in a heavy rail system (which I think we should, particularly for between Downtown, Oakland, and East Liberty), with much higher top speeds (~80-90 mph), it might make a bit more sense given transit times.
There’s also the question of ridership potential, I think physical transit to the airport is important for a variety of reasons, but there really isn’t super high density anywhere along the corridor and there aren’t that many people going to and from the airport (particularly on transit) each day on average, so it would be a challenge in getting the numbers to really pencil out.
Informal_Avocado_534 t1_j5pupbg wrote
This is the real concern—there simply isn't enough ridership potential. (and I'm a huge proponent of MOAR TRAINS)
Alon Levy covers the topic a lot on their blog. A critical point is that "any air-rail link must go to the areas that people are likely to want to connect to." The Pittsburgh metro is not monocentric, so there's no easy way to bring everyone to where they need to go next.
People assume that airport transit would get used a lot, but it's orders of magnitude lower than everyday transit riders. The most frequent users would be airport employees, and even at bigger airports there usually aren't enough employee commuters to make it worth it.
Marks against a PIT train:
- small airport
- far airport
- nothing in between the airport and the central city
- small metro region
- weakly centered urban development plan
Instead, we should focus on "duh" improvements to bus transit to the airport:
- dedicated airport traveler-friendly busses (with luggage racks like Boston's Silver Line)
- run more frequently
- don't make non-airport stops
- take advantage of existing bus rapid transit features (like the East Busway)
- run a few variants (like, 3—maybe northside, east end, and southside)
In parallel, we need to build up transit capacity and reliability in the core so that it's the default way to get around.
ktxhopem3276 t1_j5pzagt wrote
PRT wants to extend the west busway at both ends to speed up the 28x airport flyer which will also benefit from the Oakland BRT project that is building an additional bus only lane and traffic signal priority
w0jty t1_j5pwlj8 wrote
A small nitpick, but even the older Siemens units can do 65, and the newer CAF ones hit 70ish in testing the blue line before opening.
I agree all the other expenses will keep this from happening unless the city population booms and the airport becomes a major hub again, both of which I don’t see happening any time soon.
AirtimeAficionado t1_j5pxokf wrote
Yes, but I don’t know if they could do them regularly/ if they could reasonably achieve those speeds for a long period of time on any realistic track configuration. I think 45 is a more realistic top speed that we would see, especially considering the grade that they would need to cover on such a segment, but I could be misguided here
w0jty t1_j5q4r3g wrote
The re-done blue line was designed and built to allow for hitting their top speed, but a variety of crossing and signaling issues have kept that from coming to fruition. The red line, downtown, and north shore certainly not going to get anywhere near that for sure.
As with all infrastructure, getting the planning right is only half the battle, execution can just as easily make or break a project.
ktxhopem3276 t1_j5pyxdz wrote
A small detail is FTA limits heavy rail to 79mph unless it is completely grade separated in which case a diesel train can do 110 and that is caller higher speed rail while over 110 is high speed electrified heavy rail
MWBartko OP t1_j5psqew wrote
Just based on what I know of the traffic between Robinson and Greentree Hill if you can service a line going that direction hitting communities like Carnegie in between I could definitely see sufficient density and ridership.
AirtimeAficionado t1_j5px2uc wrote
Yes, but the issue is ridership that would unlock federal funding for the project. There is no hard and fast rule, but to be eligible for federal funds, there would need to be an absolute minimum of ~30-40,000 daily riders for a light rail expansion of this length to even be considered (and really a ridership of 50-75,000 to be seriously considered) against other projects.
The parkway currently sees a daily vehicle count of ~100,000 at the Fort Pitt Tunnel. Given the configuration of these communities (sparse suburbs), it would be nearly impossible to capture more than around ~10% of this traffic (because people cannot walk to stations and there are only so many parking spaces that can be made per station and when you are relying on people to already drive to a station it is a hard sell for them to then wait for a train when they could just drive at that point). This would equate to around 10-15,000 daily riders (at the high end), which is well short from the 30-40,000 that is for the most part needed to be considered for funding.
The only hope for this project ever getting off the ground would be if the Airport Authority were convinced it could substantially impact their operations (which might be likely given staffing concerns) and is necessary. The Authority has generated huge amounts of funds through its fracking agreements in the past decade (what is paying for the upcoming ~$1.5 billion renovation of the airport), and it could potentially have the funding needed to majorly fund a line like this in the future regardless of estimated ridership figures. This is a bit of a long shot but would be the only real way it could happen any time soon, and would likely be dependent on County Executive leadership in the future making it a priority.
ktxhopem3276 t1_j5q7a3t wrote
Yes, but the issue is ridership that would unlock federal funding for the project. There is no hard and fast rule, but to be eligible for federal funds, there would need to be an absolute minimum of ~30-40,000 daily riders for a light rail expansion of this length to even be considered (and really a ridership of 50-75,000 to be seriously considered) against other projects.
Those numbers seem a little off to me. San Diego received funding for a 11 mile extension with 20,000 riders for a cost of $2 billion or $100,000 per rider
AirtimeAficionado t1_j5qiw9l wrote
The numbers vary a lot on census trends/weight of the region— even though I believe a lot in Pittsburgh, we have had a long period of stasis in our population, and likely will not see huge changes (barring anything huge) for a while, and therefore thresholds that are looked at are a bit different. San Diego is a growing region and has different outlooks than Pittsburgh, which play a role in all of this. They also have different state funding structures, as well as many other contributing rail projects in the state of California that may have played a role in project approval.
ktxhopem3276 t1_j5qmmib wrote
Yeah but I dont agree that 30,000 is an absolute minimum. I prefer an estimate like $100,000 per rider and $100 million per mile construction would require 1000 riders per mile. Busier lines can cost more to construct and lines that are cheaper to construct won’t need as many riders so it is a handy little rule of thumb to go by.
If you want a similar sized city Portland is the closest to Pittsburgh. They spent $1.5 billion with 50% federal and 25 % state funding for 7.3 miles with a projected ridership of 17,000 puts it at $88,000 per projected rider. Sadly that lines projections were two high and actual ridership has come out to be around $200,000 per rider. Some agencies are better than others at estimating and the San Diego line had near perfect estimates.
Here is a great article with a lot of data. It discusses heavy rail in big cities first which is obviously not comparable to Pittsburgh but later in it gets into light rail in other cities
ktxhopem3276 t1_j5pzn3l wrote
It’s been looked at for many years but the capital costs and ridership ratio is not as appealing as you think it is. That’s why they went with north shore extension instead
[deleted] t1_j5q1uwo wrote
[deleted]
MWBartko OP t1_j5praut wrote
You mean without the use eminent domain or do you mean without cost prohibitive bridges and tunnels?
chuckie512 t1_j5prw91 wrote
You'd have to take over a railroad line, which comes with it's own issues (including cost)
MWBartko OP t1_j5ps6yq wrote
Not necessarily. There is cost but you could build above, below, or beside.
[deleted] t1_j5prd4f wrote
Both
MWBartko OP t1_j5prpv5 wrote
Sufficiently worthwhile infrastructure is definitely worth the cost to build it, AKA bridges and tunnels, and unless we are talking about some seriously culturally valuable area eminent domain is reasonable for enhanced infrastructure as well in my opinion.
AMcMahon1 t1_j5pr4xy wrote
Follow 65 out towards sewickly and then cross over
ktxhopem3276 t1_j5pycqi wrote
I thought this debate was settled when they decided to tunnel to the north shore. PRT is also proposing to extend the west busway at its ends to speed up the 28x airport flyer while they wait another twenty years to get state and federal funding for the next phase of the trolly to Bellevue. I’ll be impressed if they get to the airport before 2050.
chuckie512 t1_j5pq7ca wrote
To PIT would probably be best following the north side of the Ohio river, and then cross back over at RMU. There's some spots that way that could potentially be acquired for a right of way (rail lines and a trail) but ultimately would probably have to ride with the traffic on 65. And if you're going to be stuck in traffic, you might as well just be a bus.
Would be great if they could increase the 28x frequency and incorporate some additional dedicated lanes and transit-preference intersection controls.
MWBartko OP t1_j5prz9q wrote
I don't see riding along with the traffic as worthwhile but a tunnel under 65 could be an interesting idea.
chuckie512 t1_j5psf2o wrote
Unfortunately new subway construction (dig and cover, which would close the road for years) is ~$500+ million/mile. The county doesn't have that money.
Expanding the bus service seems like a more cost effective measure.
MWBartko OP t1_j5pt6jb wrote
It's a matter of timeline and perspective. Even the most efficient electronic buses are not predicted to be able to operate as cheaply as rail is. Over the long haul as long as transportation will be regularly needed along the route rail always comes up cheaper to my understanding.
chuckie512 t1_j5pvdbw wrote
But we don't really need that much transportation to the airport, compared to other routes.
Hell, the airport is in the process of being downsized.
I think fixing some of the inner city transit issues would provide a lot more bang for the buck.
Electrifying the busway for example would be much cheaper and provide those long term cost savings.
Hell, our current It's rolling stock is well beyond it's original expected life. I bet that's higher on the list for light rail spending.
ktxhopem3276 t1_j5pw58b wrote
Your understanding is wrong. Buses are cheaper
AirtimeAficionado t1_j5pt93z wrote
There’s two different thoughts as to how it could work:
-
It could stay on the North Shore side of the Ohio and cross near Sewickley to service the high population centers on that side of the river, as well as RMU and Moon Township. This would be slower for travelers to the airport from downtown, likely around an hour to an hour and a half all told. It would be more for the connections to the communities than for connections to the airport from the city.
-
It could cross the Ohio near McKee’s Rocks, follow the NS right of way, travel along Stubenville Pike near Thornburg, and connect with the 376 ROW near Robinson. This would be faster for Downtown-Airport commuters (~30-45 min), but would service fewer population centers/have lower ridership/community building potential.
As for the most critical T expansion, it is obviously between Downtown and Oakland that is needed the most. There’s overcrowding on current bus lines, which means a higher density mode of transit is necessary. Buses cannot meet the demand, and the only solution with buses on these lines is to run more buses more frequently, which pulls an already exacerbated workforce of drivers away from less busy (but still critical) routes throughout the rest of the county. The T could just add more cars to better meet demand, which would better serve this corridor, and would free labor to better serve all the other corridors in the area.
ktxhopem3276 t1_j5pxu3u wrote
Buses can meet high demand. They have lower capital cost but higher operating costs due to using more drivers. The bus only lane being added to Forbes has received federal funding and should help that corridor at a much lower cost than light rail. Unfortunately we are the 26th largest metro in the country so there are larger cities that throw their weight around to get federal funding. It also doesn’t help that the state republicans hate cities.
PublicCommenter t1_j5sb6n6 wrote
Counterpoint: Rail operations actually cost more money because you need to maintain the infrastructure 24/7. Check PRT's budget. Cost per passenger served is significantly higher for rail compared to bus.
ktxhopem3276 t1_j5sf1t0 wrote
Sure. I was making the point that buses are cheaper overall even if you need more drivers to operate them. Whether you consider maintenance a capital cost or operating cost is besides the point
stopblasianhate69 t1_j5qaag2 wrote
Going through robinson in no way would reach less people. I know dozens that would rather park in robinson and ride train than ever have to use 376 again.
MWBartko OP t1_j5puv7c wrote
I definitely would have preferred T expansion to Oakland before we spent the money to take it to the North shore.
I just worry that it's another high cost short distance project and suspect a longer distance project would be more helpful to more communities.
ktxhopem3276 t1_j5pwsin wrote
The north shore extension was sold as a phased approach to the airport along the northern shore of the Ohio. It was also a way to use empty parking garages as commuter park and ride for downtown when there are no games at the stadiums. It was also intended as as an economic opportunity for more offices on the north shore which seems to have worked. I saw somewhere that the sports authority and casino contribute to operating costs. It was also described as costing a quarter of the price of an Oakland line
highlandparkpitt t1_j5qqbhi wrote
Same, but iirc the federal grant had to be for expansion of mass transit under a body of water.
Wonder who's campaign donation got that nice little piece of pork in it.
sebileis t1_j5px8ju wrote
But unfortunately since it actually makes sense and is practical it will never be done, at least with current PRT management.
AirtimeAficionado t1_j5py628 wrote
I just hope for better county executive leadership in the coming years that prioritizes transit investment (among other things) more so than the “leadership” we have today.
^Rich ^Fitzgerald ^is ^a ^republican.
ktxhopem3276 t1_j5q19zr wrote
>I just hope for better county executive leadership in the coming years that prioritizes transit investment (among other things) more so than the “leadership” we have today.
Most funding for any significant transit projects comes from the state and federal government. there is very little the county executive can do and mobs of suburban voters come out of the woodwork at any hint of property tax increases. It's not productive to attack democrat politicians as being "republican" when republican politicians wold be much less supportive of your ideas.
Edit: Rich Fitzgerald has been in county leadership too long and I won’t miss him. But credit is due for extended the trolly to the north shore and securing funding for the Oakland brt and those are not things republicans would have accomplished. You won’t get support for liberal ideas by alienating and denigrating moderate democrats and whether you like it or not property taxes are the single biggest county wide issue. Older voters are reliable there are a lot of them and property taxes are a large burden for them. You won’t get anything done without being strategic and building consensus and support from wide groups of people. I support mass transit and increased funding but I also know how to be strategic about it instead of whining like an entitled child in a chocolate factory when a democrat isn’t perfect enough for you
WestEndFlasher t1_j5q4css wrote
I think the cheapest would be to convert the West Busway to rail and have it just go straight out 376.
But the best for serving more communities would be going up the Ohio River and cutting over at Sewickley.
mistergrime t1_j5qvrgp wrote
Yes. Expanding the West Busway to the airport and directly to downtown (as was originally planned) is the way. It does everything a T expansion would do, but better, more connected, and for a fraction of the cost.
My dream transit future is a West Busway with two branches to the airport and to Bridgeville, and that terminates directly downtown, and an East Busway with two branches to Monroeville and McKeesport. One seat travel from Monroeville to the airport.
PublicCommenter t1_j5samvh wrote
Dumbest idea of the day!
tim0767 t1_j5ptixz wrote
Keep dreaming. The cost alone for any extension of the T would put a bad taste in everyone who doesn't use transit mouths.
MWBartko OP t1_j5pu4jm wrote
Clean reliable convenient public transportation seems to consistently come up in conversations about what makes cities great. It seems like investing in such would be wise for Pittsburgh's long-term future.
I'll admit that as a culture we seem to have adopted attitudes that care more about our current tax burden than the future greatness of our society but that's more of a rant about our school system than our public transit.
ktxhopem3276 t1_j5pxe4h wrote
If it raises property taxes most people in the county won’t support it
cityfireguy t1_j5q1ob9 wrote
I swear Reddit is like the Monorail episode of the Simpsons. You think it solves all society's problems.
I saw someone suggest Robinson as a stop, makes sense right? Popular shopping destination, lots of traffic and parking...
Now think about it. Tell me where you'd like to put the one stop this train would make, then tell me how a person is meant to get to Ikea to do some shopping and Bravo for something to eat. It's a thing called The Last Mile, it's not hard to get a large group of people to one spot, the problem is then getting all those people to where they actually need to go. Nobody wants to take a train and then try to get an uber. They'd rather just drive. So they will, and you've got yourself a really expensive train nobody rides. Thought we already had that...
28X costs less than $3 and takes you to the airport. What are you trying to improve? Or do you just think trains are cool?
leadfoot9 t1_j5qi0o8 wrote
>28X costs less than $3 and takes you to the airport. What are you trying to improve? Or do you just think trains are cool?
Capacity. Both on the vehicle and at the stops. You can't base a proper airport connection off of 200 square feet of sidewalk.
I agree that Robinson might not be a good stop location, but I think that's more a problem with Robinson than with trains. Robinson is just... a mistake that happens to have the only Ikea in the area.
cmyk412 t1_j5tgnl1 wrote
The employees need to get to shops in Robinson too. And if IKEA isn’t going to pay their staff enough to own a car, they gotta get there somehow.
MWBartko OP t1_j5qmuwc wrote
Cities need good infrastructure to expand. I want a city with the infrastructure and amenities to be as successful as the geography permits.
Oh also trains are really cool.
stopblasianhate69 t1_j5xlt35 wrote
The people that would actually use it are commuters going into town from robinson and surrounding areas. Plenty of people would much rather park and ride a train than sit in traffic for 30min to travel a mile. And who in their right mind would be in the city already and commute to robinson to shop by train? These trains are for people who need to be somewhere for work not city goers whining about city accommodations not being present in a much less dense area (robinson)
diabeet0 t1_j5wxyke wrote
I think the most useful expansion of the T would be a line going from Downtown to the east end, with stops in Oakland, shady side, and squirrel hill. These are some of the most populated neighborhoods in the city and would likely use a new rail line the most. I’m aware the busway is already there, but still.
MWBartko OP t1_j5por67 wrote
I am really not sure for the leg from the city to Pittsburgh International but coming south from the city having stops farther down Carson street and for sandcastle, the Waterfront, and Kennywood on the way to the Allegheny County Airport would be great.
ktxhopem3276 t1_j5pvxx8 wrote
Take the bus. We can’t afford to build modern style light or heavy rail to every neighborhood. Old street car networks were a totally different design that were replaced by buses which are superior in almost every way to old street cars
ktxhopem3276 t1_j5pv5kg wrote
The PRT 25 year plan describes options they are looking into. They are considering a trolly extension to Bellevue or Ross. They are also considering a train from new Kensington to downtown using existing AVRR tracks. The Bellevue trolly extension is a phased approach for extension to the airport but given state and federal funding constraints that’s a long long way off. Given the limited funding, an incremental approach to expanding busways is more practical than building long light rail lines because buses can use existing roads beyond the end of the busways while trains can’t. PRT is investing in bus only lanes and traffic signal priority in Oakland as a lower cost effective improvement to the system. There is not a good right of way to use through Oakland and tunneling is very expensive. Light rail needs high density neighborhoods to justify the cost and a lot of neighborhoods dense enough in Pittsburgh already have good transit service. There is already a high volume of buses to Oakland and PRT is looking into more routes that bypass the downtown hub and go directly from suburbs to Oakland. They are also looking into extending the west busway at both ends to improve the speed of the bus from oakland to the airport. I encourage anybody who has an opinion on what Pittsburgh needs should read the report first
https://nextransitdraftplan.blob.core.windows.net/finalplan/NEXTransit%20-%20FINAL-web%209-16-21.pdf
leadfoot9 t1_j5qhei4 wrote
Airport rail is usually real rail, not light rail. Choo choo.
gracefulnesto t1_j5rx590 wrote
The montour railroad did it for a very short while with PATrain.
[deleted] t1_j5pq35b wrote
This has been discussed on here so many times, and the consensus is it won't work as there just isn't practical space to do it.