Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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.

7

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.

−6

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.

5

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.

−1

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.

11