Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

AirtimeAficionado t1_j5pt93z wrote

There’s two different thoughts as to how it could work:

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

7

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.

8

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.

0

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

1

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.

2

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.

1

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

3

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.

2

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.

0

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.

5

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

0