Guideway transit and intermodalism

Guideway transit and intermodalism

Material Information

Guideway transit and intermodalism function and effectiveness : case study, Pittsburgh
York, Mitchell P
United States -- Federal Transit Administration
University of South Florida -- Center for Urban Transportation Research
Lehman Center for Transportation Research
Place of Publication:
Tampa, FL
[Springfield, Va
University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research
Available through the National Technical Information Service
Publication Date:
Physical Description:
xii, 68 p. : ill., maps ; 28 cm.


Subjects / Keywords:
Street-railroads -- Pennsylvania -- Pittsburgh ( lcsh )
Bus lanes -- Pennsylvania -- Pittsburgh ( lcsh )
Railroads, Cable -- Pennsylvania -- Pittsburgh ( lcsh )
Inclined planes ( lcsh )
light rail transit
bibliography ( marcgt )
technical report ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )


Includes bibliographical references (p. 67-68).
Additional Physical Form:
Also available online.
General Note:
"Authors: Mitchell P. York, et al."--Technical report documentation page.
General Note:
Prepared in cooperation with the Lehman Center for Transportation Research, Florida International University and the the Federal Transit Administration.
General Note:
"February 1997."
General Note:
Case study.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
001931412 ( ALEPH )
37398283 ( OCLC )
C01-00345 ( USFLDC DOI )
c1.345 ( USFLDC Handle )

Postcard Information



This item has the following downloads:

Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader cam 2200361Ia 4500
controlfield tag 001 001931412
005 20080401114558.0
008 970801s1997 fluab bt 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 7 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00345
2 local
b G85 1996
0 245
Guideway transit and intermodalism :
function and effectiveness : case study, Pittsburgh.
Tampa, FL :
University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research ;
[Springfield, Va. :
Available through the National Technical Information Service,
xii, 68 p. :
ill., maps ;
28 cm.
Case study.
Nov. 1994-Nov. 1996.
"Authors: Mitchell P. York, et al."--Technical report documentation page.
Prepared in cooperation with the Lehman Center for Transportation Research, Florida International University and the the Federal Transit Administration.
"February 1997."
Includes bibliographical references (p. 67-68).
Also available online.
z Pennsylvania
Bus lanes
Railroads, Cable
Inclined planes.
1 653
light rail transit
York, Mitchell P.
United States.
Federal Transit Administration.
University of South Florida.
Center for Urban Transportation Research.
Lehman Center for Transportation Research.
8 773
t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856


l .. . . .... . :. /:. l: : . -.. ; . . .... .... ,. . ... .... ': . .: . : : .... ... ':; .. -::; .... ::-.?: :).; ...... _.... ,.- ., J 0 0 t\ > / 0 r '.t ..... \ .. : . .. ,. . ,. .. .. ,., .. .. ..... ' . . : ..... I' . ..... : .. :.., ,. ... .:. . . ,, . ,:. .. ..' :'': _.;.r:" : ... .. .. . ' ' . . ... . ' .. :: ,. _,.\' : .. : ., .. /' 1(:'. . '\. "".; ,t .''! : ' ... ' ... ::..,, ............. : ....... . ; . ... ..... . .. : -.. .,'":._<,: ; .. ... '.... .. 'o .. 0 .. 0 I " .. .. .. : . .... : : .... '. :_::. . ..,, .-::.-.::' . :: . -. ..... :-. '< -!. ... . . .. ... -._ .... . .. . :' . ;. ' . i .. pO ;. .. . . ..... -.... . 0 .. : 1. . ... .... ; . .. ... ,. . ... . . '< ; ' . .. > : .. .. .) ... ; _i . ...... .. .. -' . . .. . .... .. . . ... . . .. '' : .. . ... .


Guideway Transit and lntermoda/ism: Function and Effectweness Case Study Pittsburgh Cent t r for Urban Transporta1ion Research Colege or Eng i nee rin9, U niver&iy of Solih Florida 4202 E. Fowl er Avenue, ENS 118 Tampa FL 3S620SO (813) 974-3120 S uncom 574-3120 Fax (813) 974-5168 email: Gary L. Brosch, February 1 997 Project Mitchell P. York Project Stoll J ule e Gteen Ronald c. Sheck Ben Walke r The cOntents of thiS tVJport rtlltct tho vttws of the aut/Jot'$, who an: rosponslble 101 the facts and the accuracy of the information presented herein. This documont is under tht sponSol'$hip of th6 Departrrumt of Transporla6o n Federal Transit .AdminjsfTBtion, in the interest of info,.,at}on exchange. The U S Government 8$$Umes no liabiNty for the CQnfents or use 1nd dou not Ond0!$e any vtn

this page IS blank


t Repcnm. '2. No.(H'TI!;) S GUID96USF2. 1 UMTRISIFTA Section t. 'Ti r o afld 81111W111 !), February 1997 GUIDEWAY TRANSIT AND INTERMODALISM: FUNCT ION AND s PC!I'formila orga,.q;Mion Co

' this page IS blank


. Guideway Transit and lntermodal/sm: Function and Effectiveness Preface Over the past few decades more than a u ,s. cities have implemented new guideway public transit systems and virtually every major urban area has or i s considering increasing of publ i c transportation infrastructure investments, frequently including the consideration of guideway transit in vestments. The country's dramatic suburbanization and socio-economic changes have placed new challenges on public transportation. Various guideway Investments are among the solutions that local communities have considered to meet the changing transportation needs of their communities. The result has been growing guideway transit ridership and an increase In the Importance of guideway in the overall transportation system. Guideway transi t investments are perceived as the public transit investment that provides an excellent opportunity to compete with auto travel, Influence land use motivate public and business financial support and address air quality and environmental goals. This report does not advocate guideway solutions or discourage careful cons i deration of non guideway transportation investments but provides a knowledge base to support those involved in guideway planning and implementation. Vllith the development of numerous systems over the past few years, a great deal of experience and knowledge has been gained about all aspects of using guideway investments to meet transportation and other local goa l s Much of this knowledge resides with local p l anning agency staffs and is of great value to other urban areas i f the most relevant information can be captured and communicated to the ever growing and changing group of profess i onals that are invo lved i n guideway project planning and decision-making. This report is one of several that are being produced as part of a study funded by the Federal Transit Administration on intermodalism and guideway effectiveness. This multi-year e ffort is being conducted by the Lehman Center for Transportation Research at Florida International University and the Center for Urban Transportation Research at the University of South F lo rida. The broadly defined research project, a response to a U.S. congressional authorizat io n, focuses on the examination of factors that influence the effectiveness and efficiency of guideway transit systems and passenger i ntermodal transportation The work program is driven by eight primary resea rch tasks each of which is being addressed through a variety of research methodo l ogies. The overall objective Is to assemble existing and new information and interpret and communi cate that information in a manner that supports the p l anning and decision-making efforts of public transporta ti on planners. Knowledge gained in this project will provide useful information for the many communities and transportat io n professionals that are planning or considering guideway transit as a key component In their transportation system. tn addition many of the issues and much of the info rmation will have appl i cation fo r all public transportation planning The products of t h i s research effort in 1 g95 inc l ude technical reports case studies and data books. CfiiJter for Urban Transportation Research


Guideway Transit and lntennod;tl/sm: Function and Effectiven8SS Center for Urban Transportation Research iv


Preface List of Tables List of Figures Guideway Transit and lntennodallsm-: Function and Effectiveness Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Foreward Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Physica l and Political Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics Transportation and Travel Characteristics Population and Employment Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . Urban Patterns and Transit History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Guideway Transit Components in the Region . .... .................. ... Li ght Rai l Transi t .... ...................... .... .. . ...... ... Busways Inclines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Transit Financ e .... ..... 0 0 0 Transit Fare Po l icy . ................... ... .... .... ....... ... Pittsburgh lntermodal Transportation System .. ....... ... ....... . Regional lntennodal Management System ... . ......... ... . . . . Mode to Mode Trans_fer ........................ .... ....... .. lntemi odalism in Pittsburgh P lanning Guideway Systems and l ntermodalism ...... ..... .......... Light Rail Transit Stage I ........................ ..... ......... Light Rail Transit Stage II 0 Spine Line ....................................................... Mart in Luther King, Jr. East Busway ............... . ..... ... . East Busway Extension ............. .................... . ... Airport Busway/Wabash HOV .... ....... . ....... .... ...... Policies Supporting Transit 0 0 Regional Goa ls and Objectives Genera l Transit Policies .......... ...... . .... ............. Measuring Guideway Transit Impacts ...... ....... ... ......... .. Guideway Mode Share Developmental Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii vii ix Xi 1 3 3 8 11 12 14 17 21 26 30 32 33 37 37 39 40 4 1 41 41 42 42 43 44 47 47 52 53 53 55 East Busway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 East Busway Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Airport Busway/Wabash HOV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Center for Urban Transportation Research v


Guideway Tl'llnsit end Function and Effectiveness Center for UrlJan Tramporttlon Research "'


T able 1 Table 2 Tabl e 3 Tabl e 4 Table 5 Table 6 T able 7 Table 8 T able 9 Table 10 Table 11 T able 12 Table 13 Table 14 Tab l e 15 Table 16 Table 17 Table 18 Table 19 Table 20 Table 21 Gu/d-ay Transit and /nttmnodaUsm: Function and Effectlvtmess List of Tables P ittsburgh's Cities Towns, iuid Borbiigtis Demographic Changes in the Pittsburgh Urbanized Area . . . . . . Pittsburgh Densities .. ... ......... .......... ........ ...... .. Pittsburgh Demograph i c and Soci oeconomic Cha r acte r istics ....... .... Pittsburgh Journey t o Work Characteristics . .... .... .... . ... .. PAT T ransit Ridership Data .... . ................ ...... ..... Population and Employment Projections ... ..... .... ...... . Annual Unlinked T rips by Mode .......... .............. ... ... Annua l passenge r Miles by Mode ... ... . . ..... ........ Light Rail Overview ............ ........... . ...... . . . L ight Ra il Operating Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Busway Overview ........... . . ........... ... ... ... I ncline Operating Performance Overview of the Monongahela Incline PAT Travel Zones and Fares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PAT Transit Passes ................. ............ ...... Allegheny County l ntermodal Faci l ities ........ .... .... .... .... West Corridor Transportation Al t ernatives ...... ............ ... Airport HOV Capital Program Summary .... . ...... Eas1 Busway Extension Impacts ............ ... .. ... . . . ... Airport Busway/Wabash HOV Impacts ....... ........... ... Center for Urban Tran&porlation Resfi'Brch vi'i 4 8 10 1 1 12 13 13 21 21 25 26 27 30 33 34 34 39 45 46 61 62


Guideway Transit and lntennods/ism: Function and Effectiveness Cnter for Urban Transportation Research viii


Figure 1 Figure 2 F i gure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Guideway Transit and lntermodalism: Function and Effectiveness List or F i gures Pittsburgh CBD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Southwestern Pennsylvania Reg i onal Planning Commission . ....... Developed Acres in tt)e Pittsburgh Region ...... ... .. ... . .... PAT Subway Terminal in CBD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PAT Passenger Trips and Passenger Miles ................. ....... Map of Pittsburgh 's Gu i deway T ransit . . . . . . . . . . . . . P i ttsburgh's light Rail Transit System ... ............. .... .... PAT's LRVs ................. ........... ..... ... .... .. .. PAT's PCCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 10 MLK East Busway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 11 MLK East Busway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 12 Figure 13 Figure 14 Figure 15 Figure 16 Mo n ongahela Incline ........ .......... ..... .... ... Monongahela Incline .......... ...... ......... .... . .... Airport/Wabash HOV Schedule ................................ Mode Share Passenge r Trips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mode Share Passenge r M i les . ........... . ........... ... C4ntw for Urban TraMpOrtation Resurch i < 3 5 6 14 1 8 19 22 23 24 29 29 31 31 45 54 54


Guldway Transit end lntrmodallsm: Functlon and Effectiveness Centr for Urban Transportation Research X


Guideway Transit and lntermodal/sm: Function and Effectiveness Foreward This report is one in a series of case studies examining guideway transit and intermodalism. These case studies are one component in a broadly defined research project that examines factors that have resulted in implementing successful guideway transit systems and how intermodalism can enhance the role of public transportation. These two goals are interrelated th rough the consideration of guideway transit whare it is present as a core transportation elemen t in cities and metropolitan areas. The use of case studies as a research tool was chosen because individual urbanized areas and transit systems have faced unique problems and sets of circumstances in the process of Implementing fixed guideway service. Exogenous variables, including those such as the political environment that are difficult to quantify, have exerted significant influence on the development of public transportation services and intermodal connections. Therefore, case studies permit the careful identification of influential factors in particular situations. The information from multiple case studies can then be used to construct an overall paradigm regarding the implementat i on of guideway systems and interrnodal connections. In addition, the case studies will support the development of refined hypotheses and the testing of other hypotheses that result from other research tasks undertaken as part of this research. Each case study in this series focuses on an urbanized area. The criterion for selecting the case study areas has been the presence.of one or more elements of guideway transit including commuter rail, heavy or rapid ra il, light rail, cable cars, monorails, automated people movers, suspended cableway, and busways. Each study reviews interrnodalism and empha.sizes how those various modes fit together as a system, recognizing critical components that comprise of facilities where transfers from one mode to another take place. To provide examples of lessons learned that may benefit others and provide the base data and preliminary analysis for the broader project; technology, policy and planning are emphasized in the case studies. Each case study begins with an overview of the guideway transit components in the region followed by a discussion of interrnodalism. Planning history that has l ed to the present state of the transportation system is examined. Each case study concentrates on issues the author feels are most relevant to communicate to practitioners beyond the local region Center for Urban Transportation RMearch xi


GulcHway Tran$/t and lntennodallsm: Function and EHectJveness Center for Urban Tran&portation Research xii


Guideway Transit and lntermodat/sm: Function and Effectiveness Pittsburgh Case Study Introduction Pittsbu r gh has been selected as a case study sit e because of its unique combination of fixed guideway modes of public transportation. The city hosts a 22-mile light rail system referred to as the ''T The "T" i s a remnant of a once-extensive trolley system of more than 300 streetcars and more than 300 miles of track that ran throughout P i ttsburgh and Its suburbs. The city is planning further upgrades on its existing routes and is in the planning phase of extending the downtown subway portion of the light rail system. Pittsburgh is the nat i on's !Ji onee r in transit-exclusive busways eusways are dedicated roadways used exclusively for motorized transit service. Although operated by standard transit buses, Pittsburgh's busways are effectively a form of fiXed guideway transit due to their exclusion of private veh i cles, including high occupancy vehicles (HOVs) and the fact that the capacity and flexibility of the busways are comparable to light rail facilities. eusways were selected to relieve a l ong Pittsburgh's southern and eastern corridors due to their low cost, service flexibility and potentia l to be converted into light rail. The busways provide an essential service i n supporting Pittsburgh 's central business district (CeO). Over 50 percent of all commuters ente r the ceo by transit, and 90 percent of the transit riders enter downtown by bus. Pittsburgh Is also home to two active Incline planes the remainde r of a system of 15 inclines that once served the steep hillsides surrounding Pittsburgh's downtown. Although the Monongahe l a and Duquesne inclines are frequented by tourists, they also provide the residents of MI. Wash i ngton a valuab l e link to the Port Authority of Allegheny County's (PAT) buses and the light rai l. The in t ermodal nature of Pittsburgh's public transportation system has occurred through piecemeal actions to keep commuters flowing into and out of the downtown area. As presented in the following text, l and use patterns population and employment growth, and long-range planning all focus on moving peop l e quickly and efficiently to and from the ceo. The research for this case study began with a review conducted through a computer search via the Transportation Research Information System (TRIS) and the Transportation Library Subfile (TUB). A search was also made of trade publications to identify transit developments and activities occurring in the Pittsburgh a r ea. A field trip in September 1995 included visits to the Port Authority of Allegheny County the Southwest Pennsylvania Reg i onal Planning Commission (SPRPC), and various transportation facilities. This field trip prov i ded an opportuni t y to observe the system operations visit key resource people, and collect reports and other data for the case study Other Center for Urban Tnnsportation Research 1


Guideway Transit and lntermodal/$m: Function and Effectiveness informat i on used in this study i ncludes Federal Transit Administration Section 15 reports, 1990 U.S. Census dala and olher federal, state, regional, and local publications Center for Urban Transportation Research 2


Gu/deway Translt and lntermodallsm: Function and Effectiveness The Study Area Physical and Political Characteristics The h i lly te r ra i n and presence of th r ee major rivers give Pittsburgh one of the most breathtaking urban landscapes i n the country The Pittsburgh urbanized area (UA) i s centered in Allegheny County and consists of 778 square miles of land and 19 square m i les of water The UA is home to nea r ly 1 7 million persons l iving i n 725,000 households Figure 1. Pittsburgh CBD. Viewof f he Pittsburgh CBD from atop Mt. Washington near the Monongahela Incl i ne (no1 seen). As seen In the picture, a ccess t o the CBD from the south snd west is limited to a series of bn'dges. (Photo : Mitch York) The UA extends into five other counties Butler County to the north, Am1strong County to the northeast, Westmoreland County to the southeast, Washington County to the southwest, and Beaver County to the northwest (Figure 2). Development in t he region has followed a typical rad ial pattem with the greatest concentration in the Pittsburgh urban core and dense suburban development aligning t r ansportation corridors extending into the surround i ng counties (F i gure 3). At Poi nt State Park the Ohio River is created from the merg i ng of the Allegheny River to the north and the Monongahela River to the south. Between these two rivers directly to the east of Point State Park is the heart of Pittsbu r gh's urban core known as the Golden Triangle Because the Allegheny and Monongahela rivers enclose the CBD a system of bridges is required to provide access into the CBD for workers commuting from the north south and wes t. Center for Urban Transportation Research 3


Guideway Transit and lntf!ffllod alism: Function and Effe ctiv eness The urbanized area is compose d of 211 cities townships, and boroughs The l arge number of pl aces is due to P i ttsburgh s h i story and geography The city of Pittsburgh and surrounding areas were populated by waves of immigrants who settl ed throughout t h e reg i on's many enclaves As seen in Tabl e 1, the city of Pittsburgh is the larges t city/township/borough However, the city of Pittsburgh contains only 22 percent of the urbanized area' s entire popu l ation . . :: '' :rable 1 . ' I?.I TTSEIURG H CITIES, TOWNS, AND ;< B OROUGHS.,Wt:rH :20 000+ IN POPULATION .. City/Township/Borough P opulation Pittsburgh city Penn H ills township Bethel Park bor ough Ross township Mount Lebanon towns h ip Hemp field township (pt.)' Shaler township Mun i cipafity of Monroeville borough McCand l ess township McKeesport city Plum borough North Huntingdon township (pt.)" West Miffl i n borough Baldwin borough Wilkinsburg borough Pf. lndic4to.s plffill /nciU$/on in th aru Souree: 1990 U S Cet)$(1$ of Population and Housing Center lor Urban Tr.m&portatlon RMeai'Ch 4 369,8 7 9 51, 479 33.823 33,482 33,362 31,326 30,533 29, 1 69 28,781 26,016 25 609 25,319 23 644 21, 923 21,080


Guideway Transit and lntermodallsm: Function and E"ectiveness Figure 2 Pittsburgh Urbanized Area and Counties Center for Urban Transportation Research 5


Guideway Transit and lntermoda/lsm: Function and Effectiveness Figure 3 Developed Acres In the Pittsburgh Region Center for Urban Tntnsportation Research 6 Acres Developed 1 Oot = S Acres


Guideway Transit and Jntermodallsm: Function and Effectiveness The political dominance of urban places extends to the regional transportation planning process. The Southwest Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission (SPRPC) is the federally-designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPOti1Sf7l Ai!' : rigion. SPRPC was formed in 1962 by the counties of Allegheny Armstrong, Beaver, Butler Washington, and Westmoreland. The City of Pittsburgh and numerous other local governments have joined SPRPC since its inception The commission was established for the purpose of formulating regional development plans and programs for southwestern Pennsylvania. The commission consists of 46 members including 5 members from each of the participating counties and the city of Pittsburgh. The County Board of Commissioners appoints two members from the board and two private citizens. The final member is an elected official appointed by an organization that represents the entire county and "s municipalities. Two members are appointed by both the Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation and the U.S. Department of Transportation. One member is appointed by each of the following: the Governor, the Secretary of the Department of Environmental Resources, the Board of Directors of the Port Authority of Allegheny County, the Transit Operators Committee of the SPRPC, the Secretary of the Department of Community Affairs, the Secretary of the U S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency The federal government representatives and the member appointed by the Secretary of the Department of Commun i ty Affairs are non-voting members of the Commission. The SPRPC has several committees, Including five that regional transportation issues. The Transportation Policy Comrrittee addresses transportation policy matters as they affect planning or projects in the region and is primarily concerned with financial equity and state/local prerogatives. The Transportation Technical Committee deals exclus i vely with technical issues such as those concerning the region's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), transportation-related air quality plans, and other appropriate Issues. The Transit Operators Committee has several functions i ncluding allocating FTA Section 9 transit operation and capital assistance among eligible recipients in the Pittsburgh UA, drafting the transit component of the TIP, and addressing various other transit issues of regional interest. The Transportation Plan Policy Committee directs the development of the region's land use and transportation plan and transportation project priorities to both satisfy regiona l goals and fulfill the requirements of FederaiiSTEA legislation. Finally, the Transportation Plan Technical Committee provides technical guidance and oversight necessary for the successful development of !he region's land use and transportation plan. The Southwest Pennsylvania Regional Development Council, Inc. (the Council) is a sister organization to the SPRPC and serves as the Local Development District for southwestern Pennsylvania. The purpose of the Council is the promotion, development and expansion of small Center for Urban Transportation Research 7


Guideway Transit end lntennodtllism: Function and Effectiveness businesses through its various programs. The Council serves as the point of contact for numerous state and federa l assistance programs targeting local economic growth. Members of the Regional Development Council include the five SPRPC members from each of the seven government memb ers of the SPRPC. Other regional counties-Indiana Fayette and Greene are represented in a manner similar to the seven SPRPC member governments. The Council has considerable minority representation; the Chair of the Council appoints five members of minority status. Finally, a representative from the Governor's office serves on the Council. Both the SPRPC and the Council maintain an operating agreement with the Southwestern Pennsylvania Corporation (SPC). This agency provides administrative, planning and grant administrative services to the SPRPC and the Council. Public transit operations in Pittsburgh and Allegheny County are under the direction of the Port Authority of Allegheny County (PAT). In addition to their day-to-day responsibilities of running the system, PAT contributes to regional planning through representation on the SPRPC. Demographic end Socioeconomic Characteristics Population decline has been the predominate demographic feature of the Pittsburgh UA since the 1970s. The population of the UA decreased 9.1 percent from 1970 to 1g9o, 7.3 percen t during the 1980s alone. The to tal number of households increased by 12.3 percent from 1970 to 1990, 1 percent from 1980 to 1990. This ind i cates the average household size in Pittsburgh declined during the 1 970s and 1980s In addition. the number of workers in the Pittsburgh UA increased by 10.4 percent from 1970 to 1990. However, from 1980 to 1990 the UA experienced a 1 percent decline in the number of workers. Among U.S. metropolitan areas with populations greater than 1 million, Pittsburgh had the largest population decline during the 1980s. In comparison with 33 other UAs with guideway t ransit Pittsburgh ranks 17th In population and households and 20th in the number of workers (Table 2). Table 2 DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES IN THE PITTSBURGH URBANIZED AREA Category 1970 Total Population 1,845,042 Total Households 603.281 Workers 665,880 Among all urbanized anas with guideway transit Source: 1990 U.S. Cnsus of PoplJ/atjon and Housing 1980 1990 1 810,203 1 678,745 673 ,075 677,512 741.924 735 310 Center for UrlJan Transportation 8 1990 Rank" 1990 UA" Average 17 2,560,685 17 954,382 20 1, 234,536


Guideway Transit and lntermodalism: Function and Effectiveness Pittsburgh has a relatively low popu l ation density. At 2,158 persons per square m il e it ranks 28th among all urbanized areas with guideway transit. In addition the proportion of the urbanized area populat i on liv i ng in the centra l city (23. 6 I! less than ha l f the U S. urban ized area average of 49.8 percent. Although the UA as a whole has a r elat i vely low population density, many of its cities and boroughs have high population densities. Table 3 shows the cities and boroughs with pop ulation dens i ties exceeding 6 000 In fact, neany one-third of the Pitlsburgh UA's popu l ation resides in cities and boroughs with population densities exceeding 6,000 persons per square mile Over 75 percent of the population lives outside the central city. The central city population density (6,528 persons per square mile) is much less than that of Baltimore Maryland, and slightly less than that of Cleveland Ohio, both older gu i deway cities of comparable size and population The relatively low central city population and low population densities represent the economic growth in Pittsburgh's CBD. Pitlsburgh's CBD has developed into a majo r emp l oyment center drawing in commuters from the suburbs and outside the UA boundaries. The CBD has become a major center for employment but as a residentia l center it has actually experienced decline Table 4 summarizes various demographic characteristics for the Pitlsburgh UA. The average for a ll urbanized a r eas with gui deway trans i t is included for comparison. From Table 4 the follow i ng conclusions can be made: The age distribution i n Pittsburgh shows a higher proportion of persons 60 years and older than most cities with guideway transit. Minorities are a considerably lower share of population than most UAs with guideway transit. Although the median income is low in Pittsburgh relative to other guideway cities, the poverty level in Pitlsburgh is close to the average for UAs with guideway transit The labo r force participation rate is low i n Pittsburgh compared to most guideway cities Vehicle ownership is lower i n Pittsbu r gh than the average guideway city. Center for Urban Tran&portatlon Research 9


Guideway Transit and lntennodal/sm: Function and Effectiveness Table 3 PITTSBURGH ClllES AND BOROUGHS WITH POPUI.A 1lON DENSillES OVER 6,000 City/Township/Borough Population Density Dormont borough 9,772 13, 272 Mount Oliver borough 4,160 t2,300 Avalon borough 5,784 9,185 Wilkinsburg borough 21,080 9,154 Bellevue borough 9 126 9,119 Ingram borough 3 901 8,949 Swissvale borough 10,637 8,873 Aspinwa D borough 2,880 8 ,684 Amok! city 6, 1 13 8 ,311 Braddock borough 4 ,682 8,260 Sharpsburg borough 3,781 7 778 Wast View borough 7 ,734 7,666 Pitcairn borough 4 ,087 7,659 Brentwood borough 10,823 7 ,481 McKeas Rocks borough 7,691 7,419 Brackenridge borough 3,784 7,391 Homestead borough 4,179 7,363 Ro c hester borough 4 156 7,058 East M cK eesport borough 2 678 6,820 TurUe Creek borough 6 556 6,682 New Brighton borough 6 854 6 ,661 Pittsburgh city 319,879 6,6-U Millvale borough 4 ,341 6 ,845 Cra fton borough 7,188 6 ,350 Southwest Greensburg borough 2,456 6,128 Vero na borough 3 ,260 6,110 Edgewood borough 3,581 6,082 Two boroughs were exc/ucJ.d from thrs ttb/t du to population totals le$S th1111 1,000 Sou reo: 1990 U.S ol Populttlon tnd Housing c.nrer for Urban Tranpon.tion 10


Guideway Tr ansit and lntermodal/sm: Function and Effectiveness . < . ...... ',

Guideway Transit and lntennodall&m: Functlon and Effectiveness ., 'Table, 5 PITTSBURGH JOURNEY TOWORKCHARACTERISTICS Category Pittsburgh Total and Rank Mode Share %of Total Rank Drive Alone (SOV) 68.95% 26 CarpooWanpool 12.90% 14 Transit 10.09% 7 Other 8.06% Ave r age Tr avel Time (minutes) 22.6 17.0 Work in MSA of Residence In 38.87% 26 Central Place Work in MSA of Residence 54.66% 8 Outside Central Place Work Outside MSA of Residence 6 46% 14 Re presents the average of 1M 33 US urtwalztd litH IAAth guicWway transit Souree: 1990 U S Census or Populat/orJ and HoUSing Average Average 73, 12% 12.74% 6.76% 22 9 48.70% 44.03% 7.27% As PArs most recent on-board SUJYey reveals, the profile of typical transit riders vary significantly between bus and rail modes Table 6 displays selected socio-economic data as estimated by PAT's 1988 on-board survey. Patrons of the "T" and the East Busway report a higher level of vehicle ownership relative to the transn system as a Whole. It is apparent that the East Busway and the "T" capture a greate r percentage of discretionary riders than the system as a Whole. It might be inferred, given their level of discretionary riders and higher incomes, that the East Busway and the "T" have a greater share of their riders commuting to work than the regular bus service. Another obvious difference between the "1" and the East Busway is the proportion of female riders. There is almost an even distribution of females and males using the "T." However nearly three out of four (71 percent) riders on the East Busway are women Population end Employment Projections Despite recent populat i on and employment dec l ines, conside r ab l e growth is forecasted for the cey of Pittsburgh, the remainder of Allegheny County, and surrounding counties. Table 7 displays SPRPC s r egional popu l ation and employment projections to year 201 5 O f the 380 0000 addit ional residents expected in the region two-thirds of this increase is expected fo r Allegheny County alone The suburbs of Pittsburgh will experience the greatest population growth in the reg i on with an additional 220 ,000 persons, or 57 percent of the region's total increase. Center for Urban Tnnsporlation Research 12


Guideway T ransit and l n term o daHsm: Fun c tion and Effectiveness . . Giv en tha t e m p l oyment i n Pittsburgh is projected to i ncrease at a much faster rate than population (26 p e rcent versus 10 is apparent that commuting int o from surround ing areas will grow considerably over the next 20 y e ars G iven the constraint s imposed by the road and b ridge networks, this may result in new oppo rtunit i es for increas ing transi t ridership ',, ..... '' ''"" ., ,;j ' '' ''/ . . : . . : : } : ... . . ., . _< : .. : >: ' ' : . . : . ' o' o o' ' A ''' "' l ' ',' ' : . Characteris tic EastBu s way Ligh t R ail SystemWide AverageA9e 37 37 38 Sex Male 29% 49% 34% Female 71% 51% 66",(, Average Househo l d Income $30,500 $36 800 $26 000 Zero-car Househ ol ds 16% 11% 45% Source: Port Authonty of Alfegheny County, 1988 Survey :. : =; : -:' <...: ';,}m .... . ,/:, .'_l, ;r.\ ;.:y: . .. : f f . .... ; ..... r ... N E ,Jr E : 'RO:I :C'tJONS'f""'i ', ', : )?'!; .. , ;x.. s . 'y,. .. ' :,.. 1 CATEGORY Population 1 9 9 0 20 1 5 C h ange 1 990 Allegheny County 1 336,278 1,592,341 19% 82 3 063 C ity of Pittsburgh 369,708 4 05,689 1 0 379,23 1 Rema i nder of C ounty 966 570 1 ,186,65 2 23 443, 832 Armst r o n g County 73, 478 78,751 7 25,570 Beaver Co u nty 186, 09 3 209,845 13 63, 678 Butler County 152,013 1 81 644 19 64 707 Was h ington Co u nty 204,584 228 837 12 76,965 W e stmoreland C o unty 370 321 414 ,955 1 2 142 ,674 SPRPC Tot als 2,324,757 2,708 388 1 7 1 1 98,647 SouJCe : SPRP C Cycle V Forecasts: PopUlation, HouuholdS. Employment. SPRPC Centor for Urba n Transportation Research 13 Em p l o y m en t 20 1 5 C h a n ge 1 056 043 28% 477,327 26 578,716 30 30 376 19 83,976 32 8 4, 879 31 98,499 28 177,638 25 1,533 426 28


Guideway Transit and lnt.,.,oda.lism: Function and Effectiveness Urban Patterns and Transit Himry Pittsburgh has changed dramatically in the past 30 years. The steel mills and smoke-fi lled skies that once labeled Pittsburgh as steel City" are nowhere to be seen. Pittsburgh s downtown has been redeveloped into a thriving urban center with major ba nking corporate, and other financial service operations. Employment forecasts reflect the continuing evolution of the Pittsburgh UA. The SPRPC projects that an additional 98,000 jobs will be added to the city of Pittsburgh by 2015 Given that manufacturing employment is expected to decline by more than 4,000 jobs and retail employment is expected to increase by only 4 400 jobs, the bulk of the employment growth will be in the banking, fina ncia l services, and I nsurance sectors. The redevelopment of Pittsburgh's CBD was the driving force for major changes in Pittsburgh's intermodal transit system. Until the late 1960s, on-street trolley cars crowded the roads along with buses, cars, and pedestrians. During rush hours, concrete safety islands were crowded with commuters waiting to catch the streetcars Road congestion, inclement weather, and other factors led to excessive travel times on the trolleys. The picture of travel in Pittsburgh was bleak at times, and promised to worsen as skyscrapers were being constructed and even more pressure on the currently saturated transportation system loomed JJ;'""'. Figure 4. En1ering the "T." Terminal to the subway portion of the r in the heart of Pittsburgh CBD. SHn directly bFJhind the station are PNC Bank and Steel Plaza {Photo. Mitch York) Center for Urban Transportation Research 14


Guid..way Transit and lntermodallsm: Function and Effectiveness In 1964, the operation of Pittsburgh Railways was ta ken over by the Port Authority of Allegheny County. PAT unified private bus operators Into one common operator and for the first time a unified fare and transfer policy was established : were being closed and by 1967 only the South Hills trolleys lines rema ined (because buses couldn't effectively serve South Hill's steeply sloping landscape). The existing rail system was extensive but deteriorated and PAT was cha rged to p lan a countywide rapid transi t system. Part of PArs early action program was to develop two transit-exclusive busways and an elevated, rubber-tired, rapid transit line known as the "Skybus ." UMTA's concerns about the Skybus technology lead to a provision that some trolley service had to be maintained for th ree years after Skybus began operations. By 1975, it was obvious that Skybus would not be buill and thus approval was granted to develop the trolley service into a light rail system. The first stage of the light rail line was completed in 1987 following the construction of the South Busway (1977) and the Eas t Busway (1983). Stage II development of the light rai l system is still in the planning stages. : Center for Urban Transportation Rae11rch 15


Guideway Transit and lntermodalism: Function and Effectiveness Centet' for Urban Trensportation Re-search 16


Guideway TTansit and lnte""odlllsm: FUnction and Elfecti'veness Guideway Transit Components In the Region PAT operates a unique i ntermodal system consisting of light rail busways, inclin es, and mot orbus service (Figure 6 ). All modes p lay a particular ro l e In moving people to and from downtown Pittsburgh while functioning together as an intermodal system. The "T" is a 22.5-mlle light rail system serving Pittsburgh and the suburbs of the South Hills' communities. After the 'T' crosses the M onongahe l a River, it traverses underground and services Pittsbu rgh's CBD as a safe, clean, and effic i ent sub w ay The South and East busways differ from the conventional high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes found In many other urbanized areas Excluding maintenance and public service vehicles (police, fire, and ambulance) these two busways are exclusively for public transit buses; therefore, they effectively operate as a "fixed guideway mode of transportation. In to serving tourists the Monongahela and Duquesne inclines function a s a major mode of transportation for residen t s In the southern hills i de communities who desire t o aceess Pittsburgh's urban core Guideway transn and intermodalism are key elements in Pittsburgh s long-range planning The major new infrastructure project under development is the Airport Busway/Waba s h HOV facility. Extending the East Busway, upgrading much of the light rail system (primarily the Overbrook line), and expanding the existi n g subway system (the Spine Una) are all in the long-range planning process. These projects are discussed in greater detail later In the text. PAT operates throughout Allegheny County Its service area is 775 square miles serving a population of 1.5 million. This represents 88 percent of the population of the Pittsburgh UA. PAT provides fixed route motor bus, light rail and incl ine services seven days a week, a conglomeration of 900 buses 711ight rai l vehicles and 2 inclines PAT also contracts with private carriers to provide paratrans serv ices through their ACCESS program The Port Authority employs approximately 2 ,400 persons f ull time in public transportation Centor for Url>an Tronoportotion Resoarth 17


GuideWily Transit and lntermodallsm: Function and Effectiveness All modes combined, PAT provided nearly 7'\. 1 million unlinked passenger trips in 1g94 for a total of 304.7 million passenger miles. As seen i n Figure 5 the number of passenger trips declined by an average annual rate of 2.8 p e rcent from 1981 to 1994. This trend remains true in recent years PAT as a whole experienced a decline i n passenger trips of 3 8 percent per year from 1990 to 1994. The decline in ridership is not attributable to one particular mode; all three modes experienced a consistent decrease in ridership. Passenger miles traveled declined at a slower rate from 1981 to 1994. Passenger miles declined from 369 million in 1981 to 304.7 million in 1994, a decrease of 1.5 percent (Figure 6). However, passenger miles have decreased greatly during recent years. From 1990 through 1994, passenger miles decreased 6.6 percent. Figure 5 PAT Transit Annual Passenger Trips and Passenger Miles Passenger Trips Passenger Miles i 106.8 - .J 88.9 88.7 .. ,.:;.J,> .. 72.8 -"'.). ' ) . .. I } : .;,( .... . ."/. ., ... r-;::::.. .:-;.?': ... -:: ,, .. ,I ,.,_,'. . v':.'<' tf. tf' ... .: : . .: \ _,,., .... .. ". '\';_,; .. r" . ' ..... ::r:: r..-1: -"> ;.:! .. .. ..... ,. "t ... .{f..:;,. :'' .,_l""'-""""! p .. 1-' :., .... 1981 1985 1990 1994 1981 The vast majority of transit trips are taken on bus. In 1994 more than 87 percent of all transit passenger trips were by bus, nearly 11 pe r cent by light rail, and slightly less than 2 percent on the inclines (Table 8). In addition the modal split has changed very little during the fou r-year period The split among passenger miles is similar to passenger trips In 1994, more than 88 percent of all passenger miles were by bus 12 percent by light rail, and 0.1 percent on the inclines (Table 9). In 1994, more than 21 percent of all motorbus passenger miles were on the busways. The proportion of all passenger miles taken on guideway transit peaked at 42 percent in 1992 but declined considerably to 31 percent in 1994. Much of this can be attributed to the closing of the Overbrook line in 199'3 and the temporary closing of the Mt Washington Tunnel for const ruction in June 1993 Center for Urban Transportation Raoarch 18


Guideway Transit and lntormodaJism: Function and ErrectJveness Figure 6 Pittsburgh's lntermodal Transportation System Center for Urban Transportation Re$&atch 19


this page lS blank


Gui d e wa y Transit and inte rmo dalism: Function and Effec t i v eness Full service through the Mt. Washi ngton Tunn e l w as not resumed un til November During t h e cons tNcti on period rail service decre ased by 7 percent and rid e rship loss averaged 16 percen t per month. " .: . :Tabia \ B '. < : :: : . . : .; " . !: :. . . 19 9 1 1 9 92 1993 1994 Mod e Total % T o t a l % To t a l % To ta l % M ot or Bus 73. 5 86. 4 % 65. 6 86 .6% 67. 3 86 .8% 64. 8 87.5% Light Rail 10 0 11.7% 8.7 11.5% 8 8 11.4% 7.9 1 0.7% 1.5 1 .8% 1 4 P lane 1 .8% 1.4 1 .8% 1.3 1.8% To t a l 85. 0 100.0% 75. 7 100.0% n.s 100.0% 7 4.0 100 0% Source: Port AuthOifty of AQeghen_y County, 1993 Sec6lln 15 Report .. : .. . / .... . . . .. " "' . ... .... .. : "'<""*' . ....... ,.,.{, .l.: /,<';-' .. ... : :' ., 1991 1 992 199 3 1 994 Mo d e To t a l % Tota l % Tota l % Total % All Bus 323.1 84.0% 231 8 82.4% 325. 8 89.0% 268 7 88.2% Non-Buswa y Bus 255. 2 79.0% 17S. 1 7S. S% 266.6 211 6 78.8% Busway 67. 9 2 1 .0% 56.7 2A.5% 59. 2 18.2% 57.2 2 1 .l% Light Rail 61. 6 1 6.0% 4 9.5 17.6% 40.2 11.0% 35. 7 1 1.7% Inclined Plane 0.1 0 .0% 0.2 0. 1 % 0.2 0.1% 0 2 0.1% Total 384.8 100 .0% 281.4 100.0% 3 86 1 100 .0% 304 7 100.0% G u i deway T ot a l 1 29.6 37. 1 % 106 4 42.1% 99.5 27.2% 93. 1 30.6% S ource: Port Authorlty of AH&ghtny County, Sectfon 15 Reports Light R ail Transit PAT's 22.5mile li gh t rail transi t fa cility i s k no wn locally as the "T." The pri mary f unction of the"'!" is to move peop l e to and f ro m Pittsburgh to southern Allegheny Cou n ty c o mmunities slretchlng s o u t hward to South Hill s ( F igure 7) C urrently two maj o r ro u tes are oper a t ed w i t h articu l ated S i emen Duwag L RVs --425 (South Hills V ill age) and 42L (Library) Another m inor route w ith compara t iv e l y low r i dership is 47D (Dra k e) that is serviced by PCC cars C enter for Urban Transportation Research 21


Guideway Transit and lntermodallsm: Function and Effectiveness Figure 7 Pittsburgh s Light Rail Transit System, the 'T North Side Dormont Junction Mt. Lebanon ) Overbrook South Hills VIllage Drake/ Bethel Park Library --Center for Urban Transportation Research 22 Stage 1 LRT Stage 2LRT South Busway


Guideway Transit and lntennodal/sm: Function and Effectiveness The characteristics of the "T" change as it passes from one community to the next In Pittsburgh's CBD, the r is a 4.2-mile subway system. '.T le aves the CBD and crosses the Monongahela v i a the Smithfield Bridge, it comes to Station Square : AI Station Square, transfers can be made to bus service and just a few hundred feet away is the Monongahela Incline Leav in g Stat i on Square, the "T" immediately passes through the MI. Washington Tunnel to reach the system's major transfer center-South Hills Junction. The right-of-way from South Hills through the Mt. Washington Tunnel to Station Square is shared by both light rail vehicles (LRVs) and buses. Proceeding south from South Hills, the 'T' winds through dozens of Allegheny County s many suburban boroughs and townships, where street runn i ng i s common and results in many grade crossings From Donnont Junction through MI. Lebanon, the "T" passes through a 3,200-foot tunnel bu il t to keep the LRVs off the streets in this area Soon following Mt. Lebanon is Washington Junction where the "T" splits to its two major end points-Bethel Park to the south and South Hills Village to the southeast In Washington Junction serves as a transfer point from the LRVs to the PCC cars that eventually deadhead at Drake South Hills V i llage is the location of PAT's major maintenance faciley Figure 8. Siemo n Duwag LRVs (SDU-03). PAT owns and operates 55 of these articulated LRVs, manufactured in 1985 These vehicles have a seating capacity of 54 and standing capacity of 27. (Photo : York) Center for Urban Transportation Research 23


Guideway Transit and lntermoda/lsm: Function and Effectiveness Figure 9. PCC 4001. PCC 4001 approach ing CasU6 Sh6nnon PAT owns and PCCs, manufactured in 1948. These vehicl&s hav9 a seating capacity of 50 and standing capacity of 25 (Photo : York ) The light rail system includes 54 stops, of which 14 are major stations (Figure 7). Each of the 14 major stations is handicapped accessible All 3 subway stations and 5 of the other 11 major stations have bus connections available. At Station Square and South Hills, transfers can be made to and from the South Busway. Of the nine major stations not located in the subway seven have park-n ride facilities Parking at these facilit ies is free. Other characteristics of the system are presented in T able 10. All the LRVs are equipped for both high and low platform boardings and alightings. This is especially useful in providing two-car train rush-hour service on Route 42S. The second car on these trains display "43S South Hills Village; which indicates to riders tha t the second car stops at high platforms onl y. Riders who wish to board or exit at any street -l evel stops must ride in the first car which is designated "42S South Hills Village. Na turally the amenities of the downtown subway stations greatly differ from the rest of the line. PAT officials take pride in saying their number one goal of the downtown service is to provide a clean and safe subway system that will stand out as a point of civic pride. The stations are kept very clean and are safe. Eating, drinking, or smoking is prohibited. Security is provided by overhead surveillance cameras and transit guards. Informat ion booths and seating are provided as well. The major above ground stations vary in size and amenities. All are sheltered and have benches and garbage recep t acles. However service information is not always posted or made available at these locations. C&nter for Urban Transpol1atlon Research 24


Guideway Transit and lntermodalism: Function and Effectiveness System Characteristics Directional Route Mileage (Total) At grade separate At grade street Subway Elevated (on structure) Number of Stations Vllllh park-and-rides Vllllh transit connection (to other modes) Number of Routes Service Frequency Peak Off Peak Rolling Stock Characteristics Equipment Siemen Duewag (U3s) PCCs Platform Location LRVs PCCs Powe r Supply Train size Train Operation System Use in 1994 (In M i llions) Annual unlinked trips Annual vehicle revenue miles Annual passenger miles 48.4 37.4 4 4 4.2 2.4 14 9 8 4 3-5 minutes 1 0-30 minutes 55 16 high and low low overhead 650 V 1 cars manual control 7 .9 1 .60 35.8 Includes Route 52 (Allentown Trolley) in which service has currently been suspon

Guideway Transit and lntermodalisrn: Function and Effectiveness Ridership on the r has declined in recent years. As shown in Table 11, there was a 21 percent decline in annual passenger trips from 1991 to 1994. Much of the decline in ridership is the result of service cuts previously mentioned. PAT officials point out that much of the decline also is due to capacity problems. Park-and-ride spaces number approximately 2,400, and they are always filled during the weekdays. The LRVs are filled to capacity during peak service hours as well PAT has experienced an Increase in the cost of providing trips on the "T." The cost per passenger t rip increased from $2.80 in 1991 to $3.50 in 1994 representing an increase of 25 percent. However, from 1992 through 1994, the average passenger fare has increased by only 2.7 percent (Table 11). . Table 1-1 LIGHT RAIL .OPERA 11NG.PERFORMANCE . Operating Category 1991 1992 1993 Operating Expense (miiRons) $27.80 $23.49 $27.40 Passenger Fare Revenue (mil5ons) na $6.52 $6.70 Passenger Trips (mil ions) 10,0 8 7 8 8 Farebox Recovery na 27.8% 24.5% Operating Expense per Passenger Trip $2.78 $2.70 $3.10 Average Fare na $0.75 $0.76 1991 Secllon 15 Report$ presented pasMnger lare revenuuu a system total onty Source: Pott Authority of Allf<9heny County Sdon 15 Repons Busways 1994 $27.50 $6.10 7.9 22.2% $3.48 $0.77 Pittsburgh is the country's pioneer in transit exclusive busways. PAT currently provides local and express bus service on the South Busway and the Martin Luther King, Jr. East Busway. The South Busway serves Pittsburgh, Station Square, and the South Hill's suburbs. The East Busway prov ides service to downtown Pittsburgh, the East End and the Eastern Suburbs of Allegheny County (Figure 5). The busways provide service that is effectively similar to a light rail system. The capacity of the busways is similar to a light rail facility. Transit service and ridership on the two busways have been impressive although declining in recent years. With busways combined, nearly 2 million vehicle revenue miles were provided in 1994 with annual passenger miles of more than 59 million (Table 12). Vehicle revenue miles have increased by 3 percent since 1991, while passenger miles have declined by 15.8 percent. Center for Urban Transportation Ruesrch 26


Guideway Tran.s/1 and lntermodslism: Function and Effectiveness . . ., . . . . .. :: .. > Tabiir42-: : .. ' . .. . : . . ; System Characteris tics .. MLK East Busway South Busway Opening Year of System 1983 1977 Directional Route Mlleege (TotaQ 6.8 4.0 At grade separate 6.8 4.0 AI grade street 0 0 Subway 0 0 Elevated (on structure) 0 0 Number of Stations 6 2 IMth par<-n -ri des 0 0 V\Mh transit connection (to other 0 1 transit m odes ) Number of Routes 17 7 Service Frequency Minimum Peak 10 minutes 10 minutes Maximum off Peak 20 minutes 20 minutes System Use and Service (m i iDons) 1991 1994 %Change Annual Passenger Miles 67.9 572 15.8% : Annual Vehicle Revenue Miles 1.9 2.0 3.0% "Includes aN routes thst access tho buSway. sourc. : Port AJ.Jthority of ANegheny County. Section 15 Rtpo.rts The South Busway opened In 1977 for the purpose of providing traffic-free travel from South Hills neighborhoods to P ittsburg h. The four-mile South Busway runs along Route 51 but avoids the congestion and botlUenecks common to this corridor. Coming from the East Busway's South Hill's endpoint at Glenbury (Figure 5), the busway allows passengers to board on six other stops along the way to the major transfer sta tion at South Hills Junction. At South Hills Junction, patrons may easily transfer to the''T" or continue their t rip aboard the bus into downtown P ittsburgh. Overall, seven routes and two major stations serve the South Busway. Peak-hour services run as frequent as 10 minutes and off-peak services run no l onger than 20 minutes. No park-n-ride facilities are provided along the South Busway. The East Busway opened in 1963 as a method of relieving growing congestion in Pittsburgh's eastern corridor The East Busway differs from the South Busway and other busway/HOV lanes in Center for Urban Transportation Resurch 27


Guideway Transit and lntermodallsm: FuncUon and Elfectlveness that it shares a Conra il railroad right-of-way instead of a highway right of-way. The 6.8-mile busway stretches from the Eastern borough of Wilkinsburg through Homewood, East Liberty, and Oakland, and comes to an end just past Penn Station. The busway has one lane in each direction and was designed for speeds up to 50 m p.h for most of i ts length. The speeds on ramps and at stations are 15 and 25 m.p.h. respectively. Roadway improvements were made in the areas surrounding Wilkinsburg and East Liberty Stations to allow buses to smoothly merge with local traffic. These improvements included widening roadways and traffic signalization changes. Overall, 17 routes access the East Busway with a mixture of express and "all-stops service. The busway is served by seven on/off ramps and six passenger stations. The stations were designed to provide efficient service and a customer friendly environment. Most station plattonns are 120 feet long and accommodate two buses at a time. The East Liberty and Penn Park Stations are 240 feet lo ng and accommodate four buses All busway stations have pull-off lanes that allow express buses to bypass the stations. With the e xception of the Penn Park Station, all the stations have passenger facilities (shelters and benches). All the stations are handicapped accessible and two have auto passenger drop -off lanes However, no parl(-n -rid e lots are present along the busway. Most of the stations have pedestrian crosswalks and the East Liberty Station has two pedestrian bridges Like the South Busway, the East Busway operates peak-hour services as frequent as 10 minutes while off-peak services run no longer than 20 minutes Centr for Urban Transpor'tAtion Raearch 28


Guideway Transit and /ntermodalism: Function and Effectiveness Figure 10. T he Martin Luther King, Jr. East Busway, The East busway prohibits prlvat& autos from ent9ring the n'ght of way Exceptions are made for public .service vehicles (Photo: M i tch York) Figu r e 11. The Martin Luther King, Jr East Busway. The East Busway has sev en on/off ramps and six passenger stations a ll owing i t to f unct i on s i milar to a light rail $ystem with an-s t ops" and expre .ss services (Photo: Mitch York) Confer for Urban Tramportatlon Research 29


Guideway Transit and lntennodallsm: Function and Effectiveness Inclines Although tourists ride the inclines in order to view the spectacular Pittsburgh landscape, the Monongahela and Duquesne inclines provide many M I. Washington residents efficient access to Station Square and Downtown Pittsburgh. A dense residential area occupies Mt. Washington which is separated by a steep escarpment from the narrow flood plain along the river. The base of the Monongahela is only a few hundred feet from Station Square where trave lers can catch the 'T' for a short trip in to the heart of Pittsburgh. The Duquesne is approximately 1.25 miles west of the Monongahela Incline. Several bus routes serve the Duquesne Incline and provide access to Downtown. Pittsburgh's two inclines are the remains of what once was a system of 15 inclines and represent one-half of all remaining inclines in the country. The Monongahela is owned and operated by PAT. The Duquesne is also owned by the PAT but is leased to the Society for the Preservation of the Duquesne Incline for an annual fee of $1.00. The Society operates the incline during the year and retains all revenues to offset operating costs The inclines remain an inexpensive method of moving people to and from MI. Washington to Station Square Passengerfares cover operating expenses by more than 150 percent (Table 13). Although operating expenses have increased in r ecent years, the operating expense per passenger trip is only $ 52. There has been a slight decline in ridership; from 1991to 1994, total annual passenger trips declined from 1 55 million to 1.37 million or by 11.6 percent. Tab)e 13 INCliNE orERA 11NG, Operating Category 1991 1992 1993 Operating E xpense (millions) $0. 70 $0.70 $0.73 Passenger Fare Revenue (millio ns) na $1.06 $1.10 Passenger Trips (millions) 1.55 1.39 1. 4 1 Farebox Recovery na 151.5% 151.4% Operating Expense per $0.45 $0.50 $0. 52 Passenger Trip t990 and 1991 Section 15 Reports presented pNSengerlare revenues as a system total only. Source: Port Authority of AJ1egheny County. Seclion 15 Repot1s Center for Urban Transportation Research 30 .. 1994 $0.71 $1.08 1.37 151.3% $0.52


Guideway Transit and lntermodalism: Function and Effoctivones& . . ' ; Figure 12. Monongahela Incline. The Monongall&la Incline es seen from its base a few hundr9d feet from station Square. (Photo: Mitch York) Figure 13. Monongahela Incline. The Monongahela lncf;ne as seen from Mt. Washington, (Photo Mijch York) Center for Urban Transportation Research 31


Guideway Transit and lntennodalism: FuncUon and Effectiveness The inclines operate from 5:30a.m. to 12:45 a m during the week. On weekends, the Monongahela operates from 8:45a.m. to midnight and the Duquesne from 7:00a.m. to 12:45 a.m. Fares are $1.00 each way but tokens may be purchased 6 for $5.00 or 20 for $14.00. Although facts on the Duquesne are not available, Table 14 presents an overview of the Monongahela Transit Finance Funding for PAT comes from a variety of sources other than farebox revenues. PAT receives traditional Section 3 and g assistance funds. These totaled $33 million in 1994. PAT is also supported by several state-dedicated funding sources enacted in fiscal year 1992 by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and require a 1:30 local match These state-dedicated sources include the following items: 3 percent additional tax on leasing motor vehicles $2 .00 surcharge per day on rental vehicles $1.00 tax per tire sold in Pennsylvania 6 percent sales tax expanded to include periodicals 12 mill increase on public utility tax As a t ransit agency in Pen nsylvania, PAT Is a recipient of a portion of these funds. In fiscal year 1994 PAT recei ved $38.2 million of these dedicated sources of which 49 percent was allocated for operating expenses and the remaining portion to uses. Other funding comes from the general revenues of the state and local government, special state funding for senior citizen ridership and fro m a state program that funds all material and labor costs on qualifying major revenue vehicle imp rovemen ts. Center for Urban Transportation Research 32


Guideway Trans/land lnlermodalism: Function and Effectiveness ,., i-f.'jjf;,fjJ' ;. . .. : a e '' <, ... ''""''';:. '::J') ,,..,. . . . . . .. Length 635 feet Elevation 367.39 Grade 35 degrees, 35 minutes Speed 6 miles per hour Passenger Capacity 25 per car Opened May 28, 1882 Renovated-1882 1882 (with steel struclure) Renovated 1935 electrical equipment replaced steam engine Renovated-1882 structure, station and cars rehabilitated Renovated 1994 station, accessibility, electrical motor, and brak ing systems Scwrce: Port Authority of AJJegh&ny County Fare Policy .PAT's fare policy Is a typical zone based system with fares increasing as riders travel greater distances. Table 15 presents the seven zones and the i r fares. The Free Fare Zone is exclusive to the Golden Triangl e and includes all bus trips before 7:00 p .m. Aller 7:00p. m., the fare is $.75 within the Golden Triangle. The 'T' is free between Gateway Center, Wood S1reet Steel Plaza and Penn Station at all times. The Downtowner Zone includes Station Square, Allegheny Center, Allegheny General HospHal, Three Rivers Stadium Civic Arena, and Strip District Zone 1 i ncludes all of the city of Pittsburgh and parts of the inner suburbs. Zones 2, 3, and 4 encompass the outer Pittsburgh suburbs and Zone 5 is outside of Allegheny County Transfers cost $0 .25 for a one-zone ride and are valid for three hours. Only one discounted transfer is allowed; additional trans fers cost $1.25. Disabled persons and children ages 6 through 11 pay only $0.10 per transfer. Center for Urban Transportation Resarch 33


Guldway Transit and lntennochJ/ism: Function and Effttctiveness Table 15 PAT 1RA VEL.ZONES.AND FARES Fre& Fare Zone Free Oowntowner Zone S.75 On&-Zone Ride 1.25 TW<>-Zone Ride 1.60 Three--Zone Ride 1.95 Four-Zone Ride 2.30 Five-Zone Ride 3 50 Souru: P()Jt AuthOifty of AJiegheny County PAT offers a variety of discounts and passes that may be used on the bus system and the "1" as well. Table 16 summarizes the passes available According to PAT s 1988 on-board survey over 34 percent of riders used either the weekly or month ly pass. Approximately 40 percent paid with cash, and 10 percent used senior citizen discounts. Table 16 .. ; PA T 'TRANSIT PASSES > Zona Book ofTen Weekly Monthly Annual Free Fare Zone n/a nta nta n/a Downtowner Zone $6.75 n/ a nta nla One Zone Ride $11.50 $11.00 $40.00 $400 00 Two Zone Ride $14.50 $14 .00 $51.00 $510.00 Three Zone Ride $17.00 $17 .00 $62.00 $620 00 Four Zone Ride $20.50 $20.00 $73.00 $730.00 Five Zone Ride $31.50 $30 .00 $113.00 $1,130.00 Sovrc: Pori. Aurhoffty of M-ohtny county Fare collection on the 'T' and buses is simple and is designed to encourage quick and effic ient transfers at the busy downtown stations and stops Fares are collected as patrons board for all trips going to down town Pittsburgh. When travel i ng away from downtown Pittsburgh, fares are collected as riders leave. However after 7:00p.m., all bus riders pay as they board. Pittsburgh's two incline Center for Urban TraMportation Research 34


Guideway Transit and lnlolmodalism: Function and Effecliv&ness planes both charge $1.00 each way. Fares are payabl e by tokens, which may be purchased at d i scounts (6 for $5.00 or 20 for $14.00). In summary PAT's fare policy encourages ridership and facilitates quick boardings alightlngs and transfers. The Free Fare Zone gives an economic incentive to use public transit while also eliminati ng delays inherent in fare collection. While revenues may be lost as a consequence of the free fares they are offset by a reduction in operating costs that result from the reduced dwell times at stations and stops. The method of collection also facilitates quick and easy boardings. Center for Urban Transportation Research 35


Guideway Transit nd lntennodalism: Function and Effectiveness Centr for Utban Transporttltion Research 36


Guideway Transit and lntermoda/lsm: Function and Effectiveness Pittsburgh lntermodal Transportation System This section discusses how the transit components in the Pittsburgh UA function as an intermodal system. First SPRPC's development of a r egional lntermodal Management System (IMS) is reviewed and Allegheny County's major intermodal facilities, as i den tified in the IMS, are pres en ted Second, the ease of transfer from one mode to another is discussed In summary, the overall in termodal presence in the UA is examined Regional/ntermodal Management System The SPRPC, at the request of Penn DOT, is developing an lntermodal Management System, which they define as a systematic process of identifying specific projects that will Increase the efficiency of goods and people movement in the region while simuHaneously allowing the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation to fulfill its requirements to develop a statewide IMS as stated in the l ntermoda l Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA)." The function of the IMS is to assist in the overall purpose of the region's intermodal system. This purpose, as stated in SPRPC's ln termodal Management system Phase I Report is: to provide "seamless transportation within southwestern Pennsylvania. The specific mode of transportation is not important, but rather that people and freight move from origin to d est ination quickly, safely, reliably, and cheaply T he implementation of SPRPC's JMS Is divided into two phases. Phase I includes the following tasks: establishing an appropriate organizational structure development of goals and objectives identification of all intermodal facilities preliminary assessment of intermodal facilities The stated goals and objectives of the IMS that relate to transit include: Overall Goal The region will be distinguished by a growing economy that provides jobs for peo p le of all skills; an assortment of diverse communities linked to a strong regional core; a well developed adequate ly maintained, efficient and technologically advanced transportation system; and abundant scenic and environmenta l assets. Mobjljtv Goal Efficient movement of people within the region an d beyond This includes strategica lly mainta ini ng the capacity, services. and safety of the region's existing transportat i on system while prioritizing those segments t hat serve primary in t ermodal flows. Center for Urban Transportation Re&earch 37


Guideway Transit and lntennodallsm: Function and Effectiveness This involves strategically improving t ransit service throughout the reg io n to ensure interconnectivity of passenger intermodal facilities Accessibilitv Goals Increasing accessibility to intermodal facilities to support the use of multi modal transp orta tion The objectives of this goal include: improving access to Pittsburgh lntemational Airport; improv ing access to pari<-and-ride lots, bicycle routes, and other intermodal passenger facilities to enhance transit usage; minimizing transfer time and dis tance at passenger intermodal facilities to provide for a seamless transfer from one mode to another Opportunjtv Goals Includes the objective of enhancing regional amenity by providing accessible transportation choices to the region's labor force. ln stijutjonal Goal-To facilitate cooperation and coordination among all stakeholders affected by the intermodal transportation system in order to ensure users an efficient and effective system A major goal of this objective includes facilitating distribution of information to ensure passengers a re notified of pertinent travel informa tion The SPRPC lists two goals mobility and accessibility, for assessing the quality of the !MS The institutional goal of each facility is to "facilitate cooperation and coordination among all stakeholders affected by the intermodal transportation system in order to ensure users an efficient and effective system. Relating to transit this goal is achieved by meeting the objective of "facilitating distribution of informat ion to ensure passengers are notified of pertinent travel informa tion." The first criteria, mobility, can be defined as allowing "goods and people to move efficiently to points within the region and destinations beyond the region safely, with as little delay as possible." Secondly, accessibility implies easy access into and out of pari<-n-ride lots and other transit facilities, as well as quick transfers from one mode to another within the train station." The two criteria are ranked in Table 17 in terms of good, fair or poor which are described in further detail below. QQOD Accessibility easy access into and out of facility with little or no delay or detour Mobility facility is connected with other facilities in the intermodaltransportation system .E&lB Accessibility moderate accessibility with some difficulty entering or exiting the facility Mob ili ty trave l between the facility and other facilities is acceptable POOR Accessibility major impediments in reaching the facility Mobility facility is isolated from other facilities in the system Center for Urban Transportation Research 38


Guide way Tran sit and l ntermoda/ism: Function and Effectiveness The NHS c onnector lis t of nationally significant passenger intennoda l faci li t ies is the ba s is for the list of passenger intermoda l f a cil i ties for the I MS. O ther facilities deemed regionally significant inclu d ing aviation airport s with a t least 20,000 annual opera t ions were added to the IMS li st. Future res e arch and Investigation may In the addition of other lnte nnodal facil i t ies Table 17 p r esents this li st of passenger lntermodal facili t i e s i n Allegheny County only . ,. , v'". : : : 3 : : : = / : \ : .,! . . .. . . . . ... . .. ... < : v:iJ.: .. . : . ;. ...... . . : : --.v,.:S", Preliminary Facility Type o f Facility C ounty V o lume Accessibility Mobility G r eyll o und I Amtrak Bus/ Trai n Allegheny >5000 Term i na l Cluste r station passengers/ day Poor Poo r PA East Busway Bus station A l legheny > 5000 Fai r Fai r Wilk insburg stati on passeng e rs/day PA T r a nsa Sout h Hills LR T /Bus > 1 0 00 pa r k/ride Village LRT S t ation Station Allegheny G oo d Fair spaces PA T ransit castkt t.R T I Bus > 500 park/ride Shannon LRT Station station Allegheny P o or Fair spaces P ittsburgh Internat i o n a l Commerci a l Allegheny 421,000 annua l A i rport Airport operations G ood Fair Allegheny C o un t y General Aviation Allegheny 1 55 400 a n nual Good Fa i r operations Source: lntermodal Management Systtm; Phase 1 Report, 1995 E a s e o f Tran sfer. from Mo d e to Mode The I MS prev i ously discussed ident i fies six passenger i ntermoda l facilities in Alle g he n y County (Tab l e 17) Five of the six facilit ies we r e identifi e d as having "fair" mobility indicat i ng that travel between that faci l ity and o ther facili t ies i s acceptab l e. The Greyhound/Amtrak tennina l cluster was iden tified as havi n g poor m o b ility, i ndica t ing is o la t i o n f rom other facil i ties in the system The Greyhound/Amtrak t ermina l cluster is located within a quarter-mile f rom the terminus o f the East Busway and from Penn Par1< (light rail station). Although four major modes of tra!) s portation exist in such close proximity each has its own s t a t ion In add i tion to the facilit ies li sted i n Table 17 two othe r major t r a n sfe r points exis t : South Hills Junction a n d Sta t ion Squ a re South Hills Junction is a trans fer center between m otorbus and li gh t ra il. All six Sou t h Busway routes act as feeder buses to th e 'T' along with seve r al othe r routes A t Center for Urban Transportation Research 39


Guldewy Transit and lntennodaflsm: Function and Effectiveness Sou t h Hills Junction riders can eithe r continue by bus or transfe r to the 'T' for the quick trip across the river into Downtown P i ttsburgh. The station has severa l amenities that support the transfer cente r including shelters lighting, and security officers. In addition, several stairways have been constructed from the hillside neighborhoods down to the station providing these residents access t o the buses and the T. Several hundred feet from South Hills Junction, through the South Hills Tunnel, i s Stat i on Square which is the last station before the 'T' crosses the Monongahela into downtown Pittsburgh. A"hough Station Squa r e is not formally a transfer center, the 1", Monongahela Incline, PAT buses, and private automobiles all converge at this location Severa l bus routes stop in front of Station Square many continuing downtown. A few private parking l ots are nearby and the Monongahela Incline is only a short distance to the west. Many Allegheny County res i dents benefrt from the arrangement at Station Square. For residents of Mt. Washington, the trip to Downtown consists of a ride down the Monongahela Incline a short walk (only a few hundred feet) to Station Square, and a ride on the 'T' o r a PAT bus Residents of other south and southeastern neighborhoods, including South S i de, Mt. Oliver, Overbrook, and Brentwood, have the opportunitY to ride PAT buses to Station Square and continue their trip to Downtown e i ther by continuing on a bus or by transfening to light ra il. lntermodalism i s not as evident along the East Busway. Parking is limited, and at most stations confined to nearby on-street parking Even at the downtown terminus of the busway where AMTRAK, Greyhound, and the "T" are all within a quarter-m ile, no intermodal facilitY is present and t r ansfening from one of these modes to another is cumbersome. lntermodallsm in Pittsburgh Although mobility throughout the region is important, the primary goal of public transit in the Pittsburgh UA is not to provide an encompassing intermodal transit system The majo r function of public transit to provide access into and throughout the CBD Give n the presence of the three rivers, access to the CBO is limited to a system of several bridges The bridges alone are not sufficient to meet the travel demands to and from the CBD. The busways and the light rai l system serve major traffic conidors flowing i nto the city of Pittsburgh providing congestion relief and allowing commuters an alternative to the automobile This role is embedded in the region's long range plans as well. For examp l e the Airport Busway/Wabash HOV facility is be i ng constructed to provide congest i on re l ief and transportation a l ternatives to travelers of the growing West Conidor The CBD certainly would not thrive without the light rai l system and the East Busway. More than 50 percent of all workers commuting into the P i ttsburgh's Golden Triangle ente r the district v i a public transit. On the East Busway alone, nearly 30, 000 persons access the CBD each weekday. Of the east Busway s 37 routes, 34 enter the CBD. Transit s ro l e of supporting Pittsburgh's CBD will grow in importance as employment growth (26 percent) is expected to exceed population growth (10 percen t ) from 1ggo to 2015. Center for Urban Transportation RMearch 40


Guideway T111nsit end lntermodall&m: Function and Effectiveness Planning Guideway Systems and lntermodalism in Pittsburgh Light Rail Transit Stage I Pittsburgh s current light rail system Is the result of evolving efforts to provide rapid mass transit service to the south corridor of Allegheny County. Early planning for this corridor Qllled for one transit..,xclusive busway and the development of an automated, elevated, rubber-tired rapid transit line deemed the "Skybus." The Skybus was to se

Guideway Transit and lntennothflsm: Function and Effectiveness Currently, the development of Stage II is subordinate to the completion of the Airport BuswayiWabash HOV and the East Busway extension. Spine Line The Spine Line, as described in SPRPC's 1985-1998 TIP, is: the ex t ension of the "1" to serve major east-west travel movements. The Spine Line would link downtown Pittsburgh with Oakland, and the lower North Side by way of a connection to the existing downtov.fl light rail system subway. This facility would provide the dense eastern corridor, which accounts for a major portion of Port Authority's ridership with a high capacity transit connection with downtown Pittsburgh and the North Side. The project will include an intra -North Shore Circulation System to provide east west access within the North Side. The Spine Une is expected to cost $1.5 billion and completion of this project is anticipated in 2009 Marti n Luther King, Jr. East Busway The plan to build the East Busway grew from concerns over increasing congestion along Pittsburgh's eastern corridor. The Penn Lincoln Parl

Guideway Transit and lnterm o daHsm: Function and EffectiVeness Acqui sition of the right-of-way was expected to be easy and relat i vely Inexpens i ve; the proposed right-of-way was owned by Penn Central Railroad and was being abandoned However, Penn Cen t ral Railroad went bankrupt an d the right-of-way was assumed by Conrail. Conrail, created by the government to operate many northeastern railroads, decided not to abandon the right-of-way Thus the o r igina l busway plans were no longer feasib l e . However shared use of the right -of-way was investigated and determined to b e f easible Conrail was using only two of the four t r acks It owned. I n 1975 an agreement was reached between PAT and Conrail tor shared use of the right-o f way. PAT agreed to purchased 73 acres of land, pay for reconstruclion of tracks along the f ull length of the alignment, upg r ade the tra i n signaling and communication systems, and construct the busway so that railroad service would remai n in operat i on Citizen groups represen ting the east corr i do r were qu ite active in the busway desi gn The busway was originally proposed to be 8 miles with the eastern termina l in Swissva l e Citizen opposition i n Swissva l e forced the eastern term inal to be moved to Wilkinsburg and the busway shortened to 6 8 miles vote determ i ned the configuration of the East liberty Stati on, Oakland off-ramp, and Wilkinsburg Interchange. Community groups were active in acquiring improved li ghting landscaping and safety features at all access points. The busway o pened for business on February 19 1 983, one year b eh ind schedule due to funding and several unforeseen construction problems The final desi gn Included 7 bus ramps and 6 passenger stations a long the 6 6-mlle busway (Figure 5) The total cost of build ing the East busway wa s $156 million (1g83 dollars) Approximately 58 percent of the capital costs went towards busway construction 16 percent for land acqu i sition, 1 4 percent to relocate the Conrai l track, and the other 12 percent for engineering services, PAT planning and admin i strative expenses, and u t i l ity re l ocat i on. The major promotiona l effort was free serv ice offered the weekend before the official opening Approximately 60,000 persons rode the East Busway All Stops (EBA) the initial weekend. Typically EBA' s weekend ridersh i p was around 8,000. Ridership was so hig h at the open ing of the busway that headways had to be immed i ate l y shortened. East Busway Extension The East Busway was originally planned to extend to Swissvale but due to community concerns at the t ime the busway ended at Wilkinsburg. The success of busway led to renewed interest of extending i t to Swissval e and beyon d Phase 1 of the East Busway e xtensi on i nvolves the construction of an additional 2.3-mile segment from the busway's current endpoint at Wilkinsburg to Swissvale Like the existing facility this segment would a l so share the Conrail right of-way Thi s segment woul d extend express bus service to the commun i ties of Edgewood, Swissva l e and Rankin and would allow bus service t o conti nue into the Turtl e Creek and Mon Valley Three s tations have been prop osed at each of these locations and access i s to be provided by pedestrian o verpasses Center for Urban Transportation R&&earch 43


Guideway Transit and lntennothlism: Function and Effectiveness or underpasses kiss and-ride drop-off points and park-and ride lots expected to develop i n nearby mun i c i pal lots. According to the SPRPC's 1995-1998 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) the extension is projected to be completed in 1998 at a total cost of $42.8 mi ll ion Funding is to be provided by ISTEA Section 1108 ($21. 7 million), and the local match and additional local funds are to be prov i ded by the Commonweah of Pennsylvania ($21. 1 million). Phase 2 of the East Busway extension is under consideration. It invo l ves extending the busway beyond Swissvale/Rankin to the Turtle Creek and Mon Valley areas. Phase 2 includes two possible segments One segment continues east for 6 5 miles along the Conrail right -ofway to the Borough of Pitcairn The other possible segment would leave the Conrai l right-of-way and follow the Monongahela River 7 5 m i les to McKeesport The McKeesport extension is expected to cost more than $100 million The cost projections for the Pitcairn line were unavailable. Airport Busway!Wabash HOV During the long-range planning process SPRPC determined the current surface transportation system servicing the airport corridor was i nsufficient i n supporting the current traffic demand Traffic wi t hin the corridor was increasing at a rapid rate due to increased economic act i vity result i ng from the new Pittsburgh International A i rport In addition, the eventual closing of the Fort Pitt Bridge meant even more traffic for this corridor in the years ahead. To alleviate these problems PAT proposed several alternatives ofv.tlich the Airport Busway/Wabash HOV project became PAT's preferred alternative (Table 18) II was also the key recommendation o f the SPRPC's 1989 Parkway West Corridor Study The Airport busway allows buses to bypass heavily congested Parkway Wes t (1-279) and provides an efficient mode of transportation to Pittsburgh s wes t ern suburbs (Figure 5). The Wabash Tunne l includes the construction of a new bridge crossing the Monongahela. The new bridge will allow buses and those who carpool an alternat ive to entering Pittsburgh's CBD other than the Fort Pitt Bridge and Liberty Tunne l. In October 1992 the Airport Busway/Wabash HOV Phase I was endorsed by the PAT Board of Directors and was subsequently approved by the Federal Transit Adm i nistration later that month The busway will utilize exist i ng and abandoned railroad right of ways and will have a d i rect connection to the Parkway West (1279). Eight stations and various vehicle access points (11 in a ll ) hav e been p l anned. Nine park-n-ride lots providing more than 3 000 spaces have been planned as well As seen in Figure 7, construction of the facili t y has begun and is scheduled for complet i on in 1997 The impending close of the Fort Pitt Bridge makes rapid completion of this project imperat i ve; thus all other planned major transit improvements are subordinate to its complet i on Center for Urban Tnnsportatlon Research 44


Guideway Transit and lnlormodallsm: Funcl/on snd Effectiveness >: ... .. . '" . \ ..... . > ... ..... !""" . liVES : . lndudes the oorrent transit system p*n any highway and transl imp-lana roadway for exclusive use by buses with an HOV facility through Alternative the Wabash Tunnel and an HOV river crossing of the Monongahela River. High Occupancy Follows the same alignment es tho Busway AKomative and features the introduction of Vehicle HOVs. including PAT, vanpools, and possibly taxis.. Figure14 Airport Busway/Wabaah HOV Schedule ACTMTY 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 PROPERTY ACQUISITION PERMIT PROCESS FINAL DESIGN CONSTRUcnON Y = Buowoy opons A cco rding to SPRPC's 1995-1998 TIP, the Jolal cost of Phase I is $293 million. Nearly three-fourths of the costs are expected to come from federal funding sources (Tab l e 19) while the local match and addilionallocal funds a r e being provided by the Commonwea lth of Pennsylvania Center tor Utbn TrMport.tlon Resun:h 45


Guideway Transit and /ntennoda/lsm: Function and Effectiveness Table19 AIRPORT SUSWAYIWABASH.HOV'CAPITAL PROGRAM SUMMARY Source Funding Level %of Total Funding Section 1108 IFHWAAdrrinistered) $7 .21 2 .7% CMAQ 76 .50 28.6% Section 3 (Discretionary) 112.10 41.8% Section 1108 (FTA Adrrinistered) 2 07 0.8% other Non-Federal 70.00 26.1% Total $267.89 100.0% 1995--1998 fnf)$jt lmptO!Ifment Progr1m for tiM Pittsburgh Ttln$f)Ottltion ManagfHr'lent Area Southwtsttm PtnMylvani RefiMtl Planning Comrrission Center for Urban Transportation Research 46


' Guideway Transit and lnt.,odal/sm: Function and Effectiveness Policies Supporting transit This section discusses the role of policies in the Pittsburgh UA that worl< in support of, or against, transit. The discussion begins with an overview of regional goals and objectives as presented in SPRPC's 2015 Long-Range Transportation Plan. In this section, land use and growth management policies affecting transit is presented. Following the overview of the 2015 plan several general transi t policies and downtown deve lo pment policies are re viewed. Regional Goats and Objectives SPRPC established three major goals in the 2015 Long-Range Transportation Plan: an overall goal, a mobility goal, and a development goal. In addition, the 2015 Long-Range Transportation Plan establishes Land Use Policy Areas, each with their own particular strategy for growth, development, and transportation investments. These Land Use Policy Areas bring the transportation and development goals together into policy recommendations aimed at achieving the regional goals. Overall Goal The overall goal is that the Southwest Pennsylvania region will be distinguished by a high quality of life tllrough a growing economy that provides jobs for people of all skill levels; an assortment of diverse communities linked to a strong regional core; a well developed, adequately maintained, efficient and technologically advanced transportation system; and abundant scenic and environmental assets. Mobility Goal The mobility goals of the long-range plan include the following major elements: enabling people and goods to move throughout the region safely, with as little delay as possible ; providing good access to major economic, social, and cultural centers; increasing accessibility to thos e areas of the region targeted for redevelopment and new growth; and Center for Urban Transportation Rosearch 47


Guideway Transit and lntennodallsm: Function and Effectiveness improving links to other areas of the nation which can provide materials and/or markets to enhance the economic vitality of the region. In order to achieve these mobility goals, SPRPC identified the following mobility objectives: strategically maintain the capacity, services, and safety of the region's existing transportation system. Give priority to those segments that serve the most t ravelers and most critical functions. Improve accessibi lity to other regions whose markets and goods are of strategic importance to southwestern Pennsylvania. Improve accessibility between the urban core, targeted growth areas and subregional centers. Provide good access to the region's key employment centers. Significantly improve services within the Transit Priority Area, and make transit the most convenient mode of travel to and from the Golden Triangle and Oakland. Improve paratransit services to important act ivity centers throughout the region. Provide greater opportunities for bicycling and walking through enhancements to the transportation system. Manage and mitigate congestion by encouraging coordinated transportation-land use policies and an array of demand management strategies includ ing telecommuting, travel information systems, and evolving IVHS technology. Improve the movement of freight by mitigating congestion on the highways that link the region to national and international markets. Improve these linkages, facilitate connections to barge and rail facilities, and take advantage of the economic development opportunities afforded by the new Pittsburgh In ternat ional Airport. Enhance mobility in a manner that protects the region's valuable natural features, improves its airqual.ity, conserves energy and satisfies all applicable environmental and ISTEA mandates. Development Goal The development goals of the 2015 Long-Range Transportation Plan include: strengthening the region's economic and social vitality. CfNJter for Urban Transportation Research 48


Guideway Transit and lntermodallsm: Function and Effectiveness facilitating strong communities, enhancing urban, suburban and rural lifestyles, supporting efficient and affordable public services, and preserve valuab le environmental assets. The major objective of the development goals that directly relates to fixed guideway and lntermodal transit is: Encourage infill development and redevelopment within the Transit Priority A re a and further encourage development patterns conducive to transit operat io ns. Regional Land Use Policy Areas The 2015 Long-Range Transportation Plan identifies eight Land Use Policy Areas that should have d i stinctly different strategies for growth development, and transportation investments based on their infrastructure, opportunities for growth, and lifestyle characteristics. The growth and transportation strategies for these eight policy areas are detailed below. Regional Urban Core General Description The city of Pittsburgh and some immediately adjacent areas that are the most densely developed part of the region. Includes the major regional employment centers of Oakland and the Golden Triangle. Jystiflcatjoo Targeting growth to this area meets a number of regional objectives, including preserving the region s core and encouraging growth where it can be supported efficiently by existing infrastructure. Criteria Density of population per resident ial acre and employees per other developed acre is at least 50. Growth Strategy Strongly encourage public and private investment in this area through zoning economic development and other policies Rehabilitate/upgrade existing infrastructure; and maintain neighborhood identities/integrity. IraosRortatjon Strategy Minimize congest ion through new transit in vestments, h ig hway upgrades, demand management techniques and system improvements i ncluding IVHS, traffic signal coordination, and intermoda l transfer centers. Maximize choice of transportation modes through imp rovements to public transit, b i keways, walkways, etc Center for Urban Transponation Research 49


Guideway Transit and lntennodatlsm: Function and Effectiveness Trans i t Priority Area General Descript i on Includes the Regiona l Urban Core and adjacent areas where the patterns and densit i es of development are suitable for fixed-route trans i t service. Justification These areas are targeted for growth--part i cularly g r owth that can support high levels of transit service-to encourage efficient development patterns and to reduce congest i on Criteria A contiguous area including and surrounding the Regiona l Urban Core where residential average at l east four househo lds per acre and/or projected transit ridership exceeds 200 daily trips per square mile. Exam!l)es Castle Shannon, Carneg i e Wilkinsbu r g and s i milar areas adjacent to the Reg i onal Urban Core. Growth Strategy Encourage infill development and reinvestment through zoning, economic development and other policies. Rehabilitate/upgrade existing infrastrudure; and maintain convnunity charader. Every advantage is given to transit in both transportation Investments and the planning of new development. Transit accessibi l ity becomes an explicit e l ement of s ite design Local p l anning should encourage housing, reta i l and personal services to cluster near trans i t access points and a lso to be accessible by walking and bicycling Transportation Strategy Encourage greater use of the existing transit serv i ces and provide additiona l serv i ces and/or facilit i es in corridors where they are needed. Further manage congestion through highway upgrades, IVHS and o ther s t rategies New highways wou l d only be buill where they are deemed essential to the region's core area to Its out l ying areas and to satisfy broader plan goals. Sub Regional Centers General pescrjptjon County Seats and other established communities that have urban densities and a m i xture of employment and housing. Traosportatjon Strategy Provide highway and trans i t access to regiona l job centers ; m i nimize congest i on through improvements to the exis t ing transportation system; foster economic redevelopmen t through new access where needed ; support an array of transit options (i.e., fixed route paratrans it, feeder lines, and park and-rides) to max i m ize modal choice. Spec i a l Target Areas Special Targe t Areas Are The Airport Area, Cranberry Area, and New Stanton Area. Center for Urban Tramportation R8$earch 50


Guideway Transit and lntermoda/lsm: Function snd Effectiveness Transportatism Strategy Support these important growth centers by providing excellent inter and intraregional access. Provide modal choice both within these areas and between these areas and other regional centers. Minimize congestion in growth corridors. Transportation inves tments include new highways and transit service where needed, upgraded connEK:tions to other activity centers, and park-and-rides. New interchange locations should be coordinated with development p lan s and vice-versa. Other Service Areas General Description Suburban areas outside of the targeted growth areas that currently provide municipal services, particularly public water and sewer service. Transportat ion Strategy Existing transportation facilities should be well maintained and managed in accord with regional goals for mobility. Transit use should be encouraged on existing routes and through the addition of park 'n rides. Development around any new transportation access within these areas should be carefully planned, particularly to avoid congestion, safety hazards and/or a recurring need for future capacity increases Potential Service Areas . General Description Areas outside of both the Targe ted Growth and Other Serviced Areas which have reasonable prospects fo r growth, but la ck public water and sewer systems. Development in these areas should be supported, provided that local officials proactively plan for and provide the requisite infrastructure. T ra nsportati on Strategy Upgrade local roads where needed. On any new highways servi ng these areas, in terchange locations should be coordinated with development plans (and vice versa). Provide modal choice through local development patterns, new transit service and park-and-rides. Rural Polley Areas General Descdptioo Areas of the region that lack municipal services, particularly water and sewer services, for the majority of existing dev elopment. These areas are characterized by low-density housing developments, scattered housing, scattered indust rial sites, agricultural land, fo rests, and protected open space. Transportation Stra!egy Highways and bridges should be maintained to meet the transportation needs ; access to highways should be managed to preserve good leve l s of service New highways may traverse these areas to facilitate interand intrareg ional access, but the location of new interchanges should be carefully planned to meet regional and l ocal land use objectives. Development around new in te rchan ges or other new access should be carefully planned, Center for Urban Transportation Research 51


Guideway Transit and lntermodaJism: Function and Effectiveness particularly to avoid congestion, safety hazards, and/or a recurring need for capacity increases in the future. Environmental Protection Areas Descriplion Areas that have physical and/or regulatory constraints to development due to their environmental or use characteristics Transportation Strategy New highways may traverse these areas to facilitate interand intrareglonal access, but the location of new interchanges should be carefully planned to meet land use objectives. Gene171/ T171ns/t Policies The following is a listing and description of several general transit and downtown development policies that encourage use of Pittsburgh's guideway transit facilities. Fare Policy PArs policy of free fares on all Downtown encourages ridership in two ways. The obvious is the economic incentive to use the "T'' and PAT buses when trave ling within the CBD. Secondly, free fares means that fare collection is eliminated thus making boarding and alighting public transit hassle-free. Fare Co!lec;tioo Passengers pay as they board for trips heading into Pittsburgh and they pay as they exit for trips leavingcthe city. This system of fare collection reduces dwell times at stations and stops. Station Amenijjes PAT's number one goal in providing light rail S

Guideway Transit and lntennodallsm: Function and Effectiveness Measuring Guideway Transit Impacts The impacts of fixed guideway transit investments in the Pittsburgh UA are presented In four parts. First, the light rail share of tra nsit ridership is discussed. Second, the developmental impacts are presented for downtown Pittsburgh and for each fiXed guideway mode. Third, the impacts of the East Busway are detailed. Finally, the expected impacts from various guideway transit improvement projects are detailed. Guideway Transit Mode Share There are two ways of measuring the impact of guideway transit mode share in the Pittsburgh urbanized area. The first considers how transit is performing as a part of the total transportation system. This Is followed by a comparison of the use of light rail and bus transit modes. Pittsburgh's joumey-to-worl< characteristics were discussed earlier in this case study According to the 1990 U.S. Census, transit accounts for 10 percent of the 1990 journey to-worl< trips in the Pittsburgh urbanized area. This is larger than the average for all urbanized areas with guideway transit (6.8 percent) butlower than comparable, older rail transit cities such as Boston (14. 7 percent), San Francisco (14.0 percent), and Philadelphia (12.3 percent). The light rail share of transit ridership has increased considerably. Between 1984 and 1994, light rail's share of total transit passenger trips increased from 4.7 percent to 10.9 percent (Figure 15). During the same time period, light has also increased its share of total transit passenger miles from 4.9 percent to 11.7 percent Ught rail's share of total passenger miles peaked as high as 17.6 percent In 1992, but has declined in recent years. Center for Urban Transportation Research 53


Gu/dewy Transit and lnhlrmodllam: Function and Effectlveneu Figure 15 Mode Share U nlinked Passenger Trips (rn ...... ) Fig ure 16 Mode Share -Unlinked Passenger Miles 1984 1985 1986 1 a87 1Ma 1N8 1990 1 991 1992 1993 1994 .... Center tor Urfn RasNI'Ch 54


Guideway Thmsit and lntrmoda/l$m: Function and Effectiveness Deve/opmentellmpecbs Downtown Development Downtown Pittsburgh is the hub of the transit syste m. The ma j ority of the Authority's 150 bus rou tes serve downtown The East Busway and the South Busway ( via the Smithfie l d Street bridge ) tenn l nate downtown and the subway carries the LRT under downtown. In the 1980 s, a $2 billion program of public investm ent and private development called Renaissance II" took place Major office buildings were built Downtown at that time : 56-story CNG tower, 47-story One Oxford Center, 40-story PPG Place, 38-story Fifth Avenue P l ace, and 30-story Uberty Center: and a new Convention Center was opened. To serve the new and existing developments, significant transportatlon capacity was added : the East Busway, Stage I LRT inclu ding the subway and a new h i ghway An examp l e of the of the added transportat i on capacity is that all of the new Downtown office towers are located within two b l ocks of a n LRT subway station The following provides more in formation on the downtown deve l opments P enn Par!< Station Uberty Center-new construction Doubletree Hotel and office building. Steel Plaza Station One Mellon Centernew construct ion Bank headquarters and office building. Oxford Centre new construction DtJquesne Light Company headquarters, offices restaurants, and upscale shopping Steel Plaza Station new construction Walkway connection from Stee l Plaza Station to USX headquarters building library daycare fa cil ity retail and restaurants Wood Street Station Wood Street Station (upper levels)Redevelopment. Art gallery Glmbels Building redevelopment. New retail In a fonner department store. CNG Tower-new construction. Office building Pittsburgh CuHural District redevelopment. Reuse of old buildings along Penn and Uberty Avenues for art galleries theaters, and other cultural attractions. Some small scale retail restaurants and office s Improvements to U berty Avenue street scape CMtor for Url>an Tramporttlon Resurth 55


Guid-ay Transit and /ntermodallsm : Function and Effectiveness Gateway Center Station PPG P l ace new construction PPG headquarters and office bu i lding, and retail Fifth Avenue Placenew construction Blue Cross headquarters restaurants, upscale and r etail. Market Square redevelopment. Reconstruc;t i on and public park Development along Fixed Guideways From the time the South Busway opened in 1977 until today, there has been much development and redeve l opment along Port Authority's fixed guideway facilrt i es The following is an inventory of development along the South Busway, Mart i n Luther King, Jr. East Busway and Stage I LRT System Sou t h Busway North Porta l of Mt. Wasbington Trolley Tynnel stati on Square redevelopment and new construction Shops restaurants nightclubs, hotel, and surface and structure parking. Martin L uther King, Jr. East Busway Peon Parll Station Pennsylvanian adaptive reuse Apartments condominiums, and ha i rdresser Amtrak Stat i on new facility Waiting room and t i cket counter buil t in lower level of the Pennsy l vanian. Penn Parts to Herron Hill Penn-Liberty Plaza adaptive reuse County office building. Liberty Technology Center-new construction AT&T and other businesses L i berty Commons -new construction. City of P ittsburgh Police f acility and businesses Federa l Express new construct i on Herron Hill Statio n Strip s Edge adaptive reuse. Nightclub Centel' for Urb a n Transportation Research 56


Guideway Tnnsit and lntermoda/Jsm: Function and EHecrlvtmM& Herron Hil! to Negley Avenue Shadyside Commons adaptive reuse. Apartments. Shadyside Hospital new construction. Expansion of medical facilities N!!gley Avenue Statjon Centre & Negley Avenues redevelopment. Professional offices. Centre Avenue Professional Building new construction. Medical offices. The Lofts adaptive reuse. Apartments. Negley AV!!DY!! Stgtjon to EAst Libertv Motor Square Garden adaptive Reuse. West Penn AAA headquarters and other offices: Ellsworth & College Avenues new construction. Neighborhood shopping center. Ellsworth Center new construction. Professional offices. East Liberty Statjon Kingsley Center-new construction. Youth center Shakespeare Plaza expansion. Shopping center. Regent Theaterrehabilitation. Live performance theater. East Uberty Station (named after the railroad station Which formerly occupied this site) new construction. Shopping center. Shadyside Villagenew construction. Townhouses. Homewood Stgtioo Housing new construct ion. Detached single-family homes Stage I LRT Potomac S!atioo Senior Citizen Housing new construction High-rise apartment bu ilding. Center for Urban TraMport.ation Research 57


Guidewy Tran.sJt and lntennoHIIsm: Function and Effeetlveness Mt. lebanon Station Roilier's new construct ion. HardWare store Mt. l ebanon Parl factors have contributed to this outco m e. First. the speeds of the diverted outbound routes Y

Guideway Transit and tntermodalism: Function and Effectiveness were mainly due to decreases In l ine-haul trave l times (five to six minutes). Travel times after the busway decreased in four out of the six downtown destinations during peak p m travel times. These averaged 3 5 m i nutes. However, the p.m peak travel time decreases were a result of decreased walk times and downtown circulation times; line-haul times actually increased. This was probably the result of decreased bus speeds for outbound routes as discussed before. Even the trips involving new trans f ers showed decreases in travel times after the busway. Very few riders on the East Busway All Stops route (EBA) used transfers on their old routes before the busway whi l e many had to transfer after they switched to the EBA. Travel times decreased by 8 to 12 minutes for EBA patrons after the busway While wait times naturally increased in-vehicle times declined considerably and walk times decreased some as well. Service ReliabJlitY Service reliability was measured using the variabi l ity of the time it takes a buses to make the same trip. For computational purposes, speed was used as a proxy for travel times. For a.m. peak inbound trips the variation of the average trip speed declined from 4.8 m.p.h. to 3.4 m.p.h. (29 percent). The variation of speed for p.m. peak outbound trips declined from 6.8 m.p.h to 3.7 m.p.h. (46 percent). Ridership Most of the ridership on new routes came from other routes. When patrons on new East Bus way routes were asked how they made their trip before the busway, 79 percent indicated "other route," 11 percent car and 10 percent "no trip." Results were similar for exi sting routes that were diverted to the busway Of the diverted route riders, their mode of transportation before the opening of the busway were 82 percent same or other route, 7 percent car, and 11 percent "no trip." The average net increase in weekday transit ridership along the corridor attributable to the busway was 1 900 persons. Projected Impact from East Buswsy Extension Expected benefits from the East Busway extension are considerable. According to PAT's draft environmental assessment, the following benefrts are expected from this extension: Bui l ding the extension is expected to increase ridership by more than 10,000 persons Comparatively, the T ransportation Systems Management Alternative (involving general r oadway improvements and the construction of a series of park and-ride lots) would only i ncrease ridership by 1, 700 persons. S i gnificant decreases in travel times are e x pected from suburban boroughs to downtown Pittsburgh. Travel times are projected to decrease by 25 percent for Edgewood residents, 30 percent for Swissvale residents and 45 percent for residents of the St. Barnabas terminus of t he extens i on. Center for Urban Transportation 59


Guidwway Transit and lntennodalism: Function and Effectiveness The annual operating subsidy will be 80 percent less than alternative methods of increasing transit ridership in this corridor. The cost per new rider, $5 37, is below the cost-effective threshold of $6. 00 established by the FTA to define projects that are worthy of funding. The FT A has identified the extension as one of the most cost-effective projects in the nation. As a result of the construelion along the Conrail right-of-way many positive spill overs will occur. These include fixing and cleaning up the existing right-of-way, thus becoming a visual asset to the community; constructing noise barriers that will reduce the level of noise from trains and buses to levels lower than are cunrently experienced; constructing fences along the right-of-way that will resuH in the reduellon of illegal crossings; and lowering the railroad traCks in certain areas to eliminate the problem of ballast spillover. In addition, Table 20 lists the following site specific impaels from the extension as identified in the draft environmental assessment. Center for Urbn Tnnsportation Research 60


' . Land Acquisition Energy Air Quality Safety and Security Historical And Parkland Noise Traffic Aesthetics Guideway Transit and lntermochll/sm: Function nd Effectiveness . .. :-v ,t .. . .. -. . 0: . 0 0 0 .... !"'.-.......... . . .. . : .. -.. . : '?-. 0 .. . ,,., ... r".'"'""" .. . .. .; 0 0 0 . .. . ,...,, Conral property will need to be acquhd fOr the 2.3-mlto length of the Busway. Also, up to 7 feet of exoess street right-of-way of Waverly Avenue within SWissvale Borough, will be needed. A parcel of land of up to 10 properties may be needeJr Quality Stole Implementation Plan Bus operation on the East Busway Is sater than operation on c;ity streets and The Busway i s welllightad and is patrolled by police olficere, proWIO>g a secure environment tor transit riders The Extension would be adjacent In ona hlotoric property, tile former Edgewood railroad station, and one park, Edgewood Borough Pol1<. The Busway will be designed to have no adverse J mpaet upon the raitroad station. In fact, the canopk=d waiting of the railroad station will be used as part of tile walkway syste m or the Busway station, thus involVing a ro-uso of this historic taclfty for a tiansportation purpose. An alternate station des ign would uae the canopied railroad station area as tho Inbound Busway platform There will be no impact on Edgewood Borough Park. The Busway will caJTy about 830 bus trips per day which will increase noise leve l s In th e corridor The impact of this noise will generally be minor because the corridor Is a relatiVely noisy environment due tn the pr-o or tho molnfine the Parkway East end adjacent streets. Noise baniers wi be i1cofpotatad Into the design of the Extenslon appropriate For example at st. Barnabas Station. tllo presence of a ramp for buses that will utilite an eight percent grade wil require noise barriers to be constructean Tl'anoportlltlon Re:seon:h 61 0


Guideway Transit nd lntermoda/Jsm: Function and Effectiveness The Airport Bus w ay/Wabash HOV The major goa l s of the Airport Busway/Wabash HOV includ e congest ion r el i ef and econom i c development. Table 21 sum m arizes the impacts of the project. .. T able 21 . AIRPORT IMPACTS Access t o The new Pittsburgh I nterna ti ona l A ir po rt a l one i s expected to generate thousands of jobs Existing Job The Airpo rt Busway/Wab ash HOV wou1d he l p p rovi de conven i en t tran5portat i on t o o t he r O pportunities rap idly g rowing em p loymen t cen te rs Creatio n of New Jobs The construction and o perat i on of the facility wou l d c r eate thousands of new jobs I n addit i o n t o creating j obs every do llar i nve s ted in transit generates more than the Econo mi c dollar s in bus in ess sales. Construction of the Ai r port BuswayiWabash HOV would Advantages significantly benefit down t own businenes, c ommunities located alon g the p r oject s right of .. way, a nd bus i nesses th r ough out the a i rport c or ri do r The BuswayJHOV a ltema1e utilizing a new bridge wou l d p r ovide tra n sportati o n to a projecte d R e duced Traffic 53 000 daily bus ride r s r emov ing thousan d s of cars from the area's conges t ed roadw a ys Congestion T he a lternative whic h inOOJpOrates the busway option w o u kf d rama t ically r ed uce t he numbe r o f veh i c les tra v e l i ng I nto Pltttbu r gh s CBO da i ly. Improved Access The pr o ject would provide improved access and to commuMies tllroughout Weste r n to Communities A l ktgheny Couoty. incl udin g Sherad e n. I ng ram C r afton, Carnegie and McKees Rocks Economically T h e U.S. De p artmen t o f T ransportation rated the Airport Busway/Wabash HOV project as Effici ent one of the most cost efficient new start t r ansit projects i n t h e nati on Operating Cost The Airport BuswayiWabasll HOV project could save Port Authority up t o $ 1 m i l l ion per fi sca l year i n operat i ng cost s Whi l e passenger r evenues, a n Integ r a l part of PAT's operat in g S a v ings budge t cou ld incr ease by up t o $4 m i lli o n Proven Busways have p r oven t o be a sound t echn o l og y i n effic i ency movin g t h o usands of Techn o logy pess e ngers da i l y as evid e nced b y Port Auth o r ity's South and E ast Busways Re d uced Air O n the average r i d i ng transit instead o f d riving alone reduces hyd r ocarbon emiss i on t h at Pollution p r od uce smog by 9 0 pe r cen t ; carb o n m o noxide by mor e than 75 per cen t: and nitrogen oxides by a range o f 15 to 75 pe r cent depe n d i ng on t h e mode of travel Energy E very commuter wh o rides transit saves 200 gallons of gasoline pe r year, t h u s l essen i ng our depend e nce on f o r e ign o il. Source: Bu.sw a y Connections OCfobft 1992 Port Authority of Alegheny Coun ty Center for Urban Transportadon Ruearc.h 62


Guideway Transit and lntennodalism: Function and Effectiveness Summary This Pittsburgh case study examines guideway transit and intermodalism in the context of the nation s pioneer in transi t busways, a major metropol itan area revitalizing old trolley systems, and continuing use of incline planes. Pittsburgh is serving as a model for other areas considering using busw ays as a primaJY method of public transportation. Numerous main points and lessons learned can be useful for other communities that are considering investing in fiXed guideway transit. The combination of river barriers limiting roadway access to downtown Pittsburgh, the lack of downtown parking, and a thriving CBD growing in population and employment make public transportation a very important component of Pittsburgh's transportation infrastructure Busways were chosen to service Pittsburgh's east and south corridor due to concerns over other options. There were misgivings about automated people mover technology as well as cost concerns for both the people mover and new light rail. The busways use simple, proven technology (i.e., buses) and were low cost compared to the other alternatives. Busways offer similar capacity as light rail and have distinct advantages. Busways have greater flexibility as bus routes can be rerouted from the street to the busway. Transit buses offer direct, single route service to suburban res idenlia l areas using city streets, then switch to the busway to access downtown . The MLK East Busway has increased motorbus operating efficiency and travel characteristics. Inbound bus speeds increased by 33 percent, accidents d eclined significantly, and passenger wait times declined. The result was a net increase in weekday ridership along the MLK corridor of 1 ,900 persons (In 198 7). The MLK busway has been so successful that the community Swissvale, which originally opposed the busway, renewed its interest and accepted plans for extending the busway through the community. PAT has been successful in using directional fare collection. Passengers pay as they board for trips heading downtown and pay as they leave for trips heading away from downtown. This system, applied to both buses and light rail, coupled with fare free t ransit within the Golden Triangle reduces station dwell time and speeds up trips. The lack of parking availability at suburban stations limits light rail patronage. Many suburban residents drive to and from downtown because of the inability to park at rail stations. Existing Conrail right of ways provided an opportunity develop busways quick ly and at relatively low cost, reduced implementation time, and saved money over real alternatives. Center for Urban Transportation Research 63


Guideway Transit and lnrermodalism: Function and Effectiveness The two i nclines still maintain the useful function of transporting foot passengers to and from riverfront streets up a steep scarp slope to houses built on the outlying terraces of the South Hills, just as they have since the late 1800s. No suitable altemative has been developed to replace this 19th century technology. The light rail system has eamed a positive image among users and non-users. The subway portion, in particular, is a point of civic pride. This segment has been well maintained and underground stations are kept safe and clean. Cnter for Urban Transportation 64


Guideway Transit and lntermodalism: Function end Effectiveness Center for Urban TransportaUon Research 65


Guideway Transit and lntermodallsm: Function and Effectiveness Center for Urban Transportation Research 66


Guideway Transit and tntermoda!ism: Function and Effectiveness References Beim, Joseph. (1966). "Pittsburgh's Rail Transit Renaissance." ITE Journal. John A. Volpe Na tional Transportation Systems Center. (1993) Review of the Transportation Planning Process in the Pittsburgh Metropolitan Area. Lurcott, Robert H., and Downing, Jane A. (1987) "A Public-Private Support System for Community Based Organizations in Pittsburgh." APA Journal. PA Transit. {1995). Airport Busway/Wabash HOV Facility: A Progress Report to ltle Allegheny County Commissioners. PA Transit. (1992) Busway Connections, Volume 1, No. 1. PA Transit. (1993). Busway Extension Briefings and Announcement of Public Hearings. Phase I Martin Luther King, J r East Busway Extension Study. PA (1995). Busway Extension Briefings and Announcement of Revised Environmental Assesment. Phase I Martin Luther King, Jr. East Busway Extension Study PA Transn. (1993) Stage II Study Results and Announcements of Pub lic Meetings. Stage II LRT Newsletter Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission. (1994). "1995-98 Transit Improvement Program for the Pittsburgh Transportation Management Area." Sou thwestern Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission. ( 1962). "Initial Phase Tran sit Alternatives Analysis." Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission. (1995). "lntermodal Management System Phase I Report." Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission. (1994) "A Region on the Move: A Transportation Investment St rat egy for Growth and Renewal in Southwestern Pennsylvania; 2015 Transportat ion Plan . Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission. (1994). Regional Profile. Center for Urban Transpotfatlon Research 67


Guideway Transit and lntvmoct.lism: Function end Effectiveness Southwestern Pennsylvan i a Regional Planning Commission (1994). SPRPC Cycle V Forecasts : Popu l at i on Househo l ds Employment. Southwestern Pennsylvania Reg i ona l P l anning Commission and PA (1995). Transit Oriented Development: Examp les and Opportunities in Southwestern Pennsy l vania." Urban Mass Transit Administration. (1987) The Martin Luther King Jr. East Busway in Pittsburgh, PA Wilkins Van. (1994). 'Waiting for the Rapid." The New Eleclric Rai lwaY Journal. Center for Urban Transponat/on R.soarch 68


Download Options

Choose Size
Choose file type
Cite this item close


Cras ut cursus ante, a fringilla nunc. Mauris lorem nunc, cursus sit amet enim ac, vehicula vestibulum mi. Mauris viverra nisl vel enim faucibus porta. Praesent sit amet ornare diam, non finibus nulla.


Cras efficitur magna et sapien varius, luctus ullamcorper dolor convallis. Orci varius natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Fusce sit amet justo ut erat laoreet congue sed a ante.


Phasellus ornare in augue eu imperdiet. Donec malesuada sapien ante, at vehicula orci tempor molestie. Proin vitae urna elit. Pellentesque vitae nisi et diam euismod malesuada aliquet non erat.


Nunc fringilla dolor ut dictum placerat. Proin ac neque rutrum, consectetur ligula id, laoreet ligula. Nulla lorem massa, consectetur vitae consequat in, lobortis at dolor. Nunc sed leo odio.