Submitted by metracta t3_10ikvl7 in pittsburgh
Comments
midnightdown t1_j5f5y3i wrote
For me it was putting Coraopolis across the river from Bellevue. Three more phases of the mon-fayette please!
Ralph_the_Dude t1_j5fgaly wrote
Never noticed that, it seems they've confused brunot island for Neville island, very strange.
VulturE t1_j5g74e3 wrote
That being said, I do believe the old light rail service used to run that far in the past.
sebileis t1_j5g9d3j wrote
It did.
thisabadusername t1_j5fwtc4 wrote
It’s weird cause I hear other universities pronounced that way but not Pitt. UPenn, UToronto, etc. Maybe Pitt has a longer/more storied sports tradition so what the announcers use on game day and in the papers becomes the default
Bradbitzer t1_j5gki03 wrote
I hear more people say UofT in Toronto
thisabadusername t1_j5h95ts wrote
I suppose you don’t have to worry about getting it confused with the highly prestigious University of Toledo /s
Bradbitzer t1_j5h9gih wrote
Haha, indeed. Now we just have University of Toronto and Toronto Metropolitan University (renamed since Ryerson was very problematic)
bikewithoutafish t1_j5hwqav wrote
most people just say penn
Sankara_Connolly2020 t1_j5hbf1j wrote
Because saying “UPitt” is redundant.
Pitt = University of Pittsburgh
UPitt = University University of Pittsburgh
_TheHalfTruth_ t1_j5fvjhk wrote
Imagine if we had high speed monorail connecting each of our neighborhoods. Not like subways but like the ultra light rail at airports that transports people between distant terminals. Never more than a 5 minute wait cause each line only has two stops and multiple train cars, each equipped with bike racks that let you bring a regular or electric bike with you.
Nobody would ever have to look at a bus/train schedule and you could be in any neighborhood in less than 5-10 minutes. With a bike you could get from any rail station to your destination in another 5 minutes. You’d never have to even look at a map or gps cause it would become so easy to navigate.
And monorails are almost silent so it wouldn’t matter where you put them. They are so smooth that you hardly even notice that you’re moving. You could read a book during your commute. They are also futuristic as fuck and would make this city just feel like it is decades ahead of the rest of the world.
They are also billions of dollars cheaper to maintain and run than roads shared by cars and busses. We could easily afford to do this right now and have several monorail lines up and running within the decade
stambouline t1_j5fwxc3 wrote
I'm sure you know about this, but for anyone else interested, check out the Skybus.
This kind of system currently exists in downtown Miami as The Metro Mover.
_TheHalfTruth_ t1_j5fz6cc wrote
I haven’t heard of Pittsburgh’s skybus actually! Thanks for sharing. This type of system with modern technology could be so powerful. I also think people don’t fully appreciate how expensive roads are to maintain, vs how cheap rail is.
It costs $1 million to repave a single lane mile of road, and they must be repaved every 15 years on average. There are 866 miles of paved road in Pittsburgh. That is 57 million dollars per year to maintain Pittsburgh’s roads, ignoring our 450+ bridges and assuming they are all single lane. Monorail has very little maintenance cost cause there is nothing to repave. Installation cost varies a ton but can be done for about $50 million per mile for elevated lines, including building the supporting power and control stations. After that upfront hurdle you see massive savings, cause roads last way longer when they see less traffic.
raven_snow t1_j5gfnkh wrote
Wow, I've been on several of these people movers. They're fantastic. I'm so sad that this could also have been Pittsburgh's reality.
Sankara_Connolly2020 t1_j5hb81n wrote
Skybus was gadgetban and a total boondoggle. If Port Authority had instead put its energy right off the bat towards the busways and streamlining the streetcar system into a comprehensive LRT system, then today we’d have one of the best transit systems pound for pound in North America.
Sankara_Connolly2020 t1_j5huddz wrote
You said the same thing to North Haverbrook!
super_heavy_milk t1_j5hxaxd wrote
How do we… make this happen?
Is there anything an average person can do?
thisabadusername t1_j5fxg9f wrote
This literally already happened: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_Expressway_Revenue_Line
_TheHalfTruth_ t1_j5gsqz4 wrote
And it was killed by politicians who mistakenly thought it would be better to deface our city with billions of dollars worth of decaying roads and complicated and unpredictable bus lines.
Also remaking that with modern electric rail tech instead of rubber tire busses could easily triple its top speed while reducing energy and maintenance costs and increasing capacity.
mechanical_parody t1_j5h8xni wrote
Well damn, I pass this every day and never realized what it was. It's located just outside of the Allegheny Airport, what used to be the Bombarider parking lot.
[deleted] t1_j5jjcup wrote
[removed]
tarsier_jungle1485 t1_j5eue7q wrote
From your lips to [insert deity here]'s ears, OP.
Ralph_the_Dude t1_j5fgfxc wrote
The church of the Port Authority
1stCaptainSkrall t1_j5gy8h9 wrote
Nah they aren't called that anymore. I don't know what they changed the name to, though. It'll be memory holed like how Heinz Field is still Heinz Field
Rodriguezry t1_j5fqurs wrote
This map completely ignores the Rt 8 corridor. I think a line going up from Etna to Hampton would be useful
ktxhopem3276 t1_j5hrrt5 wrote
You have stumbled on the problem with building more light rail. is very expensive to build it to all the suburbs. It is a lot cheaper to build dedicated busways in the core that are shared by multiple routes while buses use existing routes further out I. The suburbs. There is a project in the 5-15 year time frame to build rapid bus transit on the sourth shore of the Allegheny to new Kensington and a project in the 15-25 year timeline for some smaller bus improvements on the north shore of the Allegheny from Etna to Natrona.
https://nextransitdraftplan.blob.core.windows.net/finalplan/NEXTransit%20-%20FINAL-web%209-16-21.pdf
Map is on page 54
Sankara_Connolly2020 t1_j5hvoq2 wrote
Whats even more cost effective than building more busways is running DMUs on existing rail infrastructure that only run freight overnight… like the AVRR line to New Kensington that Port Authority wants to turn into a busway because they’re allergic to trains.
Ottawa started a similar line (mostly single tracked freight line with only overnight traffic) 20 years ago for $21 million. Adjust that for inflation, and triple that for shits and giggles, and you’re still looking at a much cheaper project with higher capacity, scalable, faster vehicles operating at 15 minute headways.
AVRR also owns the line running up the route 8 corridor. Just saying…
ktxhopem3276 t1_j5hyxgf wrote
they have claimed in the past that heavy rail is not cost effective at the ridership levels it would get in a monroeville study but that was a while ago. Not many medium sized us cities use heavy rail. Now I’m going to have to read up on it because I’m not familiar with the Allegheny river valley. A big reason I like living in the south hills is the trolley and I wonder how many people in areas like Hampton chose to live there because they want to be away from the hustle and bustle. The south hills townships are a lot more cramped and dense than the route 8 corridor
Sankara_Connolly2020 t1_j5i24u6 wrote
I’m not sure how feasible the Route 8 corridor would be, but the Strip to New Kensington absolutely would be and AVRR ownership has long been amenable to it. Investing in some lightweight DMUs (and their maintenance) and making some small scale track improvements would absolutely be cheaper than paving over the whole line for a busway, and would attract a higher ridership while providing faster, scalable service.
I especially like the idea of building a little shoulder station in the Strip that could serve as the terminus for both the AVRR line and the Oakland gondola, while connecting with the Penn/Liberty bus trunk for an easy transfer to Downtown.
Edit: here’s an article on the Ottawa DMU line I mentioned http://www.eastsiderailnow.org/o-train.html
ktxhopem3276 t1_j5i4tqe wrote
The prt 25 year plan in 2021 suggests studying rail versus bus for avrr so I don’t think they have decided either way yet. They will probably apply for a federal grant to do a study at some point. My concern with rail is all the transfers involved. From Dormont to Oakland takes an hour via the trolly downtown when I can drive it in 20 minutes in rush hour. Even if they built the trolly to Oakland they would have to alternate lines going to Oakland versus gateway and Northshore so service frequency might not be ideal
[deleted] t1_j5frxlk wrote
Port Authority is a joke and the state of our "T" system never fails to raise my blood pressure. Could you imagine a proper network for our "T" system? You know, opposed to whatever boondoggle this is supposed to be:
South Hills Village -> Mt Lebanon -> Dormont -> (on a good day maybe Beechview) -> Station Square -> Downtown -> End of the line
Mass transit this is not. What an embarrassment for our city.
semcdwes t1_j5ge3ga wrote
Don’t forget the North Shore.
Sankara_Connolly2020 t1_j5hd5h8 wrote
How is the red line a “boondoggle?” Converting old trolley and interurban ROWs into LRT with an integrated Downtown subway system is fundamentally sound transit planning. The mistake is that Port Authority only did this for a couple South Hills routes instead of across the city (partially due to the huge bet they placed on “Skybus,” which was an actual boondoggle).
ktxhopem3276 t1_j5hps0w wrote
Sky bus would have been a boondoggle had they spent money in it but I don’t think they did. All the funding when to the trolley redline instead. They spent $500 million in 1980 dollars or $2billion in todays money to build the red line. Add another $500 billion for the blue line and $500 million for the north shore extension.
Here are some interesting pictures during the build out
https://www.brooklineconnection.com/history/Trolleys/Trolley29.html
Sankara_Connolly2020 t1_j5hu8rx wrote
Skybus was an attempted boondoggle, and the years spent over legal and political battles were a waste that ended up making the LRT and Busway plan more expensive and significantly less extensive that it should have been had they done it from the beginning. There’s a reason “people movers” don’t exist outside of airports and a handful of niche lines.
By “500 million.. to build the red line” I assume you mean the phase 1 plans, which I believe was mostly the downtown subway, along with the panhandle bridge conversion, the Mt. Lebo Tunnel, and the South Hills Village terminus? I’ve read that Brookline Connection article before but it’s been a minute.
LRT investment is expensive in the short term, but cost effective in the long term as long as ridership is decent (which it is, save the Library line). The tragedy of Port Authority’s Skybus obsession and anti-trolley bias is could have converted other old trolley lines, most notably the North Side and Oakland trunks, and made similar modifications as were made to the Beechview/Mt Lebonon and Overbrook Lines, and we’d be in clover right now. For decades, we had a great trolley system that was sorely missing a dedicated Downtown ROW… and now we’ve had several decades of a Downtown subway, but with trolleys only going to one area.
ktxhopem3276 t1_j5hxisn wrote
Yeah just the downtown to south hills village mall via Beechview was $500 in 1980s dollars. Even had they started ten years earlier they wouldn’t have built a lot more - maybe the would have tunneled to the north shore earlier but the steel mill collapse in 1982 still would have made it difficult. they built the east busway while the skybus debate was going on. Light rail is really tricky in a city the size of Pittsburgh and with employment so spread out geographically. Downtown lines get enough ridership but even Oakland is really tricky to do without transfers. The busways make a lot of sense because so many lines use them in the core congested areas and then branch out in all directions into the suburbs. PRT seems more favoring extending the trolly to Bellevue or Ross before Oakland and the airport but without more state or federal funds those extensions won’t happen fe atleast 15 years. All the near term projects are bus rapid transit with priority lanes on existing roadways. That might be all we get h less the population starts growing again. We get beat out on the federal funds competition by bigger and faster growing cities.
Sankara_Connolly2020 t1_j5i0hnl wrote
I get all that for the current financial constraints for Port Authority, but the problem with BRT is projects end up getting watered down significantly. The West Busway is a great example, as is the Oakland “BRT” project (which would be a fine idea if it was actually BRT).
What I’d love to see Port Auth… errr, PRT do is commit to the full Gondola proposal, both for sex appeal and as a highly cost effective way to built a direct transit line to Oakland from multiple dense neighborhoods, use the AVRR as a high frequency regional rail line (which as I argued upthread would be cheaper than converting it to a busway and could pilot the feasibility of regional rail on other lines), and focus on improving the bus network through redesigning it on “high transfer, high frequency” principles and by actually enforcing the existing and proposed bus lanes.
I’d also love to see them electrify the heaviest bus trunks by using trolleybuses with in motion charging instead of buying battery electric buses that will struggle mightily in the winter, and will require expensive battery replacements and time intensive recharging.
ktxhopem3276 t1_j5i311e wrote
The 6-15 time frame is listed for extending the west busway at both ends to improve the 28x airport flyer.
As long as the Oakland brt has dedicated lanes it should be a decent improvement. It’s just so difficult to build dedicated right of way through Oakland for mass transit.
I like the gondola idea but I’m not sure it would match the communing patterns and how it could feasibly connect to Oakland
I suspect it might be too hard to do high commuter heavy rail with the current geographical distribution of employment. Most cities that have done heavy commuter rail are much bigger cities with dense concentrated employment areas and Pittsburgh is struggling to keep employers downtown lately. Many have left downtown for the strip and ptc/hazelwood robinson and south point/cannonsburgh.
It does appear the direction prt is moving is high frequency bus services which due to funding I think is probably the most realistic and best bang for buck investment. I would be so happy if they could implement more traffic light priority and bus only lanes so buses are on time.
I like most of their plans on page 54
https://nextransitdraftplan.blob.core.windows.net/finalplan/NEXTransit%20-%20FINAL-web%209-16-21.pdf
Sankara_Connolly2020 t1_j5i77t7 wrote
Considering what a mess the original West Busway project was and how badly they’ve bungled the Oakland “BRT” project, color me skeptical that the West Busway is going to get finished anytime soon in either direction. Though I do hope they make connecting it to Downtown a high priority, which shouldn’t be that expensive provided they can figure out the ROW around the West End Circle and then use protected bus lanes from West Carson.
The problem with the Oakland project is the bus lanes aren’t going to be protected. They’ll serve as dual right turn lanes at multiple points, and they’re not taking measures to protect the lanes that actually are dedicated, outside of some red paint.
With the full gondola proposal in Port Authority’s long range plans, the connection to the South Busway/Overbrook Line JCT would open up greatly improved commuting options for the South Hills to Oakland, and the connections for Hazelwood and the Hill to both Oakland and the Strip would be highly beneficial for both those neighborhoods, and the Oakland-Strip connection is a major missing link (with all due respect to the 54C).
I highly recommend that article on the Ottawa “O-Train” I added late to my last post. The problem is most North American transit agencies think of local rail service in terms of either light rail or heavy commuter rail, and are blind to the happy medium of regional rail that is significantly cheaper than both. It’s only feasible on lines with limited freight traffic that service some dense neighborhoods, but that’s exactly what the AVRR line is.
I agree on your last point about bus signal priority and exclusive lanes 100%. I’d love to see them start by enforcing the existing Downtown lanes and adding as much signal priority as possible. I’ll also give PRT it’s due on some of the “belt buses” they’re proposing. The east-west connection through Brookline and Beechview is something I’ve been clamoring for since I moved down here!
ktxhopem3276 t1_j5i9zth wrote
When I lived in San Diego we had a 22 mile DMU line. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprinter_(rail_line)
There is also a small 10 mile eastern extension of BART that uses DMU it requires a transfer to use the rest of Bart https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/EBART
Both these lines were in much bigger cities although the Ottawa line gets 10,000 riders. I have a hard time guesstimating how many people would use a train from new Kensington to downtown. One potential issue is both these US lines used dedicated tracks. Has the FTA ever allowed DMU trains on freight tracks in the US? I have no idea.
I look forward to the belt buses and overbrook to Oakland connections. Covid made planning difficult for transit agencies and they are moving slower than their typical glacier pace these days.
WikiSummarizerBot t1_j5ia19v wrote
>Sprinter (stylized as SPRINTER) is a hybrid rail (light rail with some features similar to commuter rail) line operating in the North County area of San Diego County between the cities of Escondido and Oceanside, California, United States. The service uses the 22-mile (35 km) Escondido Branch of the San Diego Northern Railroad. Station platforms were constructed for the line's fifteen stations serving the cities of Oceanside, Vista, San Marcos, and Escondido. The line provides service to California State University, San Marcos and Palomar College.
>eBART (East Contra Costa County BART extension) is the project name for a hybrid rail (light rail with some features similar to commuter rail) branch line of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system in eastern Contra Costa County, California, United States. Service starts at Pittsburg/Bay Point station and extends to Antioch station.
^([ )^(F.A.Q)^( | )^(Opt Out)^( | )^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)^( | )^(GitHub)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Sankara_Connolly2020 t1_j5kg06h wrote
Yes, the FRA grants waivers for lightweight DMUs on active freight lines, but typically only when the freight lines are only used at specific times, like overnight service. NJ Transit runs such a line from Camden to Trenton, which is technically classified as light rail like the Sprinter line in CA that you mentioned. This line in Denton, TX was the first to get such a waiver, according to Wikipedia, though I believe there was a later Obama era relaxing of waiver standards for lighter passenger rail rolling stock: https://web.archive.org/web/20120609012338/http://www.dentonrc.com/local-news/local-news-headlines/20120605-dcta-gets-go-ahead-to-use-stadler-cars.ece
There are several lines that use heavy duty DMUs, and I think one iteration of the old PAT train used the old Budd cars. But I think if PRT decides to go with rail for the AVRR line, they should be able to classify it as “light rail” like the Sprinter and NJ River lines (since it only runs freight overnight) and go with the cheaper, lighter DMUs.
ktxhopem3276 t1_j5ki1wd wrote
Why is PRT considering a busway when AVRR is being used for freight? Does freight line want to sell the ROW? I follow city and south hills transit news more closely because I’m more familiar with the geography. I’ve been to oakmont once but I haven’t explored anything else over in that part of the county
Sankara_Connolly2020 t1_j5lqrmz wrote
I’m guessing there’s been some thoughts about AVRR selling the ROW since they’re considering a busway. But either way, that fact that they’re even considering it is indicative of their long standing bias towards busways. Which I largely am fine with when busways make sense, but it’s baffling in this case.
ktxhopem3276 t1_j5lye67 wrote
I don’t think they are against light rail DMU at this juncture. It sounds like they haven’t done a thorough study besides napkin calculations.
“The project will begin planning with a proposal to utilize the current AVRR right of way as a transit-exclusive facility to minimize delays and traffic congestion between stations (freight rail operations could continue at off peak hours or overnight hours so as not to conflict with transit service). As the line currently carries very light industrial freight traffic, both light rail and bus modes can be further studied in this corridor to see which is warranted as the best solution. Cost estimates for the purposes of this high-level look have used busway-type cost ranges as a starting point. This plan could also look into the possibility of a transit-only connection to the Turnpike. “
I wonder how much deferred investment there is if they don’t use it much. I don’t know what speed it’s rated for or what it would cost to bring the rails up to speed to be competitive with a busway. Are there any double track sections for passing? Also they would need to budget a place to store and maintain the trains. I wonder how many of the 45,000 New Kensington area work in downtown Pittsburgh. Even if the whole project cost only $250 million they would need a ridership of about 2500 to justify the capital costs and then operationally it would cost a lot to run for not a lot of riders with how office buildings downtown are being converted to housing lately. PRT will have to look very closely at the cost and ridership projections to determine if it is a wise investment given how little money they get from the state and federal governments.
The busway option would be more convenient for servicing oakland but slower than the train for downtown. On the other hand 13 miles of busway would probably cost a billion dollars and seems excessive considering it’s not congested or part of the core network. Prt is probably interested in the possibility of a phased approach to the busway in which they focus on the bottleneck at Verona and Oakmont. Outside of those towns there are hardly any traffic lights or impediments that would justify a dedicated right of way.
the sprinter in San Diego is 22 miles and with 5000 daily ridership and got a lot of bad publicity for how it requires a transfer to get anywhere popular. San Diego is about twice the size of Allegheny county and is able to beat us out on the federal funding competition. They revived a billion federal dollars that was matched by the state and county for a total of $2billion to build a 11 mile light rail extension for 20,000 daily risers that received a medium-high rating from the FTA . It seems like cities the size of Pittsburgh are getting shut out from the large chunks of funding that go to rail projects. The larger ridership, larger population growth and willingness to raise taxes to match federal funds is a factor in pittsburgh being at a disadvantage to other cities.
Sankara_Connolly2020 t1_j5mahxx wrote
“I wonder how much deferred investment there is if they don’t use it much. I don’t know what speed it’s rated for or what it would cost to bring the rails up to speed to be competitive with a busway. Are there any double track sections for passing? Also they would need to budget a place to store and maintain the trains.”
Some track improvements would need done and some sidings added, I’m sure. But the cost of that, the maintenance facility, and buying the DMUs vs paving the whole thing damn ROW? Not even close! And that’s not even factoring the much higher labor costs per rider of operating a busway.
“I wonder how many of the 45,000 New Kensington area work in downtown Pittsburgh.”
Why are you thinking of this as only the people who live in the town of the terminus commuting to Downtown? That would be like viewing the T as a commuter line between South Hills Village and Downtown and ignoring every connection in between. How many people would ride from Verona to Lawrenceville? Or from the Strip to Oakmont? Or take a short bus connector from Penn Hills or the Waterworks? Those are the riders that need to be factored in when considering ridership, along with the big picture of building a transit system where one can get from roughly any point A to any point B in a reasonable amount of time regardless of mode, and rapid transit for the Allegheny Valley is a big missing link.
“The busway option would be more convenient for servicing oakland but slower than the train for downtown. On the other hand 13 miles of busway would probably cost a billion dollars and seems excessive considering it’s not congested or part of the core network.”
Last I read, the plans for the Brilliant Branch are to turn it into a bike path. I doubt Port Authority gets anywhere with it.
“It seems like cities the size of Pittsburgh are getting shut out from the large chunks of funding that go to rail projects. The larger ridership, larger population growth and willingness to raise taxes to match federal funds is a factor in pittsburgh being at a disadvantage to other cities.”
All the more reason to go with the most cost-effective form of rapid transit!
ktxhopem3276 t1_j5mmnua wrote
I’m just guessing on numbers and not trying to ignore all the stops in between new Kensington and downtown. I used $100,000 per rider capital cost as a benchmark from other projects that have been funded. So if it’s $250 million maybe it will be worth it if gets at least 2500 riders. I think it sounds reasonable but I would still be curious what PRT thinks ridership and costs would be.
1stCaptainSkrall t1_j5gyr6p wrote
Would it be nice? Absolutely. Is it possible? Most likely. Will it happen? No. We'll have toll booths on the Fort Pitt Bridge before any meaningful and useful Public Transport
societaldecay t1_j5ex6dw wrote
Haha this is a good post good job to the OP
Costanzaslife23 t1_j5f66s4 wrote
If only that were the scar on Dumbledore’s knee instead of the London Underground.
jmarinara t1_j5gn9h0 wrote
I mean, I guess. I don't know why you'd build a system that goes into Butler, Westmoreland, and Beaver county, but doesn't even follow the EXISTING tracks into Allegheny County's Springdale and Tarentum.
Trooper-Man1776 t1_j5hbfhk wrote
Honestly, the T most definitely could use some expansion. They could start by restoring the green line and the brown line. I've ridden both the T and the Metro in Washington D.C. as well. It's been a boon to our nation's capitol and, given our past light rail history, It could be a boon for Pittsburgh too.
ktxhopem3276 t1_j5hqmxt wrote
The county is going to put most transit funding toward bus lanes since we already have decent dedicated bus ways. Building a comprehensive light rail network would cost around $10 billion dollars and the state republicans prefer to build highways instead. There are two trolly extensions under consideration - northward to Bellevue or Ross.
Page 54 has the map of future projects
https://nextransitdraftplan.blob.core.windows.net/finalplan/NEXTransit%20-%20FINAL-web%209-16-21.pdf
69FunnyNumberGuy420 t1_j5jnvxi wrote
Instead, we're spending $1.3b to add eight miles to the Mon-Fayette expressway, a highway to nowhere serving nobody that was planned out in the early eighties. What a fuckin' disgrace.
ktxhopem3276 t1_j5join9 wrote
Yes I agree. It’s mostly due to state and federal politics. Republicans don’t give funding to democrat cities and counties to build mass transit.
69FunnyNumberGuy420 t1_j5jpp6h wrote
Which is ironic because those "democrat cities" are where most of the economy is. Philadelphia + the collar counties have a larger economy than every rural county in this state combined.
ktxhopem3276 t1_j5js5tp wrote
Yeah it’s really sad. You would think the party of capitalism would be in favor of building infrastructure in productive locations but owning the libs comes above all else.
[deleted] t1_j5f74ox wrote
[deleted]
lhurker t1_j5g4qkv wrote
I for one am still holding out for SkyTrain
apaloosafire t1_j5ghhwc wrote
Myrtle would for sure be hanging out underground
glitch83 t1_j5gu1cj wrote
I’ll just be happy with the red and yellow lines but that’s be amazing
xsoloxela t1_j5h73mf wrote
Oddly similar to DC's lines. I approve this though.
Sankara_Connolly2020 t1_j5harlb wrote
I hate that this is the most famous fantasy Prt Authority map. If I recall correctly, this was a college project for some jag who had zero connection to Pittsburgh, and it shows through the shoddy map design and some absolutely nonsensical routing.
speedofdark8 t1_j5hdgn7 wrote
If only there was $1.3 Billion that could be allocated to improving transportation in the region
[deleted] t1_j5houos wrote
[deleted]
BeMancini t1_j5i69ub wrote
Listen, I live in Greensburg, and I haven’t been to the city since 2004, but let me tell you definitively and without hesitation exactly what Pittsburgh really needs. It’s more driving lanes and more parking lots that’re cheap. Not all these bike lanes and dreams of pointless light rail! Duh! Too many cars? Just build more lanes!
St_Jimmy456 t1_j5i6xzf wrote
I would pay $0.50 extra on every single thing I bought for the next 5 years if it meant I could take a train from Station Square to the airport.
Omgitsjustdae t1_j5lqp0g wrote
A girl can dream. Instead they're gonna sink all their money into buses that don't go over traffic.
puppy_fan t1_j5fhjgs wrote
If I wasn’t WFH, with C3 park and ride closing, I could see driving to the county airport for this.
44problems t1_j5h4w0j wrote
It used to be a park and ride, they should think about bringing it back since it's county owned.
KentuckYSnow t1_j5fanz6 wrote
Another week, another shitty T post that will never happen.
Ashamed_Band_1779 t1_j5f2sw4 wrote
I was a huge fan until I noticed that it says “U Pitt” instead of “Pitt”. Just for that I hope Pittsburgh builds 6 more highways that bisect the city.