TRANSPORTATION OVERVIEW July 20, 2006
To summarize: I propose a Tomorrow’s Transportation Campaign: light rail to Oakland and beyond, NO Mon-Fayette, and state transportation funding that is dedicated, predictable, and adequate.
These are my views on a variety of issues in transit in the Pittsburgh region, especially public transportation. It includes ideas I have heard as chairperson of the Long Range Planning Committee of the Allegheny County Transit Council, and elsewhere. All credit should be shared with them; all blame is mine. All comments are welcome via mail, e-mail, and phone.
A. Transit Funding
The sine qua non of any rational transportation planning is state operating funds for public transportation - adequate, predictable, dedicated funding.
This is essential for PAT, SEPTA, the smaller transit systems, the people dependant on public transportation, for sustainable development, for the environment, and for energy conservation. Back in May, 1993, I drafted a memo for ACTC warning of the “death spiral†of trying to solve the financial crisis with service cuts and fare increases.
In 2005, Governor Rendell formed the “Pennsylvania Funding and Reform Commission,†charged with proposing a solution to this crisis. Originally the commission was to report Nov. 25, 2006, right after the election. The legislators most supportive of transit funding said that there was no possibility of the necessary legislative action until the Commission made a recommendation. I said at the Commission hearing Jan. 26 of this year that such a schedule would mean disaster. Governor Rendell’s flex funding transfer had fended off service cuts, including (for PAT and ACCESS) NO service on Sunday and NO service after 9 p.m. But the flex funds run out at the end of this year, and the Governor promised to not even ask for any more flex funds. The Legislature’s term ends Nov. 30, and there is no possibility that major legislation could get passed that quickly.
The Port Authority of Allegheny County, which is on a fiscal year ending June 30, passed a “contingent budget†for the current year, which requires an additional $31 million in transit funding. Without more funding, PAT will run out of money in early 2007 and have to shut down.
I strongly support this drastic but necessary decision. We simply cannot keep cutting out legs off piecemeal. In fact, I and Save Our Transit proposed this action in early 2004, which we called the “doomsday budget.†At that time, Governor Rendell came to the rescue with a short-term temporary solution, transferring or “flexing†highway funds,
Now, the Commission chair, Allen Beihler, the Pennsylvania Secretary of Transportation, has asked his commission to issue a report, or at least a draft, this summer. I hope this will be a solution which we can take to legislators this fall. The employees and employers that depend on public transit do not need the suspense of not knowing if they will have service the next week. I hope we will get a recommendation for a “clean†bill, without a mandate for privatization or other union-busting, and without tolling I-80 or some other scheme to fund the Mon Fayette turnpike.
Al Biehler and the Governor should be supported and encouraged to propose a solution to the funding crisis this summer. The nine-member statewide commission includes State Senator Barry Stout of Washington County, Alex Sciulli of the Mellon Financial Corporation, and former Allegheny County Executive Jim Roddey.
I have been told that the draft probably will NOT engender a solution this fall, but the commission will recommend ANOTHER interim solution at least through PAT’s budget. I don’t like this, and nobody else will. But we must be prepared to support it actively.
What else can we do? Save the date of OCT. 26. There will be a major rally sponsored by groups led by PIIN - the Pittsburgh Interfaith Impact Network. The paln is a couple of THOUSAND people asking political leaders for committments on transit funding, as well as single payer health care, job dcevelopment, and immigration. Join us.
B. County Executive Onorato is developing a 6 Point Transportation Action Plan. The DRAFT elements are:
1. Downtown to Oakland Rapid Transit.
2. Airport to Downtown Rapid Transit.
3. Economic Development & Transportation Planning.
4. Existing Rail Corridors.
5. A Regional Transportation Authority.
6. Commercial Use of the Busways.
Below is MY articulation of the current draft of the 6 points. The order of the six points is mine. I have added notes and comments from members of the ACTC Long Range Planning Committee and from others. The Onorato transportation points should be out in mid-September. It is to be an action agenda, not another plan for further studies.
1. Downtown to Oakland Rapid Transit.
This is the project that could make benefit this region for generations to come.
I think the logical mode is light rail, especially since PAT already is operating such a system.
I think that the logical corridors are either Fifth Ave. or Centre Ave, then under Oak Hill to the hospital complex and Pitt/CMU.
Note that while these corridors would have to be underground, because the land is heavily used, such lines could be extended to Greenfield, Hazelwood, and Homestead, with relatively inexpensive construction at grade.
Other possible corridors include Second Avenue, then north to Pitt/CMU, and the Martin Luther King Busway and Neville Ramp. Both these alternatives have, I think, less benefit to Oakland, and no benefit to the hospital complex. Second Avenue has less travel time reduction to Pitt/CMU. I think the busway right-of-way is too narrow in spots for both the busway and a light rail line, and I’d rather not get the Oakland link entangled with the technical and political problems of converting the whole busway to light rail.
The Centre Avenue corridor would bring development to an area with deteriorated buildings and vacant land. It would have to be deep tunnel rather than cut-and-cover. A Centre Avenue route would be a long-overdue direct, quality transit service from the Hill to Oakland. (The 84A connects Oakland and the Hill, but it is not a good route for daily commuters,)
An east corridor decision would have an interesting interaction with another public decision due in six months or a year. Apparently. Pittsburgh is going to get a big casino. One of the leading contenders, Isle of Capri, would build the casino right on Fifth Avenue. It also proposes to pay for a new arena, for the Penguins and events next door, between Fifth Ave. and Epiphany Church. A light rail line with a station serving the casino and the arena would benefit those working at both places, as well as hockey fans and gamblers. The mess on Fifth Avenue during construction could serve two purposes.
Ideally, the light rail line should go not only to Oakland, but through Oakland. The plurality of the traffic to Oakland comers from and east and south.
The light rail could be run to Greenfield, Hazelwood and Homestead. Between Hays and Homestead there are rights-of-way that had room for four train lines. Eventually, the light rail could go beyond Homestead to a park-and-ride garage at the terminus of construction of the Mon-Fayette – possibly at Duquesne. That would be a decade or more away and expensive – but construction of any Mon-Fayette would take at least as much time and money. And experience elsewhere shows that a light rail terminus would do far more for economic development in Duquesne than cars and trucks flying by on their way to Monroeville or Oakland.
An alternative beyond Oakland would be a line through Hazelwood to Braddock. Again, there are existing rail rights of way, making possible relatively inexpensive at grade construction.
An east light rail could eventually run underground through Market Square. This.would make more sense than getting rid of the buses on Forbes. (and the people who ride them??)
SPC’s most recent study seems to lay planning groundwork for an east corridor light rail line. My understanding is that if such a line is declared by SPC to be a “locally preferred alternative,†we can go ahead and ask for federal funding for a “Alternatives Analysis†and Draft Environmental Impact Statement, including a final selection of the corridor.
As I have repeatedly said, downtown Pittsburgh and Oakland are the second and third largest trip generators in the state. A rail link connecting downtown and Oakland was first proposed in 1908. Let’s do it.
2. Airport to Downtown Rapid Transit.
Sure, we should have light rail to the airport, although the 28X bus is pretty quick. But I think that this should be done AFTER we do, or at least get going, on an east corridor line. Many more people will use a line downtown through Oakland, even if the big shots go to the Airport.
Many of us in Oakland are still bitter about what happened with the proposed Spine Line through Oakland. First, we were told, “Let’s combine the Spine Line with light rail to the Pirates, Steelers, and North Shore. I and others were suspicious, but we went along. All of sudden there wasn’t enough money for both, and Oakland got postponed indefinitely, again. Assuming the federal government will not fund both the east line and an airport line, we should do the east line first.
3. Economic Development & Transportation Planning.
Again, sure a major transportation project will encourage development. We can plan on it and for it. (Consider what the Metro has done for Washington, D.C.) But planning be done first, and should be separate from economic development. The goals can be contradictory. Don’t do a transit project because some developers can make a buck, replacing farms and forests in a “greenfield†area.. (The Mon-Fayette is a horrible example of this. Build it and they will come – or at least, the developer will come. Another horrible example is the scheme to get rid of buses on Forbes and Fifth, which is hostile to transit riders and stinks of racism.)
To plan intelligently, we really need to bring back the Allegheny County Planning Department, which was folded into Economic Development by Dunn and Cranmer.
4. Existing Rail Corridors.
This won’t be quick, especially since the railroads are so hostile to passenger transportation. But someone – PennDOT, SPC, whoever, should buy the rights-of-way when they come on the market. They should bank the rights-of-way until we can use them. The danger, to me, is that companies that own the railroads will sell of pieces to boost profits for their next quarterly report, and we lose the right-of-way.
5. Regional Transportation Authority.
A regional transportation authority is a popular idea among “civic leaders.†(What’s the difference between a civic leader and a community leader? About $200,000 a year.)
But there are serious difficulties. The outlying counties won’t permit system run by Allegheny County and Pittsburgh. And we won’t – and shouldn’t – put up with a system in which Butler County and Armstrong County can outvote Allegheny County. True, SPC is run that way. and it in theory controls federal money. But it’s wrong, there, too. Maybe a regional transportation authority needs a dual voting system on its board.
Motions would need two majority votes. In one vote, each county and the City of Pittsburgh would have equal voting power. In the other, voting strength would be proportional to the population, or better yet, the number of transit riders. Of course, there should also be a citizen participation structure, like PAT’s Allegheny County Transit Council.
Before creating this complex structure, we should ask, “Why?â€
Individual counties. such as Beaver as well as Allegheny, have shown that a county can rum a transit agency. What could a regional transportation authority do which SPC isn’t already doing, or supposed to do? A regional transportation authority might have bond authority, but that is not likely to rally public support.
6. Commercial Use of the Busways.
I think that commercial use of the busways is a lousy idea. I expect major objections will come from PAT, and from the FTA if that idea gets that far.
C. The T Extension to the North Shore.
Should we go ahead with the plan to extend the T to serve the Pirates and Steelers and some of the North Shore, via a tunnel under the river? Or is it too late to reconsider this decision, especially since the Federal Transit Administration apparently will sign a “full funding agreement for $348 million of the currently estimated $435 million cost and PAT today voted to start..
Some people, even ones who don’t like the plans, say that the Federal Transit Administration approved our plans and the funding, even though the funding now appears to be insufficient. They say that if we do not go ahead with the plans, FTA won’t consider any proposal from us for years.
Others say that a frank reassessment, local support behind a more realistic plan, with more united local support than the current plan commands, might be welcomed by the FTA.
I personally would have built a line to Oakland first, and I wouldn’t use tunnels in the city of bridges. The east line still should be the highest priority. The question is whether reconsideration of the North Shore plans would enable us to move ahead with an east line sooner, pr whether it might delay everything. We need a discreet, reliable, inquiry at a very high level in the federal government.
However, this issue seems to have been decided, when the Port Authority Board voted in favor of contracts to begin construction. I only hope we do not allow this project to delay the higher priority of a light rqild to and through Oakland.
D. The Mon-Fayette Turnpike.
I will not here reiterate the many reasons why the Mon-Fayette Turnpike would be a disaster for Pittsburgh and Oakland. There are two new issues.
One is energy conservation. As gasoline prices go to $5 a gallon and over, the Mon-Fayette Turnpike will make less and less sense, (Why am I sure about the price trend? Simply because no one is pumping oil into the ground.)
The other emerging fact is that the money = $4billion or more – just isn’t there. Anyone who still believes the Turnpike Commission can see the report by Consad for the Urban Land Institute, “The Mon-Fayette Turnpike - In the Money There?“
More important and more interesting is the question of what we do once SPC and our leaders face reality. The east light rail line through Oakland is the solution. It is a real solution to the transportation needs of the East Corridor. It would save energy, protect the environment, and encourage sustainable development – what the SPC calls “Focused Growth.â€
Three cheers for Mayor John Fetterman, who is holding a Good-by Party 8 pm Friday July for the Mon-Fayette at his home, 416 Library St., Braddock, opposite Carnegie Lib
E. I will mention several other improvements are in our public transportation system.
The Braddock area was blighted even before it became a target of the Mon-Fayette. With no Mon-Fayette, there should be either an extention of the Oakland light rail to Braddock or an extension of the Martin Luther King Busway.
Many public transportation systems are working on new means of fare collection, and PAT is making plans. One question is should it be a pre-paid “swipe card†or a card with a chip? The latter would be more expensive to install, but would be broadly useful. For that matter, Stu Strickland and others, as well as PAT, have developed important ides for better information systems generally, making the transit system more useable to people who are not habitual users.
Planners at the Allegheny Conference have developed idea for a “personal rapid transit system. with automated vehicles “driven†by the user, taking people short distances quickly and without waiting. This might complement a light rail system in Oakland and downtown. It would enable people to go quickly without a car from, e.g., Second Avenue to the top of Cardiac Hill.
These are my views on transportation, especially public transportation, for the Pittsburgh Region. Let us work for tomorrow’s transportation: light rail to Oakland and beyond, NO Mon-Fayette, and state transportation funding that is dedicated, predictable, and adequate.