Submitted by MWBartko t3_10kc3qj in pittsburgh
AirtimeAficionado t1_j5ps1uo wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in A T line from Pittsburgh International Airport to the Allegheny County Airport by MWBartko
This isn’t really the problem, there is space, it’s just that it would be expensive, and the T isn’t all that fast (45mph on the high end), so covering the ~15 miles would take longer than a bus. If we ever invested in a heavy rail system (which I think we should, particularly for between Downtown, Oakland, and East Liberty), with much higher top speeds (~80-90 mph), it might make a bit more sense given transit times.
There’s also the question of ridership potential, I think physical transit to the airport is important for a variety of reasons, but there really isn’t super high density anywhere along the corridor and there aren’t that many people going to and from the airport (particularly on transit) each day on average, so it would be a challenge in getting the numbers to really pencil out.
Informal_Avocado_534 t1_j5pupbg wrote
This is the real concern—there simply isn't enough ridership potential. (and I'm a huge proponent of MOAR TRAINS)
Alon Levy covers the topic a lot on their blog. A critical point is that "any air-rail link must go to the areas that people are likely to want to connect to." The Pittsburgh metro is not monocentric, so there's no easy way to bring everyone to where they need to go next.
People assume that airport transit would get used a lot, but it's orders of magnitude lower than everyday transit riders. The most frequent users would be airport employees, and even at bigger airports there usually aren't enough employee commuters to make it worth it.
Marks against a PIT train:
- small airport
- far airport
- nothing in between the airport and the central city
- small metro region
- weakly centered urban development plan
Instead, we should focus on "duh" improvements to bus transit to the airport:
- dedicated airport traveler-friendly busses (with luggage racks like Boston's Silver Line)
- run more frequently
- don't make non-airport stops
- take advantage of existing bus rapid transit features (like the East Busway)
- run a few variants (like, 3—maybe northside, east end, and southside)
In parallel, we need to build up transit capacity and reliability in the core so that it's the default way to get around.
ktxhopem3276 t1_j5pzagt wrote
PRT wants to extend the west busway at both ends to speed up the 28x airport flyer which will also benefit from the Oakland BRT project that is building an additional bus only lane and traffic signal priority
w0jty t1_j5pwlj8 wrote
A small nitpick, but even the older Siemens units can do 65, and the newer CAF ones hit 70ish in testing the blue line before opening.
I agree all the other expenses will keep this from happening unless the city population booms and the airport becomes a major hub again, both of which I don’t see happening any time soon.
AirtimeAficionado t1_j5pxokf wrote
Yes, but I don’t know if they could do them regularly/ if they could reasonably achieve those speeds for a long period of time on any realistic track configuration. I think 45 is a more realistic top speed that we would see, especially considering the grade that they would need to cover on such a segment, but I could be misguided here
w0jty t1_j5q4r3g wrote
The re-done blue line was designed and built to allow for hitting their top speed, but a variety of crossing and signaling issues have kept that from coming to fruition. The red line, downtown, and north shore certainly not going to get anywhere near that for sure.
As with all infrastructure, getting the planning right is only half the battle, execution can just as easily make or break a project.
ktxhopem3276 t1_j5pyxdz wrote
A small detail is FTA limits heavy rail to 79mph unless it is completely grade separated in which case a diesel train can do 110 and that is caller higher speed rail while over 110 is high speed electrified heavy rail
MWBartko OP t1_j5psqew wrote
Just based on what I know of the traffic between Robinson and Greentree Hill if you can service a line going that direction hitting communities like Carnegie in between I could definitely see sufficient density and ridership.
AirtimeAficionado t1_j5px2uc wrote
Yes, but the issue is ridership that would unlock federal funding for the project. There is no hard and fast rule, but to be eligible for federal funds, there would need to be an absolute minimum of ~30-40,000 daily riders for a light rail expansion of this length to even be considered (and really a ridership of 50-75,000 to be seriously considered) against other projects.
The parkway currently sees a daily vehicle count of ~100,000 at the Fort Pitt Tunnel. Given the configuration of these communities (sparse suburbs), it would be nearly impossible to capture more than around ~10% of this traffic (because people cannot walk to stations and there are only so many parking spaces that can be made per station and when you are relying on people to already drive to a station it is a hard sell for them to then wait for a train when they could just drive at that point). This would equate to around 10-15,000 daily riders (at the high end), which is well short from the 30-40,000 that is for the most part needed to be considered for funding.
The only hope for this project ever getting off the ground would be if the Airport Authority were convinced it could substantially impact their operations (which might be likely given staffing concerns) and is necessary. The Authority has generated huge amounts of funds through its fracking agreements in the past decade (what is paying for the upcoming ~$1.5 billion renovation of the airport), and it could potentially have the funding needed to majorly fund a line like this in the future regardless of estimated ridership figures. This is a bit of a long shot but would be the only real way it could happen any time soon, and would likely be dependent on County Executive leadership in the future making it a priority.
ktxhopem3276 t1_j5q7a3t wrote
Yes, but the issue is ridership that would unlock federal funding for the project. There is no hard and fast rule, but to be eligible for federal funds, there would need to be an absolute minimum of ~30-40,000 daily riders for a light rail expansion of this length to even be considered (and really a ridership of 50-75,000 to be seriously considered) against other projects.
Those numbers seem a little off to me. San Diego received funding for a 11 mile extension with 20,000 riders for a cost of $2 billion or $100,000 per rider
AirtimeAficionado t1_j5qiw9l wrote
The numbers vary a lot on census trends/weight of the region— even though I believe a lot in Pittsburgh, we have had a long period of stasis in our population, and likely will not see huge changes (barring anything huge) for a while, and therefore thresholds that are looked at are a bit different. San Diego is a growing region and has different outlooks than Pittsburgh, which play a role in all of this. They also have different state funding structures, as well as many other contributing rail projects in the state of California that may have played a role in project approval.
ktxhopem3276 t1_j5qmmib wrote
Yeah but I dont agree that 30,000 is an absolute minimum. I prefer an estimate like $100,000 per rider and $100 million per mile construction would require 1000 riders per mile. Busier lines can cost more to construct and lines that are cheaper to construct won’t need as many riders so it is a handy little rule of thumb to go by.
If you want a similar sized city Portland is the closest to Pittsburgh. They spent $1.5 billion with 50% federal and 25 % state funding for 7.3 miles with a projected ridership of 17,000 puts it at $88,000 per projected rider. Sadly that lines projections were two high and actual ridership has come out to be around $200,000 per rider. Some agencies are better than others at estimating and the San Diego line had near perfect estimates.
Here is a great article with a lot of data. It discusses heavy rail in big cities first which is obviously not comparable to Pittsburgh but later in it gets into light rail in other cities
ktxhopem3276 t1_j5pzn3l wrote
It’s been looked at for many years but the capital costs and ridership ratio is not as appealing as you think it is. That’s why they went with north shore extension instead
[deleted] t1_j5q1uwo wrote
[deleted]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments