Speed-public hearings

[Vigrass, Bill]

Don't be sorry about being a cynic.  You are close to the mark.
I was off the PAT PMO 9/93, so have not been involved since.  However, I
would have had a rather simple way to convert the east busway to LRT,
providing it did not have to be a joint bus/rail route as is that short
segment just beyond the tunnel (and the tunnel itself).
I would just lay rail on top of the pavement, as slab track.  I think it
would work.  I presume The Engineers proposed to demolish the roadway, and
build a new LRT line.  And of course, this requires all new rolling stock.
Buses already exist.  The decision is stacked against the conversion to LRT
even with my cheapy solution.  And maybe there were reasons why that
wouldn't work.  Sacramento placed ballast on top of I-80 pavement, then
track. I think the ballast spread the load.  PAT could have done that.  I
don't know what was actually proposed.  Do you?   I do think that the busway
provides a good level of service, and it allows a number of bus lines to
reach downtown that go far beyond the busway.  Even some long haul suburban
coaches use it.  So it has some advantages.   PAT remains an interesting
system, LRT, busways and all..
Bill.

> ----------
> From: 	John Swindler[SMTP:j_swindler at hotmail.com]
> Reply To: 	pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> Sent: 	Friday, October 22, 1999 2:40 PM
> To: 	pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> Subject: 	RE: Speed-public hearings
> 
> Bill Vigrass wrote:
> >
> >. . . .More how PAT LRT came to be what it is. When the transition was
> made 
> >from SkyBus to LRT, there was a public input process, or at least input 
> >from local communities. I had heard from sources now forgotten that each 
> >community had its input in the public process.  Beechview wanted it in
> the 
> >street, so they got it.  Mt. Lebanon wanted it off the street, so they
> got 
> >a tunnel, with no stations yet.  I guess they didn't want it at all.
> >
> 
> I guess, Bill,
> 
>   that I'm become much more cynical with age.  Public input process???  In
> 
> many cases, it seems that the basic decision has already been made (why
> else 
> would you have a public hearing?) and the public input process is merely 
> "eyewash" to satisfy a federal requirement.  The "bureaucrats" running the
> 
> public hearing might make some minor adjustments based on public comments,
> 
> but to effect any substantial change probably would require a lobby effort
> 
> to our legislative officials.
> 
>    And that's why Pittsburgh doesn't have Skybus.  Didn't matter what the 
> local taxpayers and municipal elected officials wanted.  Allegheny County 
> and federal money were already in place.  PAT was already acquiring 
> property, including the Wabash tunnel and the South Hills maintenance 
> facility.  For all practical purposes, Skybus was a "done deal"!  What 
> finally stopped PAT was when the state said no funding for Skybus.  Not to
> 
> be overlooked was that Gov. Shapp was an "outsider" within the Democratic 
> party, and perhaps thus more willing to go against the majority Allegheny 
> County commissioners.  That was an extremely important fact.  To put it 
> bluntly, we got light rail in Pittsburgh because of political decisions at
> 
> echelons (those of us with military service will understand) above our 
> level.
> 
> As for Mt. Lebanon and Beechview, I'm afraid those decisions were already 
> made.  I recall a light rail conference around 1975 which quoted subway 
> construction at about $100 million a mile, stations not included, which
> was 
> about the cost of PAT's Sixth/Liberty Ave. subway when you add up the 
> construction contracts.  By comparison, San Diego's first line was built
> at 
> about $5.6 million per mile, or about one-third the cost of PAT's East 
> Busway!  No matter what the residents of Beechview wanted, they were NOT 
> going to get a subway.  And as for Mt. Lebanon, tracks on West Liberty
> Ave. 
> were doomed.  Since Skybus called for a tunnel, it was an easy "sell".
> And 
> with such a short tunnel, no need for an expensive intermediate
> underground 
> station.  (Overall, it seems that many good operational decisions were 
> eventually made.)
> 
> Speaking of public input, isn't there a similar case today in the East
> Hills 
> were several municipalities, particularly Edgewood, have requested that
> the 
> 2.3 mile East Busway Extension be built as a light rail line?  I think the
> 
> busway cost is $62 million or $26 million per mile.  When the local 
> residents expressed their LRT preference last year, PAT agreed to study
> the 
> cost of light rail construction and - surprise - came up with a cost of
> $401 
> million to convert the East Busway to light rail.  PAT priced out the 2.3 
> miles through Edgewood and Swissvale at $134.4 million, or $58 million per
> 
> mile.
> 
> Guess no one thought to look at the federal governments "Report on Funding
> 
> Levels and Allocations of Funds" report, dtd Aug 1996, which is available
> on 
> the internet.  The 17.4 mile St. Louis extension through St. Charles Co.
> is 
> projected at $295 million or $17 million per mile; the 14 mile Salt Lake 
> City LRT is $312 million or $22 million per mile, and the Denver 8.7 mile 
> southwest extension to Englewood is projected at $177 million or $20
> million 
> per mile.  Guess Pittsburgh has a different definition of what constitutes
> 
> "light rail"!
> 
> Sorry, Bill, for being such a cynic.
> 
> John
> 
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>