Speed-Skybus Early Action

[John Swindler]

Bill Vigrass wrote:

>
>This brings back a memory.  I attended the Carnegie-Mellon Professional 
>Program in Urban Transportation, class of 1975. . . . One day or two we had 
>a presentation on Sky Bus and a review of the then ongoing controversy on 
>modal choice. . . . . In the question period, I observed that the existing 
>streetcar operation was nearly light rail, so why does not PAT install 
>SkyBus on a different route that did not then have a fast service, such as 
>the Spine Line, then being studied.
>He responded that only the South Hills had the ridership to support the 
>investment in such a fixed facility. . . . I disagreed with it then and do 
>now.  They ought to have built (or at least proposed) SkyBus for a heavy 
>corridor that had only street buses.  But I dunno what that might have been 
>other than the Spine Line on which an elevated structure may have been 
>objectionable.
>
>Bill V.
>
>
>


I suspect, Bill,

that as with so much else in society, it goes back to $$$$$$$$$$ and 
politics and back to $$$$$$$$$$$!

At the risk of trying to rely on questionable "memory cells", a Parsons 
Brinkerhoff report from the mid/late 1960s envisioned a five or six-route 
Skybus network for Pittsburgh with several branches.  There would be two 
east end lines, with one being what we refer to as a "spine line" through 
Oakland and then heading towards Wilkinsburg.

As for why not light rail?  Again, one must go back to the mid-late 1960s, 
not early 1970s.  The competition was not between Skybus and light rail, 
because light rail didn't exist.  The choices were "antiquated" trolleys, 
expensive heavy rapid transit, or this new intermediate mode called "Skybus" 
that would be produced by Westinghouse, a large, important, local employer 
(and political contributor?).

Entering the world of conjecture, so why was the South Hills chosen over a 
"spine line" route?  Well, where would you propose your initial "starter" 
line?  How about where its cheapest and easiest to build (and where you can 
show something to the public before the next election).

And where was it cheapest and easiest?  It certainly wasn't the "spine line" 
alignment, because tunnels costs money, and lots of it, and most of the 
Oakland route would be in tunnel. (We'll just have to come back latter for 
(lots of) additional money for the more expensive sections, which is a 
favorite tactic of the highway lobby!)

But the proposed "South Hills" route would use existing trolley 
rights-of-way that would minimize property condemnation, an unused tunnel 
under Mt. Washington, and an available railroad right-of-way to Penn 
Station.  And to improve ridership projections, all parallel bus lines (such 
as the 36 and 41 series) would become feeder routes to Skybus stations.  
(The "bus routes that never were" appear in some early Skybus reports.)

Maybe it wasn't a desire to get rid of the trolleys, as claimed by some 
railfans.  Maybe when the PAT board looked at the projected costs, the South 
Hills was the only way to go.  But by choosing a new technology, the PAT 
board boxed themselves into a political dilemma if technical problems were 
encountered with Skybus.  And apparently that's what happened.  And by the 
early 1970s, Boston, San Francisco and Philadelphia were coming up with an 
alternative for modernizing their subway-surface streetcar routes, and we 
called it "light rail."

Again, Bill, just some conjecture which probably needs to be passed to 
someone involved with actual events. My memory and crystal ball leave a lot 
to be desired.

John

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com