MORE Thoughts -- PRCo--2000 -- What Trolleycars Remain ed??

[Derrick J Brashear]

On Thu, 15 Jun 2000, Donald Galt wrote:

> I have to plead ignorance of the East Liberty Mall, but suspect there may be 
> an additional factor here: you probably had a failing commercial district 
> which was turned into a pedestrian mall as a last resort. When that failed 
> the obvious scapegoat was the mall concept itself.

It received coverage in the Post-Gazette in the last few weeks. The
commercial district was arguably hurting, and some leading merchants got
together to see what could be done. The pedestrian mall concept was
decided on, along with other road improvments, some of which were done
with the idea that other planned improvments would happen, one of them
being some sort of expressway. Several of the merchants who proposed the
plan actually pulled out before the mall was even in place; It also
didn't work like they expected. As to whether the area was doomed to
decline, we can never know, as the path you take is the path you know,
anything else is no more than guesswork.

Interestingly we have another example of redevelopment, but with a
different take, in Allegheny Center. There they also did a ring road, cut
off the streets in the middle, but that was a new structure, an enclosed
mall. It didn't work out either, parking garages and all. Maybe this is a
sign that the urban redevlopment of this sort was doomed to fail, at least
at the time. Then again, maybe people wanted to drive, but didn't want to
pay to park. I can only guess.

> The point I think I am making is that we need to be careful in attributing 
> cause and effect.

Yes

> A beef in my earlier post was that in the US everything is done with the 
> automobile in mind, not the pedestrian. My perpetual rant concerns push-

In reality it should be done with neither in mind, give me useful transit
instead;-) It's possible but hard to hack while walking. It's possible but
dangerous to hack while driving. 

> Indeed, the differences that Fred cites, population densities etc, are a 
> factor. 

And the oft-cited Pittsburgh geography... at least here it's an issue.
Consider that when I lived with my parents it was 10 minutes uphill to one
bus line, 10 minutes down to the other. The lower one, though, was the
only one with non-rush bus service, which meant a nice, long uphill walk
home. Not bad in the spring or fall, horrid in driving rain, deep snow,
or beating sun. Now imagine doing it after shopping for a reasonable
amount of stuff. The lower one, incidentally (Ardmore Blvd) had had
streetcar service; The upper (Greensburg Pike) never had... so even if the
87 were still running, that would have been the same. Very deliberately I
picked out a house near the end of the 67F Trafford bus route, but I still
somewhat regret I didn't get something along the Library line... even if
it would be a two vehicle ride to Oakland, and when the Fort Pitt Bridge
finally closes dozens of people who would otherwise be driving would jam
into the LRVs for a ride to town. (Hey, anyone know if PAT^H^H^HPort
Authority is actually going to have more rail vehicles on hand when the
bridge closes? If not, seriously, I don't envy the people who ride the T
to work now, or the people who will be joining them)

Anyhow, I'm going off topic. 

I will come back to what I said the other day: I'm resigned to the loss of
62 service to Trafford, but the loss of the Pennsy commuter service is
irritating. Which I guess leads into another point: as much as some
traction fans hated the "steam" roads, there's a lot to be said for a
complete, balanced transportation system. 

And hey... why does the bus system we have still run substantially where
the streetcars did, if commuting patterns are changing? If the advantage
of buses is they don't require expensive fixed guideway changes, why are
changes so long in coming?

And on a more serious and relevant note.... night owl service. I'm
interesting in hearing what if anything you guys have to say about owl
service on the Pittsburgh Railways system. I have schedules which document
it, but I've not seen a lot of comment on it.

-D