Clipping

[Kenneth Josephson]

Derrick J Brashear wrote:

> But one could also argue the development around Pittsburgh doesn't fit the
> national norm. And in fact most of the rail lines, electric and otherwise,
> served corridors along creek and river valleys, which also happened to be
> where people lived and worked at least early on.

True. It is amazing to those of us from locales with relatively level
topography  to discover communities within a few miles of each other being
almost totally isolated. The long narrow valleys and "steps" of the mountains
also led to a number of heavily travelled, parallel car lines at different
levels along ridges. Pittsburgh's situation could be called unique.

As pointed out to me by another list member, most transit systems were (are)
radial in nature, with lines fanning out from a central (downtown) area. In a
level community, enough crosstown lines (especially in the motor coach era)
were started to form a true grid. In Milwaukee, Chicago, NYC, LA, etc., a
transit patron can reach all outlying transit served areas of those
metropolitan areas without *ever* having to ride a trunk line downtown to
transfer. And as many downtowns have lost industry, retail and corporate
headquarters, downtowns and the lines radiating out from them have also
declined.

I believe Pittsburgh's geography keeps the city center relevent. I could be
wrong, but the downtown appeared to be thriving during my last visit in 1999.
I don't see a grid pattern of bus and rail lines being possible in Pittsburgh
and its suburbs.  The growth is entrenched along ridges, waterways, valley
floors and hilltops. That alone may have helped keep (rail) transit relevent in
Pittsburgh.

> On the
> other hand, what if instead of the West Busway something could have been
> done with the extensive private right of way which existed from the West
> End services, and then perhaps tied into the former Panhandle right of way
> outbound of the tunnel?

Looking at a map, it appears feasible. Could residents of the West End be lured
back to the rails? I always thought that if more of the streetcar system
survived under PAT management, some the trolleys would have been shifted to
parallel railroad rights of way (dual gauge?) as industrial rail traffic
declined. It would have speeded up rail transit and would have gotten transit
vehicles off the surface streets.

> It's all pointless speculation, since the way things evolved in this
> country basically precluded survival of the more rural systems and made the
> preservation of urban systems require great foresight and potentially
> greater expense.

As it is, some of the surviving rail transit systems are still with us due to
unique circumstances that had less to do with foresight than political
wrangling.

> It's still annoying to me, though, that the system we're
> left with here isn't more useful than it is.

I wonder if rail transit would be more useful if there was more incentive for
the agency running the system to do things better. I sometimes wonder if
privatizing the positions at the top and offering fat bonuses to them  if they
can reach certain goals outlined in their contract with the County would result
in a leaner, more effective PAT?

Ken J.