Thursday, March 06, 2008
TRID Stuck at the Station
The Port Authority has completed public meetings in Dormont and Mt. Lebanon on the subject of transit revitalization and a top official stated that “it’s all conceptual right now. There are no developers”. We wonder why. As we discussed in a recent Brief, the County’s own study showed that while both communities are losing population, the losses are more pronounced in the ¼ mile radius of the stations, exactly the areas targeted for the high density development.
If living near the transit stations is attractive, why have these areas shed population to this degree? Obviously the Port Authority’s answer is that what is there is not good enough. Thus the efforts to “streamline development in the future” near the stops.
Actually, the official should have mentioned there is in fact one developer, one who has been trying to do something at the Castle Shannon trolley stop since 2000 (it was not studied in the report). Nothing has happened there to date; there is a message there, but don’t look for PAT to get it.
Trying to bail out the failure of light rail to generate its own demand by building up density around the trolley stops is not likely to work given the other powerful factors at work in the County. There are things that PAT could do to get people on to the light rail and eliminate duplicative large bus service in the South Hills, but that does not appear to be happening.
If living near the transit stations is attractive, why have these areas shed population to this degree? Obviously the Port Authority’s answer is that what is there is not good enough. Thus the efforts to “streamline development in the future” near the stops.
Actually, the official should have mentioned there is in fact one developer, one who has been trying to do something at the Castle Shannon trolley stop since 2000 (it was not studied in the report). Nothing has happened there to date; there is a message there, but don’t look for PAT to get it.
Trying to bail out the failure of light rail to generate its own demand by building up density around the trolley stops is not likely to work given the other powerful factors at work in the County. There are things that PAT could do to get people on to the light rail and eliminate duplicative large bus service in the South Hills, but that does not appear to be happening.
Comments:
<< Home
You said "There are things that PAT could do to get people on to the light rail and eliminate duplicative large bus service in the South Hills, but that does not appear to be happening."
Please list some examples of what PAT could do...
Please list some examples of what PAT could do...
Feeder buses would be a very realistic solution here: use the smaller buses you might have seen driving around in the Robinson area and use them here to pick people up and take them to the transit stations to get them into town. In fact the PAT CEO mentioned using feeder buses before and would make sense given that the system now runs large buses through many south hills neighborhoods while at the same time maintaining the trolley system. We wrote a Policy Brief (Vol 7, No. 8) before about the issue and pointed out that the contract language prohibits an expansion of the use of small transit vehicles; maybe that is a provision that ought to be changed.
Good idea, but I don't think it'll work.
For example, take the recently created routes that serve as feeders to the T, 44D, 44E, and 44F. They're the smaller buses used to run through the South Hills neighborhoods and serve as connections to the Mt. Lebanon, Castle Shannon, and Dormont stations.
The problem is that they don't work. They don't work because people don't ride them. One comes by the Mt. Lebanon T station every ten minutes or so during rush hour. The odds are about fifty-fifty that someone will get on or off the bus. When that actually happens, usually its a single rider.
I've actually ridden one of them a short distance down Washington to get to an appointment. Talking to the driver, I discovered that he typically would have 3-4 passengers per day. That's both morning and evening rush hour. Obviously, if no one is riding these feeder routes, then its not working.
So, what are the better solutions? Well, when the feeder routes were created, the Port Authority re-routed the 36A and 37A buses which served Mt. Lebanon. I've taken each of them as well; both of them used to be packed when they left downtown at rush hour. By the time they hit Mt. Lebanon proper, there were still 5-10 people per bus on them. That sounds more effective then the feeder system right there.
And let's face it, who wants to make a connection anyway? If I'm already having to wait in the cold for a bus on my neighborhood corner, I don't want to have to get off the bus and wait in the cold at a T station for the LRT to come. I'd rather just sit on the bus until I reach my destination, even if that takes a little longer.
Plus, you're never really getting at the heart of the problem; the biggest cost of running a bus route is the driver, not the bus itself. Having multiple feeder routes merely increases the labor expense. Extending a 36A or 37A which is already running doesn't increase the labor expense to the same degree. Yes, it may take 15 minutes longer for them to run their route, but you don't have to pay the full salary of a second driver to take them the extra mile home.
For example, take the recently created routes that serve as feeders to the T, 44D, 44E, and 44F. They're the smaller buses used to run through the South Hills neighborhoods and serve as connections to the Mt. Lebanon, Castle Shannon, and Dormont stations.
The problem is that they don't work. They don't work because people don't ride them. One comes by the Mt. Lebanon T station every ten minutes or so during rush hour. The odds are about fifty-fifty that someone will get on or off the bus. When that actually happens, usually its a single rider.
I've actually ridden one of them a short distance down Washington to get to an appointment. Talking to the driver, I discovered that he typically would have 3-4 passengers per day. That's both morning and evening rush hour. Obviously, if no one is riding these feeder routes, then its not working.
So, what are the better solutions? Well, when the feeder routes were created, the Port Authority re-routed the 36A and 37A buses which served Mt. Lebanon. I've taken each of them as well; both of them used to be packed when they left downtown at rush hour. By the time they hit Mt. Lebanon proper, there were still 5-10 people per bus on them. That sounds more effective then the feeder system right there.
And let's face it, who wants to make a connection anyway? If I'm already having to wait in the cold for a bus on my neighborhood corner, I don't want to have to get off the bus and wait in the cold at a T station for the LRT to come. I'd rather just sit on the bus until I reach my destination, even if that takes a little longer.
Plus, you're never really getting at the heart of the problem; the biggest cost of running a bus route is the driver, not the bus itself. Having multiple feeder routes merely increases the labor expense. Extending a 36A or 37A which is already running doesn't increase the labor expense to the same degree. Yes, it may take 15 minutes longer for them to run their route, but you don't have to pay the full salary of a second driver to take them the extra mile home.
Using feeder buses does acheive the objective of eliminating "duplicative large bus service in the South Hills", which was the statement that you wanted examples of what PAT could do. It tailors the capacity closer to the ridership levels. If people aren't riding them, that should be telling us something about the attractiveness and utility of the mass transit system and the opinion of PAT that transit generates its own demand. And if you peruse our website you will see that we have been out front on driver costs at the authority.
I do see your point about eliminating the duplicative large bus service. My point is that there’s no reason to create a small bus service if there’s no market for it. My point is that there is no need to eliminate duplicative service if there is a market demand to support it; i.e. enough daily riders to warrant having the large bus service.
Neither issue directly impacts the attractiveness and utility of the mass transit system as a whole or more specifically the T. There is obviously a demand for the T as the ridership on the 42S is higher than every bus route out there. (See http://www.post-gazette.com/images4/20070121Bus_routes.gif)
Neither issue directly impacts the attractiveness and utility of the mass transit system as a whole or more specifically the T. There is obviously a demand for the T as the ridership on the 42S is higher than every bus route out there. (See http://www.post-gazette.com/images4/20070121Bus_routes.gif)
Well, unless there are changes to the union contract--again, it stipulates where and when small transit vehicles can be used--then we will never know what market potential or utility a small transit vehicle will have. There obviously is something at work if the contract between PAT and the ATU limits how many STVs can be in service--I'd speculate that it has something to do with the argument that only a skilled driver can handle a big bus and the more big buses running around, the more expertise needed and thus part of the reason for the level of driver pay.
We're getting farther away from the original point about the TRID, which just reappeared in the paper today and PAT officials are now giving it to the County Economic Development Department. My argument is that if it were attractive to live near the T stations the population loss in the station radius would not be greater than the whole of Dormont and Mt Lebo. And if PAT or the state wants to increase public transit usage, it might be better to make it easier for people to get on the T instead of planning real estate development. Since we only have T service in one part of the County, and the system is already shutting down routes in other parts of the county, why run a bus in a parallel route to Downtown with the T?
Post a Comment
We're getting farther away from the original point about the TRID, which just reappeared in the paper today and PAT officials are now giving it to the County Economic Development Department. My argument is that if it were attractive to live near the T stations the population loss in the station radius would not be greater than the whole of Dormont and Mt Lebo. And if PAT or the state wants to increase public transit usage, it might be better to make it easier for people to get on the T instead of planning real estate development. Since we only have T service in one part of the County, and the system is already shutting down routes in other parts of the county, why run a bus in a parallel route to Downtown with the T?
<< Home
