BIKEPGH MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVE

I still wonder when they'll figure out that putting route and schedule information on bus stops might help more people (with or without bikes) ride the bus.

On the other hand, judging by the persistent overcrowding on all the routes going in and out of Oakland, it seems like they don't really want more people to ride the bus. And if people could look up the schedule easily they'd probably get a lot more irate calls to their complaint line about the buses being half an hour late.

Seriously the worst transit system EVAR.

not the worst ever, but...

i like when you need to find a time on the internet, you need to download a whole pdf of the schedule. then, you have to flip it 90 degrees, and do all this scrolling cause you lose which column you were looking at.

what year is this?

you know that google maps has PAT routes and schedules?

Google Map Example from Shadyside to Downtown

I think that the route assessments I've seen make a lot of sense. Reading over the individual route reports gave me reserved optimism for the transit system here -- yes, the 86B really should stop less than essentially once every block the entire way between East Liberty and Downtown...yes, there should be more than one completely full bus per 20 minutes on Liberty during rush hour.

In terms of bike-centric improvements...I don't mean to be too much of an annoying incrementalist here, but I feel like we need to take this a step at a time. For example, re: the issue of replacing the mini-buses...Is ensuring that the 51E (Camp Hollow) route that runs a total of nine times per weekday really a priority? How many people are for some reason taking their bikes from West Mifflin to Downtown only during weekday rush hour? The same criticisms are easy enough to extend to the other mini-bus route -- why would anyone use the 84B's bike rack? The bus does a loop around like a 2-mile area of Oakland -- presumably if you are using a bike to begin with, you are able to walk a flat 2 miles. (This would be one thing if it only required attachment of a bike rack, but to argue that it requires the purchase of an entirely new bus will be a tough row to hoe with public officials and voters.)

I agree with dhd that the incredibly obvious step of just freaking posting times on bus stops would be a huge step forward. I have absolutely no idea what would be so hard about this and it seems mind-bogglingly stupid that it hasn't been done yet. Actually, I see no reason that citizens shouldn't just start doing this themselves...Why not form a vigilante squad of schedule posters?

Regarding the issue of Pittsburgh's transit system being the worst evar...I'm no apologist for PAT, but generally I think that people who lodge this criticism need to put it in perspective. Pittsburgh is not a major East Coast city and, as such, it would actually be senseless for Pittsburgh to have a major East Coast-sized public transit system. No city the size of Pittsburgh -- not hallowed Portland, not shining Minneapolis -- has anything approaching an East Coast or Chicago system, because their sizes don't warrant it.

Given Pittsburgh's population and scale, we could do a lot worse. For the country's 22nd largest metro area to have something like its 15th most-ridden and expansive transit system is not really so bad. I was a relatively active and mobile teenager in a pretty obscure neighborhood of the city and didn't need to get a Driver's License until I was 19 and living in Poughkeepsie, NY.

'sall I'm sayin'.

i think another component that cyclists can weigh in on is making sure there is secure bike parking at transit nodes. it benefits the port authority because it increases the "catchment zone" for riders. most riders aren't willing to walk more than a mile to get transit, but riding a mile is feasible and relatively easy. that means they need to make it safe for people to ride there too.

here's an interesting post about the tdp

http://politicsandplace.blogspot.com/2009/06/i-try-to-take-on-imfys.html

Thanks for the plug, erok!

Not being much of a bike rider, and being a self-professed transit nut, I'm genuinely curious what you in the biking community think of the plans, particularly concept two. Are the routes that yinz guys take dramatically affected? What about these transit centers? What does the biking community want out of these proposals, and more important given budget constraints, where do they want them most?

the first thing that pops to mind for me is south hills connections. we constantly hear complaints about how inaccessible the city is for south hills residents. sure, they chose to live on the other side of a huge mountain, but port authority operators are consistently hostile to people attempting to board the T with bikes. they also aren't allowed on during rush hour (unless it's a folder). the t stops and transit nodes downtown could have secure parking. i don't even think there's a bike rack at the station square t stop, and i know wood st doesn't have one.

and of course allowing bikes on the east busway.

and secure parking along the east busway.

"it benefits the port authority because it increases the "catchment zone" for riders."

Excellent point. PAT should *love* cyclists. We are their natural constituency.

Who owns the busways? Are they privately owned by PAT, or are they state/county owned?

PAAC owns and operates them, at least as I understand it.

I can see why you guys would want to use the busways, but I'm not sure if PAAC would be able to find something in it for them, particularly if you're using the busways instead of riding.

It's all about the synergies and network effects, paz. The direct effects are admittedly harder to find. I might be willing to buy a "busway pass" at the right price.

I'm not really sure I understand where PATs interests lie, though. They're not a for-profit enterprise, so they don't have to return money to shareholders. They're not elected, so they don't have to appeal to voters. Is it just about collecting bigger salaries for executives and plum jobs for friends and family? Fame and glory? Seriously, how does one go about appealing to the self-interest of a "public/private" monopoly?

Haha Port Authority ought to be paying me for this rogue PR. Here's what I see is the Jefferson Smith cheery optimist version:

You are correct in saying that PAAC is not a for profit enterprise. But it does have shareholders- the taxpaying public (which, it is important to note, includes many, many people who don't use public transportation at all). As it stands right now, a fare covers (ballpark) about half of the total operating cost/passenger, which means that money has to come from somewhere else. And if the taxpayers are shelling out the coin, they expect some voice in the process, namely the voice that says "I don't want my money in something I don't use".

And while PAAC board members aren't voted on directly, there are a lot of ignorant people out there who assume that Dan Onorato or County Council or their mayor or state rep or who ever else has this magical power over PAAC. So, in reality, PAAC is an extremely political organization, buffeted by all kinds of local, state, and federal winds. And PAAC has the unfortunate task of trying to provide service to an increased area even as total population decreases (ie, to do more with less).

In addition to this quasi-political, quasi-governmental role, PAAC is also responsible for trying to promote equity in terms of availability for people to get to jobs, day care, school, whatever the case may be. These routes are probably even less profitable to run, which means that PAAC has even more 'splainin to do to its political overseers.

I suppose I feel like the best way to appeal to the "self-interest" of a public/private monopoly is to try to make it not a big deal for them to do. The more work that they have to put into something, the more of a hassle it'll be. If you can demonstrate to PAAC that whatever you need done can be accomplished for next to nothing (or would be getting money from some other source other than their operating budget) financially speaking, I imagine they'd be more willing to do it. Part of the reason we're in the situation we are in is that people asked for small changes in the bus routes so they could get to the office or in front of their house or whatever, and we wind up with dozens of permutations of one route with stops 1/8th of a mile or less between each other.

The whole point of this TDP is to make service, if not financially balanced (which it almost assuredly never will be), then at least a better distribution of the current resources. And so if there's any time to let your community's voices be heard, it's now.

i agree with lyle that "the direct effects are admittedly harder to find." this is true pretty much for public transit in general.

as for the busway, there is apparently a study being conducted by the port authority to see the feasibility of putting cycling amenities from neville st to downtown. This was actually inspired by the mayor (kudos). now i know most will probably moan as soon as they read that another study on something that will never see the light of day is being done. but, if there are any costs associated with it, the study will at least allow the city, PAT, county, whatever to seek funds for it. there is money out there for this type of stuff, whether it's CMAQ, transportation enhancements, or the son of stimulus...who knows at this point. it is on their radar. it's hard for it not to be since just about every public meeting i've been to where steve bland was present, someone asks him about it.

now if we can only get CMAQ money to stop funding highway projects...so much to do

I think the route assessments are pretty good too, although it's a bit frustrating to read the ones for the 71A and 500 saying "hmm, it seems like these buses might be a bit overcrowded sometimes and just maybe we might possibly someday consider increasing service". It's really interesting to see exactly how much each route costs to operate.

As far as I can tell, they have pretty much already determined to go with concept 2. I can't see any reason not to pick it over concept 1, particularly from the way they're selling it. Still have no f'n clue how exactly they've made the route numbers easier to understand, it looks like they are exactly the same to me. And I still can't take a bus from Highland Park to Squirrel Hill.

Oh I'm supposed to talk about bikes. I don't care too much about bike racks on buses, but maybe that's just me. But they should ABSOLUTELY, TOTALLY put secure bike parking at these new transit centers they're proposing. It's just a no-brainer.

Hoping to see a lot of helmets in hand on Monday at the Oakland session. I was at the Downtown one from about 6 until they threw us out around 7:30, and didn't see a one.

Paz has a good understanding of how Port Authority works.

As to bike racks on small buses (the 8600s), the current set is leased equipment with a 7-year lifespan. 30-footers they'd own and last 12 years. Those buses could be deployed on other routes, too. Just like that 54C you rode this morning might be running a Perry Highway later on, a 30-footer might be seen on some of these feeder routes they're looking at having.

There's a history behind the TDP project, itself, and kudos really do go to Port Authority for trying to reinvent itself in this way.

A couple of folks mentioned this already, but I think it's a key improvement: think of bikes as feeder services, and do things to foster that. Some good examples:

* good bike parking at nodes

* Allow bikes on the trolley

* Bike racks on the Busway buses

* Bike Racks on the new "express" or "limited" or whatever they are calling the on street rapid buses.

This would allow folks to use their bike to get to a "node," or allow them to bike a distance that's too far to walk for a better, more rapid arterial service (ie, trolley, busway bus, rapid bus) and then bike again once they get to the closet stop.

For a personal example, it would be great if I could bike from my house on the North Side to the East Busway stop at Penn Station (just under a mile) get on a fast Busway bus with a rack and get off at the Homewood stop and then bike to Free Ride.

I hope folks are right, that this is PAT trying to reinvent itself. I remember reading about Pittsburgh's public transit system in College (in New York), where PAT in the 80's and early 90's was used as a case-study in inequitable transit planning - providing more subsidy to service to the wealthier and whiter neighborhoods in the South Hills then to the poorer and predominantly African-American East End. Erok loaned me a good book once, "Transportation Racism: New Routes to Equity" that has a good article about this, here's a google books link to the chapter comparing the East Busway to the South Hills Light Rail system: Link

I hope those days are done, but as I look at the over-budget $200 Million hole near my house (not near enough to be useful, mind you), I remain skeptical.

Morgan, that's a really good way of thinking about it. In the post on my blog, I was complaining about the people who want to keep the bus stop in front of their house, but if there is anyone who wouldn't mind a quarter of a mile to a stop, it's you guys.

One fairly simple, useful statement to make would be to request that the standard design for a bus shelter include space and a facility for locking up a couple of bicycles.

Among the bigger overall changes is straightening out routes; i.e., fewer "fingers" into neighborhoods. Paz, the more common scenario is that riders (esp. in suburbs) might be hiking more like a full mile to a stop -- hard on foot, easy on a bike.

Translation: We will need lots more lockup facilities.

in the grans scheme of things, bike racks aren't very expensive. if spending $500 on a decent rack means that you could increase ridership, that seems like good business sense to me.

Important fact: Port Authority has little to no control over bus shelter placement within the city, and for that matter, little control over bus stop placement, either. Shelters are placed by one of the advertising companies. The city, not PAT, determines where buses can stop.

What they might be able to do -- and where we can help them do -- is issue a preferred specification for what shelters must have. Outside the city, it's township by township, but increasingly, some ad company puts up bus shelters, not so much to shelter transit users but to have an excuse for very visible, lighted billboards.

It would be wonderful, though, to have some say in requiring bike racks at shelters.

Speaking of cost estimates, the Port Authority has estimated that for approx $300,000 it can outfit the rest of its 30 foot buses with racks (or about $1,000 per bus). For the sake of comparison, a single new 30 foot bus costs about $360,000.

You mean 35- and 40-foot buses (they have no 30s), but yeah, that ought to be simple. You'd think.

Come to the June 17 ACTC meeting (6pm, 5th floor Board Room, 345 Sixth Ave) to get a look at the final budget draft and see what-all they had to cut to make ends meet. They sliced a LOT off the capital side.

(35' buses are numbered 15xx; 40' buses are numbered 26xx, 27xx and 5xxx. I don't think either the leased 86xx small buses or the big 45' 19xx buses can be fitted. The 65' artics, 3xxx, can.)

Thanks for the clarification Stu!

i just got back from the open house. i have to say that, as far as bike stuff, i was thoroughly disappointed.

All of that "no brainer" stuff? well that didn't even think of it. First, i should preface that one of the top stated goals of the tdp is to attract new riders. making it easier for cyclists to use the system is quite possibly the cheapest investment that they can make to attract new riders. the investment will pay for itself, and these ideas are being implemented in transit systems across the globe. talking to some of the folks made me feel like they don't want our money.

one improvement that they want to make is to build new suburban "park and ride" lots and create transit centers. fine, great, love it. when asked whether simple end of trip facilities like secure bike parking at transit centers and stops was considered, they replied that this isn't in the scope of the tdp. when asked why "park and ride" lots were, yet "bike and ride" weren't, a defensive stance was taken, as if we were trying to "get one over on them" instead of honestly trying to help them take simple steps to attract new riders. others, when asked simply said, yeah, you're right, submit a comment.

another disappointment was their conceptual "complete streets" drawing of liberty ave downtown. they used a street in cleveland as the example. the street in cleveland has a two lanes (in the middle) for buses only, the outer lanes for bikes only, and the inner for cars. of course this street was six lanes wide. liberty, however, is only four (including parking), and their concept showed the outer lanes painted "buses only," yet i bet you can't guess what was missing. so their "complete streets" concept, completely drove bikes off of the street, despite the lip service to the addition of bicycle facilities and lanes.

i just know that if some of these things don't happen, they're going to be scrambling in a couple of years trying to implement, yet not having the money for it. fix it first please.

i should mention that they seem serious about outfitting all buses with racks. kudus to them. just remember, we're playing catch up with the rest of the country on that too.

if you couldn't make it, go here: http://tdp.portauthority.org/paac/SystemDesignConcepts/tabid/493/Default.aspx

read it, then click "tell us what you think"

Here's a picture of their "complete streets" concept. in theory i like it. however, pretend you're a cyclist riding on liberty. do you ride in the "buses only?" so that a) cops pull you over and say you can't ride there, b) deal with buses coming up on you and breathing down your neck c) ride in the middle of the road in the car lane.

this is not a complete street. i understand that this is conceptual, but they can at least try to be visionary in the conceptual stuff.

The scope of the project was massive for the Port Authority and Nelson/Nygard. I think they did an excellent job at re-envisioning the routes, but not re-envisioning the SYSTEM.

The meeting was strange, though. When I asked about bike access I was told that it wasn't part of the plan that this plan only dealt with routes. When I nicely asked why it wasn't part of the plan (especially since Port Authority and N/N presented the scope at one of our Urban Cycling Committee meetings over a year ago and we gave them feedback then) I was rudely met with hostility and accusations that I was trying to get the presenter to "slip up." To be fair, he did apologize for acting unprofessionally. He then kicked it over to the consultant and suggested I talk to them about why it wasn't in the TDP.

So... I engage the consultant, who is very nice, and I ask him why bike access wasn't part of this plan and he kicked it back over to the Port Authority "Well it wasn't in the scope, this plan deals with routes." Well, according to your boards over there it deals with routes and parking lots and cars... why doesn't it deal with bikes?" He conceded that point and suggested I submit my comments.

But I submitted my comments a year ago before all of you even started on this plan! What was the purpose of presenting at our meeting and talking to the cycling community before the plan gets underway?

I hope everyone on here follows that link that Erok posted and tell the Port Authority that if they're going to be dealing with park and ride lots, that they also should be prioritizing bicycles as natural linkages with transit.

What was the purpose of presenting at our meeting and talking to the cycling community before the plan gets underway?

lip service. they can now go back and say things like "we consulted with the cycling community on this."

the thing that gets me is that this is a group of people that are trying to give them money, and are continually ignored.

I got a few moments with Steve Bland. I got the impression that he politely tolerates bicycles, but doesn't really see them as a viable first choice in transportation. Maybe that comes from the business he's in.

Mr. Bland made a comment to me about wanting flat ways to get around. I wanted to tell him that, indeed, there are a lot of flat ways to get around, just talk to us. (Look what we collectively did for sarah_q! http://bike-pgh.org/bbpress/topic/help-me-bike-to-monroeville-please) He means well, but I don't think he gets it like we want him to get it.

Erok's observation about Incomplete Streets, and Scott's encounter with plain hostility, means Port Authority isn't getting it, and won't really include bikes as part of the solution...

...UNLESS we speak up, loudly, in numbers, and NOW.

Right now, on this issue, who should we speak to?

Mick

Mick, first and foremost please click that link that Erok posted. Read about the study and then comment from a bicyclist's perspective. Letters to the editor of the local papers work and emails to Steve Bland couldn't hurt either. sbland@portauthority.org

I tried clicking on the "tell us what you think" button. Nothing happens.

Kinda like the experience of people who went to the meeting.

I suppose I'll have to send an email to Bland. I might even have to speak in sentences and maybe even spell check. This is horrid.

Mick

you're right. the tell us what you think in the upper right, just leads to the page that explains the tdp.

if you look at the bottom left, you'll see a link that takes you to the form. or just click here: http://tdp.portauthority.org/paac/SystemDesignConcepts/TellUsWhatYouThink/tabid/491/Default.aspx

Got it. Posted "Your park and ride doesn't seem to work for me. I would be parking my bicycle and I see no provisions for that."

here's a really cool video on what it could be like. the first half is mostly about bus rapid transit done right. the second half shows how bikes are integrated into the transit system.

http://www.streetfilms.org/archives/las-orange-line-bus-rapid-transit-plus-bike-path/

That video is a wonderful example of multi-modal transportation planning and engineering.

There's the use of intelligent transportation systems (ITS) integrating and prioritizing the busway traffic with the public traffic. There's the humility (for lack of a better word) of knowing that transit is a piece of an individual's trip; identifying the needs of the ridership and providing resources for those needs.

And employing a cost-efficient (pavement and buses are less maintenance than rail) and scalable transit line (whereas rail isn't) to link up major nodes within L.A. and connecting to their Metro rail system.

How's this: You ride your bike from your curved suburban lane off a curved suburban drive off a once-country road, a mile and a half to a bus route. You tie up your bike at the bus stop. You hop on the bus. Maybe you have to transfer, too (lots of that in all their plans). Then, at the end of your ride, you hop on your SECOND bike, and sail merrily away another few blocks or a mile or so to your place of work. One or t'other of these bikes, maybe both, can be $10 rummage sale beaters. Beats hell out of dropping $20K on a (second, third) car, right?

Get a bunch (like a few thousand) people to see the sense in this, and they'll gain piles more business. But first, THEY have to put in LOTS more bike racks, in LOTS more places.

Is there one or a few really pro bike people in Harrisburg that we can get to start tacking bike friendly stuff like access to busways onto every bill related to public transit funding? With enough darts in the air from multiple directions, something might stick.

here's what the minneapolis transit authority does:

http://www.metrotransit.org/bike/index.asp

and a bike rack on light rail in portland

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_qPtAdNTTkFg/SJ8NtVhK3YI/AAAAAAAAAiA/cY-JloKS6jQ/s400/IMG_0809.JPG

Ridiculous stereotype extreme bicycle on the front of that Minneapolis bus.

he even has the plaid button up shirt.

Thanks to Scott and Erok for the updates and perspective.

The Liberty Ave design has the Pittsburgh Downtown Partnership's fingerprints all over it - part of that whole "if we call it green, then it's green, right?" mentality. (or, even more cynically, "if we call it green and give out press releases with glossy photos of tress, then the newspapers and pop city will write about exciting new green developments without doing any actual fact-checking, and we'll get away with our big-ass consultancy fee plus a hip-buzzword-bonus") How can they call it a "complete street" without a bike lane? Do they think that just cus they paint the bus lane red it makes them all European and progressive?

I think that in this, we can see how broken Pittsburgh governance is: an unelected government corporation (the Port Authority) with a bad record (ie, busway for the east end, light rail for the south hills; north shore extension that bypasses northside neighborhoods instead of light rail to oakland, etc) hires a consultant accountable only to them. That consultant, in turn, takes on the trappings of "public input" and "talking to the community" but doesn't listen, doesn't get it, and is even less accountable to the community served then the already removed Port Authority. Instead, the neighborhoods with powerful CDC's get what they want (buses moved to the margins, parking lots on the periphery, and a shinny plaza surrounded by fancy stores in the middle) and the rest of us get crappy service, inane unplanned sprawl, infrastructure that isn't designed for how it's used, and have to cross oceans of parking lots and rivers of highways to get between these little fiefdoms.

Probably the most effective thing we could do is buy Erok and Scott some nice suits and memberships in the Duquesne Club. All this "make arguments based on common sense and proven, rational transportation policy" assumes that the City and the Port Authority are technicians, not politicians. Also, it would be funny to see Erok in a suit.

Morgan: like this?

Ridiculous stereotype extreme bicycle on the front of that Minneapolis bus.

Seriously. That's right out of a Riv catalog, though the guy isn't wearing MUSA knickers or something.

damn the internet! haha

You don't have to go to Minneapolis to see a bus with a bike rack, PAT buses have them too ! At least that guy is using them, you don't see them used much here.

about 2/3 of the buses have them.

i think the racks that were being referred to were racks on light rail, like the t. there are restrictions for bikes on the t when most people need to use it most. adding racks on the inside would allow for a space saving measure so that people can board with a bike at any time.

The Minneapolis picture looks like a bus with a rack mounted on the outside just like our PAT busses have.

oh gotcha. that link was just showing all of the cool things that mpls does to accommodate cyclists. the portland one has the pic of the light rail rack

today's the last day to comment on this, if you haven't already.

Might be good to straight up call them out on their "complete street" that they fudged

http://tdp.portauthority.org/paac/

Just keep stating how bikes and transit go together. if park and ride lots are being proposed then bikes on buses and trains, secure bike parking, and bike/bus only lanes should be focused on in the TDP as well.