Public Transportation and Smart Growth

Last edited Wed Mar 26, 2014, 08:23 AM - Edit history (1)

Now, the LRV system in Pittsburgh is one of the slowest LRV system in the country. It is slow for it follows the last two streetcar lines in Pittsburgh (Both built around 1905 on their own right of way).

On the other hand, the LRV system goes through a heavily populated suburban areas, with few other choices of transportation. During Rush hour, most of the time. the LRV system is faster getting to downtown Pittsburgh then driving a car. It is also faster then walking, for the area within walking distance to downtown Pittsburgh is bypassed by the Pittsburgh Transit Tunnel. Thus people who can walk to town, never took the LRV (or if they did it was the 49 Arlington Avenue Route, a route cut out several years ago by the Transit authority when it decided to cut back service, thus any lost walkers were lost years ago not over the last year).

On the other hand the #2 and #3 transit stops in Pittsburgh are Downtown Pittsburgh and the Oakland section of Pittsburgh (where most of the Collages, Universities and Hospitals are). These are within biking and walking distance of each other (I have done it). I can see people wanting to save some money by taking the extra time to walk or bike to work. Pittsburgh always had a high percentage of people who walked to work.

In 1990, 5% of Pittsburghers walked to work, a percentage only exceeded by Boston, at 5.2%, Philadelphia at 5.3% and New York City at 6.7% (Through by 2000 all four cities were the top three by percentage, by New York had dropped to 5.6%, Philadelphia 3.9%, to Boston to 4.1% and Pittsburgh to 3.6%

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census_issues/ctpp/data_products/journey_to_work/jtw4.cfm

A report done by the American Public Transportation Association that found the following in 2004:

21.6 % of all transit users, if transit was eliminated would cut out trips, 15.5% would walk, 3.9% would use other means of transportation, including bicycles.

Thus the alternative to using Mass transit is to eliminated the trip or to walk for 35% of all transit users and this is higher for buses then for rail:

Sample Group ----------------------Auto------ Alternate------------------Not
--------------------Walk----Drive ----Ride-------Transit------Taxi-------MakeTrip-----Otherl
Rail Modes---------11.5%---40.2%----14.4%------ .0%----- 6.8%------ 17.8%---------2.3%
Roadway Modes----17.8%---14.3%----26.6%------0.9%-----11.7%------ 23.8%------- 4.8%
Total --------------15.5%---23.9%----22.1%------3.2%------9.9%-------21.6%--------3.9%

Thus the best explanation for Pittsburgh, is that since the 2008 economic collapse less people are taking the bus, for their either decide NOT to make the trip or walked. I think the people who said "Auto Ride" instead of drive, are people who do NOT own a car but see no other way to get to work (and thus may end up walking or not making trips but something they did not think they would do so Auto Ride sounded to them like a better option then walk, but then ended up walking).

Given the proximity of Pittsburgh, Oakland, Downtown, Pittsburgh North side and South side, walking is a viable option in those areas and between those areas, and that is also the area with the most bus trips.

I suspect similar situation in Cleveland and Atlanta (thus the drop in both rail and bus trips in both areas).

The other areas, we have to remember most LRV systems were build to get richer people (not the rich, but people richer then the poor) to take mass transit. Buses were looked down at, so it was decided to provide those areas LRVs instead. New York Chicago and even Philadelphia are in a third category, one where the rail actually reaches into the suburbs and bring people into the urban core. These three cities may have LRVs but mostly rely on heavy rail i.e. subways in the case of New York City, LRVs with access to a subway in Philadelphia.

Notice also the difference between rail uses and "road" users of mass transit, Rail users first choice is to drive (40.2%) followed by not making the trip (17.4%). Users of non-rail systems first choice is basically get a friend to drive them (26.6%), they second choice is not to make the trip (23.8%). Thus 57.6% of rail users would either drive or NOT make the trip, while 50.4 % of "Bus" users would either have to look for someone else with a vehicle to transport them or not make the trip.

I should mention I suspect "Other Auto" i.e. get a friend to drive them, sounds better to a lot of people then not making the trip, thus is another way of saying will not make the trip. If we use that rule, 32.2% of rail riders will NOT make the trip, while 50,5% of bus riders will not make the trip.