"Right-sizing" the Port Authority

[illusionofjoy]

It seems to me that Allegheny County Chief Executive Don Onorato has taken a fairly blasé attitude towards the continuing fiscal crises that the Port Authority faces. Such callous disregard for the needs of an urbanised area I would expect from rural state representatives in Harrisburg. The thing about the bumpkins in the middle of Pennsylvania is that none of them ever have, or will likely ever need, to ride a bus, tram, etcetera and their myopia towards the benefits of having healthy urban areas is reflected in the attitudes of their representatives.

Ever since I moved to Pittsburgh in 2003 the Port Authority has been threatening to cut service and raise fares in response to yearly budget deficits. And every year, some deus ex machina would bail out the fiscally strapped public entity. Although Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell has promised dedicated and consistent funding for state transit agencies, there is no guarantee that such things will actually come to fruition and on the off chance that they do, Onorato has already repeated stated that the Port Authority needs to be "right-sized."

Since I live in a relatively well-off neighbourhood (Mt. Lebanon) in a building which is not more than two blocks from a trolley station, the most any cutbacks will affect me is that I'll have to wait even longer for my ride to work to show up in the morning and the evening. Since joi_division and I moved in together, my dependence on mass transit has been greatly reduced. What used to get me everywhere has been usurped by the fact that we share a car. Let's face it: if I have the choice of freezing my ass off for twenty minutes just waiting for a bus when I can drive somewhere in ten minutes, do my errand and be home in a quarter of the time travelling by bus would have taken, what is the logical course of action? I hate the cold.

The main people who are going to suffer mass transit cuts are those who do not have access to a vehicle or suffer a disability which prevents them from driving. True, the tree-huggers will whine, but statistically most of them can afford to go with out. Theirs is not the human price paid by the impoverished and disabled by the decimation of a metropolitan mass-transit system.

Overall, I've become quite sour on the politics of tossing around mass transit in Pittsburgh and the rhetoric surrounding this round of threats in particular. Of a proposal to reduce service, one article in the Post-Gazette had a politician quip that the cuts were no big deal because that was how mass transit was applied "in cities such as Dallas and Cleveland." Call me nitpicky, but the last time I checked, Dallas and Cleveland were topographically flat in comparison to Pittsburgh; to try and graft the transit systems of either one of those cities onto the terrain of Pittsburgh would be no less than systematically problematic, if not impossible or, to put it bluntly: insane.

In the years of watching this budgetary ballet, I do agree that major reforms are needed in regards to how the Port Authority does business. However, I am of the mindset that people should come before profits. In this vein, I can't agree with any increase in fares that are already outrageous as it stands – my monthly bus pass costs $60. One proposal would increase that monthly fee to $90.

So, where will the money come from? Let's face it: mass transit needs to be subsidised. That means taxes, which, of course, anybody on the right is opposed to because republicans don't like to contribute to society; they prefer to exploit it. However, in all fairness, I say that owners of those gas-guzzling, pollution-belching SUVs clogging and wearing down roadways should be forced to contribute to an entity which has the potential to reduce pollution, reduce traffic congestion and improve the overall liveability of the city.

Advertising would also be a way to raise revenue for the Port Authority. While the organisation already does place banners on the walls of the buses (and more recently the trolleys), I don't think that they exploit the potential for wall space profitability as much as they could. While unsightly, advertisements on the walls of trolley stations, buses and the trolleys themselves could go a long way in helping to balance the budget. Sadly, most of the cities bus stops (the ones with the roof and a bench) are owned by Clear Channel, meaning no revenue from ads on those ever makes it to the Port Authority.

Finally, the fare structure should be simplified. A compromise has to be struck so that people feel that they are getting their money's worth regardless of whether they are travelling to downtown from South Hills Village or Station Square. Raising fares to the stratospheric levels proposed thus far would be asinine, as fares generally cover, at most, 20% of a mass transit system's operating expenses. As a consumer, I would be willing to pay a $2.00 flat fee with one free transfer if I were to occasionally use the system. As a regular user (or commuter), I think that a monthly pass costing no more than $60 (preferably less) would be optimal. The system of zones should be eliminated – everyone should pay the same amount upon boarding.

Of course, if it were all about magically making money appear it would be simple, wouldn't it? I doubt anything mentioned in the previous three paragraphs would actually balance the budget, assuming any of it was to come to fruition in the first place. The big sticking point remains: the Port Authority needs to streamline its operation without stranding the people who need its services the most (or pricing them out of being able to use them).

As mentioned earlier, Pittsburgh's hilly terrain makes it difficult to implement the type of mass transit systems found in many other cities. Let's face it: planning bus routing on a grid is simpler by far than trying to navigate Pittsburgh's twists and turns for maximum service at minimal cost.

The big problem which sticks out with the route structure of the Port Authority is the sheer amount of redundancy in the system. If one were to go from downtown to Oakland, one can choose from no less than eight different bus routes, all using the same corridor! Granted, these routes do eventually diverge, but the roads used along the majority of their routes are the same.

This Sunday's Post-Gazette proposed the Curitiba system of route-wrangling as a possible solution to the Port Authorities redundancy woes. While it looks pretty on paper, the Curitiba system seems better suited for cities with a lot of "dead space" – that is, areas where nobody needs to catch a bus, given it's express-oriented methods of dealing with mass transit.

Personally, I think that a system of spokes and loops would be best-suited for Allegheny County. Ideally, Pittsburgh would have eight trolley lines which all met downtown and covered the county like a compass rose. Think of the 42S (South Hills Village) and 47L (West Library) south hills lines duplicated in the three other cardinal directions. The two going west could terminate at the airport in Findlay and North Fayette, the two going east could end in Monroeville and Plum and the two going north could end in Bell Acres and Pine, for example. In lieu of the fact that these six new trolley lines aren't going to be built anytime soon (and the North Shore Connector is far too little far too late), buses would have to be used instead. In an interesting aside, the 28X, slated to be cut, would already fill the east-west requirement of my idea.

So, I can see at this point you're probably thinking that my idea would cut a lot of routes and leave people stranded regardless. If the spokes were the only component, this would be true, but there is simply no way that the city of Pittsburgh would be able to survive with only eight routes going downtown. This is where the loops come in.

One of this area's more unique and interesting transportation features is the Allegheny County Belt System. The Belt Routes are a system of five routes (two of which actually form complete loops) marked in different colours traversing the county. The original intention of this system was to serve as an alternative to Interstate Highways in relieving traffic congestion. A map of the system indicates that there is at least one belt to traverse almost every single community in the county. My question is this: why can't the Port Authority run buses along the belts?

Currently, if I want to go to the mall in Robinson without using a car, I have to hop a trolley downtown and then from there, take the 28X to get to my destination. With my spoke and loop idea, getting to Robinson would be as easy as taking the "Clockwise Yellow bus" from Mt. Lebanon. Alternately, I could catch "Counter-Clockwise Yellow bus" if I decided that I wanted to go to Century III Mall in Pleasant Hills instead.

"That's all fine and well for some rich white mallrat from Mt. Lebanon," you're probably thinking, "but what if I live in North Versailles and need to get downtown to work?" With my system, depending on where in North Versailles you lived, you could take "Counter-Clockwise Yellow" or "Counter-Clockwise Orange" bus and transfer to a connecting East route which would take you downtown.

Transfer?

Unfortunately, my idea would require that people embrace the idea of having to use transfers in order to get around. However, with a flat fee, the monetary disadvantage inherit with transfers would be null. Furthermore, my system has the advantage of taking much of the pressure off of downtown corridors, alleviating much of the congestion that the current system creates.

On the downside, a strict interpretation of routing using the belt system would still leave certain communities out in the cold (i.e.: Harrison, Jefferson and Forward). The routes would likely have to be tweaked in order to ensure full coverage. However, I for one, would love to get directions to take "Clockwise Blue" to "West bus inbound" rather than the confusing alphanumeric soup of the current system.

Come summer, we'll all know whether or not we'll be able to get anywhere in Pittsburgh on the bus.

Comments

[bonamoz.livejournal.com]

I hate Clear Channel. I'll never sit in one of those urine-smelling domes ever again. I only really use the bus anymore when I spend the weekend with my parents. Or, on the odd occasion I'm in Pittsburgh without Jason. My sister, her boyfriend, and I usually spend a great deal of the Saturdays in South Side when I visit my family - and we take the bus. Now, when I was living in the city, I took the bus everywhere. I undertand how this will affect eveyone, and it's a real shit situation. From what Patty has told me, the bus system in Clairton (where my parents live) is going to be majorly fucked - because we will have to rely strictly on the 55M.

If you've ever read about my adventures with that bus, you will know that it is hexed and sometimes gets delayed by trains (I am pretty sure, at least) at the Waterfront.

Guess I'm going to have to get that pesky drivers license sooner than later...

[illusion-of-joy.livejournal.com]

It's either a driver's license or the ability to teleport, at this point.

[candyblades.livejournal.com]

Why have a mass transit system when we could have more outrageously priced things like a new stadium, casino, or some other type of building we don't need? :p

I like your post a lot, and think you should run for president. You'd get my vote. :D

p.s. The 55M bus caught on fire yesterday and it was a brand new bus. They just don't make em like they used to.

[illusion-of-joy.livejournal.com]

Screw the Penguins, I say. Losing teams don't deserve shiny new stadiums (nor do winning teams who constantly whine about not having a new stadium). I'm amused by the whole casino fiasco. I guess since we don't have any natives nearby to rob grandma of her nest egg, someone has to do it.

Can I dub your route the "Flaming 55?" Pleeease? :D

[candyblades.livejournal.com]

It's actually not my route, but the route I take to get to my boyfriend's house (which takes 2 buses). The 55M does suck, and I agree with the new name. Flaming 55 it shall be! :D