Sankara_Connolly2020 t1_j5kg06h wrote on January 23, 2023 at 5:22 PM

Reply to comment by ktxhopem3276 in If only.. by metracta

Yes, the FRA grants waivers for lightweight DMUs on active freight lines, but typically only when the freight lines are only used at specific times, like overnight service. NJ Transit runs such a line from Camden to Trenton, which is technically classified as light rail like the Sprinter line in CA that you mentioned. This line in Denton, TX was the first to get such a waiver, according to Wikipedia, though I believe there was a later Obama era relaxing of waiver standards for lighter passenger rail rolling stock: https://web.archive.org/web/20120609012338/http://www.dentonrc.com/local-news/local-news-headlines/20120605-dcta-gets-go-ahead-to-use-stadler-cars.ece

There are several lines that use heavy duty DMUs, and I think one iteration of the old PAT train used the old Budd cars. But I think if PRT decides to go with rail for the AVRR line, they should be able to classify it as “light rail” like the Sprinter and NJ River lines (since it only runs freight overnight) and go with the cheaper, lighter DMUs.

ktxhopem3276 t1_j5ki1wd wrote on January 23, 2023 at 5:35 PM

Why is PRT considering a busway when AVRR is being used for freight? Does freight line want to sell the ROW? I follow city and south hills transit news more closely because I’m more familiar with the geography. I’ve been to oakmont once but I haven’t explored anything else over in that part of the county

Sankara_Connolly2020 t1_j5lqrmz wrote on January 23, 2023 at 10:13 PM

I’m guessing there’s been some thoughts about AVRR selling the ROW since they’re considering a busway. But either way, that fact that they’re even considering it is indicative of their long standing bias towards busways. Which I largely am fine with when busways make sense, but it’s baffling in this case.

ktxhopem3276 t1_j5lye67 wrote on January 23, 2023 at 11:04 PM

I don’t think they are against light rail DMU at this juncture. It sounds like they haven’t done a thorough study besides napkin calculations.

“The project will begin planning with a proposal to utilize the current AVRR right of way as a transit-exclusive facility to minimize delays and traffic congestion between stations (freight rail operations could continue at off peak hours or overnight hours so as not to conflict with transit service). As the line currently carries very light industrial freight traffic, both light rail and bus modes can be further studied in this corridor to see which is warranted as the best solution. Cost estimates for the purposes of this high-level look have used busway-type cost ranges as a starting point. This plan could also look into the possibility of a transit-only connection to the Turnpike. “

I wonder how much deferred investment there is if they don’t use it much. I don’t know what speed it’s rated for or what it would cost to bring the rails up to speed to be competitive with a busway. Are there any double track sections for passing? Also they would need to budget a place to store and maintain the trains. I wonder how many of the 45,000 New Kensington area work in downtown Pittsburgh. Even if the whole project cost only $250 million they would need a ridership of about 2500 to justify the capital costs and then operationally it would cost a lot to run for not a lot of riders with how office buildings downtown are being converted to housing lately. PRT will have to look very closely at the cost and ridership projections to determine if it is a wise investment given how little money they get from the state and federal governments.

The busway option would be more convenient for servicing oakland but slower than the train for downtown. On the other hand 13 miles of busway would probably cost a billion dollars and seems excessive considering it’s not congested or part of the core network. Prt is probably interested in the possibility of a phased approach to the busway in which they focus on the bottleneck at Verona and Oakmont. Outside of those towns there are hardly any traffic lights or impediments that would justify a dedicated right of way.

the sprinter in San Diego is 22 miles and with 5000 daily ridership and got a lot of bad publicity for how it requires a transfer to get anywhere popular. San Diego is about twice the size of Allegheny county and is able to beat us out on the federal funding competition. They revived a billion federal dollars that was matched by the state and county for a total of $2billion to build a 11 mile light rail extension for 20,000 daily risers that received a medium-high rating from the FTA . It seems like cities the size of Pittsburgh are getting shut out from the large chunks of funding that go to rail projects. The larger ridership, larger population growth and willingness to raise taxes to match federal funds is a factor in pittsburgh being at a disadvantage to other cities.

Sankara_Connolly2020 t1_j5mahxx wrote on January 24, 2023 at 12:29 AM

“I wonder how much deferred investment there is if they don’t use it much. I don’t know what speed it’s rated for or what it would cost to bring the rails up to speed to be competitive with a busway. Are there any double track sections for passing? Also they would need to budget a place to store and maintain the trains.”

Some track improvements would need done and some sidings added, I’m sure. But the cost of that, the maintenance facility, and buying the DMUs vs paving the whole thing damn ROW? Not even close! And that’s not even factoring the much higher labor costs per rider of operating a busway.

“I wonder how many of the 45,000 New Kensington area work in downtown Pittsburgh.”

Why are you thinking of this as only the people who live in the town of the terminus commuting to Downtown? That would be like viewing the T as a commuter line between South Hills Village and Downtown and ignoring every connection in between. How many people would ride from Verona to Lawrenceville? Or from the Strip to Oakmont? Or take a short bus connector from Penn Hills or the Waterworks? Those are the riders that need to be factored in when considering ridership, along with the big picture of building a transit system where one can get from roughly any point A to any point B in a reasonable amount of time regardless of mode, and rapid transit for the Allegheny Valley is a big missing link.

“The busway option would be more convenient for servicing oakland but slower than the train for downtown. On the other hand 13 miles of busway would probably cost a billion dollars and seems excessive considering it’s not congested or part of the core network.”

Last I read, the plans for the Brilliant Branch are to turn it into a bike path. I doubt Port Authority gets anywhere with it.

“It seems like cities the size of Pittsburgh are getting shut out from the large chunks of funding that go to rail projects. The larger ridership, larger population growth and willingness to raise taxes to match federal funds is a factor in pittsburgh being at a disadvantage to other cities.”

All the more reason to go with the most cost-effective form of rapid transit!

ktxhopem3276 t1_j5mmnua wrote on January 24, 2023 at 1:58 AM

I’m just guessing on numbers and not trying to ignore all the stops in between new Kensington and downtown. I used $100,000 per rider capital cost as a benchmark from other projects that have been funded. So if it’s $250 million maybe it will be worth it if gets at least 2500 riders. I think it sounds reasonable but I would still be curious what PRT thinks ridership and costs would be.