Bus Rapid Transit: Four Years Later, Does It Look More Tempting?

screen-shot-2017-03-15-at-10-52-48-am

 

When Bill Peduto was elected mayor, one of the first things he proposed together with County Executive Rich Fitzgerald was a new “Bus Rapid Transit” or BRT corridor through Uptown, to be completed hopefully within 3 to 4 years.

3-4 years later, and they are literally back to the drawing board, trying to earn that project’s first green light.

The Post-Gazette in particular seems to like the idea. We mean, really, really like it, in the coordinated promotional “news” article sort of way.

Little wonder:  the Allegheny Conference — the city’s historic chamber-of-commerce behemoth dating back to Mayor Davey Lawrence — has in the past called it “an economic development/transformation project that happens to have transit as a component.”

Indeed, that growth focus is part of the reason BRT wasn’t universally popular. That lack of consensus may have been why it failed to earn any competitive grants the first time around.

The universities, UPMC, and the business community all love the idea of a faster, more prominent and more snazzy transit link between Oakland to Downtown. Real estate speculators have been putting off redeveloping the still-shabby Uptown district in the middle, presumably waiting for some excuse or sign of life to begin making moves. The Port Authority itself thinks BRT will get more riders on the bus, increasing fare collection.

screen-shot-2017-03-15-at-12-48-15-pmBut it’s not the sort of public transit improvement that residents and everyday commuters are exactly clamoring over.

The Downtown-Oakland corridor is already pretty well-served by our present bus lines, unlike many outlying neighborhoods and suburbs. The trip isn’t lightening fast, but 25 minutes doesn’t seem that unreasonable, and shaving up to 10 minutes doesn’t seem $250 million-style necessary. When Pittsburghers talk about transit improvements, they usually talk about restoring service cuts to outlying communities, extending that service later into the evening, disentangling Downtown from every bus trip from one part of the city to another — or extending the city’s myopic light rail system to the east. Peduto used to talk about a county ballot referendum to fund more light rail, but it’s been a long time. It seems reasonable to assume that if we set up BRT to Oakland and points east, light rail is off the table basically forever.

Then there is the “gentrification” concern. While more economic development would help the City pay its many, many bills, using public transit to spur growth is not a super look when the city has yet to enact its long-studied and discussed affordable housing strategy. It plays into what has become a certain stereotype.

Then again, the number of Pittsburghers who are more frightened of gentrification than economic stagnation is limited. And since operating and capital budgets are different things, BRT skeptics haven’t made clear what they’d prefer to buy at the same price.

Mayor Peduto obviously intends to test the lefty opposition by promoting and discussing BRT in the community smack dab in the thick of his reelection campaign. The idea seems to be to use his political resources to help popularize the project, then use his reelection (Pittsburgh mayors usually get reelected) as a mandate to prove to funders and doubters that his constituents want it.

Will it work? Last time around, they applied for these grants under President Obama. Pittsburgh is fortunate that Transporation Secretary Elaine Chao is singularly distinguished among Trump cabinet appointments as qualified to run their department and seemingly less suited to disassemble it brick by brick. But is the Trump administration any more likely to devote hundreds of millions for public transit to a Democratic mayor, a Democratic county executive and a Democratic governor? Meh. It could be we have this backwards — maybe this is a way for Peduto to create the appearance of progress during his campaign, when little is forthcoming.

Either way, Peduto and Fitzgerald could use a transit win. Their Downtown circulator or “bus free Downtown” plan was throttled in its crib, the “Envision Downtown” coalition they put together in the wake of its wreckage has been struggling over smallball, and the “Oakland Transit Connector” aka Uber PodWay through Panther Hollow seemed to die with the Smart Cities grant. Fizgerald’s whole tenure overseeing the Port Authority has been marred by upheaval.

Public transit improvements are one of the best ways for local officials to appear “transformational,” which seems to be everyone’s objective. Marrying the Mayor’s reelection campaign with this BRT proposal might be this set’s best chance yet of getting on the scoreboard.

4 thoughts on “Bus Rapid Transit: Four Years Later, Does It Look More Tempting?

  1. Greg Godels

    Very good commentary, but you are entirely too kind to our mayor. Yes, the BRT has everything to do with development and nothing to do with transit. From a broad social need perspective, it is totally irrational. The elites simply want to finish converting Soho/Lower Hill into “Uptown”.

    The administration is pushing this now because they want the Trump administration to recognize that Pgh did not defy Trump and opt for sanctuary city status like other cities that compete for federal dollars.

    By the way, the bus-free downtown proposal had nothing to do with the general welfare, either, and everything to do with removing youth, Blacks, the poor, and elderly from downtown bus stops. They offended the sensibilities of the downtown residents that our leaders wanted to attract.

    Thanks for your insights.

    Reply
  2. Mike

    I disagree with the BRT, but perhaps for different reasons. I don’t think it is about removing blacks or the poor and has everything to do with the fact that politicians needs something to work on. With virtually every major project stalled or in peril in the City under Mayor Peduto he needs a project to tout to the public. Answer this – why is Peduto against the Mon Valley expressway but in favor of BRT? Both take away the focus from rail. Both are connectors. But why is one good and one bad?

    Reply
  3. anon

    Peduto. New Pittsburgh. ACDC endorsement. Labor endorsement. New contracts for Firefighters. Shakedown of developers with City business. What isn’t to love about New Pittsburgh?

    Reply
  4. anon

    I really wish some of the activists for good government would look deeper into this affordable housing non-sense. We have the most affordable city in the nation. Look at the task force that made the assessment and call for tens of thousands of units of new housing. Who is on that task force? Seriously, i am stunned that good government folks have just let this slide. The task force are quite literally all people that make money off building more housing. Some make more money than others, but they all have a pecuniary interest. Major league conflicts of interest. Maybe all the hype is nothing more than an unquestioned job and money handout for political supporters. You know the easiest way to hand out hundreds of millions of dollars to donors and political allies? Just wrap it up in some feel good packaging that you can beat over the heads of anyone that criticizes it.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.