SOS for BRT

The $250 million bus rapid transit project won’t address Pittsburgh’s biggest infrastructure problems

Pittsburgh’s proposed $250 million, Downtown-to-Oakland bus rapid transit link might be a great development for the city. The problem is it’s the last great idea the city needs now. Just ask a local mechanic.

I have an uncle in that business. Pittsburgh’s pockmarked streets bring in his best customers. Cruise around town long enough (a week?) and you’ll inevitably damage your car’s tires, wheels or suspension. Ever busted a tie rod end? Expensive repair. He loves those things. Talk about spending the kind of money it’d take to fix the crappy roads around here is heresy to him because it could hurt his business.

Fortunately, local officials don’t have a Commuter-and-Mechanics Committee advising them on which big-ticket projects to pursue. Your car repair bills would be an awful rationale for that kind of decision, but there’s a bigger point here. Our shabby roads and diminished public transportation network are more than just a nuisance. They have real costs in terms of public safety and quality of life for people living and working beyond the Fifth-and-Forbes corridor.

Pittsburgh has too many widespread infrastructure needs to give a quarter-billion-dollar BRT system the urgency with which it’s been treated, even if that system is likely to spur new rounds of investment in the city’s core, and our city’s leaders should consider that before committing to the course they appear hellbent on undertaking.

Pittsburgh wouldn’t be the only city making a major investment in an expensive, limited public transportation project or in its overall infrastructure. If it hasn’t, Grant Street might want to study what a couple of them have already done:

Cleveland’s HealthLine BRT system launched in 2008, linking its downtown to the University Circle neighborhood — home of Case Western Reserve University and the Cleveland Clinic — and the worndown suburb of East Cleveland. The project is credited with spurring more than $5 billion in economic development along its route so far.

While the projects are similar (HealthLine cost about $200 million to build), there are notable differences. HealthLine’s 6.8-mile route is far longer than what’s proposed in Pittsburgh, assuming you don’t count the imagined Highland Park, Wilkinsburg or Squirrel Hill spurs.

Cleveland’s public transit network hasn’t seen nearly the level of service cuts that Allegheny County’s Port Authority bus system has in recent years. And the RTA’s service is arguably more comprehensive because it includes not only buses but the “Rapid” light-and-heavy rail lines, with stops on its east and west sides and a key link between the airport and downtown. In fact, HealthLine connects to the Rapid at each endpoint.

Those are transit upgrades that Pittsburgh lacks; the expansion of the T to the North Shore can hardly compare with being able to take a quick train ride to the airport in lieu of driving.

In another example, Atlanta found a far more productive use for $250 million. In 2015, 80 percent of voters approved the $252 million “Renew Atlanta” program. City government was allowed to sell municipal bonds, leveraging the proceeds to invest in citywide upgrades of roads, synchronization of traffic signals and even modernization projects like a “smart-corridor” to help develop selfdriving cars. The key word is “citywide,” as in the projects benefit scores more residents and businesses than would a short Downtown-to-Oakland BRT link.

It’s worth noting here that Atlanta also has rail transit in addition to its buses, including a link that runs between downtown and Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport in as little as 15 minutes. It also has the Atlanta Streetcar, a controversial and limited transportation project of its own. The streetcar’s 2.7-mile loop around downtown Atlanta cost $99 million to build. It’s been criticized for ridership and operational shortfalls and got a blistering safety audit from the Georgia Department of Transportation last year. City officials maintain that the problems are just early hiccups and want to expand the Streetcar into a 52-mile, citywide network at a potential cost of billions.

Here in Pittsburgh, most new infrastructure development would be better than the status quo. A new BRT system allowing 10-minute runs between the central business district Downtown and Oakland’s academic institutions would almost certainly launch tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars in new development. But Oakland and Downtown don’t need that kind of help. They’re already thriving neighborhoods with anchor institutions and have seen slews of new residential and commercial developments in recent years.

The rest of Pittsburgh, though, might better benefit from a quarter-billion-dollar infusion. The East End and North Side’s cratered streets desperately need permanent overhauls. The narrow, degraded South Side Slopes streets feel like deathtraps, particularly when it’s cold and unaddressed water leaks leave them icy and dangerous. Numerous bridges around town need either work or wholesale replacement. Synchronizing traffic signals could lessen commute times and the burden on streets (and brakes).

If those ideas aren’t sexy enough for the big thinkers among our civic leadership, here’s one: Pittsburgh has existing rail corridors running along its rivers that, with a little imagination and investment, could make for an awesome commuter rail system. Imagine reading a book or relaxing while riding a train from work Downtown to Etna, McKeesport or Verona in 15 minutes, bypassing the Parkway or routes 28 or 48. Imagine the rush developers would make to build new transit-centered residential and retail projects in neighborhoods desperate for new residents and investment.

It’s not even a new idea. The city got $1.5 million in federal funding to study the viability of commuter rail along the Route 28 corridor during the Ravenstahl administration in 2010. By last October, Mayor Bill Peduto said the idea was dead, citing freight rail congestion on the Allegheny Valley Railroad’s lines.

But other cities seem to have figured that out. New York and Connecticut’s Metro North commuter trains run on tracks owned by freight railroad CSX. The same is true of Maryland-Washington, D.C., MARC trains. Both services are reliable and long-standing enough that it begs the question of whether Pittsburgh’s real issue is political will rather than rights of way.

In any event, it still sounds like a better idea than spending $250 million to run a bus up Forbes, especially with all those potholes still claiming tie rods.

Pittsburgh has too many widespread infrastructure needs to give a quarter-billion-dollar BRT system the urgency with which it’s been treated.