The journey isn't over: street railways aren't what they used to be. But in a realm now ruled by buses, light rail's niche is a key one - Pittsburgh in Transit

Railway Age, Dec, 2003 by Luther Miller

Early in the last century, the sturdy trolleys of the Pittsburgh Street Railways trundled 600,000 riders a day over 99 separate routes whose 606 miles of track thickly webbed the city and its smoky suburbs. Though burdened with debt and inadequate revenues, the company nonetheless was an innovator and industry leader. In the depression years of 1936 37, it placed 100 Presidents Conference Committee (PCC) cars into service. After World War II, it operated a fleet of 666 PCCs, second in size only to that of Chicago.

The decline and fall of America's great urban and interurban trolley systems is all too well known. In 1964, what remained of Pittsburgh's trolley lines was turned over to the Port Authority of Allegheny County. By 1971, only three lines were left out of the original 99.

Light rail, though, is far from moribund in Pittsburgh. Though the Port Authority's current system is largely bus-driven, it has invested $1 billion in new rail lines. They mainly follow old trolley routes, and more are on the way.

The Port Authority is in the advanced stages of putting in place a reinvented public transportation system for a service area of 730 square miles of tricky terrain. (Pittsburgh's old Fairview Line had this country's steepest trolley grade, 12.16%.) Though light rail's role is a diminished one, it is strategically important: It includes, for example, a 1.2-mile downtown subway.

Today's 18-mile LRT system will grow to more than 23 miles when the Overbrook line, closed ten years ago for safety reasons, reopens in June 2004. That will be a landmark in the light rail revival. "This is our Stage II light rail project and it involves a complete rebuild of the Overbrook line," Port Authority Executive Director Paul Skoutelas explained in a recent interview. "It will he a brand new segment of some five and a half miles that will tie into system wide improvements--new signals and communications [from Union Switch & Signal], 28 new cars [supplied by the Spanish company CAF], and a doubling of parking capacity." CAF is also rebuilding the 18-year-old Siemens fleet; all cars will be back in service by February 2005.

In the best of times, finding the money for capital improvements can be a daunting task. Skoutelas described Pittsburgh's funding formula for the $342 million Stage II project: "On the federal side we have fixed-guideway modernization funds, which we receive because we have an existing rail system. We also have new-start funding in the mix. Our state share is 16.5%. We have local sources in the form of both Allegheny County dollars and local bond revenues generated for this project."

With the new line and the expanded fleet in place, the "T", as the rail system is locally known, will be in a position to begin reversing its recent sharp drop in weekday ridership, from around 25,000 to the current 21,000--a decline brought on by service disruptions connected with reconstruction and exacerbated by the loss of jobs in a down economy.

What next? "Our focus then turns to the North Shore Connector, an extension to the existing system, which currently terminates with four downtown stations," said Skoutelas. "That will take the system over to the North Shore, tying in with existing and new developments, including our new convention center; two new ball fields for the Steelers and the Pirates; and a $200 million commercial development." The North Shore Connector, which will include twin tunnels beneath the Allegheny River, has been estimated to cost up to $390 million.

Stage I light rail reconstruction was completed in 1987 for $542 million. The 2.5-mile Allentown reconstruction came in at $9 million in 2005.

In a transportation system dominated by a fleet of 1,000 buses rumbling through street traffic and exclusive bus lanes aspiring to the status of "bus rapid transit," is there room for more rail?

"The key is to think of each of these modes in terms of what their capabilities are and match them to the area that needs these capabilities," said Skoutelas. "I think we see light rail in our future; I think we see commuter rail as a possibility. And bus rapid transit and busways are in our future as well." He added: "We are now finishing up something we call our strategic visioning effort, a regional study involving our metropolitan planning organization and all the transit operators. Together we've been thinking about the future and where our transit investment dollars ought to go. It's not part of the plan at the moment, but we do see ranch more extensive fixed guideway, including rail balanced with an expanded bus network that included busways and bus rapid transit."

Bus rapid transit (BRT), an advanced form of dedicated busways, is playing a growing role in transit planning every where, and it bears watching by rail interests. As Skoutelas sees it: "Busways and BRT are very viable forms of transit for public agencies across the country and the world to consider."

"Here in Pittsburgh," he said, "I think that what we have demonstrated is that if you plan smartly and build smartly, there's a place for light rail, there's a place for bus rapid transit, there's a place for exclusive busways. They're not exclusive of one another. For example, in the South Hills, we have the South Hills busway, which was our first, built in 1977, and we have a light rail operation, as well. In the east, we have an exclusive busway that opened this past June. In our western corridor we opened up a busway last December. To the north there is a BRT facility--an exclusive bus lane for high occupancy vehicles built by our State DOT that provides numerous benefits."