Friday, June 21, 2013

Cleveburgh Transit

Just some numbers to ponder. Here is what I get for the latest data on transit usage here and up the turnpike in Cleveland. 

Percentage of workers using public transit to get to work. (Compiled from 2011 American Community Survey 1-year estimates.)

Allegheny County:   9.5%

Cuyahoga County:    4.9%


We have better advertisements as well:



I'm a little unclear the image selection at time 0.45 there. Use PAT to get to the scene of a fire?

Opens with the best image ever to go with slogan "My other car is a bus"... long before that ever became a bumper sticker I bet.  And the image at time 0:12 is just a bit beyond description.  

7 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Indeed. Waste of time for our local leaders to marvel at Cleveland's transit marvels. They should visit a real transit city along the East Coast for ideas.

Friday, June 21, 2013 8:42:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

yes, rather than visit cleveland they should ask why one can't travel from ingram to east liberty on one seat and why Pittsburgh's brt doesn't run late enough. since you've put it out there, what cities is pittsburgh's transit usage comparable to? perhaps the ideal city to model would be ones marginally better than pittsburgh.

Friday, June 21, 2013 4:08:00 PM  
Anonymous BrianTH said...

We're not trying to adopt Cleveland's entire transit system, just looking at one component within that system. And for that matter, we're likely not trying to do the exact same thing they did with that one component, but rather just use some similar technology and practices.

Of course that invites the question of why we are even bothering to look at Cleveland at all. Personally, I suspect the answer is more about trying to sell the public, and maybe some elected officials, on a concept many of them might find intuitively unpalatable, rather than trying to really learn anything local transit planners didn't already know.

Friday, June 21, 2013 5:03:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

youre right it does read like a paid advertisement.

Friday, June 21, 2013 11:07:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

after a little digging, pittsburgh is about on par with baltimore and seattle, boston and philadelphia might also be good case studies for pittsburgh since they have higher rates of usage but not astronomically so. cleveland is a waste of time and it's quite possible the BRT will be (depending on cost).

Monday, June 24, 2013 5:03:00 PM  
Anonymous jws said...

Now all we need in Pittsburgh is a great, wide, flat boulevard and a greater, wider, flatter corridor to put it in the middle of and we'll be all set. The defining characteristic of Pittsburgh is the topography, which gives us a narrow corridor on a hillside with space at a premium and which makes the Cleveland plan not very applicable.

Taking a large chunk out of Gazzam's Hill along Fifth Ave. between Kirkpatrick and Robinson Sts.and connecting to Colwell St. would be a help, and then we'd probably have to go around the Consol Center and up to Centre Ave to get into Downtown. That helps Fifth Ave. at the West end of Oakland, but wouldn't seem to do a thing for the Forbes St. crush. Might help bicyclist and pedestrians get Downtown without being ron over.

The handling of the publicity does make it sound like a PR blurb.

If PAT really wants to pursue BRT seriously - and maybe even make some money at it - they should work on a "second hub" strategy by sharing Boundary St., Junction Hollow, and the old B&O R/W with the RR, and connect Lawrenceville, Oakland, Hazelwood, and Second Ave. The 'Almono' site would look a lot more attractive if there were any way to get to it.

That's as close to wide and level as we get around here.

Wednesday, June 26, 2013 12:07:00 AM  
Anonymous jws said...

Now all we need in Pittsburgh is a great, wide, flat boulevard and a greater, wider, flatter corridor to put it in the middle of and we'll be all set. The defining characteristic of Pittsburgh is the topography, which gives us a narrow corridor on a hillside with space at a premium and which makes the Cleveland plan not very applicable.

Taking a large chunk out of Gazzam's Hill along Fifth Ave. between Kirkpatrick and Robinson Sts.and connecting to Colwell St. would be a help, and then we'd probably have to go around the Consol Center and up to Centre Ave to get into Downtown. That helps Fifth Ave. at the West end of Oakland, but wouldn't seem to do a thing for the Forbes St. crush. Might help bicyclist and pedestrians get Downtown without being run over.

The handling of the publicity does make it sound like a PR blurb.

If PAT really wants to pursue BRT seriously - and maybe even make some money at it - they should work on a "second hub" strategy by sharing Boundary St., Junction Hollow, and the old B&O R/W with the RR, and connect Lawrenceville, Oakland, Hazelwood, and Second Ave. The 'Almono' site would look a lot more attractive if there were any way to get to it.

That's as close to wide and level as we get around here.

Wednesday, June 26, 2013 12:09:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home