Time and time again, we’ve been told that there is no money to make those plans a reality.
However, the City is now pushing forward a multi-million dollar mobility project instead of our communities’ solutions. The City’s Mon-Oakland Connector plan would build a roadway through Schenley Park for private companies to operate “micromobility” connections between the Universities and the Hazelwood Green development site.
Neighbors in these communities have put together an alternate plan thatcalls for investment in needs that have been documented for years. It’s time our public money and officials support these priorities.
Congratulations to the Northland Library, CCAC North, Crisis Center North and the hundreds of residents, political officials and businesses along the Perry Highway corridor who have kept up the advocacy for transit service to the corridor for the last five years! We are particularly grateful for the longtime support of the Ross Township Commission and Senator Randy Vulakovich and Senator Lindsey Williams who have taken up the torch over the years.
We know that access to the library, employment and higher education are critical needs that should be robustly served by public transit. You can check out the history of the Buses for Perry Highway campaign –the rallies, letter writing, and Port Authority testimony– here. We will always last ONE DAY LONGER. Sí se puede!
You can read more about the upcoming major transit service changes and learn about next steps in this recent Post Gazette article:
Port Authority to reroute some buses to service CCAC North and Northland Library
“More than five years after North Hills residents, businesses and organizations began lobbying for it, Port Authority will extend service to Community College of Allegheny County’s North Campus and the Northland Library in McCandless next March.
Port Authority announced changes for the 012 McKnight Flyer last week as part of a series of changes mostly involving extended weekend service to be implemented as part of the agency’s annual service review. The agency will take public input about the proposed changes before they begin March 15.”
During yesterday’s City Planning Commission meeting, Commissioners approved a zoning change that will allow for housing to be built at the Giant Eagle Shakespeare site next to the East Busway Station.
Before the vote was taken, Pittsburghers for Public Transit’s Community Organizer, Josh Malloy, and Director, Laura Wiens, gave testimony to talk about the importance of a site like this in building equitable transit-oriented communities. They joined affordable housing advocates and residents to call for a development that includes affordable housing and free transit for residents.
The zoning change is an important first step to building the equitable transit-oriented communities that we need to combat crushing traffic congestion, climate change, and our City’s housing crisis. In the coming weeks, PPT will continue to work with residents, advocates, and political leaders to encourage a development that better aligns with all of these goals. The goal is that by the time this development comes before City Council for approval, the developer has agreed to build less structured parking and direct the savings to increase housing affordability and provide free transit passes.
We need your voice in this campaign. Please reach out to get involved.
Check out this recent news coverage about the development:
Housing advocates urged Echo Realty and their partner Greystar to double the number of affordable units.
“We have been encouraged by the conversations we’ve been able to have” with the developers, said Celeste Scott, housing justice organizer for Pittsburgh UNITED. “We do think that this affordability target in a place like East Liberty, where there has been so much historical harm, is not asking too much.
Representatives from Pittsburghers for Public Transit proposed a way to pay for the increased affordability: reduce the planned amount of parking and use the savings to subsidize more units and provide transit passes.
“This is an opportunity to address several needs,” said Joshua Malloy, PPT’s community organizer. “Pittsburgh’s affordable housing crisis, congestion in East Liberty and Shadyside, underutilization of public transit in the area, and overbuilding of parking.”
Malloy cited a 2018 analysis by Jeanne Batog, a University of Pittsburgh graduate student, that found nearby parking lots experience 40 percent vacancy during peak hours.
Wiens says future developments in the area should be focusing on housing density and trying to limit the number of parking spaces built.
“It is a big opportunity,” says Wiens. “We need more density. It will encourage more people to use [transit]. When you build more parking, you [give] incentive for more cars to come into the neighborhood.”
Wiens also notes there is a lot of money that developers set aside for parking spaces. A paper by PPT argues that Shakespeare developers could save $4.6 million if they lowered the number of parking spaces to align with the zoning minimum requirements in East Liberty, which are one parking space for every two housing units. (The Shakespeare proposal is technically in Shadyside, where minimums are higher, but developers have convinced city officials to agree to a variance to lower them before.)
A 2014 UCLA study shows that above-ground parking garages as required by parking minimums increase the cost of the average U.S. project by 31 percent.
Wiens says it makes financial sense and would be a boost for economic equity in the area if less parking was built at the Shakespeare site, especially if the money saved was used to build more affordable units and/or supply residents with transit passes.
“When we are talking about over-building by hundreds of spaces, like in Eastside Bond and Target, that is millions of dollars,” says Wiens. “There is so much wasted space.”
She says this contributes units being unaffordable to residents, which is only exacerbated by the fact that these units are close to frequent and good public transit, which is more frequently used by low-income people.
“That money should go for free bus passes,” says Wiens. “If you have 30 people getting free bus passes, that lower demands for parking.”
Last month, the Port Authority announced its plan to eliminate bus stops on all its routes, starting with the 51 Carrick and 16 Brighton. Now they are moving onto the 88 and 48.
Pittsburghers for Public Transit knows that the best way to build a transit system is to engage the riders and operators who use it every day – they are the experts in how to improve it. And that means allowing riders to give input on the project and the process BEFORE a plan is drafted. PAAC needs to take this input into consideration as they draft their project plans because data and observation alone will not create the most equitable, effective outcome. PAAC also has to give riders space to give input AFTER the project has been implemented so they know what is working for riders and what isn’t. This has to be an ongoing conversation between the Port Authority, their riders, and their workers.
PPT is heading out to ride the buses and collect feedback from riders so we can pass it on to Port Authority. It is important that riders have a say in this process. We hope you’ll join us for these upcoming canvasses:
Wednesday, November 6th, 5pm-8p (Meet at the Crazy Mocha on Liberty Ave/Tito Way at 5pm).
Riders can visit the Port Authority’s website to learn more about the bus stop consolidation project and give their feedback. And check out this Post Gazette article from last month when the changes were announced.
Do Yinz use the 51 or the 16 bus routes? (or the 13, 15, 17, 19L, 48, 51L, 54, 55, 59, Y46, Y47, Y49?) Give your feedback now.
Starting this November, Port Authority is beginning its “Bus Stop Consolidation” program. What does that mean? Well, according to their website:
Your bus stop is the welcome mat to our service. For a better transit experience, we plan to reduce the number of bus stops throughout our system to improve on-time performance while ensuring that you can safely and comfortably access our service.
Yes, that means they are going to remove bus stops (between 25-30% of them), and they’re starting with the 51 Carrick and 16 Brighton. But because multiple routes use the same stop, these cuts will also affect riders on the 13, 15, 17, 19L, 48, 51L, 54, 55, 59, Y46, Y47, Y49.
Additionally, riders can give their comments to PAAC over the phone by calling 412-442-2000 during their normal business hours: weekdays 5:00am to 7:00pm, and weekends/holidays 8:30am to 4:30pm
Help PPT Collect Input from Riders
Unfortunately, Port Authority’s public engagement during this process has been lackluster. And it falls short of the commonsense bus stop consolidation outreach outlined by TransitCenter. Last month signs were posted at all of the stops that the Authority aims to eliminate. There was no prior outreach to the effected riders on the 51 or 16, nor the operators who drive those routes daily. No signage has been posted inside of these buses before or after the announcement. This is a missed opportunity and it sets the program off on the wrong foot.
Riders and operators need to be brought into the conversation early because they can help think through equitable, effective solutions for our systems. They have important lived-experience with which stops are extraneous and which are community-serving.
PPT is going out to ride the 51 and 16 to notify riders about the upcoming changes and collect their feedback to give to Port Authority. We hope you’ll join us for these upcoming canvasses to help build a system that supports its riders:
Saturday, October 26th, 10am to 1pm (Meet at the Crazy Mocha on Liberty Ave/Tito Way at 10am)
Wednesday, November 6th, 5pm-8pm (Meet at the Crazy Mocha on Liberty Ave/Tito Way at 5pm).
This is a great chance to fund the transit amenities that you and your neighbors deserve – bus shelters, benches, planters, trees, lean bars, lighting, trash cans, you name it. Check out the program details here.
The good news: neighborhoods can apply for up to $20,000 no questions asked! Neighborhoods can even apply for up to $100,000 if they find a local 2:1 match (for every two dollars of URA funding, there must be at least one dollar of local funding to the project.)
The bad news: unfortunately, the deadline is next week on October 1st. (Sorry for being late on this blog). If your neighborhood has a local Community Development Corporation or other organized groups, reach out to them and see if they have something planned. There’s a good chance that transit improvements could fit into their placemaking ideas. Or maybe there’s space to build your own proposal.
With transparency, wide-spread community collaboration, consensus, and buy-in, funding programs like this are a great opportunity to improve a neighborhood for those that live there and build transit ridership.
Ashleigh Deemer, Western PA Director for PennEnviroment’s Research and Policy Center, and Dean Mougianis, PPT Coordinating Committee Member, at Tuesday Morning Press Conference
On Tuesday, September 17th, Pittsburghers for Public Transit joined our allies PennEnvironment, PennFuture and the Clean Air Council to unveil a new report from PennEnvironment and PennPIRG: “Volkswagon Settlement State Scorecards“.
The report grades states on how they are using monies from the massive $4.3 Billion settlement paid by Volkswagon in 2016 after they were caught lying and cheating on their vehicle emissions tests. Nearly $3 Billion of that money was paid into an Environmental Mitigation Trust which was split amongst the states affected by VW’s fraud to be spent on “transportation projects that reduce pollution in an effort to mitigate the harm done by Volkswagen through their emissions cheating.”
The state of Pennsylvania received $118.5 Million from the Environmental Mitigation Trust fund. However, Pennsylvania’s performance has been lackluster (to put it kindly). Overall, the Scorecard report gave our state an “F”-grade on the way that our elected officials are spending the money.
Pennsylvania’s Environmental Mitigation Trust monies are an incredible opportunity to transition our state away from the dirty, gasoline/diesel-burning transportation that is our region’s largest contributor of greenhouse gas emissions. But we need a progressive, transparent, participatory vision to get us there – and that vision must include the transition towards a fully-electric public transportation system.
This is an urgent public health issue as well as much as it is an environmental issue. As PPT Coordinating Committee member Dean Mougianis puts it, “We know that transit workers and regular transit riders are disproportionately affected by the health risks posed by regular exposure to diesel emissions. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, “railroad, dock, trucking, and bus garage workers exposed to high levels of diesel exhaust over many years consistently demonstrate a 20 to 50 percent increase in the risk of lung cancer or mortality…”. Beyond that, a very disturbing fact is that so many of our most transit-dependent citizens, the people who need the bus the most, are the very same people who live in areas most prone to respiratory illnesses caused or made worse by poor air quality. The bus, the vehicle that can take them out of the bad air should not be contributing to the bad air.”
The new PennEnvironment and PennPIRG study highlights that need. This is why PPT joined our allies in continuing our call that lawmakers take this opportunity seriously and create real plans to funnel this VW money into electric buses and charging infrastructure for public transit.
Read PPT Coordinating Committee Member Dean Mougianis’ full press conference comments below. And see the reporting from these local outlets for more information.
PPT Coordinating Committee Member Dean Mougianis speaking to press at Tuesday morning press conference
Press Conference Comments by PPT Coordinating Committee Member Dean Mougianis
Pittsburghers for Public Transit is a grassroots organization of transit riders, workers and residents that seeks to defend and extend public transportation. While we are happy at PPT that Pennsylvania will be receiving the benefit of funds from the VW mitigation settlement, we feel it is vital that those funds be used to bring us closer to a zero-emssions public transportation fleet. Put simply, the money should be used for more electric buses and other non-pollution-emitting infrastructure. What our transit advocacy work has taught us is that public transit affects a surprising number of areas of people’s lives beyond just transportation – everything from economic development to food security. Two of the most important of those areas are the health of the public and the state of the environment. We know that transit workers and regular transit riders are disproportionately affected by the health risks posed by regular exposure to diesel emissions. According to the union of concerned scientists “railroad, dock, trucking, and bus garage workers exposed to high levels of diesel exhaust over many years consistently demonstrate a 20 to 50 percent increase in the risk of lung cancer or mortality.” If that’s something we can do something about, then it’s something we should do something about.
Beyond that, a very disturbing fact is that so many of our most transit-dependent citizens, the people who need the bus the most, are the very same people who live in areas most prone to respiratory illnesses caused or made worse by poor air quality. The bus, the vehicle that can take them out of the bad air should not be contributing to the bad air.
One of the biggest things that motivate our work is the knowledge that increasing the use of public transportation is a big factor that can improve air quality and people’s health and reduce carbon emissions and tailpipe pollutants. Investing in electric buses can expand that great promise even further This is why it is so vital that Pennsylvania uses these funds not for more fossil fuel vehicles, but for zero-emissions solutions like electric buses and charging stations. It’s the right thing to do. Let us do right by the citizens of Allegheny county.
Help carry the torch from these awesome East Busway Organizing Fellows!
If you follow Pittsburghers for Public Transit’s work, you know we’ve spent the last three months executing a campaign with residents of the Mon Valley & Eastern Suburbs to build a grassroots vision for expanding great transit Beyond the East Busway.
If you don’t follow our work, welcome! You can check out more about our Beyond the East Busway Campaign here, or here, or here! We hope you’ll get involved!
Now – we have one more month left in our outreach, and our goal is to hit 750 responses on our tool. We’re a hair under 500 currently. Your help can get us across the finish line.
Check out these volunteer dates during September and sign up if you’re able to help make it happen.
For those that may not have heard, the Shakespeare Giant Eagle is being redeveloped by Echo Realty, along with the entire strip mall and lot at the corner of Shady and Penn.
The Shakespeare site is directly adjacent to the East Busway, Port Authority’s highest performing asset carrying around 24,000 riders each day, and it is in the heart of Pennsylvania’s most walkable neighborhoods. Additionally, the pattern of gentrification and displacement in Pittsburgh’s East End continues to move our most vulnerable residents to far-flung areas of the county, leaving residents isolated without access to jobs or transportation and bleeding our city of its diversity.
This is a chance to show what equitable transit-oriented development can look like. If you care about transit, housing and environmental justice, then join the project’s second public meeting on September 9th, 6-8pm at Calvery Episcopal Church, 315 Shady Ave.
For a redevelopment that furthers housing-, mobility-, and environmental-justice goals, join PPT and call for free bus passes for all residents at the site and affordable housing available to renters at 50% AMI and below.
As a starting place, we believe that there is no reason that the developer should not be required to make 15% of all units available to renters earning 30-50% of the Area Median Income – which is in line with the report that Grounded Solutions compiled for the Mayor & Planning Department back in 2017.
And how do we pay for it? Well, an easy place to start is to build less parking. Studies have shown that parking in the new development surrounding the East Liberty Station has a 30% vacancy rate during peak usage. That’s a ton of very expensive, very empty space.
The latest plans for Shakespeare Giant Eagle propose a whopping 492 space parking garage on the site. It is well-documented that a SINGLE structured parking space costs $20,000-30,000. So at the low end, that’s a ~$10 Million parking garage. Here are some quick numbers to get the conversation started:
Pittsburgh’s Zoning Code allows development in East Liberty to reduce their non-residential parking requirements by 50%. We can’t find a map that details the exact boundaries that the code outlines to for this East Liberty reduction, but for almost all would agree that the Shakespeare site functions as a central part of East Liberty, and institutional decision-makers have long-included it in their redevelopment plans for the neighborhood. The PGH Zoning Code also allows developers to swap 30% of their required car parking spaces for bike parking. Although regardless of the requirements included in the code, the Planning Commission and Department have the power to waive parking requirements entirely, as they have done in the past. The intention of these reductions is to allow developers to shift away from building such car-centric developments and free up money to build more equitable, walkable communities. Its time we push our neighborhood developers to use them.
Cities like Cincinnati, Seattle, San Diego, and countless others have all moved to build equity and decrease car dependance through creative new parking policies, such as:
Establishing “frequent transit zones” where developments within walking distance of great transit will have less car parking and more affordability
Providing tenants free bus passes and/or bike-share memberships.
“Unbundling” the cost of parking & housing – meaning the developer separates the cost of housing from the cost of their parking space and allows the tenant to decide whether to rent a parking space or not. If the tenant realizes that they’re paying an extra $200/mo for parking, they may be encouraged to use public transit more often.
Here in Pittsburgh at the Shakespeare Giant Eagle site, if Echo utilized both of the reductions that are available to them at no cost, they could open up around $5-6M in funding. Imagine what that could buy.
At full price, a yearly transit pass for every resident on-site? $248,000/yr.
Traffic headaches and pollution avoided from having 250+ new neighbors ride the bus? Priceless.
We aren’t developers. We aren’t planners. We aren’t bankers. We’re advocates and organizers. Our job is to get the conversation going. In this case, it doesn’t take much to look at the facts and the numbers and realize that things can be done differently at Shakespeare and other sites immediately adjacent to frequent transit lines to better support the neighborhood and its residents.
If you agree, come out to this September 9th Meeting, 6-8pm at the Calvery Episcopal Church and call for free bus passes & affordable housing. We know there’s plenty of $$$ to provide both.
In his recent article “What is “Microtransit” For?”, transit expert Jarrett Walker breaks down what “Microtransit” is and where it is successful. “Microtransit” a current fad in tech-based mobility solutions and cities across the nation are putting tons of public money into them instead of building out their public transit systems. Unfortunately (and perhaps unsurprisingly) the City of Pittsburgh is following in suit.
The Department of Transportation and Infrastructure is currently proposing such a “microtransit” shuttle to link Hazelwood Green to the Universities in Oakland. The project will build a roadway for motorized transportation to run through Schenley Park at a remarkable cost of $23Million of taxpayer money. DOMI says that the microtransit shuttle will carry 1,244 passengers on day one – meaning a shuttle driving through Schenley Park every 5-10 minutes. What’s worst, DOMI has even admitted that the microtransit shuttle is a short-term solution and will be unable to meet the demand that they project.
Jarrett Walker’s blog underscores the points that PPT and residents of these neighborhoods have been saying all along:
Any Mon-Oakland Connector project that focuses on micro/on-demand/autonomous shuttles could never, in any scenario, be the most efficient or viable solution for improving mobility for the Hazelwood neighborhood and the developing Hazelwood Green site.
From Walker’s post:
“…contrary to almost all “microtransit” marketing, [high] ridership is the death of flexible service.”, says Walker.
…
“[On-demand microtransit] one tool for providing lifeline access to hard-to-serve areas, where availability, not ridership, is the point.”
Yet that’s not the reality of Hazelwood and Oakland. These are dense neighborhoods in the middle of a strong public transit network with high existing ridership. Questions aside about the feasibility of driverless tech, the sustainability of increasing pavement above a stormwater-prone neighborhood, or the transparency of a public process that has ignored the input of residents; Jarret Walker shows that DOMI’s math just doesn’t check out.
Any Hazelwood mobility solution that relies on shuttle service over buses will be a complete failure for residents and commuters – and one that would cost city tax-payers $Millions of public dollars.
The answer for improved mobility in Hazelwood is to invest those dollars in better fixed-route public transit. Expanding service hours on the 93 or modifying routes like the 58 or 75 would do much more for connecting residents of Hazelwood to the entire region, as well as connecting the region back to Hazelwood.
These are all transit solutions that are within reason, with technology that is available to us now. PPT is currently working with residents of Hazelwood, Greenfield, Panther Hollow, and the Run to build a grassroots proposal of solutions that can be implemented & successful TOMORROW instead of one that leans on experimental, non-existent technology.
Stay tuned to see what comes of this organizing. And if you live in any communities that would be affected by the Mon Oakland Connector, EMAIL US TO GET INVOLVED.
In last year’s “microtransit week” series, I challenged the widely promoted notion that “new” flexible transit models, where the route of a vehicle varies according to who requests it, are transforming the nature of transit, and that transit agencies should be focusing a lot of energy on figuring out how to use these exciting tools. In this piece, I address a more practical question: In what cases, and for what purposes, should flexible transit be considered as part of a transit network?
For clickbait purposes I used “microtransit” in the headline, but now that I have your attention I’ll use flexible transit, since it seems to be the most descriptive and least misleading term. Flexible transit means any transit service where the route vary according to who requests it. As such it’s the opposite of fixed transit or fixed routes. But the common terms demand responsive transit, on-demand transit and “microtransit” mean the same thing.
This article is specifically about flexible transit offered as part of a publicly-funded transit network. There may be all kinds of private-sector markets — paid for by institutions or by riders at market-rate fares — which are not my subject here. The question here is what kind of service taxpayers should pay for.
As I reviewed in the series, the mathematical and historical facts are that:
• Flexible transit is an old idea, and has long been in use throughout the world. No living person should be claiming to have invented it. The only new innovation is the software and communications tools for summoning and dispatching service. You can now summon service on relatively short notice, compared to old phone-based and manually dispatched systems that only guaranteed you service if you called the day before.
• The efficiency of summoning and dispatching has done very little for the efficiency of operations. Flexible transit services have a very high operating cost per rider, and always will, for geometric reasons that no communications technology will change. Flexible services meander in order to protect customers from having to walk. Meandering consumes more time than running straight, and it’s less likely to be useful to people riding through. Fixed routes are more efficient because customers walk to the route and gather at a few stops, so that the transit vehicle can go in a relatively straight line that more people are likely to find useful.
• There is no particular efficiency in the fact that flexible transit vehicles are smaller than most fixed route buses, because operating cost is mostly labor. You can of course create savings by paying drivers less than transit agencies do, but you will get what you pay for in terms of service quality.
• How inefficient are flexible services? While there are some rare exceptions in rare situations, few carry more than five customers per driver hour. Even in suburban settings, fixed route buses rarely get less than 10, and frequent attractive fixed route services usually do better than 20.
• Therefore, flexible transit makes sense only if ridership is not the primary goal of a service. “
