The Port Authority board announced today it will hold a public meeting to discuss possible funding streams for a $4 million study of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) — a project that would create separately branded rapid bus service between Downtown and Oakland.

The study is a necessary step to qualify for federal funding, according to board chairman Robert Hurley, because the Federal Transit Administration requires an environmental analysis of the project as well as engineering plans, including “vetting” alternative routes (converting a lane of Forbes Avenue or additional lane on Fifth Avenue to be bus-only, for instance).

A date for the meeting has not yet been set, but will be held in the next couple weeks, Hurley says.

“I believe this board is in favor of [BRT],” Hurley says, “It’s really a development project that has support” from the business and medical community.

The county is kicking in $1 million for the study — other funding streams will be discussed at the meeting (including amendments to the authority’s $388 million operating budget which includes no fare hikes or service cuts, and was approved unanimously today along with a $183 million capital budget).

The board previously contracted with Parsons Brinkerhoff for $1.5 million to conduct an analysis of alternatives and environmental study of the BRT project, but changes in the authority’s leadership and board stalled the process, Hurley said. (The FTA also changed its rules and now allows transit agencies to conduct one large study that includes an engineering analysis instead of several small studies, according to Chris Sandvig, regional policy director at the Pittsburgh Community Reinvestment Group).

Allegheny County Executive Rich Fitzgerald, a BRT supporter, has previously said the project could cost around $200 million, though Hurley notes the study “will help us figure out what the real future cost is.”

Some transit advocates have question the wisdom of an investment that large in a transit corridor that is already well-served, arguing the agency should be putting its resources into restoring routes that have lost service.

That argument got some support from North Baldwin residents who showed up at the board meeting this morning to ask Port Authority to restore route 50-Spencer, which was cut in 2011.

Hurley said he’s received “a number of letters” on restoring service to Baldwin. He said he couldn’t promise service restoration, but “The board is going to take a look at where we need to restore service.”

4 replies on “Port Authority board to hold special Bus Rapid Transit meeting”

  1. Anyone who thinks we need bus rapid transit from Oakland to Downtown has obviously never ridden a bus from Oakland to Downtown

  2. We had a pretty lively and interesting discussion of the reasoning behind this project in the comments to the prior thread linked above. Rather than repeating all that, I’ll just note that I think the key to understanding the transit benefits this project could bring is realizing the large number of riders that funnel through that corridor every day, heading not just between Oakland and Downtown but also to points all along the corridor from a variety of other points outside the corridor.

  3. After reading the earlier discussion thread cited by BT-H, I’m coming down on the side of the current plan. Anyone who’s traveled to big cities in the U.S. and abroad must recognize that one of Pittsburgh’s great shortcomings is the disconnection between downtown and the university community and, by extension, the lack of a residential neighborhood in or near downtown. Uptown has been a no man’s land going on three generations; this BRT line looks like a good way to bring it back to life and to knit together the city’s two major centers of business activity. Imagine a pleasant one mile walk or bike ride from the edge of downtown to the edge of Oakland.

  4. Disconnect???

    Come on Ginzberg – Downtown is 2 miles away from Oakland, and you have 8 bus routes and 4 major roads connecting the two.

    10 bus routes and 6 major routes if you start including Centre & Bigelow.

Comments are closed.