I can definitely agree with you on staggering the routing times. I always see the 71C trailing the 500 over S. Highland. I’ve wondered how much of this is just inevitable, and perhaps Shadyside is just a hub for many buses on their way to Oakland, but I tend to side with you here and think that there must be some way to increase the efficiency of this.

I have very little additional information about the regional smart card based transit system. This is what I could find to date:

“In a 2006 survey of Port Authority customers, 62 percent said they would purchase a smart card to pay for transit services. Smart card technology would provide a major amenity for customers, allowing them to add value to the card automatically or on demand and making possible other purchases.”

source

And you can read the RFP that Port Authority has requested from interested company’s here. Though that doesn’t define what the regional system might entail as far as a pricing structure, it shows you what the requirements of the smart card technology would be. The language from these two sources indicates to me that there might be the proposition of this smart card being built for buses, but also being able to be linked directly to your bank account, which could mean that either you don’t need to prepay the card (ie, fare is charged to the card, which charges your bank account, similar to how PayPal works) or that you might also be able to use the card as a debit card in other stores (ie, buying a Frappuccino at Starbucks.) The latter is cool because it eliminates having yet another card in your pocket. I believe the Europeans have their Giant Eagle cards, driver’s licenses, credit cards and everything all stored in “smart cards” which can be placed into their mobile phones. Which is kind of irrelevant but interesting nonetheless…

Do you have any more information about the regional fare collection system? I’d like to learn more about it.

I heard mutterings through the grapevine that before the last service cut, the bus drivers proposed a plan that would lower all fares to a buck and eliminate transfers. Apparently, with the proposed increase in customers — people will do anything if it’s only a dollar — the books, if not balanced, were not any worse off. This was hastily rejected by management, however.

Regarding the rerouting of similar bus lines, I have two things I’d like to get off of my chest.

First, I’d love to see smaller, more frequent buses running loops through the neighborhoods. Take the East End for example: They could either dump people off at the East Busway or along Fifth, where they could continue their trip to Downtown or Oakland. On these main lines could be the larger, articulated buses, which run with increased frequency so as to resemble a train line that other cities are blessed with.

Failing that, staggered route times would be nice. It sucks to watch from a block away as the 71A, C, D, and 500 all blow by, only to be faced with a 20-30 minute wait for the next one. I don’t often find myself on one of these shared-route buses wishing I could get off and immediately board another one going in the same direction. I do, however, like to be able to show up at a bus stop without a schedule and know the next one is coming in a reasonable amount of time.

Whew, I feel better now. Thanks.

I hope, larger, more frequent buses.

As far as reducing buses, it’s almost a guarantee. The situation in the streets here in the city, which is the one that you and I see, is vastly different from the suburban experience. That may be a large problem, if PAT is supposed to support the entire Allegheny County, that might be ludicrous. Bus routes in the City of Pittsburgh and its immediate suburbs, such as Dormont and Homestead, are more likely to have a higher passenger to rider ratio. But take the 54C for example, it begins in Allegheny Center on the Northside and goes way out into the South Hills. Now if 500 people ride that bus every trip, how many do you think are heading from North Side to Oakland or from Oakland to South Side vs. how many are going beyond South Side into the South Hills. Probably something like 450 to 50, making the route much more effective within the city rather than as a way to connect suburbs.

And as for buses like the 71C being completely packed at rush hour, only to have 98% vacancy during other times, a good solution would be to simply have the smaller neighborhood buses operating in times when ridership isn’t high.

Even beyond that, what the study found is that even with the fewer amount of buses, the same level of service could be retained. I personally believe that the routes are just not very efficient. Take the routes 71C, 71D and 500. They all follow such similar paths that it would make more sense to combine them or deviate their routes to cover more area, or more alternative areas than they do. I don’t have the information as to what these would be and I realize the challenges of our terrain, but not every bus needs to go through Oakland.

And yes, they have made large cuts in retirement benefits for the bus drivers, both existing retirees and those in the future, including eliminating $500 / month per person from pensions, reducing health care or requiring employees to pitch in more, and a few other measures. It sounds like the Port Authority is actually beginning to see where it’s gone wrong and now beginning to take steps to improve itself.

Other cities have shown that you can take a failing transportation system and turn it into something amazing, as long as the problem is realized. And it’s not for a lack of wanting to be great that the Port Authority has failed. The whole “Ride Gold” terminology was part of a campaign in the 90’s where they literally were claiming they were going to become the nation’s #1 transit system. It was just massively poorly planned and likely hurt the system much more than it did improve it.

I heard the other day (unfortunately I can’t remember from whom) that Pittsburgh bus drivers are some of the highest paid in the country, and that another major source of the Port Authority’s debt is that benefits paid to retired bus drivers and families are out of this world. I’m not sure how the retirement benefits play into the numbers given, if they’re already incorporated or not?

Reducing the number of buses…it’s an interesting proposal. I wonder how that would work in reality. It seems like they do need additional analysis performed to maximize buses/routes. The rush hour buses are always beyond packed, but buses in the middle of the day are decidedly less so. I also wonder about their suburban routes, etc. And what about the trolleys?

I do have a feeling that any more decreases in service, if not done smartly, will result in discontent and even less people taking advantage of the service. An increase in crowdedness, a decrease in frequency of buses, and a decrease in available routes are all inversely proportional to my desire to take a bus, which might give that statistic of buses to people some problems.

But overall it’s an interesting proposition. It would be worth giving some more thought and lip service.