Pittsburgh’s Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) critique and transition design proposal
Transition Design Seminar 2017: Francis Carter, Bori Lee, Hajira Qazi, Delanie Ricketts, and Nehal Vora
Part I: Critique
Project Overview
Our critique of the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system in Pittsburgh is based on both historical and current proposals (see: this Pittsburgh City Paper and this recent Tribune-Review article). The BRT is a public transport system in favor of buses, such as a dedicated bus lanes, designed to improve conventional bus systems. The BRT aims to combine the time efficiency and reliability of a metro with the low cost of a bus system. The first BRT system opened as the Rede Integrada de Transporte in Curitiba, Brazil in 1974, which inspired many similar systems around the world, such as TransMilenio in Bogotá, Colombia.
Pittsburgh was the first city to implement a BRT system in the United States. The city suffered from traffic congestion around the Central Business District, created by a commuting population to the area. However, Pittsburgh’s hills, valleys, and rivers had restricted express highway construction. Busways were proposed as an economical and practical alternative.
The Port Authority of Allegheny County currently operates three busways. The Port Authority started the service with the South Busway in 1977. The exclusive bus lanes run for 4.3 miles between Downtown and many South Hills neighborhoods. After the success of the predecessor, Martin Luther King, Jr. East Busway was opened in 1983. The 9.1-mile busway serves eastern neighborhoods by running from Downtown to Swissvale, and was extended to Wilkinsburg in 2003. The 5.6-mile West Busway entered service in 2000 to serve the western part of the city and several western suburbs, running from the southern shore of the Ohio River to Carnegie.
According to a statistics in 2002, the busways carry about 20% of the total daily transit ridership and result in substantial time saving for passengers. For example, Wilkinsburg to downtown takes about 15 minutes, which used to take about 53 minutes.
Project Profile
The Pittsburgh busways attempt to solve the problem of congestion on Pittsburgh roads by providing an alternative causeway exclusively for buses. The busways also improve public transportation service by having buses run more frequently and extensively. The busways were a more cost-effective solution to repairing streetcars or to adding on to the existing light rail system.
Project Sector
- Transport
- Economy/development
Area of Initial Design Focus
- Service
- Social innovation
Level(s) of Spatial Scale
- City
Temporal Scale
The busways were first created in 1977 and were the first of its kind in Pittsburgh. They have proven to be an effective and forward-thinking innovation that adopted existing infrastructure and is still in use today, forty years later. The proposal for the Oakland-Downtown extension seems to have been developed with the long-term vision of increased population in mind by attempting to transport a larger number of residents more quickly to important commercial districts in Oakland and Downtown. In addition, they have designed for bus lanes along this important causeway and are attempting to reduce pollution by using electric vehicles.
Transition Design Potential
The BRT does have transition design potential because it connects suburban to urban, amplifies best public transportation practices from around the world, and it re-conceptualizes the current public transportation system. It started with a single stretch of 6.8 miles and now has three lines for a total of 18.5 dedicated miles of busway. Furthermore, it has potential to scale even more by utilizing existing roadways and bus lanes, such as the BRT proposed between Downtown and Oakland.
Vision and Lifestyle
The BRT system is envisioned to reduce travel time, provide frequent bus service, introduce distinct branded vehicles and connect the uptown and downtown Pittsburgh areas, but, fails to explicitly discuss about its visions for sustainable futures. The current system has some loopholes that might prove to be more unsustainable in the longer run. For instance, the service proposes to connect Oakland and downtown areas through a dense corridor packed with employment centers, universities and businesses, but, relies on Port Authority buses to connect beyond these areas. This means passengers would be required to change buses to reach the residential areas. This increased wait time for the passengers due to discontinuity raises red flags and might defeat the purpose of the service. The system also demands the development of new infrastructure like dedicated bus lanes, new traffic light systems, bus shelters etc., but it fails to answer the fundamental questions native to Pittsburgh. The narrow roads of the city are already being used to their maximum capacity. With the system introducing special lanes in areas where there is no scope for expansion as well as proposing the use of corner plots for parking might create more issues in an attempt to solve the others. The project is framed in the context of everyday life and adopts a very need-based approach rather than a vision-oriented one. It talks about the expansion plans to increase its outreach to larger masses, but does not account for failure which seems very unsustainable considering that a huge cost would be paid to customize environments for a specific use.
Theories of Change
The BRT was initially developed in 1977 and the primary goal of the Bus Rapid Transit system was urban sustainability. The project was the first of it’s kind in the US and sought to relieve worsening traffic congestion in the city. Pittsburgh was going through a period of restructuring and lacked the funds to rehabilitate their streetcar lines. Drawing inspiration from Curitiba, Brazil, who developed the world’s first BRT system 3 years earlier, Pittsburgh opened the South Busway, 4.3 miles of exclusive bus lanes, running through previously underserved areas of the city, from the western suburbs to downtown. In creating its existing busways, the Port Authority did not have to re-purpose car lanes for the BRT — an issue other cities have faced when trying to implement their own BRT system.
Currently, BRT service has expanded beyond the South Busway to include the East Busway and West Busway with plans for a fourth, the Oakland Busway to connect residents to downtown Pittsburgh. The aims of the BRT system are fast services throughout the city thanks to dedicated, traffic free lanes and committed signals, dependable and reliable service (similar to a subway) with peak-hour ridership accounted for in daily scheduling, connection throughout the city in a one-seat, rapid transit ride and economic development along the busway corridors in overlooked areas of the city. The BRT system has been a success, current weekday ridership is 25,600, with annual ridership close to 7 million.
Mindset and Posture
The Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) proposal in Pittsburgh appears to take a middle way between a mechanistic and holistic worldview. Although the motivating factors for implementing the BRT are practicality and economics, the city has made efforts to allow residents to voice their opinions and concerns. A proposed extension into Shadyside was shelved when residents expressed concern about pollution and noise. Similarly, the BRT will run on electric buses to reduce pollution along the already-busy corridor between Downtown and Oakland. Also, the proposed changes will implement bike lanes to accommodate non-vehicular transport. All of these considerations reflect a more holistic approach and understanding of the impact of this development can have on the city and its residents as a whole.
New Ways of Designing
Pittsburgh Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) projects over the past decade have been funded primarily (80%) through Federal Transit Administration Financing, with the remaining 20% of funding coming from the state and county (Pittsburgh City Paper, 14). In order to appeal to such sources of funding, BRT projects have generally been framed within an economic value proposition — for how investments in BRT will reduce operating costs, provide faster service, and encourage new development.
Although BRT projects have been positioned in terms of contributions to the economy, they have also consistently made efforts to involve the community, such as community involvement in the East Busway back in the early 2000s and ongoing surveys and public open house efforts from the Port Authority and Pittsburgh Department of City Planning, as mentioned above. Additionally, BRT proposals have consistently taken into consideration alternative modes of transit such as biking and walking. For instance, proposals in the early 2000s to expand the East Busway included a linear park with pedestrian paths, landscaping features, benches, and a playground, all in an effort to improve relationships between people, nature, and the designed/built world. Recently, proposals have gone a step further by suggesting electric buses, representing a huge environmental improvement from back in the early 2000 when only five buses ran on compressed natural gas.
In sum, while the overarching framing of investment in BRT has been through an economic lens, it seems that prior efforts have also incorporated environmental and social concerns. Moreover, investment in BRT in the early 2000s was seen as a way to create infrastructure that could also serve a future light rail system, if the need arose. In this sense, prior efforts have reflected a deep understanding of the system and how it might adapt to future needs. Additionally, prior efforts have demonstrated deep understanding of the the terrain of the city, noting how Pittsburgh’s “hills, valleys, and rivers have helped create natural corridors for roads, railroads, and transit routes,” while also limiting BRT development patterns at the same time (Pittsburgh City Paper, 1–2). Nonetheless, while prior and current efforts have been or are community-based as well as well as ecologically minded, they have not leveraged interconnections and interdependencies with other city systems and practices that are not related to economic development. The issue of private car ownership and its impact on public transportation, for instance, is one largely absent from BRT proposals over the past decade.
Connection to Wicked Problems
The BRT addresses the problem of lack of access to public transportation on several different levels. The BRT was proposed over a light rail system due to cost and scale of the project; it improves transportation without having to expend unnecessarily large amounts of money and without having to tunnel through the city. It works within the existing infrastructure and roadways (Forbes and Fifth avenue), and improves upon them by factoring in bus lanes and eliminating the dangers of the current single, contra-flow bus lanes. The electric buses will greatly help to reduce pollution, and with improved service and more ridership (as is projected), may even reduce the number of cars on this crowded corridor. Furthermore, Mayor Bill Peduto has expressed his desire to expand the BRT to other, underserved parts of the city to grant those residents greater access to jobs in the Central Business District.
Needs and Satisfiers
The BRT system developed with a motive to provide fast, frequent and connected service primarily satisfies two the Max neef’s needs; subsistence and freedom. Citizens who were living in the suburban neighborhoods of Pittsburgh had suffered from the lack of accessibility to the city center. The implementation of the busways have provided a better mobility for them, in terms of less travel time and easy access. For example, it became easier for low-income families without an automobile to access essential resources, such as fresh food in grocery stores, around the city center through the busways. Also, the busway allows them to get a job or education in distance and to commute easily. More job/education options may mean not only higher income, especially located in the city center, but also the right for the equal opportunity. The mobility provided by the busway is thus an integrated satisfier by enabling the need of subsistence and the need of freedom to be met.
Understanding the Scope of the Project
The Pittsburgh Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system, initiated in 1977, was developed as a response to a fading public transportation system which relied on an antiquated streetcar model. At the time, the streetcar mode of transportation was deteriorating and not cost-effective for the city of Pittsburgh to maintain. The resulting BRT, the first rapid bus transport system of its kind in the United States, was an innovative solution which altered the existing public transportation system of the city. The Bus Rapid Transit system was a system innovation which improved upon existing infrastructure and increased the efficiency and desirability of public transportation for riders.
The level of system re-design took place both at the neighborhood and city levels. The goal of the system overhaul was to connect Pittsburgh residents in outer neighborhoods with the downtown city-center. The area with the largest employment opportunities for city residents. This effort took place cross-sector, involving buy-in from federal, regional, state and local government municipalities. This required all participants to work in concert to achieve a monumental re-imagining of such a fundamental shared need for Pittsburgh citizens.
Part 2: Transition design proposal
Proposal Overview
The alternative proposal for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system focuses on the inclusivity of different modes of public transportation and proposes some changes to the Oakland expansion plan. The current proposal is focussed towards improving the efficiency of city’s bus transport system. The new proposal also takes into consideration the alternative modes used by people in order to form a coherent system. The service proposes the use of one master card for every transportation option like the bike, bus, water taxi, public Car2Go services. This is an effort to encourage citizens to use the different transportation modes without worrying about the logistics. Another aspect of the proposal would be to incorporate all the infrastructure needs, of the different transportation modes, within the urban planning proposal. The Oakland expansion plan would be designed to include broad pedestrian walkways, bike lanes, one lane for the buses, dedicated parking areas and the appropriate street furniture like the bus shelters, bike parking racks, benches, dustbins, parking ticket dispensers, pedestrian lights, planters etc. The plan is to build better amenities that supports community and economic development.
Hypothetical Project Profile
This project is attempting to solve the issue of lack of access to public transportation. Specifically, this project is attempting to reimagine the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system to include alternative fuels and modes of transport, such as biking and walking, through a cohesive system and payment structure. While efforts have been made to improve and expand the BRT system over the past thirty years, this project attempts to expand efforts from a holistic and ecological viewpoint.
Project Sector
- Transport
- Policy/Leadership
- Energy
- Shared amenities
- Economics/development
Areas of Design Focus
- Service
- Social Innovation
- Product
- Urban Planning
- Landscape
Level(s) of Spatial Scale
While prior BRT expansion efforts have attempted to connect suburban areas with downtown areas, this project aims to connect inner-city neighborhoods with one another.
- Neighborhood
- City
Temporal Scale
As the current BRT system has existed and been improved upon for fifty years, this project also intends to exist for at least 50 years. A timeline with specific phases will not be able to be developed until funding is secured. While realistically it may take longer to secure funding and logistics, the goal and intention of the Pittsburgh community is to complete the project by 2020.
Vision and Lifestyle
The vision for this proposal is to build infrastructure that supports economically viable and sustainable futures. The development is focused on promoting the use of public transportation as well as providing infrastructure for bikes and pedestrians that would lead to environment-friendly options of travel. The goal is to promote healthier lifestyles by giving people ample options to chose from and supporting seamless connections in the cities for ease. The Oakland expansion is currently planned only between Oakland and downtown areas. Even though the intention is to reduce the travel time of users by 10–25 mins, we argue that it would lead to some chaos, since the users are required to change buses at the end stations to be able to reach the residential areas beyond Oakland. Thus, we propose that the plan be revisited and envision the connection between commercial areas of Oakland and downtown and the residential areas happen in the first phase itself. We propose this to enhance the experience of the users and the plan would support the seamless connection to achieve that. We also propose the inclusion of pedestrian walkways and bike lanes within the urban design plan to encourage more users to walk and bike, thereby not only promoting a healthy lifestyle, but, also making the public areas more safe and appreciable to use. We respect the permanency of such infrastructures and expect the plan to last for more than 50 years, thus, it is important to carefully analyze the needs of the users and reflect inclusiveness in the plan.
Theories of Change
Bus Rapid Transport, often called “light rail on wheels,” use buses that often operate in a dedicated lane and make fewer stops than regular buses. This approach to urban development through public transportation planning is more cost-effective to the city in its design, installation and maintenance. The overall goal of the new BRT proposal, which seeks to link Oakland with downtown Pittsburgh, shares the same goal as the original 1977 BRT proposal, urban sustainability.
Officials are hoping that connecting residents of less-developed neighborhoods to jobs in Oakland and downtown and to grocery stores and shopping in the East End will galvanize neighborhoods often overlooked when it comes to urban redevelopment projects. Connecting neighborhoods that have been isolated for about 50 years back to the necessities any person would need. Officials add, the system would also benefit college students who don’t have cars.
The goal of the new BRT plan, with it’s two branch extensions into the neighborhoods of Squirrel Hill and Highland Park, is to connect riders with 24 neighborhoods throughout Pittsburgh, increasing route efficiency and fare transfers with other bus routes, and reducing travel time by 18% for the roughly 44,000 annual riders along the affected routes.
Officials hope riders will preference city buses over cars when it comes to commuting. They hope to entice ridership through the new route “alignment,” which includes: wider sidewalks along Forbes ave, better bike infrastructure, transit exposure for businesses, priority signals for buses & maximizing flow and reducing confusion when it comes to traffic patterns.
Place-Based, Integrated Satisfiers
The existing BRT system, busways, is mainly associated with the need of subsistence and freedom, from Max Neef’s fundamental human needs, by providing a better mobility as an integrated satisfier for suburban residents of Pittsburgh. On the other hand, the new BRT extension would satisfy the needs of participation and protection by connecting different neighborhoods inside of the city with multi-modal transportation options. The new system will decrease the appeal for cars as well as raise the appeal for public transportation and alternative transport, such as biking and walking. Clean, safe, and slow-speed streets would imbue a pedestrian-favorable atmosphere around the city eventually, which will allow dwellers to interact with communities more. These different approaches to each system would be derived from place-based design. The city seems to understand the needs and problems of different parts of city.
Leveraging Under-Utilized Resources
The proposed new “bus rapid transit” path to connect Oakland with downtown is an innovative project which has long been planned and discussed. The latest iteration seeks to develop dedicated bus lanes by converting existing local bus and parking lanes. Bike lanes would also be added in existing parking lanes, while improving sidewalks, crosswalks, lighting and trees would also be installed into the overall design. This proposal seeks to be as efficient and cost-effective as possible for the city and its residents. The most practical plan “aligning” current traffic flows on Forbes and Fifth avenues with dedicated bus lanes. Identifying this scheme as allowing for “intuitive circulation” as “all modes flow in the same direction” in relation to traffic patterns.
The city’s approach to lean urban development is nothing new for Pittsburgh. In 1964 they acquired the Pittsburgh Railways Company and their infrastructure throughout the city. In 1977, the Port Authority launched the first BRT system in the country. They did this not by adding to old city roads, but identifying and developing underutilized city resources. Removing most of the defunct rail lines, they converted the reclaimed space to dedicated bus lanes.
The new BRT proposal carries on this lean legacy, seeking to develop “branch” routes where buses along this path would not have their own lanes, but at key intersections the BRT buses would have priority to get through lights before regular traffic. The new BRT proposal is a system which leverages under-utilized city resources.
Emergent Products, Services, and Outcomes
The new BRT extension would rise the general attractiveness of public transportation over driving cars. Less cars would in turn lead a different use of parking lot around the city. They might turn into a commercial space, public playgrounds, or a public garden. In addition, the implement of bike lanes and wider sidewalks would also increase the appeal and actual use of these transportation modes by ensuring safety and hospitality. This might bring more residents out and explore the city at a slow speed. On top of that, less noise and less pollution resulted from less cars would encourage people to come out even more. With these potential results, we might be able to anticipate outcomes outside of public transportation sector; revitalized local business from an alley to an alley and increase of general public health. To be specific, local businesses, such as bike repair shops which can also act as bicycle-advocates community or a sidewalk cafe/restaurant, might emerge in the context.
Restoring and Strengthening Relationships
This solution seeks to connect and restore the relationships between people, the environment, and the ‘designed’ world by focusing on expanding access between neighborhoods and re-imagining existing infrastructure through an ecological lens. For instance, this BRT expansion would invest in electric buses, bike rentals, bike lanes, and larger, tree-lined sidewalks in order to harmonize with the local ecosystem by conserving resources and restoring trees. It would also seek to strengthen the social system in which it is embedded by connecting Downtown to Oakland as well as potential expansions to neighborhoods like Squirrel Hill and Shadyside. While existing bus route provide some connection between these neighborhoods, this BRT expansion would provide not only faster travel times but also increase the attractiveness of alternative transport options such as biking or walking. An all inclusive payment card would further increase the attractiveness of the system by making renting a bike as convenient, payment wise, as riding the bus.
Barriers and Challenges
The most significant barriers and challenges to implementing a more integrated public transportation system are those that have always prevented such development in Pittsburgh. The number one barrier is the geography and city layout. Because of the narrow and windy roads, steep hills, and disjointed neighborhoods, it is difficult to dedicate road space to bus lanes or even bike lanes, and even more challenging to build additional infrastructure in an already crowded space.
Shifting mindsets towards prioritizing public services transportation is also a challenge. The Port Authority has always struggled with budgetary problems, causing them to increase fares and cut back on bus routes. With the arrival of tech giants like Google and Uber, there is a significant amount of development happening in Pittsburgh to meet their needs (such as Bakery Square development), but not as much investment in the services that serve the long-time residents of Pittsburgh. Our concern is that, with raising income levels, and because of the perception of public transportation in Pittsburgh being reserved for low-income populations, there will be little incentive to invest or improve upon this lagging system. Though plans for the Oakland-Downtown BRT are moving forward, the city will have to seek funding at the state and federal level, which may delay or even halt progress entirely.
Though the convenience of cars may still be preferred to public transportation for errands such as grocery shopping, dry cleaning, or picking up children from school, a speedier, more efficient BRT system that better connects Pittsburgh’s neighborhoods can help to significantly reduce traffic caused by commutes to college, work, or sporting and social events.
Scaling your Solution Spatio-temporally
In order to situate our solution on a timeline, we decided to use the Multi-Level Perspective model to show how each step relates to either niche, regime, or landscape developments. While many other niche, regime, and landscape developments not represented in our timeline may influence our solution, we decided to only represent those core to our solution in order to best show what interventions and smaller visions must precede it. We recognize that this model would need to be constantly iterated over time as projects are realized and as the vision evolves. We’ve also included our original Multi-Level Perspective map, which provides a more cohesive look at the present day niche, regime, and landscape level developments.
Overall, we have an ambitious timeline of securing state and federal funding by the end of this year (2017). We aim to complete construction of the Oakland BRT extension, complete with bike lanes, bike rentals, tree-lined pedestrian walkways, and the creation of a single fare card for all transport options by 2020, based on aspirations provided by the Pittsburgh Mayor in this Tribune-Review article. By 2020 we also think it would be feasible for the city of Pittsburgh to invest in a fleet of rent-by-the-minute smart cars (small, electrically-fueled cars meant for short distances), although the fleet would be small and server only a niche market. By 2025, however, we envision that these smart cars will become mainstream through additional investment in growing the fleet, alongside declining stigma against public transportation at the landscape level. Due to current Uber, Lyft, and local Jitney offerings, attitudes against car ownership will have become widespread by 2025 when the smart car fleet will be large enough to meet citywide demand. By this time, autonomous vehicles will have expanded in many different niche and mass market services. In addition, by 2030 and onwards, the BRT system will continue to grow to reach more neighborhoods, eventually serving the entire city and inspiring other cities to do the same.
Expanding upon our Multi-Level Perspective timeline, our spatial scope model explores how niche, regime, and landscape level interventions and visions may affect households, neighborhoods, the city, the region, and the planet. For instance, a landscape level reduction in stigma against bikes and public transportation, coupled with shifting attitudes towards ownership, may result in individual households becoming increasingly involved with public transportation processes in the mid-term. In the long-term, city and regional investment in sustainable public transportation (regime-level interventions) may increase access to community and commercial resources for individual households. Niche developments such as smart car rentals may affect the planet by combating climate change in the long-term. At the city level, smart car rentals, along with investment in other sustainable public transportation options, may help position Pittsburgh as a pioneer in innovative public transportation, thereby attracting media attention and visits from city leaders around the world. At the regional level, if the initial BRT Oakland expansion is successful and popular, this will help influence future funding from the state and federal government in the mid- and long-term. In turn, future funding in sustainable public transportation will increase opportunities for creating new or rehabilitated infrastructure to reach new neighborhoods and, and in the long-term, attract new sources of economic vitality.
Visualizing a Transition Design Solution
Our BRT proposal takes advantage of the existing infrastructure and expands on the existing BRT as well. One lane will be reserved exclusively for BRT buses. This will speed up traffic for other drivers as well, as they will no longer have to make frequent stops when driving behind buses. The contra-flow bus lane that is currently on Fifth avenue will be eliminated so that all traffic flows in the same direction. Parking areas will be replaced by BRT ramps with covered vestibules that protect riders from the elements. Ramps also provide a space for payments to be made off-board, which will help speed up the boarding process. A single lane on each street will be converted to bike lanes, which will create a more inclusive, shared space, while also ensuring the safety of bikers who will no longer have to compete for road space with fast-moving cars. We also propose that BRT buses be electric to help reduce pollution on this already-busy causeway between Oakland and Downtown. Finally, though not pictured here, we envision a universal fare card that riders can use on BRT and regular buses, as well as on light rail, zip cars, bike sharing, and so on.
