Pittsburghers for Public Transit report seeks fewer transit changes, more reliability

Pittsburgh Regional Transit’s complete bus line redesign is moving too quickly, should be broken into smaller pieces and proposes changes where the system is working well.

That’s the conclusion of a 24-page report released by advocacy group Pittsburghers for Public Transit at a news conference Friday morning. More than 30 people took their concerns to the transit agency’s board of directors at its meeting Friday morning.

The transit agency disagreed and said it has to make recommendations for the entire system at the same time so riders can judge all of them at one time.

Last fall, PRT released the first draft of its redesign of all 95 bus routes to adjust service to meet changing needs after the COVID-19 pandemic. It recommends more midday, late-night and weekend service as well as cutting routes to 77 and adding 19 new routes, 20 neighborhood hubs and micro-service between suburban communities.

Although the agency has held more than 75 public meetings and received thousands of comments about the proposed changes, the report says there are too many changes all at once for the public to really understand what the agency wants to do. That includes changing the names of nearly all of the existing routes, which advocates say would be extremely confusing to the public.

At its news conference. PRT members carried signs that read “We want visionary transit” and “We want the bus line redesign to benefit all.”

Speakers at the news conference and the board meeting echoed the same thoughts: Redesigning the entire system is such a major task the agency should slow down the process, which calls for finishing work by the end of the year and beginning to make changes next year.  

Abhishek Viswanthan, an assistant professor of data science at Chatham University who helped to write the study, said at the news conference that low-income riders could “risk losing the lifelines they already have” if the initial proposal is approved. The recommendations should concentrate on increasing ridership, connecting riders with food, medical services and jobs, and helping needy low-income riders, but he told the board they “fall short” and are “grossly insufficient.”

His analysis found that 19 of 21 routes recommended for changes would result in longer commute times for riders, according to a travel time calculator the group developed. He encouraged PRT to develop a similar, better tool to allow riders to compare what they have now with the proposed changes.

“The Bus Line Redesign proposal needs to be simplified,” the study said. “The high level of complexity and change makes it almost impossible for riders, communities and businesses to wholly perceive and respond to the impacts of this proposal.”

Because the changes are so complicated, Duquesne Mayor Nickole Nesby predicted they would have “a disabling effect” on low-income riders in her area.

“A lot of people in my area don’t even know this is going on,” she said.  

Pittsburgh Councilwoman Barb Warwick, a Democrat who represents parts of Oakland and Hazelwood, said more than a dozen community groups have expressed “grave concerns” to her about the recommendations. They particularly don’t like the idea that many of their trips that are now direct service would require transfers in the future, she said.

Part of PRT’s recommendations include moving away from Downtown Pittsburgh as the hub of the system and establishing 20 smaller hubs throughout the network. The study claims the current system is working for the vast majority of current riders and shouldn’t be abandoned for a system that would add transfers.

Pittsburghers for Public Transit Executive Director Laura Wiens said the proposal would “change the course of people’s day-to-day lives.” The changes are “not just shifting lines on a map, she said, encouraging board members to get personally involved and ride the routes themselves before they approve the changes.

Instead of so many changes, the study said, the agency should concentrate on improving the reliability of existing service. Micro-service may be a good idea overall, the study said, but it should be left for a separate discussion after the redesign is completed.

CEO Katharine Eagan Kelleman said PRT won’t implement all of the changes at once. But she said the recommendations have to be made available all at once because riders often use the service to go places that are in many different directions, so they need to examine changes to every route they use.

“If you can’t see the whole picture, how can you make an informed decision? If we don’t do this now, when will we do it?” she said, noting that some routes haven’t been examined for more than 50 years.

Although many of the speakers found faults with the recommendations, Kelleman said that won’t cause the agency to completely revamp plans like it did with the agency’s Bus Rapid Transit proposal between Downtown Pittsburgh and Oakland shortly after she was hired about seven years ago. Instead, the agency will review Friday’s comments along with more than 9,000 others it has received in recent months and make changes where needed, she said.

“We’re always happy when we hear from more people about our projects,” she said. “That’s how we get them right.”

Because there has been so much interest, PRT has extended the comment period on the proposal by six weeks until Feb. 15. It expects to hold more engagement meetings this summer when it releases the second draft of the bus route redesign.