PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown II

[DBR96A]

Originally Posted by glowrock

Agreed and agreed. Making those roads nicer looking and improving them at the same time is nothing but a very good thing. And yes, having a legitimate connector from 79 to somewhere in the South Hills would be a great time-saver. Right now there's literally no decent way to get from 79 to somewhere like South Hills Village without going through 4-5 miles of tangled, jumbled insanity...

Aaron (Glowrock)

I've proposed a series of "byways" around the edges of Allegheny County. The North Allegheny Byway could basically follow the rough path of PA 910 from Franklin Park to Harmar, and then cross the Hulton Bridge into Oakmont. (In fact, it could become PA 910 itself.) The East Allegheny Byway could follow the rough paths of Hulton Road, Milltown Road, Unity Center Road, Unity Trestle Road, Monroeville Trestle Road and Center Road from Oakmont to Monroeville; PA 48 from Monroeville to White Oak, and PA 148 from White Oak to McKeesport. The West Allegheny Byway could be built from Bridgeville to Sewickley on a new alignment. The South Allegheny Byway I could see going between McKeesport and Bridgeville, using the rough path of Lebanon Church Road, Broughton Road and Bethel Church Road. The only question marks would be the alignments closest to both Bridgeville and McKeesport. Each of these byways would be four-lane, tree-lined boulevards, and also be their own primary alignments (read: the byways would not have to make turns to continue themselves). This would instantly improve east/west mobility across the southern suburbs, and north/south mobility across the western suburbs.

[BrianTH]

This article also goes into the Planning Commission's decision with respect to the Playhouse:

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/busi...ding-near-target-in-east-liberty-696643/

Although I didn't get what I wanted, I will note that it seems like the Planning Commission got a harder commitment from Point Park with respect to the reuse of the facades in the Playhouse. So that's something--but not enough to make me think this should not be taken to the HRC.

[BrianTH]

By the way, a cut-and-cover of the highway segment between the Fort Duquesne Bridge and Veterans Bridge may sound ideal in theory, but it would be horribly expensive, and likely make it far harder to create a boulevard continuing west from the Fort Duquesne Bridge.

From the end of the ramp from the Fort Duquesne Bridge to the beginning of the ramps onto I-279, you are talking about maybe 2000 feet of boulevard. I think that particular route--which is not even a particularly congested as far as I know--can handle a brief boulevard segment like that.

Note that it is not surprising this particular route is not congested--obviously I-79 is going to be a preferred route for most people/shippers if you just want to get around Pittsburgh, and of course Crosstown handles traffic heading to or coming from the eastern segment of I-376, the Liberty Tubes, or most of the City. So this particular path is basically necessary only for people travelling specifically between places like Ross and Carnegie--not exactly a high-volume traffic scenario.

In short--we should be OK with removing segments from our existing highway network when in fact those segments are not really needed as highways.

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

By the way, a cut-and-cover of the highway segment between the Fort Duquesne Bridge and Veterans Bridge may sound ideal in theory, but it would be horribly expensive, and likely make it far harder to create a boulevard continuing west from the Fort Duquesne Bridge.

From the end of the ramp from the Fort Duquesne Bridge to the beginning of the ramps onto I-279, you are talking about maybe 2000 feet of boulevard. I think that particular route--which is not even a particularly congested as far as I know--can handle a brief boulevard segment like that.

Note that it is not surprising this particular route is not congested--obviously I-79 is going to be a preferred route for most people/shippers if you just want to get around Pittsburgh, and of course Crosstown handles traffic heading to or coming from the eastern segment of I-376, the Liberty Tubes, or most of the City. So this particular path is basically necessary only for people travelling specifically between places like Ross and Carnegie--not exactly a high-volume traffic scenario.

In short--we should be OK with removing segments from our existing highway network when in fact those segments are not really needed as highways.

What exactly is going to be resolved/helped by making that short stretch of highway along the North Shore a boulevard vs. a freeway, Brian? I actually think a cut and cover of I-279 right through where it bisected Deustchtown would be a hell of a lot more beneficial, anyhow.

As to your second point, I'm okay with removing segments when they're not really needed, but are you okay with adding segments when they really ARE needed?

Aaron (Glowrock)

[dfiler]

Originally Posted by glowrock

Okay here. Let me get this straight. Somehow adding some level of capacity (even if it just means making a few intersections interchanges, perhaps adding some left or right-turn lanes, etc., is going to encourage sprawl along 88 and 51? Really? You'd rather have people stuck in literal gridlock for hours each day, wasting fuel and polluting the air as they idle their vehicles? How about just implementing better signal timing? Will that encourage sprawl as well?

Look, I take issue with the notion of making 88 and 51 interstate-standard highways, in fact I think it's pure nonsense. But there's got to be a middle ground between making poorly-conceived roads something more workable for today's congestion levels and doing absolutely nothing at all. I'm all for additional transit, I'm all for adding to our light rail network, I'm all for adding bus service, but if those buses are stuck in the same traffic as everyone else is then it's not going to do a damned thing, unfortunately.

This isn't Houston or Atlanta, home to 10-16 lane ribbons of concrete all over the freaking place. This is Pittsburgh, where our road infrastructure is just as old as the rest of our infrastructure and simply was never, ever built to handle the number of vehicles we have. And this is the same Pittsburgh which still has a majority of metro area jobs located downtown or within just a few miles of downtown in the Oakland area. This isn't a sprawling pit of suburban hell, and I'm glad it's not. But to somehow just cover your eyes and ears and say "No!", it's not going to help our lousy road network. Our highways are woefully outdated and lacking in general, our roads are generally very narrow with limited to no shoulders, our interchanges are outdated with almost no acceleration/deceleration lanes. There's not a lot we can feasibly do about adding additional through lanes to our roads, but we can at least add some well-placed left and right turn lanes, make a few busy intersections grade-separated interchanges, that kind of thing. Time our signals better, even. Adds substantial capacity and improves traffic flow without destroying the surrounding neighborhoods. What the hell is wrong with that?

Aaron (Glowrock)

No need to be offended. Reasoned discussion can be had about urban structure and transportation.

What I was getting at is that the united states is finally waking up to some of the mistakes it has been making in regard to this topic. It has become widely recognized that building more road capacity to outlying suburbs only temporarily decreases congestion. Then, after a few years congestion is actually worse because it has encouraged people to live in these areas and commute longer distances.

Pragmatically, people living and traveling along congested roads want more capacity now. This is quite understandable, as is passion about decreasing time wasted in traffic today. However increasing capacity can sometimes be counter productive. Not always, but sometimes.

To determine when capacity should be added, the landscape and proximity to other residential and commercial/industrial areas must be considered. In my opinion, trying to expand road capacity in the 51, if done in isolation, will actually make the problem worse in the long run. Granted, this is quite debatable and even experts speculate about such topics.

Also the topic is entangled with culture and lifestyle. It is my belief that people in Pittsburgh would live happier, healthier, and wealthier lives if transit/walking/biking were emphasized in city planning rather than attempting to shoehorn the city into a suburban, car-centric model. However such a transition is hard. People get annoyed, perhaps even angry when it is suggested that a lifestyle and cultural change would be beneficial. It is almost as if they are being told that their way of life is wrong. If we can get past that, nearly everyone will benefit.

Luckily, it seems that most of the recent developments in Pittsburgh are thinking along these lines. The brownfield site redevelopment proposals in hazelwood and the strip both have bike paths and tight, traditional street grids rather than additional high capacity roads. Phase III of summerset at frick has been held up because the city is insisting that the access road not be a highway-like, but rather lined with structures. It will be interesting to see how these play out!

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by glowrock

What exactly is going to be resolved/helped by making that short stretch of highway along the North Shore a boulevard vs. a freeway, Brian?

Removing the elevated highway would remove a major barrier between the North Shore and the North Side, making it much more pleasant for pedestrians/bicyclists and very likely significantly increasing land values on both sides.

In theory burying the highway in a tunnel could do the same sort of thing (plus add some more green space), but as I previously noted that would be horribly expensive and may make it a lot harder to continue removing the elevated highway west of the Fort Duquesne Bridge. Given that we don't actually need this to be a highway segment, I don't see how you could justify that alternative in light of the likely costs and downsides.

I actually think a cut and cover of I-279 right through where it bisected Deustchtown would be a hell of a lot more beneficial, anyhow.

These are not mutually exclusive ideas, and in fact they are complementary. The "flats" section of the North Side (from Chateau/Manchester through East Deutschtown) is a small and (potentially) cohesive enough area that removing/covering the highways on any of its three sides would likely have compounding beneficial effects through the entire area.

However, there may be a fundamental problem with the Veterans Bridge ramps that would prevent you from covering the southern portion of the Deutschtown section of I-279. I'd fully support doing at least a deck-park on the northern portion, however.

As to your second point, I'm okay with removing segments when they're not really needed, but are you okay with adding segments when they really ARE needed?

Subject to comprehensive cost/benefit analysis, prioritization of needs, exploration of alternatives, and so forth, sure.

However, I am very, very skeptical that there are going to be many new highway segments in the urbanized core of the Pittsburgh region that can get through that gauntlet of caveats. Again, highways are in general a crappy technology for use within urbanized core areas, and so there is almost always going to be a cheaper and/or better way of meeting any legitimate needs (note that I don't consider subsidizing greenfield sprawl and funneling tax dollars to highway-building contractors to be legitimate needs).

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by dfiler

No need to be offended. Reasoned discussion can be had about urban structure and transportation.

What I was getting at is that the united states is finally waking up to some of the mistakes it has been making in regard to this topic. It has become widely recognized that building more road capacity to outlying suburbs only temporarily decreases congestion. Then, after a few years congestion is actually worse because it has encouraged people to live in these areas and commute longer distances.

Pragmatically, people living and traveling along congested roads want more capacity now. This is quite understandable, as is passion about decreasing time wasted in traffic today. However increasing capacity can sometimes be counter productive. Not always, but sometimes.

To determine when capacity should be added, the landscape and proximity to other residential and commercial/industrial areas must be considered. In my opinion, trying to expand road capacity in the 51, if done in isolation, will actually make the problem worse in the long run. Granted, this is quite debatable and even experts speculate about such topics.

Also the topic is entangled with culture and lifestyle. It is my belief that people in Pittsburgh would live happier, healthier, and wealthier lives if transit/walking/biking were emphasized in city planning rather than attempting to shoehorn the city into a suburban, car-centric model. However such a transition is hard. People get annoyed, perhaps even angry when it is suggested that a lifestyle and cultural change would be beneficial. It is almost as if they are being told that their way of life is wrong. If we can get past that, nearly everyone will benefit.

Luckily, it seems that most of the recent developments in Pittsburgh are thinking along these lines. The brownfield site redevelopment proposals in hazelwood and the strip both have bike paths and tight, traditional street grids rather than additional high capacity roads. Phase III of summerset at frick has been held up because the city is insisting that the access road not be a highway-like, but rather lined with structures. It will be interesting to see how these play out!

Such idealism, dfiler. Look, while I agree in general that the more people use transit or other means besides private vehicles to get to work, get around town, etc. the better it is, you're just not going to be able to do that here in Pittsburgh without MASSIVE transit infrastructure improvements. Our bus system is fairly pathetic, our road network needs help (and let's face it, outside of the busways our buses drive on the same congested, narrow, clogged roads as regular cars do!), and our light rail system is antiquated, slow and needs upgrading and expanding to other parts of town besides the western side of the South Hills.

Spare me the platitudes about needing to stop being so car-centric, please. I've heard all of your talking points before, and even though I agree with a good number of them many of them don't necessarily apply to Pittsburgh, mainly because of topographic constraints. Change is hard? People get annoyed? Wow, such platitudes. Lifestyle change? Cultural change? My god, give me a break! Pittsburgh's not trying to force change on anyone, it (and PennDOT, and the Port Authority, and the State Government, and of course the voters) just seem to think we're still living in the past in this place. Urbanity IS good, Not having enormous amounts of 8-16 lane highways IS good, I don't deny that one bit. But saying that making targeted improvements to congested/gridlocked/woefully outdated roads like 51 and 88 in the South Hills is a bad thing makes you look foolish. People already live in these areas, and many of them date back 30-50 years. This isn't encouraging sprawl, it's being able to handle the people that have already lived in these areas for decades. And we're not talking about far-flung suburbs, either. How far are places like Bethel Park, Whitehall, Pleasant Hills, etc., from Downtown? From the South Side? As the crow flies, they're very close. As the roads are currently built, they're so close yet so far in terms of time involved. It's a mess, period.

Your condescending attitudes might get you far on SSP and in this particular thread, but they're not going to get you very far in terms of trying to get your point across to the city, county or state governmental agencies.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[Evergrey]

Originally Posted by dfiler

No need to be offended. Reasoned discussion can be had about urban structure and transportation.

What I was getting at is that the united states is finally waking up to some of the mistakes it has been making in regard to this topic. It has become widely recognized that building more road capacity to outlying suburbs only temporarily decreases congestion. Then, after a few years congestion is actually worse because it has encouraged people to live in these areas and commute longer distances.

Pragmatically, people living and traveling along congested roads want more capacity now. This is quite understandable, as is passion about decreasing time wasted in traffic today. However increasing capacity can sometimes be counter productive. Not always, but sometimes.

To determine when capacity should be added, the landscape and proximity to other residential and commercial/industrial areas must be considered. In my opinion, trying to expand road capacity in the 51, if done in isolation, will actually make the problem worse in the long run. Granted, this is quite debatable and even experts speculate about such topics.

Also the topic is entangled with culture and lifestyle. It is my belief that people in Pittsburgh would live happier, healthier, and wealthier lives if transit/walking/biking were emphasized in city planning rather than attempting to shoehorn the city into a suburban, car-centric model. However such a transition is hard. People get annoyed, perhaps even angry when it is suggested that a lifestyle and cultural change would be beneficial. It is almost as if they are being told that their way of life is wrong. If we can get past that, nearly everyone will benefit.

Luckily, it seems that most of the recent developments in Pittsburgh are thinking along these lines. The brownfield site redevelopment proposals in hazelwood and the strip both have bike paths and tight, traditional street grids rather than additional high capacity roads. Phase III of summerset at frick has been held up because the city is insisting that the access road not be a highway-like, but rather lined with structures. It will be interesting to see how these play out!

Excellent post. Agreed 100%.

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Removing the elevated highway would remove a major barrier between the North Shore and the North Side, making it much more pleasant for pedestrians/bicyclists and very likely significantly increasing land values on both sides.

Would it really make it more pleasant, though? I agree that it might LOOK better to not have an elevated highway above you, but it's a clean, modern highway and not some antiquated eyesore that's crumbling concrete and rebar onto the ground, you know. Besides, it DOES keep traffic above and out of the way of bicyclists and pedestrians, too.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

In theory burying the highway in a tunnel could do the same sort of thing (plus add some more green space), but as I previously noted that would be horribly expensive and may make it a lot harder to continue removing the elevated highway west of the Fort Duquesne Bridge. Given that we don't actually need this to be a highway segment, I don't see how you could justify that alternative in light of the likely costs and downsides.

Yes, burying the highway could work as well, but I do agree that the costs would be completely prohibitive. There are far better places to spend that kind of money than on tunneling a fairly short stretch of highway. The costs of that would build 20 miles of rail transit at a minimum, most likely!

Originally Posted by BrianTH

These are not mutually exclusive ideas, and in fact they are complementary. The "flats" section of the North Side (from Chateau/Manchester through East Deutschtown) is a small and (potentially) cohesive enough area that removing/covering the highways on any of its three sides would likely have compounding beneficial effects through the entire area.

Agreed. 100% agreed. I believe the 279 stretch that bisects Deutschtown is probably the most important one to work on, though. And at least on the north side of it, it's probably the easiest to do as well.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

However, there may be a fundamental problem with the Veterans Bridge ramps that would prevent you from covering the southern portion of the Deutschtown section of I-279. I'd fully support doing at least a deck-park on the northern portion, however.

Okay, I think we can agree on this. Makes sense to me!

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Subject to comprehensive cost/benefit analysis, prioritization of needs, exploration of alternatives, and so forth, sure.

However, I am very, very skeptical that there are going to be many new highway segments in the urbanized core of the Pittsburgh region that can get through that gauntlet of caveats. Again, highways are in general a crappy technology for use within urbanized core areas, and so there is almost always going to be a cheaper and/or better way of meeting any legitimate needs (note that I don't consider subsidizing greenfield sprawl and funneling tax dollars to highway-building contractors to be legitimate needs).

Look, I think you're mistaking me with someone who wants to build a bunch of new highways all over the freaking place. You should know full well that I DON'T believe in that kind of thing at all! The issue was brought up about the horrible traffic problems that many parts of the South Hills face along with the horribly outdated road network, specifically concerning 51 and 88. I simply advocated some upgrades of those roads at targeted intersections to make them interchanges, adding some right and left turn lanes where applicable, upgrading the traffic lights, and generally making them look like less of the disgusting eyesore that they currently are. Though yes, I would love to see some sort of solution to the constant traffic jams along both Parkway East and West, though I know full well that what probably NEEDS to be done would cost billions and that kind of money will never become available, therefore small-scale things need to be addressed such as improving interchanges, adding some acceleration and deceleration lanes, etc...

Note I never said a damned thing about encouraging greenfield developments and said nothing at all about funneling money to highway contractors. Give me a break and please stop putting words into my mouth and thoughts into my brain that aren't there. Thank you.

People are trying to make me out to be some sort of anti-transit, pro-highway expansion, anti-urban, pro-suburban person, which is patently ridiculous. Frankly, I completely resent it.


Aaron (Glowrock)

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by glowrock

Would it really make it more pleasant, though? I agree that it might LOOK better to not have an elevated highway above you, but it's a clean, modern highway and not some antiquated eyesore that's crumbling concrete and rebar onto the ground, you know. Besides, it DOES keep traffic above and out of the way of bicyclists and pedestrians, too.

There have been many studies on the negative effects of elevated highways in urban areas, and there are an increasing number of cases demonstrating the benefits of removing them. I don't think there is any particular sense in which all that depends on the condition of the highways--indeed, the negative effects showed up more or less immediately after these urban highways were built.

So yes, I think it is a safe bet we would get the normal benefits from removing the elevated highway. Pedestrians and bicyclists will be able to cross at signalized intersections, just like they do all over urban areas.

I believe the 279 stretch that bisects Deutschtown is probably the most important one to work on, though. And at least on the north side of it, it's probably the easiest to do as well.

I'm not sure I would prioritize them in the same way, but I agree that doing a deck-park on the northern portion of I-279 would probably be the easiest to fund and implement in the medium-term future. Although given the PLANPGH link, maybe the third leg in question (65 next to Manchester) will be the first to go.

The issue was brought up about the horrible traffic problems that many parts of the South Hills face along with the horribly outdated road network, specifically concerning 51 and 88. I simply advocated some upgrades of those roads at targeted intersections to make them interchanges, adding some right and left turn lanes where applicable, upgrading the traffic lights, and generally making them look like less of the disgusting eyesore that they currently are.

As I noted above, I am on board with that sort of thing, and indeed I would specifically support something like the Citizen's Plan I previously linked, which included a comprehensive plan for new/upgraded boulevards in that area. In that sense I am definitely not against investing in roads in general, but I do support thoughtful transportation planning that is multi-mode and takes due account of rational land-use policy.

Though yes, I would love to see some sort of solution to the constant traffic jams along both Parkway East and West, though I know full well that what probably NEEDS to be done would cost billions and that kind of money will never become available, therefore small-scale things need to be addressed such as improving interchanges, adding some acceleration and deceleration lanes, etc...

There actually is a feasible solution to that problem, one where we could largely eliminate congestion while actually greatly increasing peak capacity. And it could pretty much pay for itself. The reason we are not leaping to do it is that it would be very risky politically.

I'm speaking of the only known permanent solution to congested urban highways, which is congestion pricing. Done right you actually gain peak capacity on the highways themselves, and you can further use some of the proceeds from the congestion charges to add even more capacity in far more efficient ways (e.g., parallel busways and railways, which provide far more peak capacity dollar for dollar than additional highway lanes).

Again, though, people freak out when you start talking about adding charges to roads which are currently free. However, experience in other cases suggest that once it is actually done, people like it. The problem is how to get there from here, which is a political question.

Note I never said a damned thing about encouraging greenfield developments and said nothing at all about funneling money to highway contractors. Give me a break and please stop putting words into my mouth and thoughts into my brain that aren't there. Thank you.

I didn't actually suggest those were your arguments. You asked me a question about what I would support, and I was giving you a thorough answer to your question.

Of course it is very much the case that many highway projects have gotten done for those purposes, including in this region, and often more or less openly (although the bit about funneling money to highway contractors is usually phrased as being about jobs, not profits). Again, I'm not saying you personally are proposing any such thing, but since you asked me a general question about what I would support, I was noting that I would not support projects largely motivated by such interests.

[glowrock]

Brian, the only way congestion pricing would work is if many tens of thousands of people could actually adjust their work schedules to avoid the morning and afternoon rush hours. Otherwise all you're going to do is funnel even more traffic off of the major highways onto local roads, creating even more gridlock.

And you're right, politically it's a non-starter, regardless. All you'd do is end up punishing people who have a "normal" work day shift and give a free pass to everyone else who uses those roads but is "lucky" enough to work a different schedule.

Aaron (Glowrock)

edit: Before anything such as congestion pricing could ever be implemented, there need to be alternate ways for people to actually get to where they need to go. In other words, congestion pricing only works in cities with excellent mass transit options OR in situations like HOV lanes that are also HOT lanes as well. Adding HOV/HOT lanes to our highways and adjusting tolls based upon traffic flow makes perfect sense to me. But just adding tolls along the currently-free highways doesn't make a lot of sense. Alas, the biggest hurdle we face here isn't so much money necessarily (or lack thereof), it's a matter of lack of any space for any expansion whatsoever. Our topography just won't allow much room for expansion, whether it be highways, roads, busways, rail, etc...

[themaguffin]

A couple things - as noted- many of these "suburbs" go back to early post wars years and are denser than current standards of suburbs. This is of course especially true for the South Hills where it's only not the city by political boundaries. I wouldn't say that Pittsburgh's busing is horrible. Compared to many places, it's robust, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be better.

I think conversations regarding rapid bus routes is definitely something to be considered in light of the much more expensive alternatives.

And again, some car arteries need to be improved and additionally, the interstates must be improved. I actually (wrongly) assumed that the Parkway West was going to be improved to interstate standards. I feel that the road is actually dangerous between Carnegie and Greentree due to the extremely short ramps coupled with only two lanes in each direction, making the right line a constant ramp... add to that the absurd interchanges where one exits in front of an on ramp (nicely corrected in Robinson).

This is significant. I know I'm more supportive of road infrastructure than others here, but as mentioned above, I too am not asking for 10 lane highways.... only reasonable improvements to a very, very old system.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by glowrock

Brian, the only way congestion pricing would work is if many tens of thousands of people could actually adjust their work schedules to avoid the morning and afternoon rush hours. Otherwise all you're going to do is funnel even more traffic off of the major highways onto local roads, creating even more gridlock.

So it is actually not many tens of thousands of people who need to adjust their timing, it is just a few, and not necessarily by much. That's because highway congestion is typically caused by relatively few vehicles trying to pack in beyond the highway's peak capacity for uncongested travel, and once they do that the highway's usage actually goes down (meaning the congested highway is now carrying fewer vehicles per unit of time than it was just before it became congested). So in theory with just a minor adjustment in the timing of when vehicles are trying to pack onto the highway, you can actually carry more vehicles overall.

In other words, the Parkway isn't carrying a lot more vehicles than it could during the morning and evening rush hours with congestion pricing. It is actually carrying less. That's not to say there would be no diversion to other roads at all at any time. But it would likely be very minor and transient, assuming you got your pricing right such that you were maintaining usage just a bit below where congestion would occur.

And, of course, with smart investments in transit, you can take even more commuters off the highway. In fact, ultimately the goal should be to, as much as possible, give first priority to highway users who actually need to use a highway--people on long-distance trips, freight carriers, and so on. That doesn't mean there will be no local commuters at all, but to the extent possible you should be trying to shift them to alternative modes.

Before anything such as congestion pricing could ever be implemented, there need to be alternate ways for people to actually get to where they need to go. In other words, congestion pricing only works in cities with excellent mass transit options OR in situations like HOV lanes that are also HOT lanes as well.

Seriously, because a congested highway has lower capacity than an uncongested highway, this is actually not a strict requirement to make congestion pricing work. But more transit is in fact a good idea anyway.

Our topography just won't allow much room for expansion, whether it be highways, roads, busways, rail, etc...

Of course topography is way less of a problem for transit because it has a much higher peak capacity per unit of land use. That's true for conventional technologies like busways and railways, and even more true of things like gondola systems.

That's why if you are hitting peak capacity on urban road routes, you should more or less automatically be shifting to transit for additional capacity. Sticking with roads is just using the wrong technology given the problem you are trying to address.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by themaguffin

A couple things - as noted- many of these "suburbs" go back to early post wars years and are denser than current standards of suburbs. This is of course especially true for the South Hills where it's only not the city by political boundaries. I wouldn't say that Pittsburgh's busing is horrible. Compared to many places, it's robust, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be better. I think conversations regarding rapid bus routes is definitely something to be considered in light of the much more expensive alternatives.

To the extent these older suburbs are either literally former streetcar suburbs, or at least close to them in layout, some sort of BRT system does tend to make sense. You can get a few with the T, but generally you won't be able to reduplicate anything close to the full extent of the old streetcar systems that way. But with strategically-located bus-only ROWs and other BRT techniques, you can provide a service that is competitive with rush-hour driving-and-parking and pretty wide-ranging.

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

So it is actually not many tens of thousands of people who need to adjust their timing, it is just a few, and not necessarily by much. That's because highway congestion is typically caused by relatively few vehicles trying to pack in beyond the highway's peak capacity for uncongested travel, and once they do that the highway's usage actually goes down (meaning the congested highway is now carrying fewer vehicles per unit of time than it was just before it became congested). So in theory with just a minor adjustment in the timing of when vehicles are trying to pack onto the highway, you can actually carry more vehicles overall.

In other words, the Parkway isn't carrying a lot more vehicles than it could during the morning and evening rush hours with congestion pricing. It is actually carrying less. That's not to say there would be no diversion to other roads at all at any time. But it would likely be very minor and transient, assuming you got your pricing right such that you were maintaining usage just a bit below where congestion would occur.

And, of course, with smart investments in transit, you can take even more commuters off the highway. In fact, ultimately the goal should be to, as much as possible, give first priority to highway users who actually need to use a highway--people on long-distance trips, freight carriers, and so on. That doesn't mean there will be no local commuters at all, but to the extent possible you should be trying to shift them to alternative modes.



Seriously, because a congested highway has lower capacity than an uncongested highway, this is actually not a strict requirement to make congestion pricing work. But more transit is in fact a good idea anyway.



Of course topography is way less of a problem for transit because it has a much higher peak capacity per unit of land use. That's true for conventional technologies like busways and railways, and even more true of things like gondola systems.

That's why if you are hitting peak capacity on urban road routes, you should more or less automatically be shifting to transit. Sticking with roads is just using the wrong technology given the problem you are trying to address.

Okay, then can you please answer me this question, and just so you know this doesn't only apply to me but to the roughly 10,000+ employees who are in the same office park as I work in (SouthPointe):

Given that there is ZERO public transportation available in or near SouthPointe, how do you propose that anyone who works there (including large corporate offices like Consol Energy, Mylan, ANSYS, Range Resources among many others) commute in any other fashion other than using their own personal cars (or perhaps carpooling if feasible)? If someone wants to live in the city of Pittsburgh because of all of the reasons we all tend to so greatly espouse here on SSP, how does one get to their workplace if their workplace is in a suburban location without the use of their own private vehicle? This isn't just about me working down south in Canonsburg/Cecil Township, it's about people that work in Robinson, out near the Airport around Moon Township, Wexford, Cranberry, heck even Monroeville. Without improved and expanded transit access, it's all but impossible for someone living in Pittsburgh proper to get to most of these areas using transit.

Another question for you: You mention our roads being at or above capacity during rush hours. Do you believe the capacity restrictions are due to a lack of available through-lanes or do you think much of the issues are due to weaving caused by extremely short or nonexistent on and off-ramps, poorly-placed on and off-ramps, short merge areas (such as the Fort Pitt Bridge/376/Ft. Duquesne Blvd. clusterf*ck, etc...)? Do you think that targeting highway improvements at some of these choke-points could add additional capacity to our roadways?

Look, I don't mean to be hyper-argumentative, but I'm frankly a little sick and tired of dealing with what I feel is so much idealistic theory and not enough practical application around here on SSP. And yes, topography IS an issue, even when dealing with things like additional busways, rail transit, etc...

Aaron (Glowrock)

edit: I'm all for adding multiple BRT lines in and around Pittsburgh. I wholeheartedly believe the busway needs to be extended out to Monroeville, and additional busways should target the South Hills (ie: either 51 or 88 in those areas), perhaps out to Moon Township, as well as the North Hills (perhaps up to Wexford). And given the size of SouthPointe, I'd say there's good logic in implementing some sort of morning and afternoon service down there (here) as well.

[BrianTH]

Here is a cool little graph using data from buried sensors in I-10 in California. It comes from this paper:

http://paleale.eecs.berkeley.edu/~varaiya/papers_ps.dir/accessF05v2.pdf



As you can see in this graph, morning flow was maximized at around 5:35 am, but by 9:00 am flow was actually down due to congestion and the resulting loss in average vehicle speed. That curling under in graphs like this represents the flow loss due to congestion, and if you could instead keep traffic moving freely throughout the morning (or evening) rush, you'd actually get more total flow.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by glowrock

Given that there is ZERO public transportation available in or near SouthPointe, how do you propose that anyone who works there (including large corporate offices like Consol Energy, Mylan, ANSYS, Range Resources among many others) commute in any other fashion other than using their own personal cars (or perhaps carpooling if feasible)? If someone wants to live in the city of Pittsburgh because of all of the reasons we all tend to so greatly espouse here on SSP, how does one get to their workplace if their workplace is in a suburban location without the use of their own private vehicle?

Please note that nothing I have written suggests I think the number of people using cars to commute should or could be reduced to zero.

So here is my general answer to the sort of problem you are identifying. To the extent alternative modes to drive-and-park commutes can feasibly work for some people who are currently not using those modes, we should be trying to shift more of those people to such modes. That can be achieved through a combination of upgrading the alternatives available to them while also removing some artificial incentives to continue to do drive-and-park commutes despite the existence of alternatives (such as providing commuters with subsidizing parking and unpriced roads). That will free up additional peak road capacity for those who actually cannot feasibly use an alternative (and again this is not a zero-sum game because highly congested roads are actually operating below their peak capacity).

Meanwhile, we should be adopting land-use and related policies that will reduce the future share of the population that has no alternative to a long drive-and-park commute. That includes a lot of things--reducing restrictions on density of development in key locations and allowing more mixed-use, transportation issues such as the ones we have been discussing, and even things like educational policy (because seeking out a combination of better but affordable schools is one of the major reasons why people end up living in places far from work). Again, none of this is designed to entirely eliminate drive-and-park commutes, but we could shift future share considerably.

Finally, encouraging the development and deployment of automated cars could do a lot to free up additional road capacity and provide many more people with alternatives to the traditional single-occupant driving commute.

Another question for you: You mention our roads being at or above capacity during rush hours. Do you believe the capacity restrictions are due to a lack of available through-lanes or do you think much of the issues are due to weaving caused by extremely short or nonexistent on and off-ramps, poorly-placed on and off-ramps, short merge areas (such as the Fort Pitt Bridge/376/Ft. Duquesne Blvd. clusterf*ck, etc...)? Do you think that targeting highway improvements at some of these choke-points could add additional capacity to our roadways?

It is very likely a healthy share of both. Note that many sorts of regular "bottlenecks" (as these sorts of things are often collectively called) can also be addressed with things like ramp-metering, often at a considerably lower cost than dramatic highway reconfigurations.

Generally, I'd have no problem if some of the proceeds from a congestion charge was devoted to smart, cost-effective ways to ameliorate bottlenecks, in addition to funding additional transit alternatives. But in a rational world you would never allow regular congestion to occur, even as you were working on ameliorating some of the causes and providing alternatives.

Look, I don't mean to be hyper-argumentative, but I'm frankly a little sick and tired of dealing with what I feel is so much idealistic theory and not enough practical application around here on SSP.

Almost everything I am noting is well-proven in real world cases (except automated cars). The only sense in which it is "idealistic" is that a lot of these policies would require the sort of political courage that is typically in short supply. That's a "practical" problem, but not in the engineering sense.

And yes, topography IS an issue, even when dealing with things like additional busways, rail transit, etc.

Sure, but as I noted, those sorts of challenges are even more of a problem for roads due to their inherent inefficiency in providing peak capacity per land unit, so if your problem is peak capacity and your constraint is topography, you should definitely be focused on alternatives to roads when it comes to adding more capacity.

Incidentally, topography really is not a problem in the same sense for gondolas, although they have many other limitations that makes them suitable only for certain specific cases (we happen to have a lot of such cases around here, however).

[glowrock]

Brian, not to sound like an arrogant jerk, but have you ever lived anywhere that had a MODERN transportation network? Pittsburgh is one of the very few, unique metro areas I'ver ever lived in (or traveled to for that matter, and I've been through the vast majority of major and mid-sized metro areas in this nation!) where the road network is so outdated and so far below interstate standards in general. Philly definitely suffers from a similar issue in some areas, especially concerning the "Sure Kill Expressway"... I've never been to another major or mid-sized metro area where nearly none of the highways are more than 4 lanes wide (2 in each direction), especially with few or no center or right shoulders. I will again stress that the majority of the reason for this is likely topography, and there's no doubt it's much more difficult to make substantive changes here than in many other, much FLATTER, metro areas. Your thoughts on on-ramp signals make sense for areas where incoming traffic actually has an opportunity to actually accelerate to highway speeds in a reasonable distance. On the Parkway West (and I believe on the Parkway East in a couple of spots), you've literally got stop signs at the on-ramps! Seriously? I've seen so many near-misses at the Carnegie on-ramp to Parkway West eastbound it's not even funny.

Yes, I think in many cities, much of what you advocate could and does work pretty well generally. In Los Angeles, for example, on-ramp signalling has done a really good job. But Los Angeles also has (some say far too many!) modern freeways that are built to current standards and is (generally) much easier to build on in terms of overall land availability. Pittsburgh is unique in many ways, which is both why I truly love this place as well as causing some of the issues that drives me batty about it simultaneously. Driving around town and around the metro area is a complete disaster many days, even on weekends sometimes.

Yes, I've seen many bottlenecks in other metro areas, but never the number and severity that I've seen out here. Again, much of it is due to topography (ie: bridges, tunnels, narrow ROW's, etc..., but some of it is simply due to nothing being upgraded in literally 50 or more years.

Anyhow, I'm done with this conversation. I've said my peace, and again it seems I'm about the only one here who's got the same or similar opinions. It's not fun being all alone, so I'm out of here for a while...

Aaron (Glowrock)

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by glowrock

Brian, not to sound like an arrogant jerk, but have you ever lived anywhere that had a MODERN transportation network?

Yes, I've lived a lot of places with a lot more recent transportation infrastructure on average than Pittsburgh (nowhere where everything is modern, but that would be pretty impossible for a city of a decent size).

I will again stress that the majority of the reason for this is likely topography, and there's no doubt it's much more difficult to make substantive changes here than in many other, much FLATTER, metro areas.

I don't think I disputed that claim. Again, I am making a very simple, very basic point: if your problem is peak capacity and your constraint is topography, then you should be looking at alternatives to roads to add new capacity because roads are a very inefficient way to add peak capacity.

Perhaps some numbers will help. A busway lane is going to have a peak capacity at least around ten times higher than a highway lane (in terms of passengers per hour). Railways are going to be an even higher multiple. Since it is going to cost you around the same amount to add a new bridge, tunnel, whatever regardless of the technology you use, it is sorta crazy you would be looking at doing that for a highway lane when it adds so much less peak capacity.

By the way, topographic challenges really underscore this point, but it is still applicable even without such challenges in any sort of urban setting. That's because in urban settings, land has notable value, so it is almost always going to end up more costly trying to add peak capacity with roads. The only general cases this isn't true is when land is super cheap (e.g., rural areas), or peak capacity is not a problem (e.g., also rural areas).

Your thoughts on on-ramp signals make sense for areas where incoming traffic actually has an opportunity to actually accelerate to highway speeds in a reasonable distance.

I didn't offer ramp-metering as a universal panacea, of course--that was just an example of one efficient sort of technology you can use in some cases.

Yes, I think in many cities, much of what you advocate could and does work pretty well generally. In Los Angeles, for example, on-ramp signalling has done a really good job. But Los Angeles also has (some say far too many!) modern freeways that are built to current standards and is (generally) much easier to build on in terms of overall land availability. Pittsburgh is unique in many ways, which is both why I truly love this place as well as causing some of the issues that drives me batty about it simultaneously.

Honestly, I think you are taking the exact wrong lesson from Pittsburgh's uniqueness in these respects. Because of these various challenges, Pittsburgh has even MORE reason to prefer new transit for peak capacity, even MORE reason to want to introduce congestion pricing, and so on. It needs to be doing everything it can to be smart and efficient about local surface transportation policy precisely because the dumb and inefficient approach has no room to work here (not that it works well anywhere, but again its prospects are even worse here).

Again, as I have repeatedly noted, that's not to say that no sort of road upgrades are worth investing in. But if we ever want to see really big improvements in our surface transportation system, we will have to do a lot more than road upgrades, including politically risky things like congestion pricing.

[BrianTH]

Incidentally, this is also a good resource on congestion pricing:

http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/congestionpricing/sec2.htm

The sidebar in particular addresses what it calls the "throughput" issue:

Effects of Pricing on Vehicle Throughput



Vehicle "throughput" on a freeway is the number of vehicles that get through over a short period such as an hour. Once freeway traffic exceeds a certain threshold level, both vehicle speed and vehicle throughput drop precipitously. Data show that maximum vehicle throughput occurs at free flow speeds ranging from 45 mph to 65 mph. The number of vehicles that get through per hour can drop by as much as 50 percent when severe congestion sets in. At high traffic levels, the freeway is kept in this condition of "collapse" for several hours after the rush of commuters has stopped. This causes further unnecessary delay for off-peak motorists who arrive after rush hour.

With peak-period highway pricing, a variable toll dissuades some motorists from entering freeways at those access points where traffic demand is high, and where such surges in demand may push the freeway over the critical threshold at which traffic flow collapses. Pricing prevents a breakdown of traffic flow in the first instance, and thus maintains a high level of vehicle throughput throughout the rush hours. As shown in the graph above, each variably priced lane in the median of State Route 91 in Orange County, California, carries twice as many vehicles per lane as the free lanes during the hour with heaviest traffic. Pricing has allowed twice as many vehicles to be served per lane at three to four times the speed on the free lanes.

So introducing congestion pricing to the Parkway would be like doubling its number of lanes in terms of rush hour capacity, tripling or quadrupling its rush hour speed limit, and it would actually generate revenues that could be used to improve the Parkway itself while also providing more alternatives in terms of transit.

It is no wonder congestion pricing tends to be popular once it is actually done.