PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown II

[DKNewYork]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

That is a serious concern, although it could also be easily overblown.

The basic reason why some sort of breaking up of the current barrier would be helpful is that it would make it easier for the apartment residents to get to the core of the Strip. That would make the units somewhat more marketable, which means you should be able to justify building more of them at any given marginal cost.

But ultimately that is really a secondary sort of consideration. The main reason units in the Strip will be marketable is that people with jobs in Downtown and the East End would find that a convenient place to live. Having to walk around the ends of the Produce Terminal to get to the core of the Strip probably isn't going to make that much of a difference for most people in such a situation.

So my guess is by far the main determinant of how many units Buncher ends up wanting to build will be current and projected rental market conditions for the Greater Downtown area at the time they make their decision.

Good points. Whatever is eventually done with a landmarked Produce Terminal---assuming the demolition of the western third and Pfaffman's vehicular "cuts" will both soon be off the table---surely it will allow pedestrians to get through the building. This will allow access some access, admittedly not vehicular but still access, from one side of the terminal to the other. Unless, of course, the Terminal sits unused after the Buncher site is developed.

I would agree that the housing market, particularly the near-downtown rental market, will be the biggest determinant for Buncher when deciding on the density of the development, and this situation is good and likely to improve.

The legal issue that most significantly could affect the Buncher development does not involve the Produce Terminal but rather the right-of-way/ownership dispute between Buncher and the AVRR. I understand Buncher's argument that their site needs better access to be successful yet the company fights over the abandoned railroad line that could conceivably bring light rail directly to their property. A more enlightened developer would be fighting to include this type of public transit access.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by themaguffin

A good Pgh bypass that would be an extension of the airport toll rd which is already planned to go to I-79, have it go further east to the turnpike. This may be similar to the Southern beltway spur that went east, I don't recall the actual path, but it would allow regional flow and give the southern South Hills better access to the airport or the turnpike as well as areas south of Monroeville.

That's basically a combination of the Southern Beltway to the MFE (currently unfunded), and completing the outer branch of the MFE to I-376 (also currently unfunded), the variation being to do it to the Turnpike instead.

The basic problem with all such projects is they would be horribly expensive--probably at least around $5 billion or more for the project you are talking about. And with so many other unmet and far more pressing transportation needs in the area, it is hard to justify spending that level of resources on such a project.

On top of that, they would stimulate sprawl of a kind we don't particularly need.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by DKNewYork

---assuming the demolition of the western third and Pfaffman's vehicular "cuts" will both soon be off the table---

Just an aside, but I don't think either of those is necessarily off the table, certainly not the cuts. Designation means the HRC has to approve exterior changes, but the HRC can approve even fairly significant changes, including demolitions. This is just a guess, but I think well-done vehicular cuts actually could get approved.

In any event, though, you are surely right that pedestrian cuts would be no problem at all.

The legal issue that most significantly could affect the Buncher development does not involve the Produce Terminal but rather the right-of-way/ownership dispute between Buncher and the AVRR. I understand Buncher's argument that their site needs better access to be successful yet the company fights over the abandoned railroad line that could conceivably bring light rail directly to their property. A more enlightened developer would be fighting to include this type of public transit access.

To be fair the AVRR plan is for commuter rail that might not benefit the Buncher development much--there might be a terminus nearby, but it wouldn't go to Downtown from there but instead would head out the Allegheny Valley, and combined with limited commuter schedules that would not be much of an attraction for Strip residents.

Personally, I hope the AVRR does not end up using that dormant line and instead uses a route that takes it to the unused platform in Steel Plaza.

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

So ring roads and such have been tried many times, and the short version of the story is they don't work in the long run to end congestion on radial urban highways (the ones used for getting into and out of the city center).

The basic problem here is one of incentives. You put a nice highway leading into the region's most important economic center, and people are going to preferentially build up along that highway in order to use it. If there is no charge to use that highway, the number of people trying to use it at peak time will eventually exceed its maximum capacity, causing congestion. Congestion may then slow development along the radial highway, although it is possible (and common) for congestion to keep on growing as long as there are no superior and affordable alternatives to taking the highway into the center.

In other words, when you have a scarce good (more people want it than can have it), its use has to be rationed in some way. And if you don't ration use through price, it typically gets rationed by people's tolerance for delay due to congestion. This is the same basic process that led to bread lines in communist countries: give away bread for free but not enough of it, and the person who gets the bread is the person willing to wait the longest in line.

So what happens if you build more lanes, or build a ring road to divert some traffic, or so on? You might momentarily reduce congestion, but that just restores the incentive to start building up along the radial highway again. So people do that, and in not too long you are right back to bad congestion on the radial highway. And that is because intentionally or not, you have actually adopted a strategy of using congestion to ration use of your radial highways, and so you will keep getting congestion.

Two basic mistakes are being made here. First, highways are a sucky way of providing peak capacity in urban areas. That is because their peak capacity per lane is really quite low, and so the marginal cost of additional peak capacity using highways is really high in comparison to other urban transportation technologies. And that is true even when there are not a bunch of expanded tunnels and bridges you would need as well--urban land is precious, and so the cost of chewing it up for more highway lanes is inherently high.

Second, congestion is a sucky way of rationing scarce peak capacity on highways--indeed, it actually subtracts peak capacity to follow that approach.

So really, as soon as your urban highways are getting congested, you should be switching focus to technologies with much higher peak capacities per unit of cost, like passenger rail or busways, and also you should be switching to rationing the peak capacity on your highways by price rather than congestion.

As for ring roads--if there is truly an independent case to be made for them based on current needs, fine. But it is generally not going to work to rely on them to eliminate radial highway congestion, and in the real world there is almost never a current-needs case sufficient to justify the massive expense of ring roads. Instead, most of their future traffic tends to be generated by greenfield developments induced along the ring road, until they become congested too. Which is actually terrible land use policy as well as bad transportation policy, although as a matter of pure coincidence a lot of well-connected highway contractors and greenfield developers get very wealthy in the process.

Incidentally, this is why building transit in parallel ALSO doesn't work to eliminate congestion, unless you add congestion pricing as part of the policy. New transit may divert some people initially and relieve congestion for a short time--yeah!--but then people see the uncongested highway and just start piling in again until the highway becomes congested again. You can keep going through scenarios like this, and the same end result will occur: if your only method for rationing your urban highways is congestion, then congestion you will get. On the other hand, unlike with ring roads, in many U.S. cities there are in fact extremely compelling current-needs cases to be made for expanding and improving transit which do not rely on congestion relief.

Anyway, the good news is that if you have an economically important reason to be passing by but not actually into the city center, and an economically important reason to do that at peak times rather than off-peak, then you should also have the means to pay the congestion price. That could be time-sensitive freight, or it could be a commuter who has chosen to live on the other side of town from their job, or so on.

Meanwhile, the people who will shift onto public transit due to the congestion price (assuming that transit is available) likely will be the people trying to get into and out of the center specifically at peak times, which is precisely what you want to see--those people should be using alternative technologies for the reasons given above. Similarly, freight and people will shift to off-peak travel when that is not a big problem for them, which is again precisely the behavior you want to incentivize.

Note, though, the immediate shift to alternatives does not have to be very high at all. Again, that is because the peak capacity of a congested highway is actually lower than the peak capacity of an uncongested highway. So in fact in theory, if you can keep congestion from starting you can actually have more, not less, people using the highway at peak times, meaning there would be no immediate need for a shift at all. The key is to find a way to stop more people from piling in at that point such that congestion restarts, which is a matter of getting your congestion pricing just right.

But to be sure, even congestion pricing on existing highways taken alone is a short term solution--eventually a growing population is going to need more peak transportation capacity (barring something like a true revolution in remote work, or maybe driverless cars, or so on). But again, your focus at that point should be adding peak capacity through better technologies for the problem at hand. And even if you do build more highway capacity, that should be congestion priced as well.

Honestly, the idea of a free urban radial highway is just an inherently bad one, and if we had started out with congestion pricing of urban highways as the default in the United States (as paying train and bus fares is the default) people would rightly think you were crazy if you suggested making them free instead. But because they have largely been free as a matter of historic practice, people keep trying to look for another way around the very predictable problems that arise from refusing to price-ration. It just doesn't exist.

BrianTH, do you feel better now that you wrote that diatribe against my comments about a southern bypass of the heart of Pittsburgh for NON-CITY origin/destination travelers? Look, I understand every freaking point you made in that long post, but I also know full well that not everyone traveling through, for instance, the Ft. Pitt and Squirrel Hill tunnels (ie: Parkway West and East) are heading specifically to and from Pittsburgh itself. Let's face it, both the Parkway West and East are traffic-choked disasters a large amount of the day and evening, sometimes in both directions. This isn't about Pittsburgh being the origin or destination of the vast majority of those travelers. Many people simply MUST go right through the Ft. Pitt Tunnel, over the bridge, making that sharp right turn to stay on the Parkway East just to get from, say, Carnegie (or Bridgeveille, or the South Hills cities, or other nearby places) to Monroeville and points east or west on the Turnpike. It makes little sense to force people to go right through downtown through several major chokepoints just to say "Look! No freeways will ever be built again in the Pittsburgh region!".

I don't even know how many more times I can repeat myself. I'm talking about people NOT specifically coming into or out of Pittsburgh proper. And yes, I'm essentially talking about an extension of the Mon-Fayette from I-79 out towards Monroeville, namely because there's no way in hell to ever connect it through the southern neighborhoods of Pittsburgh and back onto the Parkway somewhere near the Southside Flats or even towards Homestead. Heck, you can make this road with only a few interchanges in between for all I care, (to reduce any sort of sprawl effects), and by all means, it should be a toll road. But are you going to truly tell me straight to my face, err, monitor, that nothing needs to be done regarding access from the southern suburbs and points south to east of the city? I know full well that a major overhaul of the Parkways isn't going to happen (no room, ungodly expensive), not to mention it would involve completely remaking the Fort Pitt and Squirrel Hill tunnels and of course the Fort Pitt Bridge, all ramps in that tangled weave on the south side of downtown, etc... etc...

I just don't get it sometimes. This isn't Houston where they're building outer belt after outer belt. This isn't most other cities with completed belts/loops. Pittsburgh is nearly impossible to traverse west to east or south to east without massive gridlock in and near downtown and something really needs to be done about it.

This isn't a situation where additional transit options would work (again, I'm talking about through-travelers, NOT origin/destination commuters), and it's not fair to charge congestion pricing for people just wanting to cross town without actually starting or ending their trips there.

Do you have an actual alternative, or do you just want to continue to preach to me about the horrible effects of any and all new highways?

Aaron (Glowrock)

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

The festival atmosphere around the duck is amazing. They are probably smart to pack it up for now, but I think it would be great if it became an annual attraction, at least for a limited time, say associated with the regatta.

I agree with this idea. If the giant rubber duck has to leave for now, I'd love it to come back, even if only for a week or two, once a year centered around some already-large cultural event. Perhaps the Three Rivers Arts Festival, mainly because it's already a two-weekend affair?

Aaron (Glowrock)

[markson33]

Aaron, I've got to agree with you. There needs to be a better way to get from the airport to, say McKeesport.

So often I hear people say "you can't get there from here" in regards to Pittsburgh's neighborhoods. Its true, this city is a complete mess when it comes to its road system. The status quo simply is not realistic long term.

The portion of the southern beltway from 22 to 79 should get started in the not too distant future, but it needs to be completed all the way. I'm not sure if I will see that in my lifetime.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by glowrock

BrianTH, do you feel better now that you wrote that diatribe against my comments about a southern bypass of the heart of Pittsburgh for NON-CITY origin/destination travelers?

I didn't think of it as being a diatribe. It was admittedly long, but I wasn't angry and I don't see the tone of my post as being inadvertently angry. I was just expressing my own views on a fairly complex topic, hence the length.

but I also know full well that not everyone traveling through, for instance, the Ft. Pitt and Squirrel Hill tunnels (ie: Parkway West and East) are heading specifically to and from Pittsburgh itself.

Right. To respond more briefly this time:

(1) Diverting such people to a new ring road is unlikely to provide long-term congestion relief on those radial routes;

(2) It is unlikely that the overall benefits of a ring road would justify the direct cost of building that ring road;

(3) Such a ring road would also constitute poor land use policy, and have other indirect costs; but

(3) Fortunately for such travelers, to the extent they really needed to travel at peak times, they too would actually benefit from congestion pricing.

So that is why in my view a ring road really is not an effective, viable, or desirable substitute for congestion pricing.

It makes little sense to force people to go right through downtown through several major chokepoints just to say "Look! No freeways will ever be built again in the Pittsburgh region!".

You are trivializing the reasons WHY building new urban highways is typically a bad idea. It isn't because of spite or because of an empty slogan. They represent huge direct and indirect costs, and their real benefits typically cannot outweigh those costs.

In that sense your language of "forcing people" makes it sound like we are denying them an opportunity they would otherwise naturally get if not for our meddling. But the fact is the main reason they don't have that opportunity is because providing it would just be way too expensive, and there are a lot of other higher-priority needs that should be met first.

But are you going to truly tell me straight to my face, err, monitor, that nothing needs to be done regarding access from the southern suburbs and points south to east of the city?

First, I will tell you straight to your face that when it comes to unmet transportation needs in the Pittsburgh region, improving the ability of travelers to get from the southeast suburbs to the southwest suburbs at peak times is not in fact very high on a rather long list ordered by priority.

Second, that doesn't mean I think there are no good projects to consider in that part of the region. As I believe I may have mentioned here before, alternatives have been developed to the MFE that basically take the form of a combination of improved boulevards and upgraded transit. Those alternative plans may be a little dated at this point, but the general idea is sound--you could do far more, dollar for dollar, to improve the transportation system in that part of the region by prioritizing such projects over completing a southern ring road.

Pittsburgh is nearly impossible to traverse west to east or south to east without massive gridlock in and near downtown and something really needs to be done about it.

I think it is important to keep in mind that going west to east is pretty easy to do outside of peak times, when I-376 is not congested. Which is precisely why congestion pricing should be the first thing we do. It directly addresses that problem in a sustainable way, and it actually raises revenue.

Transportation in the South Hills is admittedly a huge mess overall. But again, spending billions on a limited access highway from Jefferson Hills to I-376 or the Turnpike would only be addressing a small fraction of that problem at huge costs, and thus it would be far more effective to start with the boulevards-and-transit approach.

and it's not fair to charge congestion pricing for people just wanting to cross town without actually starting or ending their trips there.

Why not? The congestion charge is for using a particular piece of a highway at a particular time when a lot of other people also want to use it. All those people will have their own reasons for wanting to use it, so the fairest thing to do is set one price they all have to pay. I don't care if you are in the majority who wants to watch the movie or the minority who wants to snog with your significant other--the ticket price for getting into the theater should be the same.

Generally, this is the unfortunate path-dependent entitlement mentality to free urban highways I was referencing. If we were talking about, say, eliminating fares on the T at peak times, everyone would understand that such a policy would completely swamp the system (as an aside, though, you can make an argument for free transit outside of peak times when congestion isn't a problem, but that is a different issue). And I doubt anyone would argue that those people who wanted to use the T to get from the South Hills to the North Shore at peak times should get to ride for free because it is all the people wanting to go from the South Hills to Downtown that are REALLY causing the problem.

The default should be that people who want to use public transportation systems at peak times should have to pay a fee whenever there is a danger of congestion, with the fee being sufficient to prevent congestion from occurring. That principle should apply to transit and highways equally, and given that there are not massive protests over the fact we regularly apply this principle to transit, it is apparent that the fact that we don't regularly apply it to congested urban highways is the real oddity in all this.

Do you have an actual alternative

Yes, congestion pricing. Once you get over this unfortunate mindset it is somehow "unfair" to charge for the use of urban highways at peak times, which of course it is not, it becomes by far the preferable--really the only--solution to this sort problem.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by markson33

There needs to be a better way to get from the airport to, say McKeesport.

OK, but there also "needs" to be a better way to get to Oakland from the North Side. And there are many, many more such needs we can list.

So the next question should be how do we prioritize these needs? We should undoubtedly look at both costs and benefits, and also think to the future in terms of current trends as well as induced effects, and so on.

And once you have looked at all these needs and possible projects in a serious manner--a $5 billion project to get people from McKeesport to the airport isn't going to score too well in comparison.

Edit: Oh, and decent boulevards to Pittsburgh and then an uncongested I-376 to the airport would in fact be a better way to the airport from McKeesport. It doesn't have the graphic simplicity of a highway dedicated to that purpose, but it would be far, far less costly, and it would kill many other birds for the people of McKeesport.

[DKNewYork]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Just an aside, but I don't think either of those is necessarily off the table, certainly not the cuts. Designation means the HRC has to approve exterior changes, but the HRC can approve even fairly significant changes, including demolitions. This is just a guess, but I think well-done vehicular cuts actually could get approved.

In any event, though, you are surely right that pedestrian cuts would be no problem at all.


To be fair the AVRR plan is for commuter rail that might not benefit the Buncher development much--there might be a terminus nearby, but it wouldn't go to Downtown from there but instead would head out the Allegheny Valley, and combined with limited commuter schedules that would not be much of an attraction for Strip residents.

Personally, I hope the AVRR does not end up using that dormant line and instead uses a route that takes it to the unused platform in Steel Plaza.

My sense is that the HRC does not often allow significant exterior changes. Is that your sense? Plus, I'm thinking that since the proposed demolition of the western third is what initiated the possible landmark status, it would seem odd to turn around and approve it post-designation. And the "cuts" were rejected by Buncher for tangible reasons---that this would require duplicative systems and increase costs. Those are the reasons I thought that these two ideas are off the table

Re AVRR: I thought there was a second plan utilizing the AVRR right of way for an extension of the T, connecting with the existing system east of the Pennsylvanian, through the Strip and Lawrenceville and continuing to Oakmont. No? I see the limited benefit of a commuter line but a light rail T extension would have many benefits.

[themaguffin]

That's basically a combination of the Southern Beltway to the MFE (currently unfunded), and completing the outer branch of the MFE to I-376 (also currently unfunded), the variation being to do it to the Turnpike instead.

The basic problem with all such projects is they would be horribly expensive--probably at least around $5 billion or more for the project you are talking about. And with so many other unmet and far more pressing transportation needs in the area, it is hard to justify spending that level of resources on such a project.

On top of that, they would stimulate sprawl of a kind we don't particularly need.

I don't doubt the cost, but I disagree on the need. I have made my points on the MFE before. I'm not a purist, but a realist in terms of multiple needs and approaches. I think the city needs extensive transit improvement (and region), but also something along the lines I mentioned for multiple reasons, but that won't matter in this forum.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by DKNewYork

My sense is that the HRC does not often allow significant exterior changes. Is that your sense?

So my sense (and this is not necessarily well-informed) is that the HRC is pretty good about approving significant changes if they think the overall project will serve to preserve and enhance most of the really important and distinctive elements. I do know for significant changes you need actual HRC approval (not staff), and I think there is often a back and forth before a project is approved. I might note I believe they have approved demolitions, and although I think that is usually when the structure in question is in poor repair, I think they also are supposed to take into account viability of reuse and the merits of the proposed replacement.

And the "cuts" were rejected by Buncher for tangible reasons---that this would require duplicative systems and increase costs.

I guess my question would be whether they view doing nothing as better than the cuts, or whether they just viewed demolishing 1/3rd as better than the cuts, for those particular reasons.

I thought there was a second plan utilizing the AVRR right of way for an extension of the T, connecting with the existing system east of the Pennsylvanian, through the Strip and Lawrenceville and continuing to Oakmont. No? I see the limited benefit of a commuter line but a light rail T extension would have many benefits.

There have been many plans over time so that could well have been floated at one point. But as of now, I believe the plan is to have two different systems: the AVR doing commuter rail, and a separate streetcar-type system that might actually circulate over to Oakland, and would likely be running along Smallman.

I might note I am not sure there is a way to get over to the T system once you are as far down the AVR route as the contested easement. You've got the 16th Street Bridge in the way immediately after the Produce Terminal, and then I think 15th Street is too far down.

What I had in mind was the AVR plan to do something like use the 26th Street flyover and then run along the Busway until you split off for the unused tunnel under USX. That could be a T route as well (although the fact it is only a single tunnel makes that awkward), but you don't need the disputed easement for that.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by themaguffin

I don't doubt the cost, but I disagree on the need.

I guess I can't help thinking of these things in terms of "benefits" rather than "needs". I can certainly see there would be some benefits to some people from completing a Southern Beltway. What I don't see is how those benefits could possibly justify the associated costs. And if the costs of a proposal outweigh the benefits of a proposal, I have a hard time accepting the proposition that the proposal is nonetheless something we "need" to do.

For example, we could set up a free (or heavily subsidized) helicopter service to take people from McKeesport to the airport whenever they wanted. That sounds like it would be really nice for them, but I think if you looked at the cost it would be hard to justify. To me the Southern Beltway/MFE is the same sort of thing--maybe it sounds nice if you ignore the cost, but you obviously can't ignore the cost.

Edit: By the way, I do realize some bad blood is generated in these discussions when people start citing not just the direct costs (the $5 billion or whatever it would now take to complete the project), but also the indirect costs (e.g., promoting sprawl and unnecessary greenfield development, undermining existing developed areas, and so on). But even if you completely disagree with the indirect costs, it seems to me you at least have to take on the direct costs, which requires at a minimum showing why this would be a good way to use up $5 billion dollars in infrastructure spending.

[glowrock]

Brian, I have a serious question for you. Do you ever drive on 376 on even a somewhat regular basis? Do you have to face the delays approaching the Fort Pitt Tunnel for many hours each day, both in the morning and afternoon/evenings? Weekends and all major cultural/sporting events as well? The backups can go clear back to Robinson! And the Squirrel Hill Tunnel backups go on for several miles on each approach as well! How about getting from the airport to anywhere east of Downtown? Seriously, I think you're severely underestimating the traffic nightmare that exists from Robinson to Monroeville right now because you're forced to travel through a number of severe chokepoints on 376.

There is hardly a single day where I don't hit severe traffic jams on 376. And I work a relatively different shift than most people (I usually work from around 6am-3pm, maybe a little later). And I have what I would call a reverse commute, being the South Side to Canonsburg in the morning with the reverse in the afternoon.

All congestion pricing would do is completely and totally fleece anyone who lives in Pittsburgh proper and works in the western or southern suburbs (and vice versa, obviously). Or are you going to make the congestion pricing only into downtown in the morning, outbound in the afternoon? Or are you going to magically pay for transit lines from downtown through to the Robinson area with multiple office parks or down south to Canonsburg/Southpointe? Or do you just want everyone who works in the southern/western suburbs to basically be forced to live in those same suburbs and stay out of Pittsburgh? The way I see it, you can't have it both ways. You can't want people to live and work in Pittsburgh while keeping them from being able to reasonably access Pittsburgh without spending a small fortune on congestion pricing. You also can't magically have transit lines pop up out of thin air to get to the suburbs where some of the major employment centers are. Hell, Southpointe itself has more than 10,000 employees right now, soon to be closer to 13-14k. And that's just one (large) office park!

Sometimes I think there's way too much idealism on SSP and not enough realistic viewpoints. Congestion pricing can work in certain situations (say for instance in Manhattan, where you don't need to travel through it to get from one side of the NYC metro area to the other!), it can work in Chicago (for the same reasons). Hell, it could work in Atlanta, Boston, or nearly every other freaking city out there (including San Francisco!). But when there's no reasonable alternative to traveling right through downtown to go across the metro east to west or from the south hills either east or west it's simply folly to think congestion pricing would work.

And for the record, when I say a southern beltway, I'm quite fine with a parkway-type situation involving what is essentially a wide boulevard with relatively limited signalized intersections and only a limited number of actual interchanges. It doesn't have to be a full-fledged freeway. So no, I don't see it costing $5 billion.

Okay, I'm done here. I've said my peace.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by glowrock

Do you ever drive on 376 on even a somewhat regular basis?

Depends on what you mean by "somewhat regular". We live on the other side of the Squirrel Hill tunnel and work Downtown, but usually take the bus to work. But we use I-376 all the time for other purposes.

Do you have to face the delays approaching the Fort Pitt Tunnel for many hours each day, both in the morning and afternoon/evenings? Weekends and all major cultural/sporting events as well? The backups can go clear back to Robinson! And the Squirrel Hill Tunnel backups go on for several miles on each approach as well! How about getting from the airport to anywhere east of Downtown? Seriously, I think you're severely underestimating the traffic nightmare that exists from Robinson to Monroeville right now because you're forced to travel through a number of severe chokepoints on 376.

No, I am taking that problem very seriously and proposing a solution that could actually work, at a reasonable cost (in fact it would generate revenues).

I'd turn this point around: when there is such a severe and growing problem, with a very obvious cause and an equally obvious solution, why wouldn't you support that solution? And why distract from the real issue with fantasy projects that will almost surely never get done because they would cost way too much, and wouldn't solve the problem anyway?

In short, I think it is the people who refuse to support congestion pricing that are not taking the problem seriously enough.

There is hardly a single day where I don't hit severe traffic jams on 376. And I work a relatively different shift than most people (I usually work from around 6am-3pm, maybe a little later). And I have what I would call a reverse commute, being the South Side to Canonsburg in the morning with the reverse in the afternoon. All congestion pricing would do is completely and totally fleece anyone who lives in Pittsburgh proper and works in the western or southern suburbs (and vice versa, obviously).

No, congestion pricing would solve the problem you are complaining about, at a small cost to you. So on the one hand you are complaining about how severely this problem is impacting you, but on the other you are refusing to contribute a small amount of money to solving it. That's not really self-interested behavior on your part, and it is happening because you are stuck on this really odd notion that if your highway is not completely free, you must be getting "fleeced".

Incidentally, when I ride the bus I have to pay a fare. So why I am not wailing and beating my chest about how I am being "fleeced"? Why am I not insisting the bus should be free for me?

Or are you going to make the congestion pricing only into downtown in the morning, outbound in the afternoon?

There are different ways to do it depending on the actual situation. In Pittsburgh's case my guess is you would want to institute variable pricing on the key radial routes. If there was no congestion on a route outbound in the morning or inbound in the afternoon, then the price at those times on those routes could be zero. But if there was congestion, the price should be raised until there is no longer congestion.

Or are you going to magically pay for transit lines from downtown through to the Robinson area with multiple office parks or down south to Canonsburg/Southpointe? Or do you just want everyone who works in the southern/western suburbs to basically be forced to live in those same suburbs and stay out of Pittsburgh?

No and no (although transit in the west suburbs could be better). Again, congestion pricing will if anything increase overall flow capacity, so you don't actually need to force anyone to stop traveling these routes. Rather, congestion pricing will give travelers from those areas a system that actually works.

You can't want people to live and work in Pittsburgh while keeping them from being able to reasonably access Pittsburgh without spending a small fortune on congestion pricing.

There is a wide gap between "spend nothing" and "spend a small fortune". Again, I pay bus fare, but you don't see me complaining that means Pittsburgh doesn't want me to work there.

Of course the truth is that on the whole, we are paying much more in congestion costs than congestion pricing would cost. You just are used to paying those huge costs, and mentally are not eliminating them from the hypothetical, so the idea of paying a small dollar amount instead strikes you as just a net loss.

But when congestion pricing is actually instituted, it typically ends up being very popular. That is because people suddenly realize that uncongested roads (way) more than make up for the small price they have to pay.

So you would actually be one of the biggest net beneficiaries of such a system coming to Pittsburgh. But you can't see it because you can't get past the mental block that only free is "fair", and paying any amount at all for uncongested roads would mean you were getting "fleeced".

But when there's no reasonable alternative to traveling right through downtown to go across the metro east to west or from the south hills either east or west it's simply folly to think congestion pricing would work.

Again, you need to grasp that congestion pricing does not in fact require reducing the total flow. This is a common but very misleading assumption (that a huge percentage of people will have to find a new way to go if there is congestion pricing). In fact all it really takes is a small amount of time-shifting of when people try to START their trip (they may well END it sooner with uncongested roads).

And for the record, when I say a southern beltway, I'm quite fine with a parkway-type situation involving what is essentially a wide boulevard with relatively limited signalized intersections and only a limited number of actual interchanges. It doesn't have to be a full-fledged freeway. So no, I don't see it costing $5 billion.

That would do even less to temporarily reduce radial congestion. But if you can justify that project on its own merits, fine.

[Evergrey]

http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/16/4748776/cleaning-up-one-of-americas-most-polluted-cities

Cleaning up one of America's most polluted cities


A Pittsburgh-area steel town fights for clear skies

By Matt Stroud on October 16, 2013 01:10 pm Email @ssttrroouudd



In 1995, the Monongahela River Valley’s air was among the most polluted in the United States. This collection of municipalities, about 10 miles southeast of downtown Pittsburgh, sat downwind from the Clairton Coke Works, which is a giant factory engaged in one of the dirtiest industrial processes known to civilization. It had been established decades earlier that people who grew up close to dense air pollution could suffer from chronic bronchitis, heart disease, premature death, lung cancer, and other debilitating ailments. If nothing changed in the Mon Valley, people would continue to suffer.



One major barrier existed between Mon Valley’s residents and clean, breathable air, however: the US Steel Corporation, one of the largest steel companies in the world. It wasn’t going to change anything without a fight. But a fight is exactly what it got.

...

Video:
http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/16/4844192/detours-pittsburgh-air-pollution-video

[Jonboy1983]

Originally Posted by glowrock

I guess you want to cause traffic jams literally 12 hours a day nearly to the airport, Jonboy? Do you have any idea how bad the Parkway West inbound already is on a daily basis? Not to mention there's almost no land available for any sort of expansion along much of it, especially right near the tunnel. If the freaking ramps would be somehow reconfigured at 19/51 that would help out immensely, though. That much is agreed!

Aaron (Glowrock)

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the severity of traffic congestion when you're cramming 150k vehicles a day into a linear space that is only four lanes wide...

And yes, I am very familiar with that hellish commute. Out here in suburban Philly, we have quite a few of those ourselves. Route 202 and the Schuylkill Expressway come to mind, the latter especially which can back up from 30th Street Station all the way to Conshohoken or even King of Prussia on a regular basis.

I've read this heated discussion to great length, and I have to say I am intrigued by the idea of congestion-priced tolling. I used to be an advocate for more roads and freeways, but over the years I became less interested in promoting such infrastructure improvements. I'm all for improving the current infrastructure we do have, but building more and more capacity will only lead to even greater congestion in the long run. We've seen this happen here in Chester County. The whole county experienced massive, exponential growth in a period of only 20 to 30 years due to freeway construction (Exton Bypass) and existing roadway widening projects (Route 100 and Route 30 in Exton, PA). Given that these projects are immensely auto-oriented, you can pretty much guess what type of development that has lead to. It's mostly nothing but single-detached housing development after single-detached housing development, strip mall after strip mall, and well pretty much anything else that would otherwise be surrounded by seas of surface parking.

You argue for a better way of getting from the Airport to, say, Monroeville or McKeesport. Well, for those who are originating at the Airport or Downtown and bound for either of those destinations, wouldn't it be better for them if there was another alternative that existed in large part due to a Parkway West toll or some other congestion-priced tolling method elsewhere in the regional highway system? That would remove at least those folks from the highways, hopefully making the current road less hectic. (Of course, that would have to be made incredibly more efficient, but that's another can of worms!) Then, later on, perhaps someone might propose some rail link to McKeesport or Monroeville. Granted, the total commute might take upwards of 30 to 40 minutes via the T or whatever link is built, but I imagine it would be far better in the long run rather than sitting in your car for 40 minutes just to get from the Airport to the Ft. Pitt Tunnel...

Also, I looked at a recent street view of that part of the Parkway. That piece of land is mostly level, so I don't see how you couldn't put 8 lanes of one-way traffic through there (6 tolled, bound for the Ft. Pitt Tunnel, and 2 untolled, bound for Route 51 North/South). Grade and bulldoze the land and put up a retaining wall. Again, it's only a suggestion...

[Minivan Werner]

I believe that the part of I70 between Washington, PA and where it hooks into the Turnpike at New Stanton is extremely sub-standard based on highway regulations and I've never understood why it was constructed so far south of Pittsburgh. What if the southern beltway also combined with I70 to move it about 15 miles or so north of where it is now? You could kill two birds and possibly even get more federal funding since you are essentially making the southern beltway out of an *actual* interstate instead of a spur, loop or beltway designation.

[Austinlee]

Downtown/North Shore investment from January 2006 - December 2013

$5,320,798,700 (includes some "conceptual" project dollars aka Proposals but not bad for ONE square mile!)

Interactive map:

http://www.downtownpittsburgh.com/what-we-do/economic-development/map

Use the slider to see how projects JUMPED in the last couple of years onward...

[Austinlee]

Couple interesting new residential renderings I just found.

"Bailey Park Avenue" adjacent to Grandview Park.

Directions: Bailey Avenue to Beltzhoover Avenue next to Grandview Park



"Welcome to the Bailey Park Community, brand new contemporary single family homes atop the hills of Mt. Washington opening on to Grandview Park! 3 BR, 2.5 Baths with optional 4th BR/family room and additional full bath, two-story entry, & extended 24' ft. garage, 2200 sq. ft. Larger, custom homes available on select lots. Phase 1 homes to be completed spring/summer of 2014 for 2013 buyers! Choose your selections and finishes now: quartz countertops, wood cabinets, bamboo flooring, carpet, and more!"


There are NINE units for sale in the Multilist for the above rendering listed as "Allentown" although it's kinda Mt Washington really. They are $449,000 each and feature 4 bedrooms and 3 full, 2 half baths each.

[Austinlee]

Another development of NINE new row house building UC in the Central North Side.

East Jefferson Street



"3 bedrooms, 3 full, 2 half baths. New Construction! The First Phase of 9 Gorgeous, Custom built Townhouses with Integral Garages are waiting for you. These new construction town homes are designed with a gourmet island in the kitchen*hardwood, ceramic tile and wall to wall carpet* 2000sq ft. of LUXURY can be yours*upgrades available*! Conveniently located in proximity of Downtown Pittsburgh and all North Shore amenities* Awesome city view!"

$280,000 starting price.

Not exactly the most glamorous lots.