PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown II

[BrianTH]

By the way, I'm not sure if we discussed before, but I think it is relevant when thinking big picture about transportation policy in Pittsburgh. This is a nice little study of commuting times in the 20 cities in the U.S. with more than 250,000 workers. Note it is interesting that Pittsburgh even makes this list, since even by metro it is smaller than the top 20, and by central city size it is WAY smaller. All that is indicative of the fact that Pittsburgh has retained a relatively strong set of jobs centers within the City itself (Downtown, Oakland, and in fact a few others):

http://www.bloomberg.com/visual-data/best-and-worst/longest-commutes-us-cities

Anyway, there are two more interesting facts about Pittsburgh that come out of this study.

One is that ranked by mean travel time, Pittsburgh is the lowest in this group. To be fair, part of that is because there is an imperfect but positive correlation between the number of employees and mean travel time. Still, it IS an imperfect correlation, and Pittsburgh is doing remarkably better by this measure than some of the other smaller employment cities on the list, like Detroit (and really places like Baltimore, Miami, and Fort Worth, I would suggest).

The other is that ranked by percentage of commuters with more than a 1 hour trip, Pittsburgh does much worse--only 9th, and now cities like Fort Worth and Detroit are doing better, and cities like Baltimore and Miami are around the same.

None of this is really surprising when you think about our local transportation network. On the plus side, I believe the low mean travel time is something we can keep building on as a competitive advantage, particularly if we are smart about encouraging the development of core area jobs and residences in close proximity to each other and/or close proximity to nodes in our rapid transit system. On the negative side, I think we are likely to see increasingly poor performance in longer commutes unless we do some smart expansions of our rapid transit system.

So that is part of why I continue to think it makes sense to invest in putting Oakland on our rapid transit map, to look at some decent commuter rail options, to look at extending the East Busway to Monroeville--among other things, these are all ways to allow continued growth in centralized jobs without causing an explosion in longer commutes.

Something like the Southern Beltway, however, is just a huge waste of resources from this perspective. It is basically trying to move more future economic development out of the core area, which is undermining one of our relative strengths to begin with. And even if it somewhat succeeds in that goal, it is unlikely to succeed enough to stop the growing need for more rapid transit options into the central jobs centers.

Quite frankly, the Southern Beltway is mostly the result of a nest of mutually-supportive special business/political interests, and even to the extent it was the result of sincere policy ideas, those policy ideas depended on a vision of the airport as being THE big engine of jobs growth in the region, a vision that should have died with the USAir bankruptcies and de-hubbing of the airport, and (more fortunately) since should have been replaced with a vision of the core area as generating jobs in a diverse range of industries like eds and meds, business and professional services, tech, finance, and so on.

In short, the new vision should be more Google and Bakery Square, not USAir and PIT, and the Southern Beltway is just horribly out of touch with those new realities.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by themaguffin

I get tired of the transit puritan mentality on these forums. The fact is that the region is more than awkward to get around. In fact, it's challenging to get around. I'm totally in favor of the Southern beltway and would like an extension to the east of 79 as well.

I don't think I am being a "transit puritan". I am being a pragmatist: in a world in which there are limited budgets for transportation projects, you can't just support everything which sounds nice. You have to make smart choices about which projects to prioritize, and you have to do that on the basis of taking a hard look at costs versus benefits. That is why your argument for the Southern Beltway is at best incomplete.

Would it be nice for a few thousand people a day to have a faster trip along its route? Sure. OK, that's the benefit.

But you can't just stop your analysis there. You next have to look at how much providing that benefit will cost. And that is where the whole argument falls apart, because the cost relative to that benefit is simply enormous, and if you then rank it against many other possible projects of similar (or indeed lower) cost, there are many which would provide much more benefit.

I also think you should acknowledge what the official proponents of the Southern Beltway have always, right through today, made quite explicit. Its massive cost cannot possibly be justified based on existing transportation needs, so they have always instead justified it as an economic development tool. But as I pointed out above, that argument has always depended on two planks: that the airport is going to be a hugely significant source of jobs growth, and that greenfield development along its route is desirable.

The first of those planks is simply gone now. And the second of those planks represents a policy choice that I am arguing against not just because I am a transit puritan, but because it represents a bad policy choice from multiple perspectives (land policy, environmental policy, energy policy, public health policy, and on and on).

So yes, it is a very bad idea to waste over $600 million dollars for this extension, let alone the many more hundreds of millions it would cost to keep on extending it. And that is not because of some kneejerk pro-transit stance, it is the result of taking a hard, rational look at what our region actually needs right now, and where it should be going in the future.

Of course the Findley Connector has low traffic volume - it's not connected to a high volume area, it's merely a leg of the beltway.

As I documented above, there was no "of course" about this proposition when the project was first started. They thought they would get 12,000 daily vehicles EVEN before another segment was completed. With the rest of the Beltway completed, it was supposed to be 36,000 daily vehicles.

Those are the sorts of eye-popping numbers you would actually need to come close to justifying the costs of this project. The problem is those numbers are never going to happen, and yet our political process keeps rumbling along as if the original case for the project still existed.

[BrianTH]

I promise I will stop ranting here, but one last important thought to keep in mind.

The recent change in transportation trends is one good reason to be thinking some transit projects should be moving up the priority list over some roads projects. But there is an even more basic and long-standing reason, which is just that we have been investing way more in road projects in recent decades than in transit projects.

So it is no particular surprise that if you start ranking possible transportation projects by cost/benefit, most of the top projects these days are transit projects--that simply reflects the fact that decades of bias in favor of road projects have led to most of the low-hanging fruit being taken off the road tree, but not the transit tree.

Simply acknowledging this predictable outcome does not make you a "transit puritan"--in fact it makes you someone who is seeking a balance that has long been missing. And in fact that roads-over-transit policy bias is still happening, as demonstrated by the fact the Southern Beltway extension is being funded without sufficient study or justification in a way that simply never happens with transit projects.

Edit: Sorry, I really will stop here, but I also wanted to note that I am perfectly willing to apply the same sort of logic to de-prioritizing transit projects when applicable. In this case, the idea of extending the T to the airport has long been studied, and in fact that possibility was used as a justification for re-routing the North Side part of the Spine Line into the North Shore Connector as we know it today, all in the same era as the Findlay Connector was being constructed. But the exact same problem with the recent history of the airport applies--even if there was once a good case for a T extension to the airport based on prior expectations, the cost of such a project can no longer be justified now that the airport is not going to deliver on those expectations. So for transit service to the airport, simply restoring direct 28X service (meaning no Robinson loop) is about all I would think is justifiable, at least until other much higher priority projects are done.

[themaguffin]

I totally agree about being smart,priorities and about being pragmatic. Transportation is more complex than conveyed here. Seriously griping about the low volume of the Findley Connector, a road that is like 6 miles long demonstrates that I don't think the big picture and how complicated this all is... well that all of it is understood here. I'm a big supporter of extending the T and bus options as well.

[Evergrey]

Originally Posted by themaguffin

I totally agree about being smart,priorities and about being pragmatic. Transportation is more complex than conveyed here. Seriously griping about the low volume of the Findley Connector, a road that is like 6 miles long demonstrates that I don't think the big picture and how complicated this all is... well that all of it is understood here. I'm a big supporter of extending the T and bus options as well.

How is transportation "more complex" than what BrianTH just laid out?

If anything... the Beltway Puritans rarely engage in the type of complex, multi-faceted analysis BrianTH just provided us with. The pro-Beltway argument always starts and ends with "Podunk A needs superhighway access to Podunk B and this highway will unlock thousands of acres of greenfield land for fast food restaurant development!"

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by Evergrey

How is transportation "more complex" than what BrianTH just laid out?

If anything... the Beltway Puritans rarely engage in the type of complex, multi-faceted analysis BrianTH just provided us with. The pro-Beltway argument always starts and ends with "Podunk A needs superhighway access to Podunk B and this highway will unlock thousands of acres of greenfield land for fast food restaurant development!"

It's not that simple and I know you're fully aware of that fact, Evergrey. Pittsburgh is a city with pretty lousy transportation infrastructure of all sorts, including bus, rail, roads, bridges and highways. It's old and it's generally crumbling, and unfortunately it's going to take a combination of transit and highway projects to get it back up to par. If and when Pittsburgh really starts growing substantially again, the traffic is going to be nearly completely gridlocked far longer than it is currently.

You and everyone else here in this forum know full well I'm in favor of both transit AND highway projects, not one or the other. Pittsburgh hasn't exactly received massive funding at the state or federal level for either, so it's not like a ton of money has gone into roads and nothing into transit around here, for instance.

But anyhow, I'm kind of in the same situation as themaguffin here. There is a definitive condescending nature amongst certain forumers here when it comes to being all transit, no roads. I understand that for cities that literally have done nothing but promote roads over transit (the city I now live in, for instance, at least up until very recently!), but for cities like Pittsburgh I think that's shortsighted.

Just my $.02

Aaron (Glowrock)

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by themaguffin

I totally agree about being smart,priorities and about being pragmatic. Transportation is more complex than conveyed here. Seriously griping about the low volume of the Findley Connector, a road that is like 6 miles long demonstrates that I don't think the big picture and how complicated this all is... well that all of it is understood here.

I'm sorry, but you are not being remotely fair to what I have been pointing out.

I have been pointing out not just that the Findlay Connector's traffic counts have been low, but also that they were way lower than originally estimated. I have also been pointing out that one of the major reasons that happened is that the airport was originally expected to be a huge jobs center, but that the USAir bankruptcy and de-hubbing of PIT has destroyed that vision, and it is not coming back. Finally, I have also pointed out that the new estimates for traffic on the Southern Beltway following further extensions, even assuming they are not still too optimistic, don't come close to justifying the cost of those extensions.

So who is oversimplifying here? I'm pointing out the original justification for the massive cost of the Southern Beltway has been eviscerated by (among other things) what happened to the airport. How exactly have you responded to that point? Have you provided a new cost/benefit analysis? Explained how the massive drop in potential demand can be made up for in another way?

No, you have done none of that.

I'm not trying to beat up on you specifically, but the attitude you are displaying here is very frustrating to me. I am trying to have a serious discussion about what projects we should be prioritizing in light of what we know today about present needs and justifiable future goals, and you are waving away the points I am raising without any serious consideration of them whatsoever. And that is how huge wastes of precious public funds get through the political process.

I'm a big supporter of extending the T and bus options as well.

But there is not going to be enough money to do everything on everyone's wish list, and when you put a lot of money into what should be a very low priority project, it means fewer high priority projects will get done.

[Wiz Khalifa]

Originally Posted by themaguffin

I get tired of the transit puritan mentality on these forums. The fact is that the region is more than awkward to get around. In fact, it's challenging to get around. I'm totally in favor of the Southern beltway and would like an extension to the east of 79 as well.

Of course the Findley Connector has low traffic volume - it's not connected to a high volume area, it's merely a leg of the beltway.

You are kidding right? This is the boondoggle of all boondoggles, a complete waste of money, effort, materials and time. There is not one person who will decide to pay a toll to go roughly the same distance to the airport through the middle of farmland when the free 79/376 route rarely ever has traffic anyway.

If this immense pile of money absolutely must be used for road projects, then it should instead be invested where its impact could be felt by the majority of people in the region by upgrading the parkway between I-79 and Route 30. Better East/West connectivity should be an absolute transportation priority for all projects from here on out. I thought this was obvious, but apparently its still not obvious to the useless idiots at PennDOT.

There is simply no logic used in transportation development projects at the state level anymore, and the fact that this worthless boondoggle is being pushed through with minimal public resistance also shows how ignorant we are as a society and how misplaced our transportation priorities continue to be.

/END RANT

[PITairport]

The thing about airports is they are responsible for far more indirect jobs than they are direct jobs. So while PIT took a hit on direct jobs with the de-hubbing, it is still one of the regions largest economic engines.

No airport? No Google. It really is that simple. Without growth in the core area enabled by companies such as Google, there becomes less of a need for transit expansion. Its all interrelated in a convoluted way.

So while PIT is kinda out there in the sticks, it needs to be as viable a facility as possible, and that includes improving access from the south and east which is why I support the complete Southern Beltway.

A healthy metropolitan area has strong transit links, but also a healthy highway system. Highway discussions get lost in talk about sprawl and transit priorities when the topic should be the original purpose - the movement of goods and services. Companies do not move manufactured goods on a subway or bus. Suburbanites commuting are only part of the picture wrt highways.

Look at some of the great transit orientated cities in the world... London, Hong Kong, Shanghai, etc. London is famous for its sprawling underground network and double decker buses. A very transit orientated city. But guess what? Their highway system was sub-par so in the 1980s they built a beltway. Hong Kong? A very modern metro system, ferries, double deck buses, and trolleys. Few people have cars. So why have they recently built a new web of expressways throughout H.K. and the New Territories? Not only expressways, but incredibly expensive expressways consisting of multiple suspension and cable stay bridges and tunnels. For the movement of goods and services. Expansion continues, even a bridge to Macau. Shanghai is on their 3rd beltway. Its not only the large cities. Zurich, a small city compared to others, is famous for its rail networks. BUT they still have a good highway network and built a beltway.

My point with all those examples is that highways are integral to the overall transportation infrastructure, and in Pittsburgh the highways quite frankly 🞵🞵🞵🞵 compared to our peer cities. No amount of busways and light rail will fix that.

[Topher51]

Originally Posted by Wiz Khalifa

You are kidding right? This is the boondoggle of all boondoggles, a complete waste of money, effort, materials and time. There is not one person who will decide to pay a toll to go roughly the same distance to the airport through the middle of farmland when the free 79/376 route rarely ever has traffic anyway.

If this immense pile of money absolutely must be used for road projects, then it should instead be invested where its impact could be felt by the majority of people in the region by upgrading the parkway between I-79 and Route 30. Better East/West connectivity should be an absolute transportation priority for all projects from here on out. I thought this was obvious, but apparently its still not obvious to the useless idiots at PennDOT.

There is simply no logic used in transportation development projects at the state level anymore, and the fact that this worthless boondoggle is being pushed through with minimal public resistance also shows how ignorant we are as a society and how misplaced our transportation priorities continue to be.

/END RANT

You are kidding, right? It is routinely backed up in both directions west of I-79 in the mornings and afternoons. Regardless of that, as I understand it, the beltway as a whole (and the Mon-Fayette Parkway) are meant more for development of depressed and under-utilized areas than current commuting needs. Obviously since I frequent this page, I am all in favor of urban development and public transportation, but in a metropolitan area you need a balance of smart urban and suburban development. Allegheny County has a very unique topography that led to pockets of development that are connected with windy, two lane roads. Frankly speaking, I've never lived anywhere where it took longer to get from one side of the city to another on the surface streets.

Yes, the traffic on both the beltway and the Mon-Fayette Parkway are lower than expected, but both roads are unfinished. The airport and the city are the ultimate destinations and until all the links are completed, the traffic is going to be light. I for one will be using both if/when they are finished to cut my 45-50 minute commute from Canonsburg to Homestead to ~25 minutes.

Speaking of public transit, I took the DC metro to work every day for 7 years and really enjoyed it. One big difference between that system and the T that I haven't seen mentioned on here are the perimeter stations with massive parking structures. The T runs through neighborhoods (which is great, don't get me wrong), but it would get a hell of a lot more use if the lines were extended to the Interstates and other arterials so that people could easily drive to the stations, park, hop on the train and take a 15 minute ride to work. A T-line to the airport wouldn’t just need to rely on air travelers if it ran roughly along the path of the Parkway West and replace the Carnegie Busway into town. That would get a lot of use by suburbanites like myself.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by glowrock

If and when Pittsburgh really starts growing substantially again, the traffic is going to be nearly completely gridlocked far longer than it is currently.

I don't want to introduce another hugely controversial topic (including around here), but there really is no way out of that problem aside from flexible road fares, aka congestion pricing. In fact there are exactly zero cases of large, growing U.S. cities that have managed to build new urban road capacity fast enough to avoid increasing road congestion.

Pittsburgh hasn't exactly received massive funding at the state or federal level for either, so it's not like a ton of money has gone into roads and nothing into transit around here, for instance.

You might be surprised if you started adding up all the capital expenditures on roads.

It is important to note a lot of that is in fact done locally, by counties and municipalities. I might note that Allegheny County, for example, has budgeted for FY2014 over $24 million in capital investments for roads and bridges, and less than $10 million for the Port Authority. Of course the Port Authority gets capital from other sources too, but so do roads and bridges in Allegheny County.

And then the state and feds in fact regularly spend a lot of it here as well, in part as the result of formulas that ensure certain funding levels, and there is discretionary stuff too. They typically don't get a huge amount of media coverage, but if you make a point of paying attention, there is a constant flow of road projects that cost millions or tens of millions, and sometimes more, and all that adds up.

Of course it is certainly not true that it has been ALL roads and NO transit. But the ongoing bias is quite pronounced, and after decades of such policies it make sense that restoring balance means doing a lot of catching up in terms of transit projects.

But anyhow, I'm kind of in the same situation as themaguffin here. There is a definitive condescending nature amongst certain forumers here when it comes to being all transit, no roads.

I can't speak for anyone else, but certainly that is a grossly misleading description as applied to me. There are plenty of specific road projects I have supported, and others I would wish we would consider. And all I did here was point out that the costs of this specific project were extremely hard to justify given current realities--a point which as yet no proponent of the project here has actually really addressed in any sort of substantive way, and instead it appears the preferred mode of response is to attack the messenger.

And it is indeed unfortunate that as soon as you question the wisdom of a particular massive expenditure on a road project, you get labeled as "being all transit, no roads," or a "transit puritan", or so on. Of course we regularly discuss the relative merits of various possible transit projects, recognizing that not every possible transit project can be considered a top priority in a world of budget constraints. And we all know that to question a particular transit project doesn't make you all road and no transit.

That's precisely the sort of double-standard when it comes to discussing roads and transit which leads to really poor policy outcomes. Every road project should have to be justified with the exact same rigor as every transit project, and yet if you try to apply that common standard, suddenly you are labeled as some sort of crazy transit-only nut.

Given that context, it is perhaps not surprising that some people DO start reacting with overt hostility to those who seek to simply wave away any questions about road spending in such a dismissive fashion. And yet here, I have made my points calmly, in detail, and with citations--and it apparently doesn't make any difference in terms of what labels get applied, or the general lack of substance in the responses.

[Evergrey]

Originally Posted by PITairport

No airport? No Google. It really is that simple.

That's a really weak argument to support spending Billions of $ on the Southern Beltway.

Every city has an airport... Pittsburgh's offers less service than just about any other major city's yet the region has experienced dramatically improving economic fortunes since US Air's assault and battery of the region. PIT, as under-utilized as it is, is basic infrastructure for a major region... and is not a differentiator for a company like Google. PIT isn't going to disappear because it's not linked by superhighway to Monesson... and Googles aren't going to stop coming here because it takes an hour to get from a random far-flung mill town to the airport.

BTW... has anybody looked at a map of the proposed Southern Beltway? It's so far out there on the periphery that it's going to do nothing to aid cross-metropolitan automobile travel. So everyone out there complaining about how hard it is to drive through the hills of Metro Pittsburgh are not going to find relief after this highway is built... unless you really need to get from McDonald to Finleyville!

Other than connecting the small impoverished (i.e. less likely to use air travel) populations of the Mid-Mon Valley to the airport... the Southern Beltway does not connect any significant suburban nodes. Perhaps an argument can be made that the Beltway could serve Upper St. Clair flyers... but it's really rather redundant with I-79.

The Southern Beltway is the sort of desperate silver-bullet economic thinking that plagued the Pittsburgh Region during its dark days after the steel collapse. The Mid-Mon Valley is not going to transform into a hive of buzzing distribution centers because of a new highway blasting across the empty landscapes of northern Washington County. The region will experience much more bang for the buck by not fighting against overwhelming trends in urbanization and transportation (see recent study about Pittsburgh being near the lead in reduction of automobile miles traveled). Googles locate here because of the talent production and urban infrastructure... not far-flung highways and speculative exit ramp fast food restaurant development.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by PITairport

The thing about airports is they are responsible for far more indirect jobs than they are direct jobs. So while PIT took a hit on direct jobs with the de-hubbing, it is still one of the regions largest economic engines. No airport? No Google. It really is that simple.

Well, no, actually, that is clearly an oversimplification.

Obviously decent airport service is a necessary condition for all sorts of job growth, but you are turning that rather obvious point into something much less true by then claiming the airport is "responsible" for those jobs or the "engine" for those jobs. Rather, the most you can say for most of those jobs is that it is one of many contributing factors.

In any event, all of that is beside the point when it comes to transportation policy. Every day, the hundreds of people who work at Google in Bakery Square need to get there from their homes. So do the almost 300,000 people who work at other jobs in the City. And so on.

On occasion, some of those people may also need to get to the airport, from home or their place of work, and so might visitors need to do the opposite. But for the vast, vast majority of jobs locations, the numbers of trips employees take to their place of work outweighs the number of trips those employees or visitors take to the airport, usually by orders of magnitude.

So even if in some vague conceptual sense you view the airport as being partly "responsible" for those jobs "indirectly", the crucial point is we just don't need the same sort of transportation infrastructure leading directly to the airport when those jobs are not in fact located there.

Honestly, this point should be utterly uncontroversial. The de-hubbing of PIT and resulting massive shortfall in expected "direct" jobs OBVIOUSLY should cause us to reconsider our airport-related transportation plans. It isn't rational to pretend that sort of change in expectations should have no impact at all.

So while PIT is kinda out there in the sticks, it needs to be as viable a facility as possible, and that includes improving access from the south and east which is why I support the complete Southern Beltway.

Again, you are just not grappling with the need to do actual cost/benefit analysis or consider alternatives with higher priority. In other words, your "as possible" qualifier should include consideration of those factors before reaching your conclusion about whether any given airport-related transportation project is actually justifiable.

For example, I think it is obvious that at least as strong (I'd argue much stronger) argument can be made for the universities and hospitals in Oakland being "responsible" for a lot of regional jobs, the "economic engine" for a lot of regional jobs, and so on. Accordingly, by your logic it should also be a priority to provide Oakland with the best possible access, which because of road and parking constraints means we should be investing in robust rapid transit to Oakland.

I realize it is tempting to just say, "OK, let's do it all!" But again, in a world of budget constraints, you can't just do it all, certainly not right away.

So the question at hand is whether it makes sense to be spending $600+ million on the Southern Beltway now, and necessarily putting off many other possible transportation projects as a result. And that is a question that you have not yet come close to grappling with.

Highway discussions get lost in talk about sprawl and transit priorities when the topic should be the original purpose - the movement of goods and services. Companies do not move manufactured goods on a subway or bus. Suburbanites commuting are only part of the picture wrt highways.

I absolutely agree we should be thinking about highways in terms of moving freight and not passengers, particularly between cities and not within urbanized areas.

The thing is, though, you can't justify the Southern Beltway as a freight-moving project--even less so, in fact. In large part that is because most freight traffic is less time-sensitive, and also more sensitive to things like tolls, than commuter traffic. And for the vast majority of possible freight users there are already alternative untolled routes that don't take much more time, particularly if you make a point of scheduling around commuting times.

Indeed, all this is already covered in the vehicle counts we have been discussing. Those are not necessarily limited to just personal vehicles, and at the end of the day the precise mix doesn't matter much--at those vehicle counts, it isn't going to be possible to justify the expenditure involved.

My point with all those examples is that highways are integral to the overall transportation infrastructure, and in Pittsburgh the highways quite frankly 🞵🞵🞵🞵 compared to our peer cities. No amount of busways and light rail will fix that.

So suppose we grant that Pittsburgh is below global city standards in ALL major areas of surface transportation. Again, in a world without budget constraints, the conclusion would be obvious: Do it all!

But that is not our world, so we do have to prioritize. And blanket comparisons to other global cities won't help answer that question of priorities for Pittsburgh.

[themaguffin]

"Podunk A needs superhighway access to Podunk B and this highway will unlock thousands of acres of greenfield land for fast food restaurant development!"

Pittsburgh is different than any metro I can think. Go back to world war 2 - most metros were under a million people. Not Pittsburgh, it was somewhere like 2.4 million and many spread out along rivers and other areas in the counties adjacent to Allegheny as well as within the county. These mostly weren't suburbs. They existed because of various industry. Now these same towns are called "sprawl"
Talk about 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵.

We aren't talking about getting from Podunk A to Podunk B, but larger groups of people (and goods and services, along with commercial transportation) being able to traverse the metro area.

You all disagree and that's fine, but Pittsburgh isn't Cleveland, Columbus, or like any other region. That doesn't make this project automatically "right" but context does matter. The Findley Connector wasn't an end product. It was part of a larger project. This latest news isn't the complete project either.

I get it, you all disagree with the project in its totality regardless. Points noted.

[Buzz Pittsburgh]

Could this just be a case of sunk cost? The Turnpike Commission has put so much into land acquisition, environmental studies, etc. that it would be a bigger loss to NOT build it? How does the Turnpike Commission get funded anyway? It's not part of PennDot but it still gets state money. So, based on current and projected needs, they should be more careful of their funding priorities, whether that means building new highways or not.

I do think the highway will provide better access to points South (Sprawl that I don't like so much), such as Southpointe (which is developing with major employers whether we like it or not) and the Canonsburg-Cecil-North Strabane area. It could alleviate some traffic issues, especially in the Robinson Area with the 22/30/376 interchange. But, if they really wanted to alleviate traffic on that corridor, light rail or dedicated commuter bus lanes (extension of the West Busway) or a wider interchange would do more.

But that's not the Turnpike Commission's work. They build highways. So I come back to my first sentence, could this just be the Turnpike doing what they always do, build highways, and even with the diminished need for such a project, decide it's better to build it than to scrap the project and start over elsewhere? It might still be a less than ideal use of money and land resources, but could it be worse if it were not built?
I'm not sure if anyone here can answer that question for sure or with stats but let's hope it gets utilized and helps develop more employment in already established areas.
As someone pointed out, very little opposition means at least the people in the path of the highway count it as a win. Everyone wants a piece of the pie. Efficiencies in trucking could maybe make PIT a place suited to more development in it's Airside Business Park. If movement on projects in the Cherrington Office Park in Moon is any indication, the Southern Beltway could turn out a win after all.

In the least, after searching Google Earth, the highway will provide EXCELLENT access to lots of Golf Courses.

[SkyPittsburgh]

Originally Posted by themaguffin

Pittsburgh is different than any metro I can think. Go back to world war 2 - most metros were under a million people. Not Pittsburgh, it was somewhere like 2.4 million and many spread out along rivers and other areas in the counties adjacent to Allegheny as well as within the county. These mostly weren't suburbs. They existed because of various industry. Now these same towns are called "sprawl"
Talk about @#!*% .

We aren't talking about getting from Podunk A to Podunk B, but larger groups of people being able to traverse the metro area.

You all disagree and that's fine, but Pittsburgh isn't Cleveland, Columbus, or like any other region. That doesn't make this project automatically "right" but context does matter. The Findley Connector wasn't an end product. It was part of a larger project. This latest news isn't the complete project either.

I get it, you all disagree with the project in its totality regardless. Points noted.

Woah there buddy, no need for such harsh words, we're all friends here, just with different (and strong) opinions.

Pittsburgh has suffered from strong suburban sprawl, and no one can disagree with that, just look at Monroeville and the southern suburbs.

We all really dislike this project because we would rather see our City, which hemorrhaged people, grow, rather than cut down trees, worsening our air pollution, and causing more traffic problems.

Just because we disagree, doesn't mean we have to fight.

[PITairport]

Originally Posted by Evergrey

That's a really weak argument to support spending Billions of $ on the Southern Beltway.

Every city has an airport... Pittsburgh's offers less service than just about any other major city's yet the region has experienced dramatically improving economic fortunes since US Air's assault and battery of the region. PIT, as under-utilized as it is, is basic infrastructure for a major region... and is not a differentiator for a company like Google.

My point with the Google example was to show that PIT is a much larger economic engine than just simply providing the direct jobs at the airport.

As far as it not being a differentiator for companies, I'm not so sure. The lack of air service was directly citied by ALCOA execs as to why that company's headquarters would not be coming back.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Well, no, actually, that is clearly an oversimplification.

Obviously decent airport service is a necessary condition for all sorts of job growth, but you are turning that rather obvious point into something much less true by then claiming the airport is "responsible" for those jobs or the "engine" for those jobs. Rather, the most you can say for most of those jobs is that it is one of many contributing factors.

On occasion, some of those people may also need to get to the airport, from home or their place of work, and so might visitors need to do the opposite. But for the vast, vast majority of jobs locations, the numbers of trips employees take to their place of work outweighs the number of trips those employees or visitors take to the airport, usually by orders of magnitude.

Its not an oversimplification at all. The airport most certainly is the engine for those jobs. There are other factors of course, but without the airport those jobs don't exist. The total jobs in existence due to the airport are exponentially higher than the jobs directly at the airport. That has been proven time and time again by economic impact studies at airports all over.

For example, I think it is obvious that at least as strong (I'd argue much stronger) argument can be made for the universities and hospitals in Oakland being "responsible" for a lot of regional jobs, the "economic engine" for a lot of regional jobs, and so on. Accordingly, by your logic it should also be a priority to provide Oakland with the best possible access, which because of road and parking constraints means we should be investing in robust rapid transit to Oakland.

I realize it is tempting to just say, "OK, let's do it all!" But again, in a world of budget constraints, you can't just do it all, certainly not right away.

So the question at hand is whether it makes sense to be spending $600+ million on the Southern Beltway now, and necessarily putting off many other possible transportation projects as a result. And that is a question that you have not yet come close to grappling with.

I agree with your Oakland example and it should be a priority for transportation funding as it is a major economic growth area.


The benefit of the Southern Beltway is useless unless it is taken as a completed project, including the eastern arm of the MFE (which really should be considered the 4th leg of the beltway). Its like viewing the North Shore Connecter as a hole in the ground without considering its full potential if/when extended.

Just because that is the way I view it does not mean I can't "grapple" with the concept of cost/benefit. I realize there is only so much money to go around and projects need to be prioritized. Seems to me roads and highways have been getting the short end of the stick based on your own quote....

I might note that Allegheny County, for example, has budgeted for FY2014 over $24 million in capital investments for roads and bridges, and less than $10 million for the Port Authority. Of course the Port Authority gets capital from other sources too, but so do roads and bridges in Allegheny County.

While I don't have exact figures at my finger tips, I would think that total people using cars in Allegheny county far outweighs those using PAT, more than a 2.4 to 1 ratio. So on a per capita basis, I would wager that PAT is already getting more than its fair share of the transportation pie and its time to reinvest in our highways.

But that is not our world, so we do have to prioritize. And blanket comparisons to other global cities won't help answer that question of priorities for Pittsburgh.

I think it is quite telling that very strong transit oriented cities are catching up on their highways. Just maybe there is something to that? Pittsburgh can and should learn from other cities and regions.

[themaguffin]

Woah there buddy, no need for such harsh word

Huh? harsh?

You mean like this:

There is simply no logic used in transportation development projects at the state level anymore, and the fact that this worthless boondoggle is being pushed through with minimal public resistance also shows how ignorant we are as a society and how misplaced our transportation priorities continue to be

.

I noted that I see the points and that I disagree. That's it. I'm hardly being harsh nor am I insulting. If my tone isn't clear because it's text - I'll flat out say it - I respect everyone's opinion and add that I just think most don't consider all the aspects of our region. That's all.

[themaguffin]

Pittsburgh has suffered from strong suburban sprawl, and no one can disagree with that, just look at Monroeville and the southern suburbs.

Nobody said that there was no sprawl. Is it realistic that Pittsburgh would be the only US city to avoid sprawl. I merely pointed out something where Pgh is more unique and something that is significant to the city, it's countless communities that existed pre suburbia and for various industrial reasons that are lumped in with sprawl because they are spread out over the metro.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Topher51

The T runs through neighborhoods (which is great, don't get me wrong), but it would get a hell of a lot more use if the lines were extended to the Interstates and other arterials so that people could easily drive to the stations, park, hop on the train and take a 15 minute ride to work. A T-line to the airport wouldn’t just need to rely on air travelers if it ran roughly along the path of the Parkway West and replace the Carnegie Busway into town. That would get a lot of use by suburbanites like myself.

One of the many problems with the idea of extending the T to the airport is that it is just too darn slow--not just because of stops, but even at full speed, which in fact is because it uses a technology designed for local service.

For commuter routes of the length you are talking about, the ideal technology would be heavy rail, but there isn't a good existing rail line to use (unlike, say, with the AVR plan), and without such a line you run into the cost/benefit problem again. The next best alternative to heavy rail is in fact busways, because buses are notably faster than the T. To make the West Busway more useful, however, you would really need to start by completing it all the way into Downtown over a new Mon bridge, as originally planned. That's not going to be cheap either, but it would be way cheaper than a new rail line to the airport.

As an aside, that is part of why the idea of the NSC being a start on going to the airport never made much sense even holding aside the T being the wrong technology--the NSC is also on the wrong side of the Ohio!