PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown II

[Wiz Khalifa]

Originally Posted by WillyC

If you think bikers can't realistically kill someone, then you are wrong and I am going to assume you don't know what you are talking about.

I saw a biker run through a red light downtown and take out a pedestrian. The guy didn't die, but he sure as hell got messed up.

You just proved my point, the guy was injured not killed. If it was a car he would have had a very realistic chance of dying.

I don't want to continue arguing about this, so just link to the stats showing bicycles killing other people at a rate above a couple of "powerball winner" freak accidents and I will concede that bikes are almost as deadly as cars. The problem for you is those stats simply don't exist.

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by Wiz Khalifa

You just proved my point, the guy was injured not killed. If it was a car he would have had a very realistic chance of dying.

I don't want to continue arguing about this, so just link to the stats showing bicycles killing other people at a rate above a couple of "powerball winner" freak accidents and I will concede that bikes are almost as deadly as cars. The problem for you is those stats simply don't exist.

Anyone who uses the "bikes can kill people too" argument is not a serious person and/or is displaying an embarrassingly extreme case of willful ignorance. Don't even bother entertaining it.

[AaronPGH]

On another note, a friend of mine is relocating here from SF and I went apartment hunting with him this week since it was his first time in the city.

I have to say, all the love I had for PMC properties has kind of flown out the window after seeing the interiors of their buildings. Every single building and unit is as drab as it gets. Same marble, same carpet, same pictures on the walls, same everything. I appreciate that they are rapidly filling downtown with residents, but for the rents they're charging I was really blown away by how basic these things were. They have REALLY good photographers. I have a newfound respect for our local developers doing stuff downtown. They may be slow, but at least most of their units have some type of character.

My buddy stopped the PMC tour halfway because he didn't want to see any more of them.

[Private Dick]

^ Yeah, I have to agree. The interior finishes in the PMC "renovations" i've see are pretty cheap.

[photoLith]

What buildings have PMC redeveloped?

[WillyC]

Originally Posted by Wiz Khalifa

You just proved my point, the guy was injured not killed. If it was a car he would have had a very realistic chance of dying.

I don't want to continue arguing about this, so just link to the stats showing bicycles killing other people at a rate above a couple of "powerball winner" freak accidents and I will concede that bikes are almost as deadly as cars. The problem for you is those stats simply don't exist.

I don't really care if it doesn't happen more than once or twice a year, it doesn't excuse the carelessness of a cyclist who likes to think he is above everyone else.

[WillyC]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

Anyone who uses the "bikes can kill people too" argument is not a serious person and/or is displaying an embarrassingly extreme case of willful ignorance. Don't even bother entertaining it.

I guess a human being that comes flying down the hill at speeds they would never achieve under their own power isn't capable of killing someone.

Fine, live in your delusional world that cyclists can do no harm.

I guess we can get back to the real world of development now.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by WillyC

it doesn't excuse the carelessness of a cyclist who likes to think he is above everyone else.

I don't think the point is to excuse the cyclist. I think the point is that given the unfortunate reality that sometimes people are going to be careless, the more mode share shifts from cars to bikes the better, because the likely consequences of those incidences of carelessness will be much less severe.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by WillyC

I guess a human being that comes flying down the hill at speeds they would never achieve under their own power isn't capable of killing someone.

A 200lb bike and rider going at 20mph has about the same kinetic energy as a 4000lb car going 4.5mph. That's dangerous, and hitting a pedestrian could easily cause them injury, but it is very rarely going to be fatal.

Conversely, a 4000lb car going 20mph has 20 times the kinetic energy of a 200lb bike and rider going 20mph. That is fundamentally why cars rapidly become very dangerous at relatively low speeds--that much mass has a lot of energy once it gets moving.

Again, none of this is meant to suggest it is OK for bikes to be running full speed into people. But it is in fact very likely true that the more people ride bikes rather than drive cars, the safer the relevant area will be for others.

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by WillyC

I guess a human being that comes flying down the hill at speeds they would never achieve under their own power isn't capable of killing someone.

Fine, live in your delusional world that cyclists can do no harm.

I guess we can get back to the real world of development now.

You should audition as a host on "Fox & Friends".

[BrianTH]

By the way, totally random comment, but I think there is something about bikes that makes them seem intuitively much more physically dangerous than they really are. I almost think it is sort of crossing over from cars, where we know that vehicles moving that speed are very dangerous. But because bikes typically are not very heavy--by design, of course--they are really not adding much to the danger posed by the person themself.

Now of course a person traveling faster than normal can be pretty dangerous. But unless they are actually trying to hurt you (i.e., trying to concentrate the force of their impact on a particularly vulnerable spot), even an impact with a pretty-fast moving human body is, again, very unlikely to be fatal. That of course is why sports which sometimes involve contact between running people (obviously football, but many others at least incidentally) is even possible--if that sort of impact was likely to be fatal, it would be too dangerous.

So any person in a car is radically more dangerous than any football player. Again, it is all about the weight and speeds at their command. And bikes really only change that equation a bit, meaning they are still way, way closer to the human end of the scale than the car end of the scale.

[Jonboy1983]

Originally Posted by Minivan Werner

A compromise would've been stacking the inbound lanes over top of the outbound lanes like the Pitt & Duquesne bridges. Not sure why that wasn't done. It's probably the most expensive bridge in the city, and easily the ugliest and least efficient.

It's efficient, I guess, in the sense that it means fewer cars going across the Fort Pitt and Duquesne Bridges to the North Side as well as trying to navigate Downtown to get to those bridges or the 3 Sisters Bridges.

If you ask me, what was the main reason for that Bridge? I know I posted the question before about why a tunnel wasn't thought of, but I think that was kind of answered already.

You're right, of all the bridges in the CITY of bridges, this one is an embarrassment to bridges everywhere. It has zero aesthetics and, as you say, is not very efficient. It serves only cars, and they had to remove part of the train station to build it. This bridge 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵...

[WillyC]

Originally Posted by Private 🞵🞵🞵🞵

You should audition as a host on "Fox & Friends".

uh huh, yeah, sure... every time you go to war over a stupid little topic like this, you burn bridges that would have supported you on the big ones. Oh my god, someone (a cyclist) disagreed with the idea that the more bikers the better. Nevermind the fact that in order to have a car on the road as a Pennsylvanian resident it must pass inspections (of course there are shady places) so they don't hinder traffic.. every tom, 🞵🞵🞵🞵, and harry evidently should be allowed on their bike out on the road.

[Gilamonster]

You think vehicle inspections are about vehicle safety? Ha ha ha ha.
They are much more about revenue generation for big government.

[BrianTH]

Inspections can't make a much heavier, potentially much faster, moving object inherently safer in an accident. Would you rather get shot by a Nerf 🞵🞵🞵, or a shotgun loaded with a deer slug? Does your answer change if you know that the shotgun has been inspected and is in perfect working order?

In other words, you are fighting basic physics, and physics always wins.

[BrianTH]

Speaking of heavy, high-speed transportation technologies (I'm a master of the segue), there is vague talk of Pittsburgh becoming a Southwest focus city at some point:

http://www.post-gazette.com/business/dev...-expanded-role-here/stories/201505010162

Seemed kinda fluffy to me--the Southwest people really just seem to be saying they are always evaluating if more routes would be profitable--but that would be cool if it happened.

[BrianTH]

As a reminder, the Wilkinsburg Vacant House Tour is today:

http://www.post-gazette.com/life/homes/2...rical-housing-stock/stories/201505030125

[ks2006]

Originally Posted by TBone7281

I hate to interrupt, but here is my semi-weekly update.


First off, someone suggested a few pages back that instead of full on roads cutting through the Terminal Building, it might be better just to allow pedestrian traffic to help maintain the overall feel of an unbroken building. I tend to agree. It's a very impressive building and if a fair portion of it is going to be used for retail, people are going to want an easy way to get from point A to point B without walking 1/2 mile around the building (or even through it, if you have to go inside). A way to pass through while staying outside could really help foot traffic, IMO.




Also, here is a better view of the lot between Consumers Produce and the Cork Factory that they are talking about developing.

Thank you for the interruption. there needs to be a lot more of these - this DEVELOPMENT thread is tiresome and irritating lately.

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by ks2006

Thank you for the interruption. there needs to be a lot more of these - this DEVELOPMENT thread is tiresome and irritating lately.

Take a look at any thread on this forum -- all city development threads go "off topic".

Bike and pedestrian friendliness is an indication of a progressive and prosperous urban area. It goes hand-in-hand with development, so it's not really off topic anyway.

When someone makes inane assertions, that person is going to get called out quickly. That's a great thing about this Pittsburgh thread. There are very smart and interested forumers here... which is much more than can be said for many of the city development threads on this site. This thread doesn't put up with BS.

So while we are all thankful for photo posts like Tbone's that document bricks and mortar development, we also have to expect that every single conversation is not going to be directly related to actual construction, and understand that we are going to discuss and voice opinions on all kinds of city issues.

Complaining about forumers arguing is more annoying than than the actual arguing, so instead of complaining about how tired and irritated you are, post some DEVELOPMENT news/photos instead. If it's interesting, it'll change the topic of discussion real quick.

[GeneW]

Discussing the transportation infrastructure is totally within the scope of this forum and that topic should include bicycles along with cars, planes, busses, trains and plain old walking. You can't talk about buildings that people live, work and play in without talking about how they're going to get to and from those buildings.

Bike racks, bike sharing programs and bike lanes are all worthy of discussion here even if you're against them, but just bitching about random cyclists getting in your way or having argument with no statistics to back them up about the relative dangers of cars and bikes is just pointless.