More proof that I-376 lacks sufficient lane miles for a major metropolitan area (Pittsburgh: fit in, houses)

[Craziaskowboi]

A list of the 100 busiest highways in the United States has Pittsburgh listed once in the top 10, twice in the top 25, and three times in the top 50. The rankings are:

9. I-376 eastbound (inbound) from Rosslyn Farms to the Fort Pitt Tunnel
24. I-376 westbound (inbound) from William Penn Highway to the Squirrel Hill Tunnel
48. I-376 eastbound (outbound) from Second Avenue to William Penn Highway

The top 10 was represented entirely by New York, Los Angeles, Chicago...and Pittsburgh. The only other similar-sized metropolitan area with more than one listing in the top 50 is Austin, TX, which is only served by one Interstate highway. By the way, Austin tried to alleviate traffic on said highway with -- you guessed it! -- a double-decker design past its downtown. I've been there. It didn't work.

Note to PennDOT: forget double-decking the Parkway West. Just widen the frickin' Fort Pitt Tunnel. It'd be easier and less expensive to do that anyway. And build a stack interchange with PA 51 while you're at it. Stacks can handle more traffic, and it'd encourage people to use the West End Bridge to access areas along the Ohio River.

And if you don't do anything else to the Parkway East, at least get rid of that stupid-ass eastbound on-ramp at the Squirrel Hill/Homestead exit, or relocate it somewhere nearby so that it can be built long enough for people to a) merge at highway speeds, and b) have at least a quarter of a mile for entering traffic to vacate the "exit only" lane.

[skuzzie]

Somewhat new to the area and havent been on any of the highways mentioned, but just a general thought...I dont think our terrain/geography can allow too much expansion for a better system.

[MeinGlanzendMotorrad]

I'm not sure widening a tunnel through a mountain is cheaper than ... well, any other option.

[BrianTH]

Adding more capacity to congested urban highways isn't a long-term solution. If you succeed in temporarily reducing congestion, it will just induce more development along the highway, and soon you will be right back to the same levels of congestion.

Once you reach regular congestion on urban road routes, the most helpful next step is to start diverting people onto alternative, higher peak-capacity modes, like commuter rail or busways, because that provides your only reasonable chance to stay ahead of induced congestion at a reasonable cost. That is pretty much true in any major metro, and it is certainly true in a place like Pittsburgh where additional highway capacity on the relevant routes would require incredibly expensive tunnels and bridges.

It will also likely be a good idea to introduce congestion pricing on the relevant road route. If you have something a lot of people want and you are giving it away for free, you can expect a long line to develop. That, in a nutshell, is what causes regular urban highway congestion--those are all people lining up to use a quite nice road you are giving away for free (or at least for not high enough a price). If you introduce pricing, and specifically tie it to congestion levels, you give people an incentive to modify their behavior--maybe they can adjust their travel times, or maybe they can take one of the higher-capacity alternative modes you are giving them, and ultimately development patterns might adjust, and so on. As a bonus, you can use the proceeds from the congestion toll to help fund those alternative modes.

Generally the Robert Moses vision of urban highways has been a big failure. Highways are very useful for intercity traffic. Within urban areas, though, networks of parallel streets provide more total capacity to cars, and if you need more peak capacity than that, you again really need to switch to investing in alternative modes, and may need to introduce congestion pricing.

[gg]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Adding more capacity to congested urban highways isn't a long-term solution. If you succeed in temporarily reducing congestion, it will just induce more development along the highway, and soon you will be right back to the same levels of congestion.

Brian, I couldn't agree more. It amazes me that so many can't see the writing on the wall. Just look at any European city and notice how close people live to the city and how efficient they are in getting people in and out for work. Why are they so far ahead of us? They have endured high energy costs for a very long time and already made the adjustments. We have lived a nice lifestyle in the US for many years due to our low energy costs, but now with the strain and new demands from the countries we import everything from, those days are over. Making the roads larger will not help, it will just encourage more bad habits and sprawl isn't a good way for a long term fix. Bottom line is, there needs to be better ways in and out of Pittsburgh and money should be spent on improving good transportation and making the city more desirable to live with the city limits. Building larger highways would just be a bandaid considering future the costs of commuting.

[BrianTH]

Yep. The good news, such as it is, is that higher gas prices alone may be enough to get a lot of people to reconsider the policies that led to this outcome. But with decades of bad policy behind us, there are going to be some painful transitions.

[FreightTrainRunning]

I don't want my tax dollars being spent to widen highways just so that suburbanites can leave the city faster. If they want a shorter commute, they can move closer.

[SteelCityRising]

h_curtis and BrianTH have hit the nail on the head, as usual. You can spend billions to widen the Fort Pitt and Squirrel Hill Tunnels, but in the end this is only a temporary "band-aid" fix, as congestion will return to normal levels once enough motorists who formerly commuted through these nodes in their vehicles and switched to transit due to the hassle decide to drive again. One thing I do agree with Gnutella on, though, is that the Squirrel Hill/Homestead interchange from the Parkway East outbound is in dire need of being redesigned. Currently if you want to get from that onramp onto I-376 East outbound one needs to come to a complete stop to yield first to vehicles in the adjacent lane, which are exiting to Squirrel Hill/Homestead, and then also immediately find a gap in traffic in the next adjacent lane to get onto the freeway. I'm surprised with all that heavy merging that there aren't more accidents/fender-benders. I'm not a civil engineer, but hopefully BrianTH, Gnutella, or h_curtis would have some lucid ideas on how to safely redo that horrible onramp/offramp situation. I firmly believe that exit in and of itself adds five minutes to the rush-hour back-ups heading out of town in the evenings.

Overall, though, it's a shame our current Republican administration sees such little value in transit. All the great strides this city has made and is continuing to make will be jeopardized if we trend towards becoming a car-dependent metropolitan area at the same time as gas prices will soon be soaring past $4/gallon. I know of people, including my boss and her husband, who are hoping to move into the city from the suburbs to cut their commuting hassles and energy costs.

Then again I suppose slashing transit funding in the area could have an unexpected net benefit in drawing more people into the city. How? If more people are forced to drive due to the cuts, then roads in and out of town will become more congested. Those who will tire of the increased traffic may instead decide to move into town closer to work and bus routes that are still operational. Believe it or not severe traffic congestion CAN lead people to want to leave. My nearly hour-long commutes to go six miles between North Reston and McLean back in Fairfax County, VA were one of numerous factors that caused me to "snap" and flee to Pittsburgh for this great new life I'm building for myself. NoVA still just doesn't "get it", either, as I see they are WIDENING Route 7, the road I always used to get to work, while there is still no operational rail service linking the heavy suburban employment/residential clusters in the area.

[ditchdigger]

Adding more capacity to congested urban highways isn't a long-term solution. If you succeed in temporarily reducing congestion, it will just induce more development along the highway, and soon you will be right back to the same levels of congestion.

So congestion is just some sort of equilibrium state in the eqation between development of outlying areas, and the capacity to get to and from there?

[Copanut]

That ramp before the SH tunnel was an after thought as I recall. They simply leveled a few houses and added the ramp. At one time it would be closed from 4-6, I think they should bring that policy back.

Widening any tunnel would have an astronomical cost, can't see how it would be practical.