Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Pennsylvania > Pittsburgh
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-27-2011, 06:17 PM
 
20,273 posts, read 32,877,652 times
Reputation: 2910

Advertisements

Limited access highways provide a handy way to drive PAST areas as well. Such a project might encourage greenfield development farther out in that direction--taking it away from closer-in areas--but commuter rail would give the existing Allegheny Valley communities a chance to redevelop on a sustainable basis. And again, it would be relatively inexpensive in comparison.

And no, I don't think imitating Atlanta's sprawl to the maximum extent possible is a good idea for Pittsburgh.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-27-2011, 07:40 PM
 
7,112 posts, read 10,087,828 times
Reputation: 1781
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH View Post
Limited access highways provide a handy way to drive PAST areas as well. Such a project might encourage greenfield development farther out in that direction--taking it away from closer-in areas--but commuter rail would give the existing Allegheny Valley communities a chance to redevelop on a sustainable basis. And again, it would be relatively inexpensive in comparison.
Denying an area a limited access highway doesn't hold in business and it certainly won't attract it. If you get lots of traffic to drive past, you've at least won part of the battle. Businesses want easy access to markets and expressways that are connected to other important expressways. Commuter rail in the Allegheny Valley would probably be destined to go down as one of the great white elephants of the "green economy". Of what possible interest would it be to companies considering to relocate or grow in Kittanning or Ford City? Commuter rail does best to deal with traffic gridlock, not promote growth in economically depressed areas. It's not a problem of getting employees to the company. It's shipping to and from markets outside of the region.

Quote:
And no, I don't think imitating Atlanta's sprawl to the maximum extent possible is a good idea for Pittsburgh.
If Pittsburgh is not interested in economic growth...fine. But Pittsburgh's lack of a good transportation infrastructure is one of the complaints by companies looking for new locations. And by transportation infrastructure, they don't mean commuter rail.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2011, 08:31 PM
 
Location: The canyon (with my pistols and knife)
14,169 posts, read 22,596,535 times
Reputation: 17328
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathmanMathman View Post
If Pittsburgh is not interested in economic growth...fine. But Pittsburgh's lack of a good transportation infrastructure is one of the complaints by companies looking for new locations. And by transportation infrastructure, they don't mean commuter rail.
They mean I-376 with its 1950's-era engineering.

On that note, I'd prefer to modernize existing highways than build new ones. Not enough money is spent in Pittsburgh or Philadelphia relative to the amount paid out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2011, 08:39 PM
 
2,538 posts, read 4,693,771 times
Reputation: 3356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnutella View Post
They mean I-376 with its 1950's-era engineering.

On that note, I'd prefer to modernize existing highways than build new ones. Not enough money is spent in Pittsburgh or Philadelphia relative to the amount paid out.
That should include actually building the **** thing correctly the first time. I swear that the interchange of I79 and I70 has been under some form of construction for at least the last 20 years. As soon as they finish one part of the project they start another, and over and over again. In my life time I cannot remember driving from the I76/I70 split to the I70/I79 split without encountering at least one major construction zone.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2011, 08:51 PM
 
Location: The canyon (with my pistols and knife)
14,169 posts, read 22,596,535 times
Reputation: 17328
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velvet Jones View Post
That should include actually building the **** thing correctly the first time. I swear that the interchange of I79 and I70 has been under some form of construction for at least the last 20 years. As soon as they finish one part of the project they start another, and over and over again. In my life time I cannot remember driving from the I76/I70 split to the I70/I79 split without encountering at least one major construction zone.
I-70 is like I-376: a limited-access highway that was built by the state (with little or no federal help) and grandfathered into the Interstate Highway System. Sometimes it just doesn't pay to be a pioneer. The fixes on I-70 would be easier, though, since all that's needed is four extra feet of right-of-way on each side of the highway, plus a little bit of right-of-way to expand each interchange.

As for the I-70/I-79 multiplex, the problem I have with the north/west junction is that each highway only has one through lane at the interchange. As for the south/east junction, PennDOT has done the design work to have it rebuilt as a high-speed "flyover" interchange; it just needs the funding to do it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2011, 08:52 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh
7,541 posts, read 10,203,280 times
Reputation: 3509
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH View Post
I think commuter rail on the AVRR would do more to help that area, and on a much more cost-effective basis.

I just don't see where there are enough people commuting from the Allegheny Valley to town every day to justify such a project at this point in time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2011, 09:25 PM
 
Location: South Oakland, Pittsburgh, PA
875 posts, read 1,482,925 times
Reputation: 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by I_Like_Spam View Post
I just don't see where there are enough people commuting from the Allegheny Valley to town every day to justify such a project at this point in time.
I feel with almost an utmost certainty that it would be far more justified than the Route 28 highway extension the original poster is discussing however. That is, if we are simply talking commuter rail to terminate at New Kensington/Arnold.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2011, 05:33 AM
 
20,273 posts, read 32,877,652 times
Reputation: 2910
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathmanMathman View Post
Denying an area a limited access highway doesn't hold in business
Actually, in a sense it does. Buildings new limited access highways to peripheral greenfield sites has proven to suck businesses out of core areas and relocate them to those peripheries.

Now if you already have a demonstrated need for that highway, OK, maybe. But highways as a local development strategy tend to undermine, not help, existing areas, which is not what the Allegheny Valley needs.

Quote:
Commuter rail does best to deal with traffic gridlock, not promote growth in economically depressed areas.
Commuter rail would allow more commuters to live in the existing areas along the AVRR and commute to Pittsburgh for work. Those commuters would then attract local businesses to serve their needs when at home, providing amenities that would attract even more commuters, creating a positive feedback cycle between increasing human capital and local amenities. Eventually other employers would locate in those areas to make use of that human capital even closer to home.

Now I realize that because this is a development strategy that focuses on human capital, it is going to be something of an alien concept to someone who is using Atlanta as a model, since Atlanta is doing a terrible job developing human capital and is simply focusing on raw growth and sprawl. But again, I see no reason why Pittsburgh should seek to imitate Atlanta when it comes to those issues--in fact, Pittsburgh has been rapidly improving its prosperity by per capita measures, whereas Atlanta is steadily falling behind, and that is a predictable consequence of Atlanta's current development model.

Quote:
If Pittsburgh is not interested in economic growth...fine.
Speaking just for myself, I am definitely not interested in growth on the terms you are offering it (continually undermining existing core areas by providing massive public subsidies for far-flung greenfield developments, all while ignoring human capital development). Fortunately, there are other ways to have economic growth, ways which will promote prosperity and a higher quality of life, not just raw growth at the expense of a lower quality of life.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2011, 05:38 AM
 
20,273 posts, read 32,877,652 times
Reputation: 2910
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnutella View Post
On that note, I'd prefer to modernize existing highways than build new ones.
Although I also think we need to prioritize non-road infrastructure, I agree we should be spending money on roads at the same time, and we should be spending that money primarily on maintaining and upgrading the existing road system. It is really quite crazy to be building shiny new highways to greenfields when the roads serving existing developed areas are substandard, and in some cases falling apart.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2011, 05:44 AM
 
20,273 posts, read 32,877,652 times
Reputation: 2910
Quote:
Originally Posted by I_Like_Spam View Post
I just don't see where there are enough people commuting from the Allegheny Valley to town every day to justify such a project at this point in time.
AVRR thinks there is enough potential demand, and some recent studies back them up. Keep in mind this project wouldn't be all that expensive to begin with, and private sources would put up a good chunk of that money (since this would be a revenue service on an operating basis). So in comparison to a massive public expense on roads, this would be a low-cost project.

Of course in the long run, you would be hoping additional demand would be induced by the existence of the commuter service. Which I think is a reasonable hope--the area population is going to start growing again, and the core area job count is also likely to be growing, and that creates favorable conditions for commuter rail to induce additional demand.

Edit: Here is an article referencing a study:

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pitt.../s_677103.html

The study estimated the AVRR line would attract at least 2700 daily riders, which isn't bad for a modest commuter rail project. In fact, that's basically like adding a new highway lane in each direction along that corridor (in terms of enabling additional commuters), with room for a lot more growth.

Last edited by BrianTH; 09-28-2011 at 06:07 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Pennsylvania > Pittsburgh
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top