Comprehensive Pittsburgh-area transportation discussion (Philadelphia, Carnegie: leases, houses, neighborhoods)

[Craziaskowboi]

Originally Posted by SlurmsMcKenzie

I'd imagine any plan to alleviate traffic, even if it involves widening the tunnels, will necessitate some sort of augmentation of the Fort Pitt Bridge. The 90 degree bend to enter the Parkway East, along with the rapid cross lane switching, will always cause a bottleneck. If looking for the most impact (with no consideration for cost), I'd think a third tunnel/bridge combination linking the Parkway East near the jail and the Parkway West near the runaway truck ramp would offer maximum benefit for drivers using both the Parkway West and Parkway East headed into downtown.

There's no need to do anything there because eastbound traffic on the Fort Pitt Bridge and past downtown has never been a problem. You just have to go a bit slower for about half a mile. As for westbound traffic, the problem on the Fort Pitt Bridge is that two lanes are dropped instead of just one, and most of the traffic on the bridge is entering the Fort Pitt Tunnel. If the tunnel was enlarged to three lanes in each direction, then there'd only be one lane dropped at the Carson Street interchange, and traffic would flow a bit smoother even during rush hour.

Originally Posted by GeneW

I'm fine with upgrading the Parkway with respect to safety but adding any additional lanes is just a waste of time and money.

Adding capacity is not a waste of time or money, considering the Parkway West currently handles more than twice the volume of traffic that it was designed to handle. Cutting the traffic volume in half would still leave it over capacity. Pittsburgh's peer cities all have six-lane highways: Cleveland, Columbus, Indianapolis, St. Louis, Milwaukee, Kansas City, Minneapolis/St. Paul, etc. There's no reason Pittsburgh should only have four lanes, especially if its four-lane highways are handling more than double their designed capacity.

[JoeP]

I'm fine with upgrading the Parkway with respect to safety but adding any additional lanes is just a waste of time and money.

No that is part of updating it functionally and for safety.

[zman63]

Originally Posted by Gnutella

That's because Pittsburgh was effectively thrown away by the United States back in the 1980's. Good luck getting federal funding for a city that most people believed didn't deserve to exist anymore.

Yep. Our big payday was the north shore connector. Now they want to do a 200 million rapid busway. Where is all of this money going to come from?


I hate to say it but pittsburgh is low on the totem pole in the usa. Heck we are a distant second in pa. There are cities growing and expanding at a rapid pace. Thats who gets the money.

[greg42]

How many times does this one have to be rehashed?

[gg]

It all looks like crap to me. Why don't we really get with the times like the Germans!

Pittsburgh would actually be healthy.

BBC - Future - Can a city really ban cars from its streets?

[ctoocheck]

I sincerely hope the parkway isn't upgraded to more than 6 lanes -- or even the existing four. I know these are over capacity, but as others have said, building more highway lanes has been shown to induce more demand, making this increased capacity obsolete, while spending millions upon millions of dollars to do so, and encouraging sprawl.

I would also be curious to know if you have data to back up claims of the Parkway being unsafe due to the capacity issue.

I'd reckon that PennDOT and other DOTs just build such wide overpasses as standard nowadays when they can, even without plans to increase lanes by heinously amount. OR perhaps they're saving that space for hypothetical rail, who knows, just saying.


If you want to uncongest the highway, you could also keep the current supply and reduce demand (congestion fees, tolls, etc., for example), or by changing land use regulations to discourage sprawl and decrease the necessity for driving everywhere. The US is already seeing a marked return to city living, as well, and younger folks (like myself) are more likely to spurn car ownership for biking, walking, and transit. This is the future, and the city, that I want for myself, at least, and I'm not alone.


I am also convinced that the fact region didn't wildly build giant highways in the last 50 years is a key reason why the City still has so much character despite significant decline, why the region has relatively little sprawl (combined with economic issues, naturally), and why Downtown has a whopping 50% transit ridership share (reducing the need for tons of parking space).

Yes, as much of the country has realized, the time for great highway expansion is (or should be) largely in the past.

[Craziaskowboi]

Originally Posted by ctoocheck

I sincerely hope the parkway isn't upgraded to more than 6 lanes -- or even the existing four. I know these are over capacity, but as others have said, building more highway lanes has been shown to induce more demand, making this increased capacity obsolete, while spending millions upon millions of dollars to do so, and encouraging sprawl.

Expanding any mode of transportation induces demand; it's not just a highway phenomenon.

Originally Posted by ctoocheck

I would also be curious to know if you have data to back up claims of the Parkway being unsafe due to the capacity issue.

I have a multimodal transportation study backing me up:




And this study was from 2002. It wouldn't surprise me if conditions are even worse now, especially now that the metropolitan area has begun to grow again.

Originally Posted by ctoocheck

I'd reckon that PennDOT and other DOTs just build such wide overpasses as standard nowadays when they can, even without plans to increase lanes by heinously amount. OR perhaps they're saving that space for hypothetical rail, who knows, just saying.

If PennDOT had no plans to expand the Parkway West, they would have built an overpass at Ridge Road that only fit the existing lanes under it. They would not have left so much space under it because longer spans cost more money. They would have opted for 90' spans instead of 170' spans. Everything civil engineers do is done for a reason.

Originally Posted by ctoocheck

If you want to uncongest the highway, you could also keep the current supply and reduce demand (congestion fees, tolls, etc., for example), or by changing land use regulations to discourage sprawl and decrease the necessity for driving everywhere. The US is already seeing a marked return to city living, as well, and younger folks (like myself) are more likely to spurn car ownership for biking, walking, and transit. This is the future, and the city, that I want for myself, at least, and I'm not alone.

Japan has all that in spades, and yet, there's also the six-lane Kan-Etsu Expressway in the Saitama Prefecture:



It even has sound walls to keep out the noise!

Originally Posted by ctoocheck

I am also convinced that the fact region didn't wildly build giant highways in the last 50 years is a key reason why the City still has so much character despite significant decline, why the region has relatively little sprawl (combined with economic issues, naturally), and why Downtown has a whopping 50% transit ridership share (reducing the need for tons of parking space).

Pittsburgh is well-preserved compared to other nearby cities because most of the heavy industry was located outside the city, not because of a lack of wide highways. Philadelphia is severely under-highwayed for a city its size, but that didn't prevent large swaths of the city from decaying.

Now let's look at some other progressive cities with high transit ridership. Here's I-5 five miles outside of downtown Seattle:





Here's I-25 five miles outside of downtown Denver:





Here's I-94 five miles outside of downtown Minneapolis:





And, uh, here's I-376 five miles outside of downtown Pittsburgh:





Wow, 227', 211', 146'...75'. And notice which highway is having the hardest time handling traffic.

Originally Posted by ctoocheck

Yes, as much of the country has realized, the time for great highway expansion is (or should be) largely in the past.

Yeah, let's just not invest in our highways at all. It's not like we have crumbling infrastructure or anything. Roadbeds last forever.

Face it; investing in everything but highways is just as backwards as investing in nothing but highways. Among its peer cities, Pittsburgh isn't alone in having a system of transit that's not extensive enough, but it sure as hell is alone in not having adequate highway infrastructure. Pittsburgh isn't alone in not having invested enough in alternate modes of transportation, but it sure as hell is alone in not having invested enough in any mode of transportation.

I'll keep saying it: EVEN IF YOU CUT TRAFFIC ON THE PARKWAY WEST IN HALF, IT'LL STILL BE OVER CAPACITY. And that'll be the case even if not one more house is built west of I-79 for the next 50 years. The Parkway West doesn't just handle commuters from the western suburbs; it also handles visitors from other cities, and trucks hauling cargo to and from the city as well. It simply is not an adequate highway in any way, and the multimodal transportation study I cited explicitly illustrates that.

[szug-bot]

there are a lot of 'apples and oranges' comparisons.

Gnutella, does your source (above my comment) show an unsafe highway? it talks about vehicle volume, but does not cite accident statistics. there are accidents there, sure, but its not a killing field, exactly. i cant remember the last time i could drive consistently at 60mph from I-79 to the tunnels. my point is that 99.5% of the drivers adjust accordingly and drive safely.

also, minneapolis and denver are big players in their regions. lets face it, population = political sway = money.

and, the photos of the Parkway West, compared to the others? what do those others NOT have?...a sheer cliff to one side. topography will always make us oranges to their apples.

i think early on in this thread, the subject of congestion pricing was quickly left in the dust. upgrades to the parkway west are needed, for sure. they dont all have to be structural - you can have optimal speed limit monitoring, etc. but im all in favor of user fees and possibly even privatization with safeguards that the people wont get screwed with outrageous, inflating rates.

i think communities that heavily depend on interstate or state maintained routes (cranberry, thornburg borough which is just a few high priced homes, cecil township, moon township, etc.) should be responsible for an extra tax for maintenance and repair of those routes.

[gg]

Look I realize people can't grasp Germany, Denmark and other super advanced cities, but maybe we could at least get 1/10th of the way there and forget making roads super wide and think cars will always be going to city centers. It is SO backwards. What we need is super good public transportation. If you live on the busway and can take a P1 or P2, why would you ever drive? The busses run a lot and there is no traffic. The parkway doesn't need more lanes for vehicle traffic. It needs a people mover of some sort. Whether it is a busway, light rail or whatever. The young folks are going to have quite a bit of debt when they come out of college and will be paying that off for years. On top of that, they will be trying to buy a home and start life with all this massive debt. Do you think they are going to want to have to drive into work, pay for parking gas and upkeep? Sure some will, but many won't. Just building giant roadways is backwards thinking. We need more young people in the planning stage. These old farts can't understand what it is like for the next generation. That is who we are building things for. Goodness!

[Evergrey]

Here here, h_curtis! I embrace your progressive vision!