Who's afraid of a Beltway? (Pittsburgh, Butler: upkeep, price, buses)

[Geeo]

Yes, interstates were designed for through traffic, not local traffic. The beltways around DC and Baltimore were for people traveling from Northeat to the south and back so they wouldn't have to go through the cities. If you had mentioned local traffic to the highway planners back then, they would have said, "WHAT local traffic?"

[SammyKhalifa]

Originally Posted by Geeo

Yes, interstates were designed for through traffic, not local traffic. The beltways around DC and Baltimore were for people traveling from Northeat to the south and back so they wouldn't have to go through the cities. If you had mentioned local traffic to the highway planners back then, they would have said, "WHAT local traffic?"

While the roads here more-or-less force you to go through the city.

[ferraris]

Originally Posted by SammyKhalifa

While the roads here more-or-less force you to go through the city.

Most actual interestate traffic won't even see the Pittsburgh skyline let alone go through the city. If you're on a long haul trip you'll probably stick to 76, 70, or 79.

[Geeo]

Our parkway were built before the interstate system was conceived and were designated interstates by default. Same with the turnpike.

[SammyKhalifa]

Originally Posted by ferraris

Most actual interestate traffic won't even see the Pittsburgh skyline let alone go through the city. If you're on a long haul trip you'll probably stick to 76, 70, or 79.

You might not be in the city driving down 79 but you might as well be.

[Moby Hick]

Originally Posted by SammyKhalifa

You might not be in the city driving down 79 but you might as well be.

Seriously? I regard I-79 as so far out of the way that I may as well go to Ohio if I get that far.

[lifepgh2op]

While I agree that a Beltway would be nice to have in Pittsburgh, that ship sailed long ago. I-270, the loop (beltway) in Columbus, was planned and built starting as early as the 1950s, with the last section being opened in the 70s. Expansion and development has occurred since then.

Pittsburgh is too developed and established at this point to have any sensible beltway. The Southern Beltway is not really a beltway, IMO, and is not the same as the Beltways stated in these other cities. It is currently tolled (75 cents) on the Airport connector and if it is truly going to spur development and increase commuting, then I would say it's already under-built only being 4 lanes wide.

What others seem to be missing after browsing through these pages, is that development is already occurring in suburban locations, causing people all over the metro area commutes for their jobs. It is easy to say "find a job closer to home" or "move closer to your job" but the situation for everyone is different. People blame commuting on suburbanites, but I know plenty of city dwellers who are commuting to the suburbs for work now. So what do you say... find a job in the city? Or suck it up and move to Soulless Cranberry?

We don't have a beltway here and our roads are over capacity. But, where are businesses locating? Near highways, anyway. Robinson/Moon/North Fayette/Findlay (376 corridor), Cranberry (79/279/76 corridor), Southpointe (79), RIDC (28), and the list goes on.

Would it be nice to have a road that bypasses Downtown and alleviates traffic? Yes. Do I think the Southern Beltway is that road? No. Do we need to do something about what we already have in place (376)? Yes. Is public transportation the answer? It could help, but it's certainly not a problem solver.

[pman]

one thing pittsburgh does not have is a viable east west regional transit alternative which constrains downtown and the places along the corridor which lost service. will it releive some if the problems? at the margin it probably would. building enough highway capacity so theres no traffic is virtually impossible. 279 is, if anything, overbuilt. a lot of transit investment in the region has been poorly thought out and implemented

[wpipkins2]

Originally Posted by pman

one thing pittsburgh does not have is a viable east west regional transit alternative which constrains downtown and the places along the corridor which lost service. will it releive some if the problems? at the margin it probably would. building enough highway capacity so theres no traffic is virtually impossible. 279 is, if anything, overbuilt. a lot of transit investment in the region has been poorly thought out and implemented

Are you referring to I 279 N? If so, I disagree. It was built to accommodate the fastest-growing section of the metro and serves its purpose. Its the only highway in the city that meets federal interstate standards. I 279 N is the safest highway in the city.

[FreightTrainRunning]

Originally Posted by wpipkins2

Are you referring to I 279 N? If so, I disagree. It was built to accommodate the fastest-growing section of the metro and serves its purpose. Its the only highway in the city that meets federal interstate standards. I 279 N is the safest highway in the city.

Well, it's only the fasted growing area because they built a giant highway out that way. If they hadn't built 279, no one would be moving to Cranberry.