busway to monroeville

[pman]

progress isnt always improvement

[Corvidae22]

This sounds like an excellent idea, but my hopes were dashed with this line/reminder:

Port Authority, which owns the busway...

Done.

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by pman

what do you mean developed? you mean the highways allowed it to sprawl...it doesnt simply allow development to occur it dictates how it will occur. the idea that railways are incapable of moving people in pittsburgh (or atlanta for that matter) seems rather silly. the modest growth in pittsburgh certainly could be accomodated in such a manner. you can use rail to feed sprawl as well (see nj) but theres lttle evidence beltways generate job growth. houston has no state income tax and plebty of wealth thanks to energy. its also very business friendly and relatively cheap. what successful older cities have no commuter rail systems? commuter rail aside it still doesnt make a southern beltway a good idea. development will occur regardless. pittsburgh built plenty of highways and it didnt stave off decline or make it grow like atlanta.youre barking up the wrong tree

Atlanta didn't grow as much as it has because of commuter rail and Atlanta has a more extensive highway system and is better connected than Pittsburgh. And both Charlotte and Atlanta have state income taxes. Old cities like Pittsburgh grew up around the rivers and rail but we've moved on from that where expressways are vital. Pittsburgh's rivers are not as important any more and rail in America is mostly for freight. Commuter rail is an alternative when road building has pretty much maxed out and there's too much congestion. Pittsburgh's airport access is poor and getting around the region difficult, and so much is through downtown. A beltway would help that. Cincinnati didn't experience a decline and with Pittsburgh's anemic growth rate, I'd expect both to pass Pittsburgh in population in about 10 years. And both have beltways.

[ctoocheck]

Originally Posted by MathmanMathman

Cincinnati didn't experience a decline and with Pittsburgh's anemic growth rate, I'd expect both to pass Pittsburgh in population in about 10 years.

Cincinnati didn't have a decline, what?

[pman]

Originally Posted by MathmanMathman

Atlanta didn't grow as much as it has because of commuter rail and Atlanta has a more extensive highway system and is better connected than Pittsburgh. And both Charlotte and Atlanta have state income taxes. Old cities like Pittsburgh grew up around the rivers and rail but we've moved on from that where expressways are vital. Pittsburgh's rivers are not as important any more and rail in America is mostly for freight. Commuter rail is an alternative when road building has pretty much maxed out and there's too much congestion. Pittsburgh's airport access is poor and getting around the region difficult, and so much is through downtown. A beltway would help that. Cincinnati didn't experience a decline and with Pittsburgh's anemic growth rate, I'd expect both to pass Pittsburgh in population in about 10 years. And both have beltways.

cincinnati most certainly declined. it takes a good bit of myopia to see what you see, there are examples of both...why? beltways are irrelevant to overall growth. charlotte is a much more business friendly state and city. its tax rate is 30% lower than pennsylvania. if there is any correlation between growth and some factor its weather. people have been moving to warmer climates.
you dont really get rail. in charlotte they dont have the rail assets pittsburgh does. if i build rail from latrobe to pittsburgh i make latrobe relatively more desirable. i also expand the number of potential peak commuters into downtown far more effectively than new roads. if i build a beltway i favor highway exit development and increase commuting capability from suburb to suburb.there is no impact on overall growth. the steel bust didnt occur because of a lack of a beltway. us air disnt skip town because of no beltway. beltways dont create growth they redistribute them. the argument isnt growth vs no growth but how will the region guide investment. nyc is the extreme but it simply isnt possible without passenger rail. pittsburghs job density is such that it makes sense. rail aside, building nothing is better than a beltway. there isnt some magic formula for growth. each area is unique and you need to tailor the approach based on its strengths and weaknesses.

[ctoocheck]

Even DC saw a decline, despite its (in)famous beltway (At least inside the District, if not as pronounced in the suburbs).
I think you'd probably be hard-pressed to attribute the recent revitalization of many District neighborhoods to the beltway. (Though perhaps it contributed to the growth of its suburbs, the benefit or detriment of which could be argued. But even suburbs closer the beltway like Silver Spring and Bethesda are getting a transit-oriented boost from Metro, and there's still a lot of poorer suburbs out that way as well, so there seems to be a range of results)

[villageidiot1]

Originally Posted by Gnutella

East/west mobility across the southern suburbs is poor. All the main roads in the area go north/south. Quick, what's the most direct way from McKeesport to Bridgeville? (D'oh!) Furthermore, toll roads do less to promote suburban sprawl than "free" highways do because access tends to be much more limited. Case in point: the Pennsylvania Turnpike vis-a-vis I-79. Between I-79 and I-70, the Turnpike has six interchanges. On the other hand, I-79 between I-70 and the Pennsylvania Turnpike has 19 interchanges. The area around I-79 is much more built-up than it is around the Turnpike. If the South Beltway only has, say, 10 interchanges between Monroeville and the airport, then it's not going to induce much in the way of suburban sprawl.

Besides, anything to take some of the load off I-376 is a good thing. That highway has been functionally obsolete for at least 50 years, and taking the load off it will not only improve traffic flow, but also provide an alternate route when the highway finally gets a desperately-needed overhaul.

Most people who live in the South Hill wouldn't have a clue.

According to Google Maps, taking the Parkway is only 2 minutes longer than any route across the South Hills. Actually, in current traffic it is quicker to go the Parkway than Library Road.

Suggested routes

1. 18.6 mi, 40 mins
   In current traffic: 45 mins
   Library Rd
   
   
2. 17.2 mi, 42 mins
   No traffic information
   Horning Rd
   
   
3. 29.4 mi, 42 mins
   In current traffic: 43 mins
   

[PITairport]

Originally Posted by pman

if i build a beltway i favor highway exit development and increase commuting capability from suburb to suburb.there is no impact on overall growth.

I am going to disagree with this. There is a certain segment of the economy which prefers to do business near good highway links, such as logistics/distribution. The Pittsburgh region has been missing out to other regions with better highways for decades in this area, but as the Southern Beltway moves forward this will hopefully change. Just a few days ago we gained news of 300 new jobs coming to the Southern Beltway corridor, and only a fraction of the road is complete. Like the article states, these projects would have traditionally gone to Harrisburg to the east or Columbus to the west.

Gordon Food Service plans to hire 300 for new Findlay distribution hub - Pittsburgh Business Times


I believe an urban region's transportation infrastructure should be a strong mix of all modes, including commuter rail and highways. On the topic of highways, Pittsburgh is sorely lacking compared to competing regions.

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by pman

cincinnati most certainly declined. it takes a good bit of myopia to see what you see, there are examples of both...why?

Ok...first things first. When did Cincinnati decline? Since 1950 its metro area has increased in population for every census.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincin...ropolitan_area