Pittsburgh's Hilly Terrain - Future Problem? (Railroad: stadium, vehicles, place)

[speagles84]

Originally Posted by Katiana

Uh, yeah! LOL. No, of course not. Nebraska has a similar upslope from the Missouri River (840') to Johnson Twp, Kimball County (5425'), a distance of 432 mi. (Though Omaha is a hilly city.) But SF is a small contained area, as is Pittsburgh. I've been to both, I do think SF is hillier.
Highest, Lowest, and Mean Elevations in the United States | FactMonster.com

I've been to SF multiple times. I don't think their hills are 1) as steep [Mount Washington is near vertical] and 2) as plentiful. Gnutella has maps of walkability and besides downtown, lower north side and southside, Pittsburgh is mostly red. SF has more green/yellow than red areas.

[Moby Hick]

Originally Posted by speagles84

I've been to SF multiple times. I don't think their hills are 1) as steep [Mount Washington is near vertical] and 2) as plentiful.

I think I've mentioned this before, but Mt. Washington is a good illustration of how Pittsburgh does not actually have hills. We are on a plateau with valleys cut into it, which is very obvious if you look at Mt. Washington closely. That's why the terrain is often so steep compared to places that have actual hills.

[Katarina Witt]

^^Interesting you say that. My husband once said, "These banks of the Ohio are pretty steep". He is from a city on the Missouri River that has similar features (though not as steep).

[Copanut]

Originally Posted by Moby Hick

I think I've mentioned this before, but Mt. Washington is a good illustration of how Pittsburgh does not actually have hills. We are on a plateau with valleys cut into it, which is very obvious if you look at Mt. Washington closely. That's why the terrain is often so steep compared to places that have actual hills.

Just to be technical, we are on the Allegheny Plateau, you can look it up n'at.

[I_Like_Spam]

Originally Posted by gottaq

Will Pittsburgh's hilly terrain be a problem in the future, in terms of building new skyscrapers? How can new large structures be built on uneven land? I know the golden triangle is flat, and has many skyscrapers, but outside of that, where is there to build? And what do you think the city will do to address these problems?

Pittsburgh City Councilman Richard Givens proposed filling in Pittsburgh's valleys back in the early 1980's, suggesting that instead of replacing the Bloomfield Bridge, it would be more economic just to fill in the space underneath with landfill and run the road on top of it.

The idea got a lot of support on the local talk shows but didn't go anywhere with City Council or Mayor Caliguiri.

https://news.google.com/newspapers?n...,4319889&hl=en

[ditchdigger]

Originally Posted by PG article

Quite aside from the awesome logistics of this proposition--"You'd have to go to China to get enough [dirt]" Councilman Eugene P DePasquale scoffed."....

Jeep had a clue.

My quick, back of the napkin, calculation says it would take better than 2 million yards of fill. That's about enough to fill Heinz Field. Plus, you'd have needed to build a 400 foot long, 40 foot wide tunnel for the railroad tracks, and a similar one if you were going to build the busway. Pretty stupid idea...

[I_Like_Spam]

Originally Posted by ditchdigger

Jeep had a clue.

My quick, back of the napkin, calculation says it would take better than 2 million yards of fill. That's about enough to fill Heinz Field. Plus, you'd have needed to build a 400 foot long, 40 foot wide tunnel for the railroad tracks, and a similar one if you were going to build the busway. Pretty stupid idea...

Moving massive amounts of dirt around has been a Pittsburgh tradition for quite a while. I don't know what happened to the dirt displaced to create the Downtown subway or the LRT tunnel underneath the Mt. Lebanon Cemetery.


The dirt displaced to create the Liberty tubes was used to create McKinley Park, example given.


The Givens plan wouldn't have required tunneling, even though it would have result in a tunnel. Installing a arch over top of the railroad tracks would mean the fill would have just had to have been loaded on top of it.

[ditchdigger]

The Givens plan wouldn't have required tunneling,

That's why I said "build" a tunnel, as opposed to "dig" a tunnel.

I'm not an engineer, but my guess is that structurally, in and of itself, it would be pretty pricy to build an arch wide enough to accommodate two railroad tracks, and robust enough to support a 150 foot tall fill.

The dirt displaced to create the Liberty tubes was used to create McKinley Park, example given.

Good example. 5,750 feet long, times two, at 30 yards of muck per linear foot comes to 345,000 yards. That's a lot of material, but it would barely begin to build a fill to carry a road from Herron Hill to Bloomfield.

(Source of those quantities: https://books.google.com/books?id=11...0tubes&f=false )

[szug-bot]

Originally Posted by ditchdigger

Jeep had a clue.

My quick, back of the napkin, calculation says it would take better than 2 million yards of fill. That's about enough to fill Heinz Field. Plus, you'd have needed to build a 400 foot long, 40 foot wide tunnel for the railroad tracks, and a similar one if you were going to build the busway. Pretty stupid idea...

I think its a great IDEA...but not practical because of the logistics...and, creating MORE infrastructure (the tunnels, for Railroad and emergency vehicles) means more maintenance and repair - which is opposed to the point of this in the first place (to reduce expenditures).

Givens was thinking out of the box, at least!

[Goodjules]

Originally Posted by speagles84

I've been to SF multiple times. I don't think their hills are 1) as steep [Mount Washington is near vertical] and 2) as plentiful. Gnutella has maps of walkability and besides downtown, lower north side and southside, Pittsburgh is mostly red. SF has more green/yellow than red areas.

I'm from SF and Pittsburgh seems hillier to me, but not by much. The hills and the rivers are a big part of why I moved here. It reminded me of SF's hills and Bay. Pittsburgh also has way more trees than SF. The wind in SF makes it difficult for street trees to survive. And in the neighborhoods near the ocean they have to contend with the wind and the salt air. Not great for cars or anything metal on your house either.