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 12-16-2016, 11:23 AM
 
96 posts, read 72,924 times
Reputation: 99

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by xdv8 View Post
The idea of us building our way out of this driving culture mess has been proven to not work as every road eventually reaches capacity. But by all means, let's keep trying the same thing over nd over again.
That's true, but again these aren't capacity improvements. They are first and foremost safety improvements and fixing boondoggles of the past that should have been fixed long ago. Just look at the Banksville interchange on a map, it's a mess and there are countless areas where accidents are prone to occur. This is not because people can't drive, it's because the designers built it to 1950's/60's standards which are woefully inadequate for the reality of today.

Just as the pro-car, anti-bike crowd should support infrastructure improvements to improve safety and connectivity (again, mostly utilizing our existing roads (which require maintenance) rather than building expensive, neighborhood- and environment-destroying new ones), likewise the pro-transit/biking/density crowd should favor such obvious enhancements to our existing road network to keep our fellow Pittsburghers who travel by car safe as well.

Once again, this is not a capacity improvement. At peak traffic times, the impact on comgestion will be neglible or non-existent. But maybe it saves a few lives too and is a good use of the extra funding provided by Act 89. Even Port Authority is modernizing with the ConnectCard and new zoning and boarding procedures and the years-long process they will undertake to analyze every route and stop for further enhancements. I would love more transit money but it is imperative to maintain and modernize what we already have or even the buses will suffer from detours and delays.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-16-2016, 11:41 AM
 
Location: East End, Pittsburgh
969 posts, read 763,722 times
Reputation: 1044
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradjl2009 View Post
So we should let roads rot away instead? Not everyone can live in the East End and take transit everywhere they need to go.
Don't get too dramatic, I never said we should stop paving. Maybe 100 million would do a lot to increase public transit options for areas outside of the east end?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2016, 12:52 PM
 
Location: United States
12,390 posts, read 7,044,733 times
Reputation: 6134
Quote:
Originally Posted by xdv8 View Post
Don't get too dramatic, I never said we should stop paving. Maybe 100 million would do a lot to increase public transit options for areas outside of the east end?
Well, think about how many people use the parkway west, now think of how many people would use this new public transit expansion you want. There's no comparison, many times more people use the parkway west than would use any new mass transit project.

The idea that highway improvement projects are about permanently solving capacity problems is a red herring argument used by the anti-car crowd.

Highway improvement projects are about easing bottlenecks, increasing capacity, and improving safety. The very fact that the highways can quickly reach the new capacity shows that one, there is demand, and two, the improvements work, and capacity is increased, and the roadway is moving more people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2016, 01:03 PM
 
Location: East End, Pittsburgh
969 posts, read 763,722 times
Reputation: 1044
Quote:
Originally Posted by stburr91 View Post
Well, think about how many people use the parkway west, now think of how many people would use this new public transit expansion you want. There's no comparison, many times more people use the parkway west than would use any new mass transit project.

The idea that highway improvement projects are about permanently solving capacity problems is a red herring argument used by the anti-car crowd.

Highway improvement projects are about easing bottlenecks, increasing capacity, and improving safety. The very fact that the highways can quickly reach the new capacity shows that one, there is demand, and two, the improvements work, and capacity is increased, and the roadway is moving more people.
I never said anything about permanently solving capacity problems via increased public transit funding. The only way to solve capacity problems is to decrease the amount of people needing to use the roads by decreasing or stopping sprawl.

I'm not anti-car, but I am not some goon who thinks larger turn radii and increased access solves the problem.

Highways create the demand. No one wants to live somewhere without access. The highway comes first, then the development and the developments don't stop so why would the traffic problems?

I'm not even going to try to explain how many more people pay taxes than actually use the exits or stretch of highway being mentioned, but that equation seems important to you if you want to compare public benefit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2016, 01:10 PM
 
Location: Downtown Cranberry Twp.
41,018 posts, read 17,992,158 times
Reputation: 8527
Quote:
Originally Posted by xdv8 View Post
I never said anything about permanently solving capacity problems via increased public transit funding. The only way to solve capacity problems is to decrease the amount of people needing to use the roads by decreasing or stopping sprawl.

I'm not anti-car, but I am not some goon who thinks larger turn radii and increased access solves the problem.

Highways create the demand. No one wants to live somewhere without access. The highway comes first, then the development and the developments don't stop so why would the traffic problems?

I'm not even going to try to explain how many more people pay taxes than actually use the exits or stretch of highway being mentioned, but that equation seems important to you if you want to compare public benefit.
It's for the good of the majority as it should be. Updates and expansions need handled and while they don't affect some as much as others, realistically they need to be made.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2016, 02:04 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh
140 posts, read 164,908 times
Reputation: 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by xdv8 View Post
Good news for suburban drivers. Hope it's worth the $110mm+ it will cost, unfortunately highway improvements only induce more traffic so don't get too excited.
Based on this logic, wouldn't it be beneficial to actively neglect every road that is located outside of the city center? By neglecting these roads, we can not only save tons of money, but we can incentive city living & greatly increase the likelyhood of new 50 floor apartment buildings with studios starting at $3000 per month..

Better idea, why not shut down these roads to vehicular traffic entirely? This would eliminate practically all traffic & everyone outside of the city center will become very fond of public transit

Note:
Obviously this is purely sarcasm.. A successful city requires an eclectic mix of all types of transportation options & living styles.. A city would surely fail without its suburbs & the suburbs would surely fail without a city.. The best approach toward eliminating traffic on the parkways would be to beef up existing alternate routes (roads & public transit) as well as create new alternate routes (roads and public transit)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2016, 02:06 PM
 
Location: Downtown Cranberry Twp.
41,018 posts, read 17,992,158 times
Reputation: 8527
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMan_152 View Post
Based on this logic, wouldn't it be beneficial to actively neglect every road that is located outside of the city center? By neglecting these roads, we can not only save tons of money, but we can incentive city living & greatly increase the likelyhood of new 50 floor apartment buildings with studios starting at $3000 per month..

Better idea, why not shut down these roads to vehicular traffic entirely? This would eliminate practically all traffic & everyone outside of the city center will become very fond of public transit

Note:
Obviously this is purely sarcasm.. A successful city requires an eclectic mix of all types of transportation options & living styles.. A city would surely fail without its suburbs & the suburbs would surely fail without a city.. The best approach toward eliminating traffic on the parkways would be to beef up existing alternate routes (roads & public transit) as well as create new alternate routes (roads and public transit)
Winner.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2016, 02:32 PM
 
Location: Western PA
3,733 posts, read 5,930,374 times
Reputation: 3189
I'm interested in seeing the drawings for the new interchange near the tunnels. I've envisioned in my own mind over the years while stopped on Greentree Hill how a new configuration could make things better. I like the idea of separating the merging traffic from Banksville, which is what causes the backups. Flyover ramps would be great, but I'm having trouble envisioning how they are going to do that, given the limited space and typography. Plus there's that big railroad trestle in there somewhere that they have to avoid.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2016, 03:15 PM
 
1,139 posts, read 2,485,112 times
Reputation: 421
376 is just for suburban drivers? My bad, I guess all the trucks that use 376 to deliver goods to the city will just have to use surface streets to get in.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2016, 03:24 PM
 
Location: Downtown Cranberry Twp.
41,018 posts, read 17,992,158 times
Reputation: 8527
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifepgh2op View Post
376 is just for suburban drivers? My bad, I guess all the trucks that use 376 to deliver goods to the city will just have to use surface streets to get in.
Yep. "If you bought it a truck brought it".

And we can't forget about emergency vehicles.
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

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