Comments | pittsburgh: Traffic thoughts

jtmulc in pittsburgh

Traffic thoughts

Jun 08, 2007 10:01

With the shutdown of the Squirrel Hills tunnels this weekend (starting tonight at 8pm) and the inevitable mayhem that will ensue as parkway traffic is detoured through residential streets, it got me thinking. If only there were some way we could bypass the Squirrel Hill tunnels and stay on a limited access highway? We could give it a snazzy name ( Read more... )

places: east end, rants, transportation: roads: construction, transportation: driving

Comments 19

mrfishes June 8 2007, 14:18:46 UTC

Sure, we could do that. Of course, we'd have to completely raze a few neighborhoods---possibly flatten an entire borough or two---but it's not like anybody, you know, lives there or anything. Hazelwood and Braddock are such shitholes these days, it's not like anybody'd really miss them---hell, the people who do live there would probably be glad to be given the opportunity to leave!

rapier1 June 8 2007, 15:27:48 UTC

This is always an interesting question - do we seek to preserve history/neighborhoods/whatever at the expense of development and growth or do we limit growth (and possibly the economic health of the city) in order to preserve them? Is there anyway to accomdate both in an economically viable way?

Basically change is a constant and we need to figure out if we want to accelerate change or slow it down.

Personally I'm not convinced that the project will have as much of a sustainable positive impact as the contruction of a *good* light rail system would have. But you'd still have homes torn up for that as well.

mrfishes June 8 2007, 15:41:59 UTC

Plenty of places have managed to build light-rail systems through established areas without destroying them---look at the el train in the Bronx, Brooklyn, or just about anywhere else. . .

it just might take looking back eighty or a hundred years to re-teach ourselves how they did it. . .

rapier1 June 8 2007, 16:05:46 UTC

Why do you think that you wouldn't end up with torn up homes if you had an El? Tracks can't just follow the lay of the roads. You wouldn't have to tear up as many homes but you'd still have to do some. Which is what I was trying to get across - sorry if it wasn't clear.

Also, having lived in NYC and Philly - both of which have Els I have to say that people didn't really gravitate to living in the shadow of the El. In fact, it always seemed like a corridor of crap. Vancouver had an El which did seem pretty nice though. The tracks were significantly higher up thout (maybe as much as 3x higher). That may have made a difference but I wasn't in Vancouver long enough to know what the neighborhoods were like around the El.

Thread 7

macbeaner June 8 2007, 14:28:29 UTC

Lord forbid the people south of the city actually have a highway to get to the city without going through 40 stoplights or going through 2 tunnels to get there.

talldean June 8 2007, 14:45:42 UTC

That doesn't get you *to* the city, though.

That gets you from Large to Monroeville, from my understanding, which aren't exactly destination hotspots.

su_carbs June 8 2007, 15:11:35 UTC

Yep, we got screwed when the parkway was built...mainly because Mt. Washington is in the way. The stoplights I can deal with...but whoever designed the clusterfuck at Maytide & 88 on Route 51 should be shot. Part of the problem with many city areas, is that roads and homes were simply put wherever they'd fit.

martygreene June 8 2007, 14:32:44 UTC

curious what this has to do with construction junction, as it's been tagged as such.

mrfishes June 8 2007, 15:44:36 UTC

Probably because there wasn't previously a simple tag 'construction', and the system doesn't allow non-mods to create new tags. It's been fixed.

jtmulc June 9 2007, 00:27:56 UTC

I use the deepest sender extension to Firefox. It loads the tags and allows me to choose from what has already been used before.

jtmulc June 9 2007, 00:21:27 UTC

??
Tags:
places: east end,
rants,
transportation: roads: construction,
transportation: driving

Thread 5

mycatsellsclues June 8 2007, 16:28:57 UTC

Yeah, and the Mon-Fayette would certainly help out the traffic clusterfuck that is Oakland since it will simply dump every car into the currently clogged arteries that are already disatrous. Personally, I love Bates St. at rush hour! /snark

Actually, this is such a hugely contested issue and many people know a great deal more about it than I do, I'd just warn anyone proclaiming the greatness (or horror) of the MFE to check into what it really means from a variety of standpoints. Lots of links here: http://www.pennfuture.org/campaigns_detail.aspx?CampaignID=37

As always though, more transit, specifically those that begin with the word Public, options would be good for all of us. Less cars on the road is less cars on the road no matter how you get there.

rapier1 June 8 2007, 17:04:03 UTC

I'm not sure the links from Penn Future really represent a variety of view points. Do you have any other sources that might be more neutral?

mycatsellsclues June 8 2007, 17:40:10 UTC

Full disclosure is that I simply wouldn't be the best source for that. However, if you scroll down on the Penn Future page, you'll see key documents and studies as well as some of the news articles that may lead you to various opinions, not just Penn Future's.

su_carbs June 8 2007, 17:12:24 UTC

Some, if not all of that is because of the morons who slam on the brakes in the Squirrel Hill Tunnels. Usually, traffic speeds up midway through.

I agree about public transportation. I live in the South Hills, but work in Aspinwall. If there was a way to get there with a minimum of transfers or delays, I'd gladly do it. However, it's faster and easier to drive.

BTW, are the deer still jumping off the MFE?