BIKEPGH MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVE

I'm glad you're doing this. I ride those streets every day. The traffic is not a problem for me, but it is an obvious barrier to less experienced riders. Just this weekend, I saw someone dinging his bell as he rode up the sidewalk on the west side of Murray between Hobart and Beacon this weekend. I can understand the need for that, but it's kind of rude and happens to be illegal. I was a little confused by your street names. I think you meant "between Beacon and Forbes" in your fourth paragraph. I saw something indicating that they were experimenting with back-in angled parking on Schenley Drive on the Flagstaff Hill side. If so that would make it easier to make an argument for that. But I don't know if it survived the initial roll-out. All we really need is a climbing lane up from Forward to Beacon, with sharrows downhill. Is there enough space for a (parking protected) climbing lane up Murray? I don't see it. Everything is very narrow, you've got truck and bus traffic.

I hate angled parking. I think it's dangerous. I doubt we will ever be able to remove parking on murray due to resistance from all sides. When I go to squirrel hill, I don't ever ride on murray unless I'm going somewhere on murray. I'll either take shady or whitman for several reasons. Murray is slow and congested, lots of traffic lights, and no dedicated bike space. What I would like is to have good signage to direct cyclists through squirrel hill. One thing would be to have a few signed routes that take you from murray in greenfield and west to Whitman or right to shady and then possibly way-finding signs at cross streets identifying what businesses are located near that intersection a block over on murray (you could possibly have businesses who want to be included on the signs help pay for the costs of signage identifying their business). Instead of just individual streets and signs that tell you how to get to downtown or squirrel hill or some other nieghborhood / landmark. I'd love to have a set of defined routes, with route numbers or route names that would be well signed and available on the bike-pgh map. Kind of like what they have with the PA state routes or the US Bike Route System being developed. These would just be local level routes that help cyclists get around along well defined routes. I know ease of use is being considered with respect to the better bikeways vision, but that's years away from connecting a lot of places in a meaningful way. However, I don't want this signage to be different for each neighborhood, I'd love to have a system agreed upon and followed consistently around the city. Example Signage from http://cyclemoco.com/2012/11/bike-route-signs-a-matter-of-format/ Example route map from http://www.goboguides.com/ Example of local bike 'routes' from north side bike ped committee http://www.pittsburghnorthside.com/NorthsideCommunityResources/ParksandRecreation/NorthsideBikePedCommittee/tabid/135/Default.aspx Their PDF map of north side bike routes: http://www.pittsburghnorthside.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=m8ciEPHszJU%3d&tabid=135 How about a sign like this around the danube, pretend the danube is murray ave and the lines across are cross streets. You could have numbered entries for buisnesses. Install a couple copies of this along shady / whitman. Just trowing some of this out there as brainstorming and such.

Jonaweb, quite correct about my confusing labeling. Three sections of Murray, between Beacon and Forbes (already ok, sharrows would be nice), north of Murray (not my focus here), and between Pocusset and Beacon, which is the interesting/tough/high value part inasmuch as a friendlier climb might be possible. And quite correct that with existing configuration there isn't room for a parking protected climbing lane. Thought experiment is that with angled parking (specifically reverse angled parking to address the blind spot backing in the the street danger), you chew up space on one side but gain spots so maybe then you can eliminate parking on the other side and get space for a modest climbing lane? Benzo, just curious about the dislike for angled parking. Does it extend to reverse angled parking (nose out) too? That seems pretty benign to me. It's true I often take Pocusset/Wightman myself because there's less traffic. But there's nothing Pocusset/Wightman conveniently gets you to that Murray can't whereas you can't say the same thing in reverse at all. That, and simplicity (having the two main business arteries with some provision for cyclists) is a major plus. Shady is just ugly in my experience. Sure, less stopping, but it's steeper and the drivers are nastier. I don't even want to think about proposing anything there because I think the number of people that would choose it over Beachwood Blvd or Murray (if we can put something on Murray) is very, very small.

OK, made one rather stupid statement. "But there’s nothing Pocusset/Wightman conveniently gets you to that Murray can’t whereas you can’t say the same thing in reverse at all. " The clear exception is to the remaining dead-end of Pocusset and then the de-motorized section. So that has to be counted as a factor. I still thing Murray has to be tackled directly though, the local business core is always going to be far and away the biggest driver of traffic.

I could be ammenable to back in angled parking, how about we try that out on bigelow blvd in Oakland by the cathedral of learning (between 5th and forbes) instead of the head in parking as an experiment. It would just be some paint and wouldn't really change the setup substantially at all? The current setup with pull in angled parking sucks, a lot. People just can't see when they are backing out of a space.

Measuring on Google Maps, Murray around Hobart is say 38 feet. Searching on the web, it looks like an angled parking space takes about 13.5 feet at least. So you have only 24.5 feet left for two lanes + the biking lanes. An 11 foot lane (like PPC is planning for Schenley drive) is kind of narrow. Two lanes leaves 2.5 feet for the climbing lane. Wow, that's tight. I would still take it, though, if it could be done.

I've said it before in other threads, but I'll mention it again here since you have a new audience. Start making noise about wanting a direct connection from the Pocusset/Greenfield corner to the upper dead end of Saline Street. Probably a switchback arrangement, like the north end of the Fort Duquesne Bridge, and the just-built one in Manchester from the Beaver/Chateau/Island corner up to California/Marshall. Having that would take a lot of the pressure off of Murray to provide the connection to downtown, maybe a little less so to Oakland. The point you would need to make is, having that there means a lot more cyclists would be *crossing* Murray, not *traveling* it.

Before tackling Murray, how about just adding to Wightman / Pocusset features? The most obvious "next step" is probably a bike lane up the northern side of Pocusset. (for the short climb) The eastern end of Sq Hill has Beechwood which is pleasant if not particularly direct. I don't want to mess with Shady Ave. It's the primary N-S route through the area for anyone that doesn't want to be stuck behind bus and truck traffic. It's my primary driving route but I almost never ride my bike on it. Paradoxically, I sometimes take Murray up the hill *because of* the heavier traffic since most people know that they're not going to get too far too fast on Murray anyway.

A switchback from 4 mile run would be great. A climbing lane up Greenfield Ave would be fine too. There is a switchback path that comes up from near the really shady looking garage to the bridle path. I'm not sure if this is private or part of the park. There used to be a little-used footpath up from the run to Greenfield road but this was steep on foot. Does anyone know if the new Greenfield bridge has cycling infrastructure integrated into its design?

The amount of lane space taken by angled parking depends on the angle and the length of the vehicle. I think it's ok to say no to the quad cab pickups and do as narrow an angle as can give an acceptable bike lane for anything minivan length or shorter. I'd want to shoot for a four foot climbing lane. Yeah, it'll be tight. I'm happy to talk about Pocusset and at least the block of Wightman from Pocusset to Melvin. They're important too and in some ways feel more like the next steps. They're just not as important and the coming outage of the greenfield bridge will reduce their importance for a while. The connection to downtown thing, once your looking from Pocusset down into the Hollow is also damn important. But the funds necessary to do it are... well, I don't know. Squirrel Hill to downtown matters. Believe me, I feel it, I ride it every day. But Squirrel Hill north (and beyond) to Squirrel Hill south (and beyond) matters even more. I want to lead with connecting closest destinations, that's more what people will choose to bike. And it will make this more of a single neighborhood and hopefully help revive the southern end of it.

Does anyone know if the new Greenfield bridge has cycling infrastructure integrated into its design?

Last I heard--and this was at the DPW/SHUC meeting at the JCC, nine months or more ago I think--was that there would be a (paint) bike lane going one direction, but sharrows only the other direction, and that PennDOT-required lane widths precluded anything more. There should be a post around here somewhere with better (less distant) recollection of the meeting; I posted about it, and BY was there as well. So, as far as I recall, the answer is no--but that was before the new mayor, so...maybe?

My recollection is about the same as yours, though I didn't specifically remember the sharrows, only a "rideable" (3 foot shoulder). But I have a lousy memory. The sidewalk was going to be wide, but only on one side, which maybe should be looked at for a change given what's been done with Pocusset Street in the interim, though that was very much part of the discussion at the same forum, just the two pieces of the conversation didn't connect.

Regarding uphill Murray vs Shady - I ride uphill Shady a lot and really prefer it to Murray. There is much more space and I have no issues with traffic there. Murray on the other hand - too tight, too many peds, much more difficult. A Sharrow downhill on Murray would be grand. (For those who haven't ridden Shady uphill, give it a try sometime and see what you think.) I like the idea of having Wightman/Shady as uphill alternatives to Murray. and I love the signage idea with recommended routes. Finally - I'm totally behind the idea of poccusset to down to saline and then to jail trail. Although it seems way out there, if we ever got it done people would use it all the time and be absolutely amazed at the practicality of it. Those who feel the hills are too much to get into downtown would find this as a very usable option. It would be huge imho.

I used go from Greenfield to Swissvale through Sq Hill and used Shady as part of the route too. Much preferable to Murry uphill.

I'll have to try Shady uphill again I suppose. Maybe let a couple bad drivers color my impression too much. For myself. As a general purpose facility, trying to bring more people into biking?? Even if there is better road space I don't really see how I could recommend it over Murray just for topographical reasons. Total climbing using Murray for the main portion (I'm counting starting point Murray at Pocusset, ending point Forbes at Shady and regurgitating what google tells me) is 125 feet. Murray is a very steady 5.1% according to veloroutes, which for a new cyclist is frankly already slightly pushing it. The climb using Forward/Shady is 177 feet before it ducks down again at Beacon. For someone who doesn't ride a lot, an extra 52 feet of climbing, more than 40% more, is not a small determinant on preferred route. Also, the gradient from Tillbury to Beacon, for 91/177 feet of the climb is 7.2%, again, according to veloroutes. I'm not sure you can call anything sustained at that gradient inviting to a new cyclist, and again, this gradient figure is about 40% worse than Murray.

I also like andyc's comment " Paradoxically, I sometimes take Murray up the hill *because of* the heavier traffic since most people know that they’re not going to get too far too fast on Murray anyway. " Relative speeds matter a whole lot in terms of people's ability to get in lane and make a left, deal with obstructions in the bike lane (it'll come up), and also to the stress levels when riding up the bike lane and being passed by cars.

I also like Benzo's comment " I could be ammenable to back in angled parking, how about we try that out on bigelow blvd in Oakland by the cathedral of learning (between 5th and forbes) instead of the head in parking as an experiment. It would just be some paint and wouldn’t really change the setup substantially at all? The current setup with pull in angled parking sucks, a lot. People just can’t see when they are backing out of a space. " So, who do we contact to make this happen?? There's definitely research out there pointing to the (intuitively obvious) safety benefits of backing into a private nook rather than into the middle of the lane.

> So, who do we contact to make this happen?? Your City council office would probably be the place to start. You could probably try going to City Planning directly, but it's likely that both would prefer you went through your Councilperson. (Unless Murray is either a County or State road, in which case all bets are off, but I don't think that's the case.)

Great discussion! 1. I ride up Murray from Forward on a somewhat regular basis. I find it's ok to climb. The grade is easier than it looks and there's enough slack that the traffic doesn't bother me. Once past Beacon it's all fine (take the lane). Going downhill is somewhat annoying due to speeding cars (since at my speeds, I take the lane) 2. Shady is a nice climb, but you end up at Beacon, which corner is significantly higher than Murray; not so great if you're then heading west. And the bit to Forbes is a pain (in both directions). I'm not sure I'm for major changes to Murray, yet. And there's a whole lot more users than bikers. We should start with sharrows Forbes-Forward (and, actually, on to Loretta). And more prominent signage. More important: a posted 20 mph speed limit Forbes-Phillips (and ideally to Forward). Enforced. Heck, I'd settle for the current limit being enforced. Also, more ∩-racks. (Did you see the new brown, squirrel-shaped racks at Forbes & Shady? Cool. Haven't tried them yet.) So @byogman: Sharrows. Speed limit. And now that I'm thinking about it: some boxes at the major intersections (Beacon, Forward, Forbes?)

Try them both as a single leg drills and report back on which you prefer then. That's actually entirely serious. Starting out as a new rider is really just about that hard if you've been inactive for, oh, say, a decade prior. Which was me two years ago. It's a lot of people. I still remember wrestling with the bike and my chubby weak self, desperately trying not to put a foot down on Greenfield, Bates, or the trail through hollow, probably going 3mph or so over most of it. This was as the October and early November temps were dropping. Even so I was regularly sweating through my eyebrows, stinging my eyes and barely able to see in front of me. It took a good bit of crazy to stick with it. Fortunately I had a good supply of crazy to draw on. We can't set the bar that high.

I'm having a hard time understanding why more people are debating shady vs murray when whitman is there and has bike lanes and is not that bad of a climb. Why don't people want to just take this route? How could we make that more attractive?

"So, who do we contact to make this happen?? There’s definitely research out there pointing to the (intuitively obvious) safety benefits of backing into a private nook rather than into the middle of the lane." If you're talking about the back in angle parking in oakland. City council seems nebulous. The dividing line is on bigelow blvd. It's either district 8 (dan gilman) or district 3 (bruce kraus). May also want to ask the oakland green team, who host the bike/ped committee for oakland. http://www.opdc.org/programs-services/community/oakland-green-team/ I would say the green team might be a place to start and have them work through council if they like that idea.

"Starting out as a new rider is really just about that hard if you’ve been inactive for, oh, say, a decade prior. Which was me two years ago. It’s a lot of people." Pittsburgh is just a hard damn place to ride period. I grew up in Ohio, and in the spring, when you were out of shape, you could go out and glide along for 30 or 40 miles and still have a nice ride. This is why I am no longer dismissive of people who put bikes on car racks and ride on trails. I've even become more accepting of doing that myself, if it gets me riding.

Wightman is not bad overall, though it's important to keep in mind that the end of Pocusset before Wightman is steeper than Murray, and the first block of Wightman (Pocusset to Melvin) is steeper even than Shady. I remember being kinda shocked by that in my earliest days on the single speed... coming up from the waterfront with a full load and then nearly falling over on this little nothing of a rise I never much noticed much before when I was practically already home. I'm very sympathetic to the argument that it's the most logical place to start due to lower traffic volumes, the other side of Pocusset being a quiet dead end to the de-motorized street, and the wightman street bike lanes starting at Beacon. There's a bit of a difference here between what I'm thinking in terms of a time sequence of might actually happen (where pocusset/wightman is first) vs. the order in which I'm talking about things. I really do want to focus on a route to the commercial core now. That deserves explanation. One of the things that is acknowledged within the squirrel hill urban coalition is that the master planning doc is in need of a significant update. That is my chief goal, to get an uphill bike lane to the commercial core in that document at the time of rewrite. This matters significantly even if we had something on pocusset/wightman. Using the same metric as used in the murray/shady comparison, murray at forward to forbes at shady, it's 60% longer and 20 feet more climbing. Looking at businesses that are on Murray not Forbes it's even more indirect than that and really pretty absurd. You just can't avoid addressing the big enchilada.

I'll have to read through this thread later but just wanted to say I'd be interested in a bike/ped committee. I've been a SHUC member since I moved here but I've never been to a meeting. I had some email conversations with them when the CMU/Forbes Ave lanes were proposed but it just kind of trailed off. So, this could be a good impetus to get involved. FWIW when I lived on Alderson off Shady I almost exclusively used Wightman, although I was usually headed to Pitt so that kind of biased me in that direction. Sometimes I took Shady, but almost never Murray. Now I live on the north end of Wightman so if I'm on Murray it tends to be that side and not the hill side. Definitely seems like a tough nut to crack. I think the single biggest safety improvement would be banning left turns from or to the end of Murray at Wilkins. Especially "from" - I have had so many people pull out in front of me while I was doing 25 down the hill, it makes me pucker up every time.

I commute through this area every day and agree with an above commenter that I generally don't ride on Murray unless I'm going somewhere on Murray. I CAN do the uphill from Forward to Phillips, but I don't like to, because I really hate having impatient cars behind me. I would love to see a safer riding zone there but I can't envision anything realistic. These days I tend to take Forward up Pocusset to Wightman. Yes, it's a bit steeper, but lack of traffic makes it much less stressful. That would be my vote for better cycle infra, particularly since there are so many other bikes that use Wightman. I'd say at least half of my close passes come on Wightman between Melvin and Beacon, but at least they're usually moving slowly. [Perhaps ironically, the one time I encountered a real asshole driver was on Phillips when I was already going downhill at ~18mph. Some people just can't stand to see a bike in front of them.]

As a neighborhood resident who rides through or across this area almost daily, my biggest concern is for the health of the business district. Whatever major changes eventually happen on Murray should be helping to get people shopping and dining there. I would think that better biking and (perhaps moreso) pedestrian infrastructure would help a lot here because the most likely and frequent customers are those who live nearby. Get rid of some parking and we might lose a few patrons from far away but replace them with residents. I don't find Murray to be especially unsafe, and there are plenty of alternative routes for those just passing through, but it is definitely unpleasant. If it were a more enjoyable ride I'd be more inclined to take frequent little shopping trips or go out for food or coffee. Murray would be better with: - downhill sharrows well out of the door zone - a bus-only lane at least uphill instead of parking to speed up the buses, get more people to use them to commute out and come in to eat etc., and reduce bus-bike conflict because leap-frogging with buses is the most stressful thing about the street right now. It's hard to break away uphill and in heavy traffic, and bus drivers do not seem concerned with not hitting us. I wish we still had those trolleys. - red light cameras and/or whatever else would make the Murray-Forward intersection less dangerous and confusing. This intersection helps to disconnect the south and the Forward business district (what's left of it) from the rest. - fines for unnecessary honking (it exists and we should have it). Horns are supposed to be a safety feature, not a soundtrack to commerce. - traffic enforcement or more protected pedestrian crossings like at Forbes & Murray and Shady. This is mostly not a bike-specific list, but would make the cycling much better nonetheless and might be an easier sell because other groups would be helped at the same time.

I don't think any program that reduces parking on Murray is even a starter. It's really quite easy to kill off a storefront neighborhood. And it's tragic.

@ Ahlir Speed limit. Yes. I have it on good authoriy that Pittsburgh occasionally ticketed speeders before WWII- that is, before radar existed. It can be done. Perhaps labor intensive, but clearly part of "Protect and Serve." So. Speed limits and police oversight. To me, these are high priority. They make life harder for the police and much, much safer for everyone else. Will we ever get them?

I too ride this area daily to get to and from work. I too choose what are steeper hills of pocusset and wightman over climbing murray because of the traffic. One of the things that is that there are several small public parking lots in the area that are under utilized because they're not well known. They should be made more obvious and possibly have a couple more created and then there is absolutely no reason why removing on street parking on one side of murray couldn't happen. One thing that people have mentioned is Beechwood Blvd. Despite the fact that I live right next to it, I tend to avoid it where there are bike lanes because I refuse to ride in the door zone of cars. The city of Pittsburgh and its bike advocates seem all too happy to put bike lanes in door zones and other dangerous places which make it more difficult for cyclists to ride safely. There are some places on Beechwood where there's genuinely enough space to parking spaces, a gap, and then the bike lane like is done on wightman but they don't do that there. In others, the parking space is too narrow to fit a car so all cars are parked over the line into the bike lane. This really should be fixed. Also, what would it take to get an area bike/ped/transit planning committee for the area going? I would like there to be community people advocating for these things (and would be willing to be one of these people) but don't know how to get such a thing started around here.

"It’s really quite easy to kill off a storefront neighborhood. And it’s tragic." Very correct. And that's part of why I'm trying to preserve as much parking as possible. And do better signage for the (usually pretty empty) lot on Phillips. But Richierich touched on the the big point, the biggest problems right now revolve around the pedestrian environment, the nasty intersection at the base of the hill being the biggest wart in a collection at that area and then disconnect between the forward and even the nicer looking stuff under the Morrowfield and the busier, healthier area up the hill (quite a bit up the hill to get to the stuff that's consistently healthy). I have very little idea of what's possible/realistic there, but I do know a few things: There will always be parking gripes and some pressure but there's underutilized capacity on the lot at phillips which could get more usage with better signage and crossings, serving locals some of whom drive but some of whom don't has to be top priority especially in an urban neighborhood, bikes are pretty fast in comparison to relying on the bus, incomparably so for multi-stop trips in a business district, and they're getting much more popular, the bicycle riding on the sidewalk on Murray right now is understandable but degrades the pedestrian environment and should be strongly discouraged, and that a lot of people who could and might prefer to use Murray to climb because of directness, more consistent gradient use, or availability of places they might make a pleasant stop at a business use alternates because the stop and go and traffic contention make it unpleasant. I think this adds up to sharrows downhill, more pedestrian oriented crossings, a (necessarily small) bike lane, but something not sidewalk uphill, and trying to make the most out of single side parking as possible. That's just my opinion, but I think it's at least ~pretty~ well justified.

Yeah, BTW, a pedestrian crossing at Mineo's would make sense. Stop pretending that it's illegal. People are crossing there all the time. Put in a crosswalk to make it a bit safer.

Heck yeah! Not that I can eat at Mineo's but the kosher dairy pizza oriented place is right there. Also, having another point of access to the under-utilized lot on Phillips a touch closer to the main action.

While we're adding crosswalks, right in front of the Giant Eagle would be a good place. People could walk to the corner, but don't.

Those bike lanes on Beechwood were there long before Bike Pittsburgh existed, but I agree about the door zone, having nearly been doored there last week. In my dream world I'd get rid of parking on one side and install wider bike lanes.

The ones from Forward to Browns Hill Rd are ancient but are not what I'm talking about. Those I don't care about and just ignore. I'm talking about the ones that were installed about 2 years ago between Forward and Forbes (and further north but those are less of a problem since the road is wider there). There are places where parked cars literally don't fit between the curb and the left side of the bike lane (primarily in the curves just south of Forbes).

My memory is suspect but I believe the entirety of Beechwood was painted the same way back in the 90s (80s?) - no separate "lane" but a single white line with some margin from parked cars, plus the "bikeway" signs. The lanes themselves are definitely more recent. I don't think they're any worse than the old "bikeway" lines, assuming you're comparing the leftmost edge, and in some cases they might have narrowed the car lanes a bit to provide more room. It's definitely worse towards Browns Hill (IIRC, I don't go to that end often), but they're not up to snuff even on the 5th Ave side.

I live one house away from Beechwood. About two years ago, the area north of Forward was resurfaced (well the middle of the road anyway, the outer edges were ignored). After it was resurfaced they totally redid the striping. And the "driving lane" was made slightly narrower, a bike lane was added such that it straddled the freshly paved and old deteriorating pavement and the remaining section was allocated to parking. The driving and bike lanes are consistently wide but the parking area varies from about 9 ft to 5 ft wide (I went out and measured this at one point but don't have the measurements anymore). Both the fact that the bike lane straddles fresh and deteriorating pavement and the fact that parked cars need to overhang the bike lane in places (primarily around the curves in areas that don't need to have on street parking on both sides of the street*) make this implementation particularly bad in my opinion. * on one side single family homes with fairly good parking and on the other is frick park in an area with a parking lot.

Beechwood - North of forward I generally ride toward the left line of the bike lane. It's wide and slow enough that I rarely feel cramped (even if passing distances are not quite 4 ft.) South of forward I just take the lane. This is an absolute necessity given that you have to maneuver around deteriorating road surfaces through this end of Beechwood. Until the south end of Beechwood actually connects to anything comfortably by bike, it's probably fine as is. (In other words, if you can ride the hills of Greenfield or Old Browns Hill Rd, you probably won't care about Beechwood.)

A agree about the "bike line" on Beechwood, really north of Monitor (the *middle* Beechwood and Monitor, there are three such intersections...). The "bike line" is the white line separating the nominal bike lane from the any vehicle lane, and to be on that line is to be more or less out of the door zone. South of Monitor it is a cluster (*)()#@R, both because the road narrows and is in terrible condition. One issue I have in that situation, however, is that cars seem even less inclined than usual to respect the 4" (oops, 4') law when they are in one lane and I am in the other (the bike lane). As I understand it, they are still compelled to give me 4', and I won't pull away from the line unless I am totally certain that no doors will open for 100 yards or more ahead. As for Murray and Shady, they are totally different to me. I ride up Shady for 1 block from Douglas to Hobart every day. That basically requires taking the lane because crossing all the way from the right side of Shady to start down Hobart is dangerous and hard. I have never felt much of an issue there but I would never recommend that to anybody who was not very very comfortable cycling in traffic. Shady has few lights while Murray has many -- in my experience traffic on Shady moves faster uphill than on Murray. As for angled parking, ride along Frew behind CMU during peak parking hours just once (that is straight in parking, but it is the same idea) and I think you will agree that this is not a good idea unless you want to be part of a large game of whack a mole.

I've ridden along Frew and agree it's not the model we want to repeat elsewhere. I think of head in parking and head out parking not as close cousins but nearly complete opposites. The differences being in the location of blind spots and loading zones (in the travel lane vs. in a parking spot), and the anticipatability of motorists from the travel lane (brakes and signal straight ahead vs. brakes off to the side). The only similarity I see and I freely admit a disadvantage of both is that at angle they reduce mid-block crossing convenience.

I've ridden in Utrecht and Copenhagen where they have actual bike lanes and actual bike traffic jams where you wait two bike light cycles. The most vibrant commercial districts in many European cities are pedestrian zones. I thin we need to be very strategic about implementing infrastructure in a system that is still car dominated.

People brought up bike connections between Saline St / Four Mile Run and Squirrel Hill. I explored that hill a lot, abandoned the idea of stairs (it's such a long hill that very very few people would lug their bikes up the stairs), explored the woods, and came up with an alternate idea for a trail that zigzags its way up the hillside, and also connects to the Bridle Trail. Here's a map. Look for Naylor Trail and Pocusset Trail Extension. https://mapsengine.google.com/map/edit?mid=ziK2QENwxXkY.kIOXx_KzVokE&authuser=0&hl=en

A little off topic, but I was driving down shady yesterday and saw the 3 squirrel bike racks and the new bike on street parking spot on shady across from Starbucks. Very nice. Though I don't think that location will be well used. As discussed above people use any road but shady because of the hills to bike. And the bike parking is at one extreme end of the business district. But at least it is a start. I love Wightman but paradoxically I think it can be more dangerous. I've had many more near misses with cars speeding on wightman and then right hooking me across the bike lane to turn onto Darlington, Bartlett, etc. At least on Murray with all the traffic the speeds are much slower. Wightman is also very broad and the houses are quite far back from the street on parts of it so even with the bike lanes it gives the effect of looking like a highway.

On Wightman I daily take the left to Darlington and that is an example of where one has to get out of the bike lane and merge into traffic for a left. Looking back while riding straight is definitely an important commuter skill.

That's why I have an accessory nerd mirror on my handlebars. I haven't met a commuting accessory that I couldn't live without.

Forbes & Shady is actually a good place for racks. There's a cafe, restaurants and shops. And people working around there use the racks. There used to be 2 (then 3) U-racks there, usually parked. More often than not I had to double-up. (BTW the rack in front of the Starbucks is downright scary: right at the edge of the sidewalk, with cars speeding by. What were they thinking?) A corral at the public parking lot just up Shady would make a lot of sense. And maybe those banks on Murray with the suburban-sized parking lots could convert a space to bikes (No, really; I bet at least some of their customers ride. And think of all the corporate-citizen PR value.)

When I saw the on-street bike parking there this weekend (Sunday), it was packed with some overflow bikes locked to the bike parking sign.

Sunday evening? That was probably this: https://www.facebook.com/events/1695748280650281/

BTW, last night I noticed that the lights on Murray are timed for bicycles. I was crossing Forbes just as the light turned red, and as I proceeded, each light turned earlier and earlier, until I got to Hobart and had to stop and wait for the green. If I had been going a little slower the lights would have been perfectly timed for me. Which explains why it's so easy to keep up with the traffic in Squirrel Hill. And why it doesn't make sense for motorists to try to pass there. They're just going to get caught at the next light anyway.

Presumption: Motorists will be adhering to the speed limit, even on a busy, congested street like Murray.

Congested streets are the only streets motorists keep their speed in check on. Lights and to a lesser extent, crosswalks (those that get heavy use, like midblock on Forbes between murray and shady come to mind). That was one of the reasons I preferred to have the main uphill bike route in squirrel hill on Murray. Having another crosswalk or two down the hill (Douglas and Nicholson) would also help help the atmosphere and the bikeability slightly, though not in ways comparable from a biking standpoint to a an uphill lane

I don't think that removing an entire lane of parking on Murray Avenue is "realistic" at all. That uphill stretch is almost entirely businesses on both sides and those spots, which are metered, are almost always at full capacity. I imagine most of the side streets are all permit area parking and residents would be against anything that encourages drivers to park anywhere but the main thoroughfare. In this case, I could see removing parking being detrimental to those businesses since parking is at such a premium in Sq Hill and there aren't many options aside from the metered spaces unless you find alternatives. It would be nice for bikers, but as far as bike infrastructure goes, I think we should choose our battles wisely.

The business district is healthier, and parking is better utilized than a couple years ago, and there's a strong relationship between the two (though stronger for the folks passing through than for the locals). This was proposed in combo with with changing downhill side parking to reverse angled so that the net impact on the number of spaces would be substantially smaller than just eliminating uphill side parking outright. It would, admittedly make for a tight lane. The thing to be aware of is the still wildly underutilized lot between phillips and douglas. With better signage and a crossing at Douglas it could reasonably conveniently serve many of the same folks who park in the uphill lane on lower Murray due to my suggested uphill lane. I'll say in conclusion, based on when I'm looking, it's not as booked up as you say (primarily Tuesdays and Thursdays between 5 and 5:30). I'd say there's similar utilization but over a substantially shorter run comparing to to the most realistic alternate, Pocusset then Wightman. Anyways, I don't have the time to press this due to some personal circumstances, but I maintain that it can be done and ~probably~ should. Subject to some appropriate studies.

I don't frequent Sq. Hill as much as I used to having moved from Point Breeze to Lawrenceville, but every time I go to that part of Sq. Hill I end up parking in that lot that you mentioned which is indeed usually more empty than it is full because everyone else is parked on the street. The lane that you mentioned is almost entirely full of cars in my experience as someone who goes to Sq Hill with the sole intent of frequenting its businesses. It may not be as full when you go because rush hour isn't generally a time when people go shopping or to dinner. That amount of cars can not be accommodated by one parking lot with maybe 40 spots. Just on that basis alone, this plan would face a huge amount of opposition. If the response was "use that parking lot" the opposition would say "what about the elderly or people with disabilities? Now you want them to walk 4 blocks up hill so we can put a bike lane in?" The idea of reverse angled parking is interesting so I would have to give that more thought. I just feel like that if you think that the bikelash around the Penn Avenue track was bad, this would be substantially worse and even as an avid cyclist, I would say it would be partially justified.

I'd say that the really slow traffic on Murray means that we don't need a bike lane. Traffic is painfully slow which makes it safer for bikes. The times I've been scared in Sq hill is on Wightman where people cut me off turning onto the side streets, across the bike lane, at very high rates of speed.

What Murray needs are more crosswalks and signals lower on the hill, change it's character to be more like the painfully slow span between Beacon and Murray. If it were truly brought down to those speeds then I agree a bike lane is almost redundant. I don't actually think you can achieve that below Nicholson because there aren't the cross streets to do it with. I'd be pretty satisfied with a bike lane just to nicholson and sharrows thereafter if both douglas and nicholson turned into signaled intersections with crosswalks.

What about a few speed bumps here and there? There aren't many of those around the city. You can put the crosswalks across them. Of course, that doesn't prevent drivers from simply stepping on the gas between them and braking hard before going over them. It gives them the illusion that they are saving a bunch time doing this...

Speed bumps are OK if you put a split down the center of them so that cyclists don't have to deal with them. It also reinforces the idea that cyclists should be in the center of the lane. If it's one thing I would dearly like to get through to people, cyclists and motorists alike, is that cyclists are entitled to use the whole lane, and should, and should be expected to be there. On Murray especially, never should a motorist try to pass a bicycle. Not once, ever, not even going uphill. There is always opposing traffic. Bullying a car into the door zone is just wrong. It's just too effing bad if cars have to slow down to 6 mph.

Wholly in support of speed humps and those speed humps having a bike gap, here and in business districts all over, really. It's especially important to any effort at traffic calming where they put a crosswalk but no signal.

I'll just say that you're never going to get a broad swath of the population comfortable with tootling up in the middle of the lane on Murray at 5 or 6mph. Those that can do 10+, maybe, more definitely in sections with a lot of lights/bumps/crosswalks, but most of those folks are probably out there already, just most of them pseudo sharing the lane riding on the edge of the door zone. It's a bad setup in terms of encouraging cycling and in terms of encouraging safe cycling. It's worth trying to improve.

Putting a bike gap at speed bumps would certainly be nice. However, if said speed bump is also an elevated crosswalk, then they should not have a bike gap. The point of such crosswalk would be that everyone, including bikes, should slow down and yield to pedestrians. Having a bike gap would discourage that.

Elevated crosswalks at Douglas and Nicholson make sense; there's a lot of pedestrian traffic at Douglas and a bump at Nicholson would make the stretch from Phillips more friendly to businesses. That and uphill sharrows from Forward would make that street much friendlier to bikes (and people). Speed bumps maybe are good for 5mph roads but otherwise are a pain for wheeled conveyances.

"Speed bumps maybe are good for 5mph roads but otherwise are a pain for wheeled conveyances." ...yeah, that's kinda the point. Pittsburgh needs to decide whether Murray and other business district main streets should prioritise through traffic, destination traffic (i.e. customers and residents), or children, seniors, and other vulnerable road users no matter where they're coming from or going.

I like the philosophy behind elevated crosswalks. That this (the crosswalk/intersection) is pedestrian space that other through traffic is graciously allowed through when pedestrians aren't using it. I also think elevation and increased visibility is all to the good. I mentioned speed humps (not bumps, plowable and more 10-15mph than 5) because they're cheaper. I'll happily skip the channel through, slow down more, and briefly stand to absorb a bump up and bump down if we can really make a nice pedestrian environment. Absent that however, I think bikes are in practice benign enough that to let them pass more unimpeded creates less of a problem than narrowing the gap further between motorist and cyclist speed helps solve.

Relevant, via a NY Streetsblog writer: "We should be able to walk at will without harm. Policies should flow from that." https://twitter.com/miller_stephen/status/544284982349688832

decide whether Murray and other business district main streets should prioritise through traffic Fun fact: hazardous chemical tanker trucks that are prohibited from entering the SqHill tunnel on 376 (lest they crash and/or explode) exit the highway and travel on Murray/Forbes/Braddock instead.

Every time I'm at the base of the hill I'm struck by how awful things are for pedestrians. Dragging three girls is a pretty stern reminder. Just going totally afield here and totally contradicting the subject line, but what I think what would be very best single thing for the area in question (and least plausible, but hey, we can dream) is a giant elevated walkway, an irregular oblong ring over the whole stinkin' 5 way intersection. The topography would support it quite well, and it could really turn around both lower Murray and Forward.

Or this.

Ahlir brings up a point that is being overlooked which is that Murray is considered a primary road and is used by a variety of routes. It's not normally advisable to put speed bumps on primary roads. In addition, when the Sq. Hill tunnels are closed, this is the detour route which is already a nightmare. Perhaps something like this is a decent idea: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/12/us/12bump.html?_r=0 Though, once people realize what they are I feel like they aren't as effective.

The idea that people are told to go up Murray instead of Shady in case of tunnel closure is bizarre to me. I do see the issue for buses, but I think there's almost always a tension between where buses are most useful and where it's possible to maintain high rates of speed.

Shady may actually be narrower, I think. Also, for trucks and other vehicles that have issues climbing hills, it may be relevant that Shady rises to a higher peak, then descends back to Forbes, after which it rises again, giving the intersection a nearly U-shaped profile; Murray plateaus at Beacon, and its intersection at Forbes is level. I suppose there must be some reason Beechwood > Browns Hill > 837 > Rankin Bridge > Braddock Ave is an untenable alternate route, but...

Tunnel closure detours have used Beechwood during the day, and Murray at night, to spare residences on Beechwood the noisy traffic at night. So using residential Shady instead of Murray at night would defeat the reason for avoiding Beechwood. (Turning from Browns Hill onto Beechwood might be tough for big trucks, too.) A detour via 837 would be much longer. The original route is about 2 miles. The Beechwood detour is a bit under 4 miles. Going via 837 is over 6 miles.

Reviving this discussion from last year ... Squirrel Hill Urban Coalition (SHUC) is now working to form a committee on bicycle, pedestrian, and street safety issues. The first event will be at the SHUC Open House the day after tomorrow: Date: Thursday Oct 15 2015 Time: 5:30-7:30 pm Place: Jewish Community Center (south side of Forbes just west of Murray) This is an open meeting on various topics of interest to Squirrel Hill folks. There will be a bike-pedestrian table for the purpose of discussing ideas, identifying issues, etc Realistic ideas for Murray is on-topic, along with improved routes to Oakland and Downtown, intersection safety issues, bike parking, etc. We hope to identify people who would be interested in joining the committee that is now being formed. We'll have some maps to mark up. By unfortunate coincidence, this is the same evening as the Oakland bike-ped meeting.

Trying to find a babysitter. It would kinda kill me to miss this.

So, I'm thinking of just showing with the kids and bike train. Kinda like the statement it makes even if it means that there's a lower limit to how long I can effectively stay. A slightly weird idea, will throw it out here first. It might work well, might not, but it's interesting for how easy it would be to implement. Why not charge more for parking on the uphill side than the downhill side? It's highly imperfect in so many ways, but it's a clear reflection of any undeniable reality. Lateral space is just more valuable going uphill.

Interesting concept but due to the remote parking meters that aren't tied to any physical location, I suspect it's not possible.... Unfortunately won't be able to make the SHUC meeting, as I'll be at the Oakland meeting if I can get out of work in time.

Well, generally, people all pay at the nearest station on their side of the street. Is there any real harm in making that a requirement? And don't rates differ depending where you are already? Understood there's a little grey area in which station is closest, but the side of the street it's unambiguous and that's the interesting variable here.

re the title of this thread... Could we at least get some sharrows on Murray? Traffic is slow enough that this shouldn't disrupt current driving patterns (except maybe uphill below Phillips) and many riders naturally take the lane. But it would serve to legitimize cycling. Also, racks for bikes (more densely spaced ∩-tubes for starters). When I'm there to shop I always seem to either share a stand or have to move down the street to find one with space. Both sides of the street.

I'd suggest asking the shop owner for the bike rack. I think they're the ones putting them up. And, since you're a customer, they should listen. When I asked at the liquor store, I eventually got referred to the landlord, who dropped it, I think. But it's worth a try. (BTW the liquor store landlord is Lou Malini at Prudential Realty Company, 412-261-6500.) Also, I don't think the differential pricing on parking would work; Pittsburghers will definitely cross the street to save 25¢ on parking. Plus, it's going to annoy the shop owners on that side, so they'll oppose it, so why not just go for eliminating parking? And while I generally think sharrows are useless, they might help on Murray Ave. There are quite a few old drivers there who think bikes should stay out of their way.

For reference, I and several other people I know pushed on both the squirrel hill and greenfield giant eagle to add bike racks (writing letters, calling management and complaining in store). The best they ever did was finally allow the city to put up bike racks on the sidewalk outside their business but even with that, neither has adequate bike parking.

"lso, I don’t think the differential pricing on parking would work; Pittsburghers will definitely cross the street to save 25¢ on parking. " That's exactly the point! I mean, I think for short visits people will still use uphill side parking, it won't completely clear very much, but if you just bias those people who are, say, going into a restaurant or something else long-ish into preferring downhill side (or, say, the lot between phillips and Douglas) then you'll get a lot of clearing in practice many times during the day. I don't love merging in and out and I'd rather have a lane south of Nicholson at the very least but I think an environment with a lot of crosswalks (for instance, add them at Douglas and Nicholson) and if we can keep bringing the culture of aggressive pedestrian-ism further down the hill, that keeps speeds lowish and makes those merges are a lot easier to do. And it's still valuable even with top end speeds kept down. Thinking in practice to 15 or 20 or so. Some cyclists can and will do 15 up Murray. The overwhelming majority will not. Having a place to bail to that's not in the way of pedestrians and where you can rest the legs is nice.

I suspect that people would still park on the uphill side, then walk across the street to use a downhill side kiosk, to save the quarter or whatever the price differential might be. What might be more palatable would be a trade: on-street parking on Murray becomes free, but no parking is permitted at all on the uphill side.

I think this same treatment could also be well applied to a sharrowed Forward avenue between Murray and Shady (it's often almost empty already and there's a generally underutilized lot in front of the cleaners that maybe could be negotiated to be paid but usable by all (not just those in the plaza), with revenue going to the businesses in the plaza that gave up their dedicated lot.

reddan, it depends on software, right? Can the meter maid check to see where their location matches the side of the road where they paid. If not, obviously it's no dice, but I don't see what's hard about it in principle, again, because not all these meters charge the same rate so PRESUMABLY there's at least some of this capability already? Making parking on Murray free but restricted to one side will make it impossible to find a spot and impact business much more negatively than even nixing the uphill parking entirely and leaving the downhill side paid. Uphill or down, it's all to some degree valuable space and there needs to be an incentive to clear out.

No, it's not hard in principle. I can't speak to the underlying technology, which (along with bureaucracy) would define how hard it is in practice. I'd be all in favor of paid parking on downhill side and nixing the uphill side completely, as I'd rather not rely on the invisible hand of the free market to provide a usable bike lane. Honestly, assuming we could incentivize people to park primarily on the downhill side, having even a quarter of the uphill spaces still in use would force cyclists to weave in and out of the primary travel lane. I'd really rather have either one lane shared by all, or two guaranteed lanes, to minimize the number of transition zones.

Agreed that 1/4 of the uphill spaces in use is about as bad as them all in use. 1/10 is not. So how it works in practice depends heavily on the parking demand curve and traffic speeds at the time. I will say the basic premise is flexible in degree, so maybe it's tune-able to work kinda well, kinda most of the time. The heavy weasel wording there is telling. It would actually work much better in conjunction with first parker penalty, per area served by the meter, though I think that would cause still more confusion and teeth gnashing. At the end of the day I really do prefer my reverse angle parking on the downhill side, lane on the uphill side idea, I've just haven't seen that there was a lot of love for the idea, so I'm trying to come up with others. Non-committal and broadly implementable ones obviously I think are especially experiment worthy.

"I will say the basic premise is flexible in degree, so maybe it’s tune-able to work kinda well, kinda most of the time. The heavy weasel wording there is telling."

That, to me, is the deal breaker. Especially for less-experienced cyclists, I'd rather have a reasonably consistent level of danger than a "sometimes okay, sometime not, you'll find out when you get there" sort of thing. (Also, bear in mind that one of the selling points for the new parking kiosks was that you don't have to use a specific one, just a nearby one. You're supposed to be able to use whatever kiosk is most convenient, not necessarily whatever one is closest to your car.)

"At the end of the day I really do prefer my reverse angle parking on the downhill side, lane on the uphill side idea"

Me too.

Maybe being able to use whatever kiosk was one of the advertised benefits, but honestly is it one people care about? The real value of the kiosks is fewer points of failure in the system and that end users don't need a stash of quarters. I think it would work much better with a first parker penalty rate. I think you'd get a much clearer pattern of whole block on, whole block off most of the time, a pattern that would guide more experienced cyclists to take the lane in blocks where parking is claimed and less experienced ones to divert to sidewalk (which is terrible, but less terrible than them being there the whole time). Glad to hear at least a little support for the real lane, though.

"Glad to hear at least a little support for the real lane, though." I wish I could support this. But I don't see it as realistic. There are blocks there where the only parking within a short distance is in front of the store. And I don't think you'll be able to persuade shop owners that traffic from an uphill climbing lane will replace what they lose from having a parking space right in front of their store, even if there's still a space across the street. Even though I don't think parking is any God-given right, it's what they have now. So there has to be some trade-off to compensate them for what you're taking away. The city could possibly purchase the lot between Schoolhouse Yoga and Alan's and make it a city lot. That would provide a few spaces. But north of Douglas, there's no space the city could offer.

You're missing the public parking lot on Phillips directly behind the businesses on Murray (with pedestrian access to both Phillips and Douglas). Unfortunately the city doesn't have good signage for this lot and it goes mostly unused.

No, I know about that lot. It's across the street from my house. It exists now, though, and we'd be taking something away. So it isn't something the city could offer in a negotiation.

Better access to that lot perhaps? From Douglas? Plus the "mineos" crosswalk? I think in general crosswalks, not parking, should be the way to compensate for lost parking. Though it would at least yield a more efficient use of a scarce resource if the private lots (the one you mentioned, plus the larger one just uphill of the gas station) were all public, metered ones.

Maybe try and strike a deal with First Niagra and/or giant eagle to reduce pressure at the top of the hill? I care about this somewhat less because the last block (Hobart->Beacon) isn't as steep and is almost always congested, but scarcity does propagate some.

Forbes and Murray in the business district each need a couple of strategically placed bike corrals. Especially Murray, the sidewalks are narrow and installing racks significantly reduces pedestrian passage. Maybe somebody already said that, didn't go all the way back.

Additional relief valve: in the same area as the underutilized lot between Phillips and Douglas but on the north side of Douglas, there's a home that's probably a tear down (I happen to know the owner) and behind that, from satellite view, what looks to be an empty parking pad. Between the home's lot and the empty parking pad you could park another dozen cars.

I assume you're talking about the last residence before the carpet shop. That would work pretty well, You could make the alley next to the Mexican restaurant one way to the lot, and exit the lot onto Douglas. It would definitely improve the parking situation in that block. You'd have to do something so people could walk from the lot to Murray through that alley without running into cars. If you also got some paid spaces in the Niagara lot I could see this working pretty well.

There'd be room for, and great demand for, a healthy ride station just north of Forbes and Murray along the side of the library. Many other good locations scattered throughout squirrel hill. Though, to close the loop, lower stress passage up the main North/South hill would be pretty key to making it work well (the three lane arrangement of Beacon also sucks and changes there would complement changes made to Murray as they run perpendicular-ish and together take you from bottom to top).

Alas, second to last residence before the carpet shop. The last one? Two years ago or so I think I recall being cursed at, I think in Korean, for using the shared driveway between the two places, so that was entertaining. It was a bit unsightly then but don't know whether it's a tear down candidate or not. I can't really tell if the alleyway behind schoolhouse yoga or beside the picture framing place is wide enough, but it would be super cool to have a continuously drivable off murray uphill parking horseshoe between just south of Phillips and just south of Hobart.

While we're talking mid-Murray and improving the bike/ped access, the strangely wide sidewalk in front of Jerry's might be another opportune healthy-ride station location. A good mid-hill location and good east/west branch point.

Sorry for the slightly frenetic pace of blarging folks, I'm seeing some pieces potentially fitting together into something bigger and am excited. Also, don't know how long the kids are going to last tonight at that meeting.

> There’d be room for, and great demand for, a healthy ride station just north of Forbes and Murray along the side of the library. the part of that block that's not part of (or relevant to) the driveways for the parking garage under the library is a bus stop. somewhere near there would be good, but i don't see it going on that block. maybe around the corner near the actual entrance to the library (either one)?

At the mid-block ped crosswalk on Forbes (by the shoe store), I would put a Healthy Ride station right next to the crosswalk on one side and a bike corral on the other side, each on the upstream traffic side of the crosswalk, improve sight lines and safety for peds from motor traffic so people aren't trying to walk out past a parked car. Now that I'm thinking about it, I would push for a new midblock crosswalk on Murray right at Giant Eagle, and have the exact same arrangement there. GE has their own parking lot, so any whining about losing a street parking space should be obviated.

Murray and Forbes is the symbol, the beating heart of squirrel hill. There has to be something at that intersection. Even if you have to piss off a church (muttering under my breath about a couple recent happenings). I really like your idea but I think it's in the awkward position of being too close to where something has to be already.

What? There is a public parking lot off phillips? I never knew. You're right, the signage for it sucks.

Just like the public parking lot in bloomfield that's hidden a block off liberty. I'd love to see all these little public lots get big old signs with a Parking logo on them as well as wayfinding signs on adjacent corridors directing you to them.

I'd love to get out there and put in a plug for a different issue, creating a connection from Pocusset to Saline St. Being able to get downtown without dealing with traffic in Oakland or Uptown should get some attention. Unfortunately, it's already 6 p.m. and I have things I have to do tonight, so I'm not going to make it. Whose ear do I have to bend to get some attention on this?

creating a connection from Pocusset to Saline St I had a chance to drop in and check things out. The cycling table looked to be the busiest one in the room (though I did come late). Among the displays was a map showing proposed cycling paths. A connection between Pocusset and Saline was one of them.

At this evening's SHUC open house there was a really good turnout at the bike/ped table. We collected a lot of annotations keyed to map locations about things that could use attention. This will provide a good initial list of things to be done. We also collected a dozen names and contacts of people who would like to be involved in a neighborhood bike/ped committee. Several contributors to this thread were there (thanks for coming!), and this thread is incorporated in the information collected for use by the committee. If you were not able to be there and would like to be added to the list, indicate that here and we'll get you added. Yes, the connection from Pocusset to Saline St was discussed and supported. Also a possible connection from Forward and Murray to Saline St.

Thanks to the SHUC for putting together a good meeting. I have to admit I never strayed from the bike/ped table. My eldest daughter did, and said she had fun, so that was an unexpected win. The doughnut holes smoothed things over for the kiddies too. The most prolific and cross referenced notes, and the worst handwriting is mine and am happy to clarify anything that was unreadable from that handwriting and my being pulled, metaphorically and literally, in other directions. Thanks to jonawebb for adding a picture annotation to the earlier (reverse angle parking downhill, bike lane uphill) Murray avenue idea as well as communicating some of the parking ideas from this thread in the uphill direction though I don't think that got written down?? I also didn't add any notes about the differential parking pricing because I was out of time and there were already two proposals on Murray (the aforementioned and also just sharrows) and really, mainly, because I was out of time anyway. It did my heart good to hear from others in person not only that Panther Hollow Rd's disastrous pedestrian crossing was key, but also Bates, and that I wasn't even the one who put the note that the path through the "wildflower meadow" needed to be paved. The first two things together (or if available, something better on Panther Hollow Rd. most especially) would more or less establish a credible link replacing what is cut off from squirrel hill now with the bridge going out, and putting the path through the wildflower meadow and a crossing at the top would be terrific follow-on improvements and pedestrian improvements generally. It was a good group and I very much look forward to what it might accomplish.

Ben, your comment about the "beating heart of Sq.Hill" got me thinking, someone should at least throw out the idea of a Shared Space intersection at Forbes and Murray, remove all signals and signage, even though it would't have a snowballs chance of being constructed. I think the idea needs to start being put out there in the public awareness, that it has been done elsewhere, and works; http://www.citylab.com/commute/2013/04/lots-cars-and-trucks-no-traffic-signs-or-lights-chaos-or-calm/5152/

@edmonds. that citylab video is amazing! There was something in the paper earlier this summer about trying shared-space at the clusterf**k that is stanwix and liberty, but maybe forbes/murray would be an easier sell.

Forbes and Murray is takes a while to get through by car, but it's pretty good otherwise. A better target for experimentation might be the cluster^&* 5-way at the base of squirrel hill.

I'm intrigued but skeptical. I grew up with roundabouts everywhere, and they've doubled in quantity in the years since I left metro Buffalo. The ones that were there in 1965 have not changed at all in that time. They worked well then, they work well now. I'm amazed so few exist here. These, though, I am less sure about. I want to see some unbiased video in operation. I know I've seen video of similar setups in places like Vietnam -- with dozens of people traversing the ring, some on bikes, some on foot, throw in a few cars, buses, trucks -- but accompanied by a sense of derision, as in "how the actual F does something like this work?" SqHill-ish, other possible spots for either a roundabout or one of these are Beechwood-Wilkins-Linden, and any corner on Wightman.

I think you'd want to do this in some place where there's a sense that "the rules might be different here." That's why the concept works well in Market Square. The different road surface, the constant change in traffic direction, and the open area all announce that there's something to pay attention to here. I don't think it would work well at a single intersection like Forbes and Murray, with traffic arriving from different directions. Same for Forward and Murray.

I mention it because there's a lot of space to work with and nobody remotely likes how it works now. Also, as the entrance to squirrel hill from the parkway, it feels like the place to put something distinctive and nice looking. By connectivity, this should be a very heavy pedestrian area but it's below average for squirrel hill because of the self reinforcing cycle of anti-pedestrian design and overall crapitude.

Forward and Murray classifies under "if it was possible to get through there in anything other than a car, maybe someone might actually try getting through there in anything other than a car." Still, there are lower hanging fruit.

Squirrel Hill bike/ped meeting Thursday 12/10 6:30pm Re-posting from Next Door Squirrel Hill:

Hello Neighbors, I'm Marshall Hershberg, Coordinator of the new SHUC Bike-Ped neighborhood committee. We are holding the first "official" meeting of this committee Thursday, 12/10/15, 6:30-7:45 PM, in Room 202 of the Jewish Community Center, 5738 Forbes Avenue. We will be discussing the many suggestions/comments about bike-ped matters that were raised at a community meeting SHUC conducted this past October. Please feel free to join us if you can.

He has a 4-page list of the comments people put on the maps at the October meeting

Squirrel Hill sharrows. Inspired by Millvale and Roberto Clemente Bridge. Concept by @TheIguana

I don't know if this would discourage the adding a penis to the cyclist graffiti on the cyclist logos on bike lanes that I've seen around town or not.

wait, what? where? I don't think i've seen that at all, but maybe i've just missed it.

"penis to the cyclist graffiti" "but maybe i’ve just missed it." They can't be that hard to miss. Maybe we need to look harder.

Maybe I'm imagining that there are more of them but there are at least two of them on the newly painted cyclist logos on the climbing lane on Forbes.

It's been a while since I've posted a picture on here so hope this works... :P You're welcome. EDIT: BAH GOOGLE DRIVE.... EDIT 2: AAHHHH YEAAAAAHHHH.

Holy cow you have high expectations. lol.

"They can’t be that hard to miss." I haven't seen any either... but it's been cold out lately.

Holy cow you have high expectations. lol. Nah, I just have a love for the ridiculously impossible. A squirrel with a dong the size of the rest of its body is pretty fantastic. ....plus I'm trying to make sure there's no way anybody will miss it. :P EDIT: Also, whatever makes Rusty happy! :D

A squirrel with a dong the size of the rest of its body is pretty fantastic.

Nah, it's just plain nuts.

In another space @TheIguana suggested the beaver should have a yarmulke, but I think that's too much like a merkin.

From Vannevar on FB and Buffalo^2 on twitter, reverse angle parking exists in Pittsburgh along River Avenue. Germane to the discussion of replacing parallel parking on both sides with single sided (probably downhill) to get rid of door zones.

The Squirrel Hill Bike-Ped Meeting last night was interesting. I hope somebody posts notes. The best part, for me, was the idea to run a bike trail down the old route of Saline St, from Saline in Panther Hollow along the Parkway East to the ramp at Murray and Forward. This would pass under the Greenfield Bridge and mostly be on park land. I like this idea because it eliminates the climb up Greenfield when going from the Eliza Furnace trail to Squirrel Hill. You still have to make your way up Murray, but hopefully we can do something to make that area more bike friendly. And it's not as steep, or as long. Also it opens a new bike route into Squirrel Hill.

You would still need to climb the 250 feet between the bottom of greenfield and the intersection of forward and murray. And anything proposed won't make things _much_ less steep. The best anyone's talking about is a 5% grade and that's optimistic. It would move most of the climb off of greenfield ave and onto a dedicated bike/ped path though. Furthermore, if the second choice were to be made, it's up another 100 feet to pocusset and wightman.

The trail will be a nice asset. Whether it's a game changer, and a lot of the future of biking in squirrel hill generally depends doing something about the terrible 5-way intersection and making climbing routes up the hill (Murray being the most important).

Sorry, for some reason I can't post the scan of the trail route. It is here: https://flic.kr/p/B7PwRc This is just an idea right now; please don't get the impression that the city is going to do anything without consulting people.

Why is their no bike share in squirrel Hill by the giant eagles

@A PGH bike share will expand in 2016 and, based on how often people ask for it, I'll be very surprised if Squirrel Hill isn't included in their plans.

I think a trail from Saline St is a really cool idea. I wonder if it would be possible to branch off that trail to connect with the bike+ped portion of Pocusset St.

No, it would have to go up a steep hill. You'd have to connect to Pocussett through the intersection at Murray.

We were on Pocussett St this afternoon, and when I looked over the edge toward the highway maintenance yard, I was surprised at how close it seemed (or how far down the hill we actually were, if you prefer). I just checked the topo maps, and it looks like the maintenance yard is around 900'-920' elevation and the trail is below 960'. ADA grade requires a foot of run per inch of rise. Call it 50' of rise, you'd need a minimum of 600' of run, preferably more. Schenley Drive through the golf course is 5%, a little shallower. That's 20 ft of run per foot of rise, or more like 1000'. My reaction as we went by was that if the connection to Forward didn't work out, it might be possible to make the connection here. PS: Did you know that USGS topo maps are online free at http://store.usgs.gov/b2c_usgs/usgs/maplocator/

Mary, that's really interesting. In a way that's a better route anyway since it puts less pressure on the horrible intersection at Murray and Forward. I think we should try to get bikes away from there as much as possible. And there are no houses etc on that hill. It could be easier to run a trail up there than continuing up to the intersection. I drew the potential connection in red. The distance is about right according to Mary's estimate of the terrain: I really like this idea. In addition to avoiding the nasty intersection, it cuts the overall trail length in half, while still achieving its purpose. It puts the trail into a nice wooded area that's currently inaccessible, instead of along the Parkway. And, with Pocussett Drive Trail, it creates a create mostly traffic free connection to Squirrel Hill points north.

I like the proposed routing up to Pocusset. But maybe a switchback to make it hit the street closer to the (new) bridge would be better: riders coming from Greenfield could more conveniently connect to the Saline Trail. Riders bound for Squirrel Hill shouldn't mind (and the existing roadbed remains in use). Maybe it will ease out the grade as well. Mary's link doesn't quite work for me, but if you go to http://store.usgs.gov/b2c_usgs/b2c/start/(xcm=r3standardpitrex_prd)/.do and click through 'Map Locator & Downloader' you'll get there.

I've spent hundreds of hours digging trails on this steep of hillsides and am probably nearing a thousand hours of bench cutting single track at this point. With that experience, here are my thoughts on putting a trail in that area. Looking at the grade of the hillside below pocusset, benching a trail there would be problematic. And multiple passes, as needed for a switchback, would be nearly impossible. The bench cuts would need to be 8 feet deep just for a trail a couple feet wide. Connecting it from below pocusset would be equally problematic. There's no way to do that without benching into the already existing pavement. One solution I've been looking at is climbing that elevation on the west side of the greenfield bridge. There the hillside is wider and less steep. A switchback or two would be possible. The downside would be needing to cross greenfield road at the northern end of the bridge to connect with pocusset. But really I think that is the only viable solution. Or at least the only solution short of spending 6 or 7 figures on a concrete pylon bridge that would allow an trail to climb and connect to pocusset from below.

Given the terrain going up to Poccuset Street (thinking from the end of Saline, but it's steep no matter how you slice it), I did float the trampe cyclocable idea to Richard Feder in email. Of course then you're not talking about a bidirectional link, at least if you go most directly and take advantage of what the lift would be good at. While it's neat, I'd hesitate to call it the best way. What I'd think of as the best way for getting to squirrel hill on or east of Murray is the proposed trail directly to the base of Murray PROVIDED that the 5-way intersection and way up Murray can actually be made inviting. These are hard, hard issues, I hope the bike/ped group doesn't flinch from them and finds a way. To serve folks west of Murray better, especially those that aren't further north and already near Schenley Drive ~something~ has to be done about Panther Hollow (Overlook is pretty but too indirect to be valuable except for recreation). One advantage of this angle is that there is actually low hanging fruit, stuff that clearly would benefit pedestrians a great deal. Just some stupid ADA curb cuts and other improvements to the sidewalk crossing on the northern end of the interchange would be significant, and some downhill sharrows and serious speed control on Panther Hollow Rd. would be something (speed cameras and mailed tickets would be nice) downhill. It wouldn't be first rate or anything, but as a practical matter it would be pretty ok. This would of course have a lot more value as improvements come to Bates Street and BRT, and I'd think you could do something with blvd through that stretch since you've got 5 frickin' lanes, but maybe Zulema to Ward if there's too much balking at that. It's pretty poor that they blocked off greenfield road so high that there's no access to the demotorized section of Poccuset, but in any case, probably there'd be as much or more traffic that would want to use the Beacon Street bike lanes similar actual inviting crossing made across Bartlett onto the path through the field (which should be paved), and then a pedestrian activated signal to cross beacon and get on the right side of things and connect to the existing infrastructure. Again, returning to the pedestrian angle, these would also be a heavy benefit to pedestrians/joggers/dog walkers going into Schenley Park. We shouldn't stop there, the Beacon street bike lanes should continue at least to Murray (the three lane arrangement from Wightman to Murray is poorly utilized, totally dysfunctional and very dangerous for the kids at Hillel). It would be better still if you could at least have an uphill lane going to Shady, as then you're basically at the high point of squirrel hill, which is quite useful if you figure that the worst stress in cycling is the combination of traffic pressure and a hill to battle. You could of course justifiably keep going on Beacon, I think the justification would be a bit weaker, but there's more open room and less traffic on the road west of Shady so it should be easier. If you do one thing that probably ought to be done for more value/connectivity if you do is create a counterflow bike lane on Darlington between Beacon and Beechwood, which is currently one way. Even though there'd be a good bit of climbing, being about to get across the neighborhood without tangling with cars so much (major bonus if some key intersections get a Copenhagen treatment) would be pretty sweet.

Can we please not write off possibilities at this point because of money? Do the right thing with connecting Saline to Pocusset. This should not be a project only within the confines of a bunch of volunteers with shovels. If it costs a million or two or ten, let's spend it. This will be THE connection from the east-of-Oakland part of the city into downtown. I think one switchback off the closed end of Pocusset, pointing east, will give us enough length to run the trail up from Saline within ADA requirements. That first run might need to be a couple hundred yards long, but so be it. Let's also not forget that the mess at the corner at the bottom of the hill barely handles the bike traffic it has now. That needs some serious money spent, too. If it takes ten friggin' million to do both ends right, then spend it. Twenty. I don't care. Decades from now, we will look at it as money well spent. Or a missed opportunity. In my own studies, I know that New York State managed to put a barge canal along the edge of a sheer rock cliff in the 1840s using mule power, capable of running a railroad into the 1950s. I think we can figure out what amounts to a wide sidewalk on a hillside. Photos: https://www.google.com/search?q=pennsylvania+railroad+rochester+branch&biw=1554&bih=913&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwj6usyp4OXJAhUJHB4KHWS8CqMQ_AUICCgD#tbm=isch&q=genesee+valley+canal&imgrc=kYFc3VOhQ-fcGM%3A

Yeah, and let's not forget that spending the entire budget and more for bike infrastructure on a bike connection for Squirrel Hill will benefit relatively wealthy white people. So it makes a lot of sense to do that, instead of spreading small amounts of bike-related improvements all over the city, where less affluent people probably won't know what to do with them.

I took a look at the historical maps, and a couple ideas came to me. 1. Extend Alexis St so it connects to the car wash lot (or Haworth St). 2. Rebuild Juno St along most of its old path, but instead of connecting it to Swinburne St, connect to to Boundary St. Along the way, it could be reconnected to its old side streets in Oakland (Semple St and Collision Pl) .

Economy = price/usefulness Many aspects of my sub-optimal but fairly easily implementable western approach are the epitome of that, especially since there are a lot more pedestrians than cyclists and it's a decently heavy corridor for both. It drives me kind of bonkers that these (and yes, while we're at it, the absence of a handicapped curb cut on bates crossing the parkway ramp), keep getting passed over. That said, as a practical matter, having agreements and a funding source in place is a requirement no matter what. Where was it that Rich Feder said there was money for the trail from? I don't recall, but it seemed as presented that it was, at least in principle, something that had a strong chance of being blessed once it was a formal recommendation of the SHUC bike/ped committee. It seemed, this is basically ready to go and is an opportunity that shouldn't be missed... if development blocked this routing I have little doubt we'd be mourning it later. There's the promise of major gain provided there's willingness to do the necessary follow/on work at the intersection and up Murray.

I'm on board with the trail Feder was presenting, assuming an outside funding source is found. Just not with spending tens of millions to build a switchback (if that's what it would cost). Connecting Squirrel Hill to Downtown via a trail system would be awesome for biking and would probably stimulate more trail development throughout the city. But we should do it in a way that creates space for other parts of the city to grow infrastructure -- we shouldn't grab all the funding for ourselves.

...relatively wealthy white people... This benefits Hazelwood and Greenfield as much as Squirrel Hill, if you take into account the lower end of Saline, too. I had not thought of those areas as either particularly white or wealthy. Nor should it. In the long view, this is about getting people out of cars, giving everyone an alternative to dragging a car with them everywhere they go. I look around Squirrel Hill and see two- and three-car households. Why? Even with a multiple-six-figure household income, why is it necessary to equip every adult with a car which moves each day? I think they would use the alternative if it existed. I don't know how to get people to pony up a million bucks for a project. What I do see is the cost of not building it -- continued total dependence on cars, except for the couple thousand of us who've figured out this cycling thing. There will always be resistance to spending money, so I am not giving that much credence.

I just want to say that I wish there was a way to build infrastructure so bikes didn't have to ride Murray Avenue all the time. I say that as someone who rides it every day. In addition to it being the north-south corridor for shopping in Squirrel Hill (with parking implied), it's also the primary path to the Parkway East, as well as the detour route whenever the Squirrel Hill tunnels are closed. It would be really good if there was a way to remove bicycles from that mix. I don't think there is a way to do this. Every time I try to work it out I can't figure out how to get bikes to all the shopping areas, restaurants, and the theater. I just wish there was a way to, say, move north-south bike traffic to Wightman, so that bikes don't have to fight for space with semi truck drivers and motorists eager to finally get on an interstate highway. The best plan I know if is to somehow reduce the amount of parking on Murray, so that there's enough space for a climbing lane (and, ideally, a protected bike lane all the way up to Forbes. If you really want to make biking in Squirrel Hill safe you need a protected bike lane where there is truck, bus, and impatient auto traffic fighting for space).

i think the answer is not to remove the bikes from Murray, but the trucks and impatient motorists just trying to get to the freeway. Let the retail street be for neighborhood retail traffic, and make the people who just want a bypass find one. now, what's going to be the truck route..? ....i have no idea.

Maybe up Forward to Shady? But that puts it in front of Dice, which would be worse in some ways. At least, if the traffic to the Parkway was on Shady, it could avoid the Murray-Forward intersection completely, by continuing on Shady to Monitor and then right. In fact, this could be the path for traffic going the other way. Just don't make the left onto Forward. Left onto Monitor instead. There have been some improvements in that area lately. Maybe the city is thinking something like that.

"I just want to say that I wish there was a way to build infrastructure so bikes didn’t have to ride Murray Avenue all the time." "I don’t think there is a way to do this. Every time I try to work it out I can’t figure out how to get bikes to all the shopping areas, restaurants, and the theater." Quite right. Wightman doesn't really take you where you want to go, except in a few cases, and even in those, Murray is very nearly as direct, and the climbing gradient is more even. Pocusset/Wightman has even more parked cars on the routing up the hill. At least Murray has lots off to the side to supplement the street parking. I don't think there's any way that there won't be a lot of competition on Murray. There will always be a good bit of bus traffic... and actually, that and bikes both SHOULD go through business districts and uses can dovetail, so I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, it just takes planning. Lower speed enforced with speed tables where there's no light but a crosswalk is needed (Douglas and Nicholson come to mind) will also help, though having a lane would be what'd really make the difference. I certainly support the idea of using Monitor to Shady as being a bit further from the action and thus the preferred alternate for as much of the other motor vehicle traffic as possible. This is said as a parent of a three children who will ultimately go to Taylor Alderdice. There's a side entrance on Forward. Maybe it needs an upgrade. Maybe the crossing guard at Forward and Shady needs an AR15. It's the best we've got to work with.

The last comment was a bit tongue in cheek, for those that don't know me. But if you talk to the crossing guard there right now, you get an earful. A couple weeks back, when still riding through there pretty consistently in the mornings, we'd talk from time to time, and it's an unusually stressful place and exasperating place to be a crossing guard. Redirecting most motor vehicle traffic to Monitor, while it might not reduce the traffic through that intersection so much, it would at least establish a clearer prevailing direction for the insanity and that might be useful.

A couple things I thought of reading this thread that would be cool connections. I'm sure none of this is original thought, and I'm probably just regurgitating something someone else has come up with but... Juno street kind of connects to the underside of the blvd of the allies bridge with sketchy wood stairs. It would be cool if they could cut some switch backs in under the bridge and make a traversable path to connect juno and sidewalk adjacent to blvd of the allies (or edgehill st). Connecting to hazelwood via old sylvan ave. Just make a crushed limestone or paved path through this old right of way. Maintenance hell though due to knotweed. I trust dfiler's opinion on the trail connecting to poccuset st. A connection to the murray / foward intersection would be cool though if that could be done, and while it's a bit of a roundabout way, it could still be a useful connection if you could get the right of way through there. If a trail connection could be made on the west side of the greenfield bridge, then that could be somewhat complimentary if both would happen to get built.

Benzo, The old maps (http://peoplemaps.esri.com/pittsburgh/) show Juno St intersecting with Collision Pl. Seems to me that could happen again. As for Sylvan Ave, I've been told by Corey O'Connor that there are plans and funds to make the abandoned part a proper bike/ped trail. It occurs to me now that most of the vacant lots around the Gladstone St steps are owned by the city (http://www.lotstolove.org/). Seems to me that the city could cut a switchback trail up that hill, connecting the driveable sections of Gladstone St. Or, heck, they could recreate the portion of Bristol St that used to extend down to Home Rule St.

1. @dfiler is correct in that engineering a Four Mile Run / Pocusset connection might be complicated. A path could be cut into the hillside but maybe a cantelevered ramp would work better in the space. (Yes it costs money, but it's *our* money.) 2. I think Murray works fine as is, certainly in the business area. This is because the speeds are very low: cars and bikes can work together. I don't think it needs anything more than some sharrows that legitimate bike presence. Maybe some white lines along the sides to herd the cars to the center ti make room for bikes.

I like the Sylvan Ave idea. It allows you to bypass that sucky Irvine St section, though I suppose so does the Hazelwood trail once it reopens. Uphill bike lanes in Greenfield Ave and Murray would be great. The former is particularly feasible between the Alexis St steps and Lydia St. Plenty of space there *Somewhat OT rant* Since some of the ideas being discussed here involve possibly spending a bunch of money for bike infrastructure (i.e. not just bike lanes. Concrete, ramps, etc), to me the priority should be the West End Circle. It's the gateway to a major area of the city, as pretty much all roads from the southwest lead you here. And it just absolutely sucks for cycling. A novice would be rightly terrified to ride through here, with faster traffic and probably more trucks than you'll find through Squirrel Hill. By comparison, there are a plethora of options for going to and from SH. I'm not saying they are all ideal, but they are much better than the WEC. Granted, the WEC is PennDOT territory, so I'm not sure how much the City can do here, but if we are talking about spending millions of dollars on bike infrastructure, this where I think the focus should be *now back to your regularly scheduled topic*

Yes. We shouldn't forget that poor infrastructure creates barriers for cycling. So the parts of the city where lots of people bike might be that way because they have good, or at least less sucky, infrastructure. Improving the infrastructure in areas of the city where lots of people bike is just making things better for people who are already relatively well off. It makes more sense, in terms of increasing biking, to improve things in the worst off areas. And the West End Circle is maybe the best example of this; lots of people live on the other side, which isn't that far from Downtown, but there's this big barrier in their way.

I agree with all these statements. And I'm really big on trying to do things that are trying to knock down the high pole in the tent, city-wide, not just in my particular neck of the woods. The only thing I'll disagree with is the implicit assumption that it's a the limited pool of resources that's the barrier to getting things done most of the time. I think it's finding agreements among stake/rights holders and then being able to make a suitable pitch to the city, to apply to grants, to solicit deep pocketed organizations, foundations, etc... , that's more often the problem. And a suitable window of opportunity. It sounds like we probably have all of that for the trail to Squirrel Hill. As for the intersection and the climb up Murray, I have no idea whether we're anywhere remotely near that. But it was obviously my hope in starting this thread and my hope now that the new bike/ped committee will be able to work us up to. And, well, I'm a parent, I started this because I want a bikeable squirrel hill for my kids, and the climb up Murray struck me something close to the gordion knot. Nothing remotely as efficient as slashing it down the middle. The fact that there ~may~ be a way to the base of Murray that's much better connected to the other low stress cycling infrastructure just amplifies the importance.

Friday night I rode up Murray. I started the ride from town, climbed Greenfield then headed to Murray. Riding from Beechwood to Forward was a bit unnerving. I think the next time I'll continue on Beechwood and turn left on Monitor. From there take Shady to Forward (or just stay on Shady). I didn't have any issues climbing Murray. Kudos to the driver who wound down his window to shoot the breeze with me. He volunteered to act as a shield as I made the turn from Forward to Murray. There are good people out there :-)

If you're going to go that way just go one street to the east and follow Saline to Monitor. Don't bother with Beechwood at all. Much less traffic.

fwiw, Saline doesn't connect to Monitor on the side durishange is talking about (assuming I understand his route correctly) and in the area where Saline intersects with Monitor, it is one way.

I go up Greenfield Ave then turn left on any side street in Greenfield to get on Alger. I take Alger back to Beechwood then turn left on Monitor. Never really had any problems cutting across traffic to Monitor. ~ Gerry

Back to the connection between Pocusset and the proposed trail connecting Saline St in the Run to Forward Ave. Recall that the latter is proposed to go around the back side (near the hill, not the parkway ramp) of the PennDOT maintenance yard. We rode by again last week and took some pictures. In addition, I extracted the relevant section of the USGS topo, overlaid the satellite view, and located the maintenance yard on the topo. The east end of the yard is about 940', and Pocussett St as mapped dips to about 960'. See topo map below. So there appears to be only 20', maybe 30' of elevation change to deal with. At a 5% grade (same as Schenley Drive in the golf course) 20' of elevation change would be only 400 feet of ramp. Just eyeballing the topo, it looks like more distance than that is available along the back of the maintenance yard -- so switchbacks would not be required, just a single run, of less than 5%. Conveniently, the dip in Pocusset is at the point where the hillside seems to be least steep. See photo below. If the hillside is stable enough to hold this short ramp and if the trail connecting Saline St to Forward Av is constructed, this would be simpler than the proposals to build a long trail on the west side of Greenfield Av. In addition, this alternative is worth looking at if it turns out to be hard to push the trail all the way to Forward Av

Here's a zoomed-in view of just the part of the topo of interest. The scale got cut off this in the process of zooming in, though. The blue blob is the PennDOT maintenance yard, based on the Google satellite view.

It looks like there's about 60 feet of elevation lost between the high point on Pocusset (just west of Wightman) that this would go through and the 5-way intersection that has dominated the conversation and which the longer trail would take people to directly. I'd characterize about 1/3 of that distance and 2/3 of that vertical to be lane-requiring to become inviting enough for newcomers (west of Wightman I don't think you have to do anything since traffic volumes are so low). I don't know what the process is for doing things that require removal of parking in residential (Pocusset/Wightman) vs. business (Murray) areas. It seems to me that that is an even more major factor in considering what becomes most cyclists' primary entrance/exit than what the trail would have to look like/cost as having the trail without low stress add on connectivity would put a very low cap on its value. I strongly bias to connecting to the base and Murray overall because I think topography matters so much, the network effects (serving both in-neighborhood, into/out of and through trips) are also larger here, and because unlike with residents, you can at least make quantitative arguments about parking demand elasticity and/or supply thematic carrots (possibly wider sidewalks, additional crosswalks, signaling, healthyride stations) to reduce business opposition. In theory at least. Pricing uphill parking higher now, before shovels move dirt, seems like a very rational way to test demand elasticity even more.

Just sent this message off to the solution provider to the Pittsburgh Parking Authority. Will report back if I get anything. " I saw here that you've implemented the parking kiosks for the city of Pittsbugh. http://www.duncansolutions.com/pdfs/stories_Pittsburgh.pdf I'm just a private citizen who moonlights on the Squirrel Hill Urban Coalition's bike/ped committee. But it has occurred to me that getting information on parking utilization in certain zones, and possibly trying experiments with the pricing, to get a gauge of price elasticity and/or to what extent pricing might drive the utilization to other nearby zones, would provide valuable information to us about what sorts of re-configurations might be plausible that might create more space in key spots for other uses. Chiefly, we're looking at creating space for uphill direction bike lanes and/or bus stops. Another possibility to the bike lane, assuming traffic speeds and parking utilization run strongly opposed might be different hour windows on parking availability, or even possibly a system that introduces a first parker per zone disincentive, so that there's a cleaner whole block/zone on, whole block/zone off pattern, to reducing the need/incentive for bicycles to weave in and out of the main flow of traffic. I'd also like to learn a little about the pricing model, to gauge what conversion of private lots to public ones metered by your kiosks would mean to in terms of revenue, as in general I expect metered lots to be more efficient, but there also be resistance from the businesses we'd be soliciting for use of their lots. The more realistically we can gauge the size of the available carrot, the better. "

@Mary, I think it depends from where you measure. The 900' line makes a bend to the south right at the west end of the maintenance yard. Then there is a climb up to about 940' along the northern edge of the yard, up to under where the letters "PO" appear on the map. I think it's about 600' from the bend on the 900' line to where the letters PO appear on the map -- too short for a 40' rise. Then I figure it's about 400' from there to the lowest point on Pocusset St, heading back west. That's OK, as you say, assuming the rise is 20', as it appears to be on the map. Basically you're making a switchback from the trail at the edge of the maintenance yard to get up to the street. But then you've got about 260' to climb up to the point where the 1000' line crosses Pocusset -- 260' for 40' of rise. Way too short. I don't know if you'd technically be allowed to not count the part on Pocusset, since that's pre-existing, but it definitely would be a barrier for anybody with a disability. But I think that not counting the part of the trail along the northern edge of the maintenance yard would be a problem. (Of course, the trail to Forward and Murray would have to work around this too, maybe by cutting into the edge of the maintenance yard.)

Thank you all for the detailed analyses. The majority of Sq Hill bikers can easily get to Pocusset. And it does not have to be re-engineered with lanes and such: It's a dead-end street, with only sparse local traffic (from Wightman out). Causing people to bypass lower Murray and Forward seems like a good idea in any case. We're not cars. I would still like to see a plan that incorporates the [new] Greenfield Br. It's a practical concern: Greenfield residents should be able to easily access the proposed bike way. This might include anyone living in the area W of Murray, SW of Greenfield and to the NW of the ridge-top (more or less). Basically most of the district. A switchback above the maintenance yard would likely satisfy everyone's constraints. You're otherwise asking Greenfielders to funnel through the Forward/ Murray/ Pocusset five-way. That's not nice. They're not cars either. I'm not a civil engineer but I don't see that the cost difference would be in the orders of magnitude. Can we cause this to be figured by some pros? Help me here; I could make phone calls to somebody. (And so could you!)

Story on blight designation for Forward / Murray corner mentions trail connection to Eliza Furnace. http://www.post-gazette.com/local/city/2016/02/29/URA-Blight-designation-could-bolster-parcel-in-Squirrel-Hill/stories/201602250031?utm_campaign=echobox&utm_medium=social&utm_source=Twitter#link_time=1456771357

I was pleasantly surprised by the trail nod in the article.

PUBLIC MEETING ALERT: March 30, 6:30pm The Sq Hill bike/ped group is advocating for bike/ped improvements, including a trail connection, to be included in the project. There's a message from Sq Hill Ruban Coalition at http://shuc.org/2016/02/23/murray-and-forward-theres-a-lot-going-on/ Note in particular: "The URA and the Coalition are convening a public meeting to discuss the Conditions Report and the next steps in our continuing efforts to attract redevelopment and investment in the Murray-Forward Area. It will take place at 6:30pm, Wednesday March 30, 2016, at the Multi-purpose Room at Children’s Institute in Squirrel Hill (1405 Shady Avenue). We hope to see you all there" The bike/ped group is trying to get a spot on the agenda. Come and lend your support

Seems odd they'd have to go so far away for the meeting. Too bad there isn't, y'know, a movie theatre or something right on the property....

The movie theater owner might not be interested in unlocking the dormant building and heating it for the span of a meeting.

Last night there was a meeting at the JCC on the Buncher property development (at Forward and Beechwood, near the Parkway). Oh, my, I was struck by the defensiveness of the Buncher company representative. He certainly didn't want to hear about a trail or sidewalk on "his property." Somebody should tell him that you catch more flies with sugar than vinegar. And also that the property might be worth more if it had a bike amenity connecting it to Squirrel Hill, Greenfield, and Downtown.

Further on the Buncher property on the east side of Forward where Forward ends at Beechwood ... Buncher wants to merge several individual bits, including one that used to be Saline St, and get the whole affair rezoned for "neighborhood commercial". At the May 2 public meeting Buncher declared that there was no way they would permit public access through the property. No one brought up the city requirement for sidewalks along all streets, possibly because the Buncher guy walked out of the meeting in the middle of a question and no one got a chance to ask. There will be a hearing on this at the planning commission on Tuesday June 14. The meeting begins at 2pm, they take items in order. The agenda and possibly supporting material will appear in the fullness of time at http://pittsburghpa.gov/dcp/boards/planning-commission-schedule. Their proposal is with the materials for the April 5 meeting -- the proposal down near the bottom of the very long file, the minutes on pp6-7 of the minutes Please either attend the June 14 hearing or write a letter. Yes, it's boring -- but it's important. If you can't go, write a letter. If you don't have your own general template for letters like this, you're welcome to consult mine at https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/14537273/shaw-fwd-beechwd-2016-5-11.pdf -- you're welcome to be inspired by it, but please don't just use it verbatim. Your own words are zillions of times more effective than repeating someone else's. Similar sentiments from several people are vastly more effective than just one person speaking. Major points are -- pedestrian, bicycle, disability access is crucial, and this is the only place where lower Squirrel Hill can be connected to that part of Greenfield -- sidewalks are required, just make this one wide enough to be multi-use, and make sure it connects to the un-vacated bit of Saline so we can make establish a route plus whatever you want to add

Who would be the right people to address this letter to?

I sent it to both the Planning Commission and the Zoning Board of Adjustment, since both will be involved in the approvals Planning Commission, City of Pittsburgh 200 Ross Street, Fourth Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Zoning Board of Adjustment 200 Ross Street, Fourth Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15219 See my letter for the general form: Who I am, what I'm commenting on ("The Buncher Company Lot Consolidation Plan, Murray and Forward, 14th & 15th Wards" scheduled for June 14), my various concerns, specific requests. We want conditions as part of their decision, not just exhortations at the hearing (which can be ignored). Again, the letter is at https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/14537273/shaw-fwd-beechwd-2016-5-11.pdf Be explicit enough that they don't have to guess what you're talking about.

Reminder: The Planning Commission Hearing on Buncher's plans for the parcel at the bottom of Forward Ave, at the corner with Beechwood, is on the agenda for tomorrow's meeting. The meeting starts at 2:00. The second item on the agenda is "continued hearing and action" on the zoning change for this property and the 13th item is the lot consolidation plan. Why so far apart? I don't know -- they're apparently separate actions, but why not close together on the agenda? Perhaps the presentation material would help, but the city web site is timing out at the moment. After each agenda item, there will be a chance for public comment. You get three minutes. We want a commitment -- a binding commitment -- to allow a bike/ped path through the property to connect Forward Ave with the former Saline St. The City Planning Commission meetings are held every other Tuesday beginning at 2:00 p.m. on the first floor of the Robin Civic Building, 200 Ross Street in downtown Pittsburgh. The agenda and presentation material should be available from http://pittsburghpa.gov/dcp/boards/planning-commission-schedule if only it were not timing out. Maybe it will be better in the morning.

Can someone clarify how this property relates to a connection to Saline st? This development is entirely on the east side of forward ave.

I suspect that the intention is to bypass the road intersection of Forward and Beechwood, which is kind of a nightmare for bikes and peds. If you walk up Beechwood and want to get Forward, you have to cross busy traffic without a crosswalk or signal help you. There's only a narrow median to stop at halfway. With access to that property, one could walk or bike from the other "fork" of Beechwood, through the property, and end up on Forward safe and sound. Make sense?

Are you talking about connecting forward to monitor with a sidewalk along the north side of beechwood? That seems viable. I was confused by the reference to saline st.

"The former Saline St" starts on the southeast side of Forward, just northeast of where Forward meets Beechwood. It goes through the parcel Buncher is trying to rezone, under the Murray Ave Bridge, and along a strip that still appears to belong to the city to rejoin the current Saline St at Monitor (southeast of the Murray Ave Bridge). This might be confusing because there are two existing, unconnected stretches of Saline St. The parcel of interest in this discussion connects to the existing Saline St at Monitor; from there Saline St parallels Beechwood Blvd and Browns Hill Rd to somewhere around the IHOP. There's another, separate, piece of Saline St in The Run, where they cycle track is. Construction of the Parkway took out the bit in the middle. The recommendation of the Planning Commission on Tuesday was to deny both the rezoning and the lot consolidation. That is a recommendation to City Council. If you care about making this connection actually work, encourage your Councilperson or Corey O'Connor (the Councilman for this district) to continue to press Buncher to provide right-of-way for the connection. There will probably be some discussion of this at the SqHill bike-ped meeting tonight (after the discussion of the SqHill parking survey). This isn't the usual week for this meeting. Because of a conflict it was reschecduled for today, Thursday, June 16, 6:30-8:00 PM in Room 202 at the Squirrel Hill JCC, our usual meeting spot.

These historical maps might help clarify things: http://arcg.is/1YuREiz

Thanks. That makes sense. I knew of the Saline St to the west near Schenely Park, but hadn't realized there was another section to the east. That would be an excellent connection for pedestrians and cyclists to avoid the dangerous highway-like conditions near the beachwood and forward intersection.

It's even more clear on the city zone and parcel map, which shows the current streets. See http://bit.ly/1wUx7Eu (it should take you to a zoomed-in view of the Forward/Beechwood intersection; if it doesn't, go to http://gis.pittsburghpa.gov/zonetest/ and navigate to that location) "Former Saline St" is the parcel labeled 87-k-52 (with three different color overlays indicating different zoning) and the bit to the southeast that's half yellow/half green and doesn't have a parcel number. Parcel 87-K-52 is the bit that Buncher is trying to consolidate with adjacent parcels. There are questions about whether the transfer from the City to Buncher was done properly -- the action to vacate that section of Saline was about 40 years ago, but the deed was only filed this year (and the assessment didn't change from zero to its present value until the deed was filed).

adding to the conditions mentioned by dfiler at forward and beechwood, the city just started enforcing a 100 yard no-parking zone leading up to that intersection, effectively creating a rush hour turn lane that will straddle the existing eastbound bike lane.

Squirrel Hill Magazine has a detailed article by Richard Feder on the proposed Saline St trail and related issues. Unfortunately I can’t find it online. Also, an article by Marshall Hershberg on bike racks etc.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/130578562@N02/27714525036/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/130578562@N02/27714524936/

I noticed construction equipment and a (I think new) "For Lease" sign on the Buncher property. Are they taking preemptive action? Do they have a construction permit?

Somebody on the SHUAC mailing list pointed out that PennDOT is using the lot to store equipment for some work they're doing.

Reviving the discussion of improving Murray Ave, and embedding it in a discussion of improving bike routes throughout Squirrel Hill ... The Squirrel Hill Urban Coalition’s Bicycle-Pedestrian Committee is developing a Bicycling Master Plan for Squirrel Hill. The current draft is available for comment and discussion at http://sqill.royweil.com/ . The plan is elaborated in the interactive map at http://sqill.royweil.com/bicycle-master-plan/ .  See in particular the “missing links” and “hot spots” that are overlaid on the current infrastructure, and click on items in the left column for descriptions. We see this as a broad overview and basis for discussion with the bicycling community. This is still a very early draft, but we would like to start getting feedback from the bicycling community. This is a discussion of attractive routes, and it does not include any decisions or recommendations about what sort of infrastructure would be most appropriate for each segment – there is time for thinking about implementation after we get consensus on where we most need connections. Please e-mail any comments to pgh_bike@shuc.org .Thank you very much.

I received: Remote host said: 554 5.7.1 : Recipient address rejected: Access denied

This webpage has email addresses for the shuc bike peds committee cochairs.   http://shuc.org/pedestrian-bike-committee/

The correct email address for comments on the Squirrel Hill bike plan is ped_bike@shuc.org Very sorry for the confusion. If you sent a message earlier and received an error, please resend