BIKEPGH MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVE

« Back to Archive
151

Wabash Tunnel

So if this tunnel is on the verge of being abandoned, why doesn't the city turn it into a bicycle path tunnel? Would the costs of maintenance preclude this? Then again short of filling it/boarding it up, it would be subject to illicit use one way or another. I also wonder if it would be unsafe. Thoughts?


noah-mustion
2010-07-03 16:25:33

Does it lead anywhere useful for a cyclist?


ahlir
2010-07-03 18:49:11

It's a reasonable way to get over Mt. Washington in low traffic situations.


mayhew
2010-07-03 20:00:04

Port Authority owns the tunnel, and they have repeatedly said no every time the topic was raised.


Several months ago, I started to work on getting Port Authority to change its mind on the use of bicycles in the Wabash Tunnel. I did inquire, and learned a few things. The short version is that we're not going to get it in the short term. It isn't just "no", there are some sound reasons for it that are bigger than us.


The simple explanation I got to the last inquiry was "liability concerns". I know there is more to the story than that, but it is premature to press the issue, for fear of invoking a recitation of Vogon poetry from someone at PAT HQ. It is, however, a jumping-off point for additional discussion.


Short answer: This is going to take a while, and it isn't going to be easy.


I've collected below (in the next post) all the threads in which we've discussed this over the last couple of years. Please (re-)read them, and continue to add to each one as you see fit.


Herewith are some valid concerns, in no particular order:



  • I think we want 24/7 two-way bicycle travel, with one-way for motor vehicles. That's not going to be easy to argue for. If we have to get into engineering studies and like-type paper handling, we're talking years.

  • I do not think we want to have to deal with physical separation like jersey barriers or rumble strips, between us and motor traffic. Or do we?

  • Whatever the "liability concerns" are, getting a big company with a justified fear of lawsuits to change its mind about something that increases its liability is also not going to be easy.

  • Wabash itself is only part of the problem. On the south end, there really isn't anyplace to go except Saw Mill Run Blvd, and on the north end, West Carson (even if only to the Fort Pitt Bridge steps) is similarly uninviting. Until and unless we resolve valid safety concerns about riding along those, there may not be much point in getting PAT to change its mind.

  • One potentially helpful piece on the south end is the former railroad bridge over PA51. However, it is being used as a private parking lot, and I suspect getting an easement for a public trail will also be a non-trivial effort.

  • That railroad parallel to PA51 looks abandoned, but I do not know if it truly is. It is not usable now for bikes, as stated in one of the threads below. Getting it converted into a bike trail would take a while if possible, and may not be possible at this time. I just don't know its status. (There are two, the nearer is the same one that cuts through the West End Circle at grade, and sure doesn't look very healthy.) Again, though, while out of the purview of getting Wabash open, we need someplace to ride in order to get from West Liberty to Woodruff, and PA51 isn't it in the short term.

  • However, possibly the biggest hurdle in the whole matter is money. As I understand it, Port Authority got a pile of federal money to refurbish the tunnel in the 1990s with the purpose of making it an HOV lane, part of the West Busway project. That money came with the stipulation that the tunnel only be used for that purpose, and so, if PAAC wants to use the tunnel for anything else, it would have to pay back the feds. Rotsa ruck trying to pry a 7- or 8-digit figure out of them. I fear it may literally take an Act of Congress to change the federal rules on that one. Or a positive interpretation of FHA/FTA rules, not sure which. Either way, bigger than us.

  • Last but not least, I learned of one use of the tunnel we have not talked about: It's the (ahem) fast way to get through Mt Washington, fast as in 85 mph. I got this from someone who suggested I abandon the whole idea out of safety concerns -- on Rt 51. Apparently 85 is about as fast as you can get to before you run out of tunnel.


OK, kids, are we ready? I think we need to get a critical mass of us (lower case) to make a compelling case -- to Port Authority, to PennDOT, to members of Congress, whomever. Let's make the case, on an individual basis, for getting that "No" changed to a "Yes". In other words, write a little essay on "What It Means To Me To Have Wabash Open To Bikes". My second following post, below, is my own contribution to this effort.


This IS the right thing to do. Reason WILL prevail. But it ain't gonna be easy OR quick.


stuinmccandless
2010-07-03 21:07:21

Here are the old links.


1. June 6 2009: South Hills > Oakland commute. Input needed. Good description of what has to happen (thank you, sloaps).


2. Apr 22 2008 Bike lanes from South Hills Trolley Stop Good points by several people, including a description of the biggest problem with Wabash, and touching on other bike-trail problems.


3. Sept 21 2009: West End and Seldom-Seen bike trails About trail access from the south portal.


4. Sept 5 2009: Fort Pitt Bridge Bike Route Getting from North to South without going through Downtown or encountering a significant grade!


5. Oct 28 2009: Bus Lanes (esp. Oakland) Comparing cycling in Oakland bus lane to cycling Wabash Tunnel.


6. Sept 16 2008: Bike In PGH Tunnels? Discussion comparing various tunnels.


7. Apr 17 2007 Mount Lebo-Downtown Commute with "T"? Early discussions about getting TO the south end of Mt Washington


8. July 30 2008 Commuter in the Liberty Tunnels? What's a motor vehicle anyway?


stuinmccandless
2010-07-03 21:22:51

I've never been in the tunnel, but having no physical separation from 85mph (or even 55mph) traffic in a confined area doesn't sound that appealing to me.


I'm not sure I'd ever use it, I don't really know what's on the other side...


salty
2010-07-03 21:35:02

I support opening Port Authority of Allegheny County's Wabash Tunnel to bicycle traffic. In fact I helped initiate this effort from my position as Vice President of the Allegheny County Transit Council, Port Authority's citizens' advisory board, on behalf of the bicycle community that I represent.


There are a lot of bicyclists in Pittsburgh, and their numbers are growing rapidly. If you live West, North, East or near South (i.e., Carson Street), it is easy to get into Downtown on a bicycle. If, however, you live in the parts of the city served by transit routes beginning with 31, 36, 41, 42, 46, 47, 51 or 53, your choices are very limited. Listed from west to east, from the Downtown side, you have:


* West End Circle

* Duquesne Incline

* Wabash Tunnel

* Monongahela Incline

* PJ McArdle Roadway

* Sycamore Street

* William Street

* Arlington Avenue

* Brosville / South 12th

* Brownsville Rd / South 18th Street

* South 27th / Josephine Street

* Becks Run Road


The Fort Pitt Tunnel/Bridge, Liberty Tunnel and Mount Washington Transit Tunnel are also off-limits to bicyclists, and we are not contesting that.


If you ride a bike and live south of Mount Washington, and want to get Downtown, those are your choices. Every single one of them, but one, has a huge hill, a huge amount of traffic, or both. Except for Wabash. It has very little traffic, and is about as close to level as you can get, headed south from Carson Street. I myself have bicycled several of these, including Wabash. Most are unrideably steep. Arlington's rail tracks are inherently unsafe for cyclists in dry daylight conditions. McArdle downhill has frequent rockfalls, uphill has a huge amount of traffic. Becks Run is a long way out of the way, and puts you out on highway-like East Carson or illegally and unsafely crossing railroad tracks to get to the trail. Using the West End Circle is daunting enough, but West Carson is simply suicidal.


To answer some known objections:

* While the Wabash Tunnel is a one-lane road, it is plenty wide enough to accommodate one-way motor traffic and bikes on both sides.

* Bikes should only be in bike lanes. This is a discredited viewpoint, analogous to limiting cars to interstate highways.


There is no credible objection to cyclists in Wabash. We cyclists just want the rule reversed.


Stuart M. Strickland


stuinmccandless
2010-07-03 21:40:07

i know someone who rides his bike through the liberty tunnels during rush hour. i asked why/how and he said that it's actually really slow in there and easy to ride between 2 lanes of stopped traffic. i still think it's kinda crazy.


stefb
2010-07-04 01:38:16

important to keep in mind that he only rides inbound through the tunnel, and he did if for years early in the morning when there was no traffic, so he had plenty of time to get used to it.


cburch
2010-07-04 03:16:41

I don't even like going through the liberty tubes in a CAR much less on a bike. What a BAMF.


noah-mustion
2010-07-04 03:22:12

Stu, that's an excellent point about Wabash. I feel like we could gain more traction about it if some sort of Saw Mill Run trail were established, because currently the tunnel wouldn't really let out useful on its south end. However, if there were a series of south side trails to link up with Wabash that could be outstanding.


It would make make biking in the South Hills downright appealing and practical.


impala26
2010-07-04 03:23:06

I actually composed most of the above in March and April, and was waiting for a good time to unleash it. A couple of additional points:


- I'm no longer ACTC's VP, but am still very much involved in transit issues with Port Authority and other organizations.


- The final West End Circle work paved over those tracks where they cross Steuben Street, so I'm pretty sure they're abandoned. That's good news!


- To reiterate, the speed limit in Wabash is 25.


On the south end, I do not know what's involved in obtaining use of the deck across PA51, nor what would be needed to get over to the rail line, nor how we could somehow get the rail line converted to a trail.


The Port Authority part is essentially a paperwork exercise.


stuinmccandless
2010-07-04 10:26:23

Speed cameras are used in every other country I've been in. People wouldn't dare go over 25mph if they knew they would receive a photograph in the mail of them doubling the speed limit and their court date. This would mean issuing front plates in PA, which is fine with me as well and would solve the speeding issue with cyclists using the tunnel.


I hardly go that way but would love to ride South more often if it were an easy option.


flys564
2010-07-05 19:01:00

Hey, train paths are designed to be as flat as possible, why can't we expect something similar for bikes?


impala26
2010-07-05 19:18:00

Tonight's (7/7) public meeting about West Liberty Avenue might be a good place to pick some brains about nearby Wabash.


What: Public meeting for the Route 3069 West Liberty Avenue Resurfacing Project

Where: Dormont Public Library, Keith Room, 2950 West Liberty Avenue

When: Wednesday, July 7, from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m.

Who: The meeting is open to everyone.



stuinmccandless
2010-07-07 20:51:30

Even though I live in the North Hills, I do ride around the city and getting to points South can be a little annoying. Even though I like the ride up McArdle it would be nice to have the option to stay more "river level". It seems like the best option would be to run a trail along Saw Mill Run which roughly follows Route 51 into the West End. With the improvements at West End Bridge/Circle it would be easier to use the new paved path they have weaved under the various bridges to get along Saw Mill Run. A large part of Saw Mill Run is actually just a paved V shape for flood control. As others have mentioned there is a railroad line that runs right along that general valley and mostly parallels the creek in the West End.


rossrider
2010-07-08 02:08:11

I went to the West Liberty Avenue meeting, but it was not the time or place to discuss Wabash.


I wish I knew more about that paved-over rail line. If it could be successfully converted to bike use, it would make StationSq-Wabash-railtrail-Steuben a viable alternative to West Carson between the West End Circle and Smithfield.


Unrelated but just as important, Wabash also passes my "acid test" for safe cycling, i.e., "Would you let your 10-year-old kid use that street to bike to the Tuesday afternoon piano lesson?" PA51 and WCarson do not, but Wabash by itself, does.


stuinmccandless
2010-07-08 19:43:55

Wheeling & Lake Erie RR Runs trains along 51, I wouls guess they own the rights to all that right of way. It looks like the line splits near the Wabash tunnel, and it appears that only one leg is still used. My guess is the unused leg runs over a bridge across the parkway and down to a trestle along the creek and into that section of west end.


burgoofj
2010-07-09 14:26:07

The line splits a few hundred feet west of West Liberty Avenue, here. The two tracks run side by side past the Wabash tunnel, then split up.


steven
2010-07-09 17:28:37

I did a little driving around one Saturday morning, followed by a Google flyover of the rail line.


Starting from West Liberty, you cannot easily get to that rail line. There's a public street, Hargrove Street, running off WLib near the Liberty Tubes/SawMillRun intersection, but it terminates in a very busy scrapyard. LOTS of traffic in there, backing and turning-around traffic. Very nasty. That split in the tracks is right by that scrapyard. If somehow we could get up on the railbed east of the scrapyard's building, that partly solves this.


Dawn Ave is also nearby, but puts you on the wrong side of the railroad tracks. While that line in question certainly appears abandoned, the other fork Steven mentioned is not.


From that split, the live and abandoned tracks run side by side past Crane Ave, where it looks at least possible to get up on the railbed from street level, though not easy because Crane is so steep off of PA51. The business on the north side of Crane would make an easy access to the abandoned track, but again, we're talking private r-o-w issues on a business driveway.


From there, it's a straight shot down to Wabash, or more specifically, the business whose parking lot is on the bridge structure above PA51 at Woodruff Street. Getting from the Wabash Tunnel to this is super easy; even Google Street View does this. Getting to the railbed involves wiggling through about 50 feet of woods on the north side of that building. Theoretically this should not be hard at all.


The abandoned and active lines split to the west of this spot, with the abandoned one crossing the PA51/I-376 junction ramp on a bridge; actually they both do. You see them as you come out of the Fort Pitt Tunnels headed for the airport. The abandoned one is the first of the pair. (The live one crosses Greentree Road and enters a tunnel.)


The abandoned one crosses Woodville Ave on a trestle, then hugs PA51 down into the West End, crossing West Main St, then meeting Steuben Street at grade level. Since this is now paved over, that tells me the line is abandoned.


West/North of Steuben, after passing through a brief tunnel, it crosses West Carson, part of the bridge structures just beyond the West End Circle, then merges with another track, which in turn merges with very live tracks near the West Busway, between WCarson and the river.


I would really really like to see this rail line converted to trail use. Pull up the tracks, secure the bridge structures for trail use, and settle all the r-o-w issues, and you have a clear and usable path from the West End to Wabash, at the very least, and very possibly to West Liberty on the eastern end, and almost to Corliss and WCarson on the western end.


stuinmccandless
2010-08-27 19:05:57

Imagine if there was a nice, rideable path from McKees Rocks Plaza along West Carson, down to the West End Circle. That RR structure that rises next to the existing West Carson sidewalk, by the West End Circle, could be the beginning of a bicycle superhighway, as I described in the post above, connecting people powered transportation with the West End, West Liberty Ave, and the Wabash Tunnel. No need to deal with Saw Mill Run Blvd!


On the north end of Wabash, you have to deal with about 200 feet of West Carson down to the Smithfield Street Bridge, or hook left/outbound for about 400 feet on W Carson to Commerce Drive, to ride through Station Square to get to the river trail.


THAT would be soooo sweet! It would also open up McKees Rocks, Stowe, and The Bottoms to a safe, pleasant and fast path into town! That would really help those neighborhoods, too!


stuinmccandless
2010-08-31 21:14:26

my understanding of things west of the point is abysmal, but could that then connect to the trail to WV in Carnegie? Then maybe once the sandcastle and bridge parts are all connected, the DC trail could head further west? Again - I'm lousy at anything west of the point (or south of the mon, honestly).


ejwme
2010-09-01 01:03:58

Commander Shubert? brought up the notion of an enforcement detail for cyclists downtown. Is it possible to coordinate something with bike-pgh in the different neighborhoods or zones in handing out lights and the 101 guides?


There was something similar done out west where a bunch of led lights were handed out by police to cyclists. Just a thought.


sloaps
2010-09-01 01:47:28

This PAT detour notice may be somewhat related to this proposed future bike trail:

http://www.portauthority.org/paac/apps/DetoursDNN/pgDetours.asp?mode=1&MemoID=5693

The trail could possibly run on the W&LE railroad trestle to cross South Main Street. But as the detour notice says, the West End reconstruction left this trestle too low for some trucks, which now get stuck beneath the trestle.


That suggests to me that they may want to tear down the unused trestle before too long, which could complicate connecting any future bike trail there. I'm not sure there's anything to be done about it though.


Ejwme, this particular trail (let's call it the Wabash Trail) would only be a little relevant to a connection to the Panhandle Trail, which runs from near Carnegie out west to the West Virginia Panhandle. The Wabash Trail would run from roughly the West End Circle past the Wabash Tunnel's south end to the northern end of West Liberty Avenue. A proposed Carnegie Bikeway would also start at the West End Circle, but head to Carnegie (so it might share a short stretch of trail with the Wabash Trail).


The northern end of both these trails would also touch the proposed Coraopolis Trail, which would extend the Station Square Trail out to Coraopolis, along the south shore of the Ohio, to reach the Montour Trail (which already connects to the Panhandle Trail).


Here's a map showing all the above but the Wabash Trail:

http://www.alleghenyplaces.com/maps/ec/Trails.pdf

The Wabash Trail would run from the point due west of the Point where the Carnegie Bikeway starts (i.e. the West End Circle area), south along Route 51 to where Route 19 (i.e. West Liberty Avenue) branches off from it. That point is also the south end of the Liberty Tunnel.


steven
2010-09-01 04:40:36

@ej, After riding numerous routes out to the westburbs this summer, I am totally convinced that Noblestown Road should be the official bike route out, it's wide(mostly), and a long easy grade. After last weekend I think it should be signed and get sharrows from the WEC to Carnegie (at least). You can then connect to the Panhandle and continue on to Ohio if you like. On a road bike I just stay on Noblestown as far as I care to go, it's a great ride. My road bikes do not care for the crushed limestone/dog walking/strolling hearing impaired people of the trail.

Going from downtown to Coraopolis to the Montour trail to the Panhandle is like going from downtown to Squirrel Hill to get to the South Side.


edmonds59
2010-09-01 11:10:39

The only bad part about all of these proposals heading west, is that they lead to OHIO.


Can't we fold the map or something and just leap directly to South Dakota or Wyoming?


atleastmykidsloveme
2010-09-01 11:28:41

Ok, then lets keep things simple. Lets just connect all the trails and bike lanes with additional trails and bike lanes (where appropriate), and that way we can get everywhere we want :D And ALMKLM, I'm all for figuring out how to tesserect straight from Carnegie to Jackson Hole, I whole heartedly agree! In fact, I think PennDot would be more likely to accomplish that than some of the more reasonable, laws of physics obeying suggetions here :P


And since I grew up in SqH'l, I very often would go from point A to B through SqH'l (especially it it involved a Mon river crossing, I didn't discover 2nd Ave's existence until 2008), because I only knew directions to/from SqH'l. I've only lately grown out of that, it's taken about 5 years, but it appears I AM capable of learning new tricks.


Future Inlaws live in Moon, so I'm sure I'll have lots of excuses to play "Where Does This Go" in a more westerly direction, and look forward to discovering the trails and routes discussed above :D The West is indeed my final fronteir. Well, except for the South.


ejwme
2010-09-01 12:14:39

Ej, simple, you just go to the WEC, take a left on Noblestown, and keep going until you hit Tofino.


edmonds59
2010-09-01 12:39:45

Cross-reference: http://bike-pgh.org/bbpress/topic/west-end-and-seldom-seen-bike-trails


I think there's two trestles involved, a short low one over S. Main, fairly close to the West End Circle, and then another quite long and very high one over Woodville and Saw Mill Run itself. Turning that second one into a ped/cycle bridge might be an interesting challenge.


nfranzen
2010-09-01 13:03:11

Probably about as much of a challenge as planting a bikeway along the Allegheny from the 31SB to 40SB.


stuinmccandless
2010-09-01 13:33:49

@Edmonds: Active Allegheny Steering Committee meets tomorrow a.m. I'll be sure to forward your strong recommendations re: Noblestown. I also need to unconvince them of a connection from Walkers Mill to Heidelburg via Nike Site Road and Hilltop. 5% grade for at least a half a mile. Probably not what we want as we promote biking and walking to n00bs.


swalfoort
2010-09-01 23:43:48

ejwme The West is indeed my final frontier. Well, except for the South


For the west, there are 2 fun, but not too long, rides in Lou Fineberg's "3 rivers on 2 wheels". You might be able to find it in a bike store around. I think Iron City has a few Copies. Or get one from Lou at Bike-Pgh


The rides don't go out anywhere near Moon - they are much closer in - but they give you a little sense of where you can go from West End Circle.


Moon is serious suburb - with all that implies.


+1 on Edmunds suggestion of Noblestown (but it doesn't go to Moon either).


mick
2010-09-01 23:59:23

edmonds - I actually have printed out bicycle directions to Wyoming, but I think you're right, it's time to extend that to Tofino.


Mick - that book sounds cool, I will try to find a copy somewhere. Library might have it :D


I might try to come down on Moon from up north rather than from home, depends on when I try it. My commute has me pretty convinced that with enough water, breaks, and time I can bike anywhere. I may not be able to walk the next day, but that's a problem solved by more biking, not less. :D


ejwme
2010-09-02 14:45:39

ej, when you're ready to take that Moon trip I'll put together some route suggestions.


edmonds59
2010-09-02 15:38:18

My main concern was getting out of Downtown, just using the Wabash Tunnel at all, and having someplace halfway decent to ride on once getting through it, not simply be dumped onto Rt 51 just to be run down by some jerk doing 65mph.


Getting east to WLiberty to hook up southern neighborhoods, and west to the West End and maybe West Carson, to hook up western neighborhoods, is a logical extension of this idea.


As for way west, Noblestown looks OK, as does figuring out all the twists and turns, through Carnegie and Oakdale and (gasp) Noblestown and Midway, and somewhere in there picking up Panhandle Trail (like in Collier Twp where it starts), which gets you 30-ish miles almost to Steubenville. West of that, I'll have to defer to the west-of-town experts.


stuinmccandless
2010-09-02 15:42:19

We choose to go to (the) moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.


Godspeed to you both.


atleastmykidsloveme
2010-09-02 15:45:11

Damn Almklm, that's great. Where did that spirit go? Now we have people who can't even envision riding a bike a mile to get a gallon of milk.


How is it possible that google streetview doesn't have Forest Grove road in Kennedy Township so I can show the Kennedy astronaut?


edmonds59
2010-09-02 16:02:40

@ Edmonds -- I have a copy of the book here in the office. Can lend it to you any time.


swalfoort
2010-09-02 16:15:17

@edmonds - I think Velominati Rule #5 is essentially paraphrasing Kennedy.


atleastmykidsloveme
2010-09-02 17:00:36

Spot on.


edmonds59
2010-09-02 17:05:48

At the Feb 9 Bike-Pgh member meeting, I talked briefly with Wendy Stern from Port Authority about Wabash, and of course got the immediate 'no' I was expecting, but also some "there are good reasons why" phrases I was not expecting. (Re-read my first post, above.)


It sounded like where she was going with the thoughts was that it's dangerous to mix bikes and other traffic in the tunnel. No more dangerous than riding on any other road, I said, but it wasn't the place to argue.


I will continue to look into this as long as I am on ACTC. What made me think of the topic just now (2/20/2011) was that PAT is using Wabash as a detour for the MtWash Transit Tunnel, which is closed today for maintenance. I suppose one significant thing in PAT's thinking is cyclists suddenly having to deal with a lot of buses in the event of an emergency MWTT closure. But as I said, it looks like there's space enough for bikes and other traffic, so again, this should be a non-issue.


stuinmccandless
2011-02-20 16:40:32

The recent Active Allegheny plan mentions the Wabash tunnel (page 2-4):



Potential Opportunities


Several innovative opportunities for active transportation were identified by the stakeholders, study team, and public during the course of the study. They are described in this section.


Wabash Tunnel


The Wabash Tunnel is open daily for one-directional motor vehicle travel with HOV restrictions during the weekday morning and evening peak periods and without restrictions at other times. Traffic is allowed inbound during the weekday mornings and early afternoons and outbound during the weekday evenings and early mornings. The tunnel operates with outbound traffic during the weekends. In all of these instances, only one of the two travel lanes is being used at any one time by vehicular traffic.


Users of the tunnel include the Fayette Area Coordinated Transit, which currently operates scheduled weekday bus service through the tunnel. Special event buses (e.g., incline shuttles) utilize the tunnel as well as significant traffic volumes outbound from Station Square and vicinity after sporting and other entertainment events.


Bicycles are restricted from the Wabash Tunnel for many valid reasons. Stakeholders and the public suggested during the course of the study that the community consider how the Wabash Tunnel could potentially accommodate bicycle traffic sometime in the future. The Port Authority of Allegheny County has considered and investigated the feasibility of the suggestion in the past. Based on PennDOT Design Guidelines (Publication 13M, Design Manual 2), emergency vehicle access must be maintained through the tunnel. The existing tunnel provides this access per design guidelines. As travel modes, bike access, and federal and state policy evolve over the next decade to accommodate and more fully utilize all modes of transportation, it may be advantageous to revisit Wabash Tunnel bicycle access, in the context of other changes in mode shift. Port Authority cannot allow bicycles in the Wabash Tunnel due to safety, design, liability, and operational concerns. However, it may be possible if there is significant demand, to pursue an alternative ownership scenario, where bicycle access to the tunnel can be considered, although that would be a major undertaking and cost.


So PAT has a bunch of good reasons: "safety, design, liability, and operational concerns". And it seems they may all be solvable by giving PAT a big pile of money for its extremely expensive yet virtually worthless tunnel. Argh.


Thanks for your work on this, Stu.


steven
2011-02-20 18:52:18

Port Authority cannot allow bicycles in the Wabash Tunnel due to safety, design, liability, and operational concerns.


PAT thinks it has a bunch of good reasons, but I want to see how this decision was arrived at. Show me the specs, show me how this was justified.


Fourth Avenue from Wood to Smithfield is about as wide as Wabash, if memory serves. I fail to see how changing the rules is a "major undertaking and cost".


stuinmccandless
2011-04-11 09:15:19

uh, thanks Stu.


timito
2011-04-11 14:35:59

I'd love to know the actual vehicular usage statistics of the tunnel. I'm sure it's quite insignificant compared to Fort Pitt and Liberty. I can't see any reason why they couldn't restrict it to emergency vehicles only in one lane and have a separated bike lane on the other. Use sensors/cameras and lights/gates to prevent vehicles from accidentally entering both directions simultaneously. Doesn't sound like too major of an undertaking to me.


Though this still doesn't solve the issue of what kind of access this would do for someone on a bike. A trail in the Saw Mill Run Valley is likely needed to warrant a project like this.


impala26
2011-04-11 16:54:35

From this 2004 P-G article, they were hoping for 4,500 vehicles a day. I don't have usage statistics.


I do find this quote interesting, though:


The tunnel is 20 feet, 10 inches wide, wide enough for vehicles to get around a crippled vehicle but about 4 feet shy of being capable of creating two lanes to safely carry traffic in both directions at once.


It would seem to be wide enough for a single lane of motorized traffic and bi-directional bike traffic.


stuinmccandless
2011-06-26 17:06:10

This KDKA report from May 2011 says about 600 cars a day use it now.


This page mentions the 4500 cars per day figure, but says it's what they expected by 2015 if they first connected the end of the tunnel to Banksville Road, and other unspecified stuff.


steven
2011-06-27 01:10:27

If the Port Authority changes the way it operates the tunnel, the federal government will demand its money back, something State Auditor General Jack Wagner calls ridiculous.


This corroborates what I alluded to before, that this had more to do with rules and money than engineering and safety.


20'10" would allow for a four-foot bike lane on either side of an 11-foot driving lane, with a few inches on both sides for a paint line. That would work, wouldn't it?


stuinmccandless
2011-06-27 05:32:38

If you're worried about cars getting stuck and not being able to navigate around a disabled vehicle, I'd put both bike lanes on the same side, and the driving lane on the other side. Any way you do it, you'll have vehicles head on to cyclists, so why not minimize that by buffering one bike lane with the other - assuming you can make required transitions at the ends of the tunnel.


dwillen
2011-06-27 14:31:49

@ Stu


Where is that quote from?


mick
2011-06-27 14:33:07

It's from the KDKA story I just linked to.


steven
2011-06-27 16:19:20

In my humble opinion, I still think we would need to have a Saw Mill Run trail project in the pipeline to have any clout with this.


impala26
2011-06-27 16:46:04

I agree with Impala. That is a tunnel to nowhere for cyclists without more infrastructure on the south end.


eric
2011-06-27 17:45:40

Getting Wabash access will require two steps. First, getting PAT to change its mind on allowing bikes in there at all. I think that's fairly simple, on somewhat the same level of difficulty as PennDOT changing the I-279 HOV lane from minimum 3 to 2 passengers. Again, primarily a paperwork exercise. I don't think we need any infrastructure changes at first, just a decision.


The second will be more difficult, the part requiring infrastructure changes. See the posts on page 1 of this thread. The logical choice is getting that railroad bed from the split near West Liberty to Wabash and from Wabash to Steuben Street or West Carson. That, I'm sure, will be a multi-million dollar construction project.


No, I don't have a good solution to Saw Mill Run Blvd. It's like McKnight Road -- unpleasant, high speed traffic, but not unrideable. There is a shoulder.


stuinmccandless
2011-06-27 20:20:21

First, read this notice from Port Authority.


Apparently a truck hit the signals on the inbound side, so 10-12 weeks to get things back in order.


"Wabash Tunnel is open to outbound auto traffic at all times until the traffic controls are replaced," said the tweet.


If you've ever seen the tunnel, it's effectively two narrow lanes wide, though designed for only one direction at a time. There's a double line down the center.


Wendy Stern at Port Authority assured me (at a Bike-Pgh event in 2011) they have no intention of opening the tunnel to bicycle traffic, but did not say why.


Well, here's a perfect opportunity. For most of three months, while paper is being pushed, the tunnel will have only outbound traffic. As if it gets much traffic anyway, maybe a car a minute on average.


If they're all that concerned about cyclists, seems all they'd have to do is set out a line of cones to keep cars off to the one side. How hard can that be?


Sure, in three months, for a day or so, there will be trucks there to fix the broken signal. But in the meantime, I really do not see a problem with having bikes in an empty tunnel.


Can we please lean on them a bit? When else would we get this type of opportunity?


stuinmccandless
2012-11-02 14:44:14

Man, what a perfect 90-day demo project. No cost except for orange cones. Lemons-Lemonade and that.


I wonder - does it matter what direction the bikes are going? Would contraflow bikes be OK? All we want is the lane, right?


Seems like a perfect photo op for a city that's trying to keep it's Bronze Level after a year of killing bicyclists.


vannever
2012-11-02 15:04:59

Also, a 25 mph speed limit in the tunnel. Like Fourth Avenue without the door zones or the grade.


@Vannevar - I don't think they even need the orange cones. Helpful, but not necessary.


stuinmccandless
2012-11-02 15:50:38

I’m all for this Stu, but where exactly do you want to go? Without a trail on the other end you might as well go through the WEC or use Warrington depending on your destination. The sad reality is that for now the Wabash is a waste of $ for both cars or bikes.


marko82
2012-11-02 17:54:10

I guess if I had to get to say Crane Ave and I could take the Wabash Tunnel then endure a little more than half a mile on Sawmill Run, versus taking horrible Warrington Ave and then riding on Sawmill Run for about a quarter mile, I'd take the Wabash Tunnel. At least you avoid the hill and all the broken up concrete on Warrington.

The South Hills connection to Pittsburgh is uniformly bad. Having the Wabash Tunnel would make things a little better, for those of us to are willing to ride with heavy fast traffic.


jonawebb
2012-11-02 18:19:12

Further back in the thread, I pointed out that Saw Mill Run Rd has a wide shoulder, like McKnight. That's the short-range goal.


I also proposed reclaiming that abandoned railbed for a bike trail. That's the long-range goal. Knock down those barriers later.


Right now, demonstrate that Wabash is usable by cyclists.


stuinmccandless
2012-11-02 18:47:00

I have no idea how the tunnel operates but even if the city left it as one lane dedicated to bikes and one lane open to one way traffic (in to town in the AM out of town in PM) it could be beneficial for everyone.


boostuv
2012-11-03 11:17:43

I'm not real big on the idea of letting bikes travel through the tunnel to 19/51.If they could safely put a bike lane onto Saw Mill Run to get from the city to South Hills would be a different situation and I would be all for it,but as of right now, it would be extremely dangerous with cyclist getting injured or killed.Hopefully in the future they would consider putting a bike lane in the tunnel and Saw Mill Run


lenny
2012-11-03 16:02:37

That really would make one hell of a bike route.


vannever
2012-11-14 03:00:33

I took my first ride through the tunnel in quite a while yesterday, going from south to north. This was after crawling up Arlington and getting caught in the trolley tracks twice, once hard enough to have to put my foot down. I hate Arlington; I think it is inherently unsafe to bicycle. Note that this was at 4 mph, uphill, in broad daylight, with zero precipitation.


Wabash has none of that. While it took me 20 minutes to climb up Arlington and descend Warrington, dodging trolley tracks the whole way, it took me only 5 minutes to travel through a trackless, level tunnel, entirely out of the weather. And I did not see a single car going either direction that whole time.


The gates were an issue. On the south end, I was not able to duck under them, so had to swing around into the outbound lane. Potentially a problem, if there was any significant amount of traffic, but as I said, there was not.


Inside the tunnel, there is a double yellow stripe down the center. This is ridiculous. It's supposed to be a single lane. There would be plenty of space for a bike lane down one side, even a wide, two-direction bike lane. I see no reason why that stripe needs to be there.


The shape of the tunnel does not appear to preclude having tall vehicles, such as buses, hug the one side, though I would be happy to be proven wrong by an engineer.


Again, to summarize, that tunnel should be 24/7/365 bi-directional for bikes, and unidirectional for motorized vehicles, as per the lighted signals.


stuinmccandless
2012-11-26 00:30:48

On a slightly related note... What's up with the HOV lanes on 279? Are they ever open?


I might accidentally end up on them, as I essentially go along that route on a regular basis, but have been taking Brighton, Marshall, Perrysville


sgtjonson
2012-11-27 14:05:06

@Pierce: I don't know about the HOV lanes, but a decent alternative route if you're heading towards West View or something similar is California through Bellevue->Balph (becomes Center)->Perrysville.


reddan
2012-11-27 14:17:52

The HOV lanes reverse during rush hours. Not sure about the weekends. I wouldn't try it.


rsprake
2012-11-27 15:06:00

I-279 HOV: I don't have the exact hours, but it's open inbound for morning rush, closed during the day, open outbound for evening rush and well into the evening, maybe even midnight. Also open outbound all weekend.


The 2-passenger minimum only applies to rush hours. Motorcycles with only one rider may use it anytime it's open.


Wabash itself is considered an HOV lane, but I forget the specifics.


stuinmccandless
2012-11-27 16:29:51

A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, the HOV lanes were part of the route for Pedal Pittsburgh iirc. Great descent.


vannever
2012-11-27 19:31:18

Vannevar, I remember those rides with that nice decent into Pittsburgh on the HOV lanes. That was a blast and a nice view coming in from that angle. Great stuff. It was a while back though.


2012-11-27 19:48:17

HOV lanes are also the bike route for the Pittsburgh Tri, though the year I worked it I don't recall the riders being too thrilled with it. They were probably more concerned with the surface than the view, though...


epanastrophe
2012-11-27 21:20:26

Both the HOV and the Wabash Tunnel are smooth as silk. HOV got a complete paving job just a year or two ago. Wabash is out of the weather and has no traffic.


stuinmccandless
2012-11-27 22:53:55

^So the Wabash is like an indoor road museum; showing yinzers what a road surface should look like. Great idea!


marko82
2012-11-27 22:58:10
Did we lose some posts here? I was sure we had at least one post on this thread in the last 17 months. To bring us up to date: * Wendy Stern has left Port Authority. She is the person who was most blocking progress on access from within. * PAT replaced the signals on the south entrance to the tunnel late in 2013 after a truck plowed into them. * There is a yellow line painted down the center of the tunnel, plus red-X/green-arrow signals at both ends to indicate direction of travel DESPITE the tunnel advertised to be uni-directional. * Port Authority, I have learned, does not want bike lanes, as there would not be sufficient horizontal space, they say. * This would not be a problem if the tunnel truly was uni-directional. As I've said elsewhere, bikes and everything else work together on Fourth Avenue, which is about as wide, only the tunnel doesn't have an elevation change, two cross streets, parking structures, or a door zone. @Marko82, you said something on Sunday about some exploration you did last weekend? Care to elaborate?
stuinmccandless
2014-04-15 12:30:47
I wrote Theresa Kail-Smith (councilperson for the district Wabash is in) on this a few weeks ago. She replied, saying she was depending on Bike Pittsburgh and Scott to tell her when to start advocating for Wabash to get a bike lane. Scott replied, saying he was planning to meet with the new Port Authority CEO soon, but wasn't sure whether this first meeting was the right time to bring up Wabash. My feeling is that Wabash is plenty wide to make a protected cycletrack, or at the very least a one-way bike lane. And the issues at the west end of the tunnel can be addressed over time -- especially since there appears to be interest from Kail-Smith and Rudiak on improving the bike infrastructure in their district. Get the tunnel fixed, and other bits will start to fall into place. And since it's been shown that the organization governing the use of Wabash can be flexible (allowing its non-HOV use for now) there's no reason they couldn't also be flexible to allow its increased use as a combined bike / HOV lane.
jonawebb
2014-04-15 13:01:28
Speaking of the wabash tunnel, I just discovered the seldom seen greenway on the other end, which you can use to connect to crane ave and climb in to beechview (if you can safely cross 51) to get to the entrance. I havn't scoped it out, but the trails seem to be showing on google maps that connect to crane on either side of brashear school. http://iheartpgh.com/2005/12/30/beechview-seldom-seen-greenway/
benzo
2014-04-15 13:08:16
Yeah, Dino and I explored for possible bike routes after you get out of the tunnel. One of the issues I have with opening the Wabash to bikes right now is that it currently doesn’t get you anywhere. You would come out of the tunnel and either climb up the back side of Mt. Washington, or you get dumped out on VERY-bicycle-unfriendly route 51. So we spent the day exploring the “Seldom Scene Greenway”. This is directly across Rt. 51 from the tunnel exit and is a heavily wooded area that currently has some very rough walking trails which lead up to the Brasher H.S. We also explored a set of rail road tracks that parallel Rt. 51. The rail bed taking you Southeast toward the H.S. has two tracks; one is in use, and the other is clearly a spur that is in disrepair and not in use. The rail bed to the Northwest toward the WEC has only one active track but we didn’t explore that any further. Our first impression is that the rail bed toward the H.S. would be probably be wide enough to allow both a trail and an active rail track with fence, but this is just a guess. It should probably be added to a long term plan. The possibility of blazing a bike trail through the woods following the walking trails is probably a non-starter due to the extremely steep hillsides that those paths follow. However, a path could probably be made by following the contour of the hill from right to left in a crescent shape and a switchback or two (see pic). It’s a little over 300 feet of elevation, but it could connect to a park/neighborhood that then connects to Broadway Ave. in Beechview and then on to Dormant and Mt. Lebo. It would be quite an undertaking, but there is already a marker from back in 1985 where the city started to put in the walking trail so I think the land is city/county owned.
marko82
2014-04-15 13:22:22
To clarify, the trails that show up on google maps are not even walkable in spots. They mostly follow a gas pipeline that climbs straight up the hills and are very overgrown with thorny things and small trees. The flat bottom area would be a neat place to check out on a MTB if one wanted a new place to check out, but drainage is very poor over large areas and can be swampy. There are a few official parking spots by the Woodruff St. entrance to the trail too
marko82
2014-04-15 13:34:45
So here's my plan: 1) Get Port Authority to change the rule. It's a paperwork exercise. No studies or infrastructure or anything else needed. 2) Access from the east: From West Liberty Ave, use Hargrove St to the junkyard, go behind their building up onto the RR right-of-way just at the point of the used and unused tracks splitting. Use the unused R-O-W at least as far as Wabash. This will require easements of various sorts, I'm sure, and these won't be easy to obtain, I am also sure, but physically it should not be too difficult. Lawyers, not gravel, will be the greater cost here. 3) Access from the west will be much harder, as there is a lot of distance involved, plus old infrastructure like RR grades and bridges are either missing or in such disrepair that they may as well be missing. I suspect that major work such as what was done along the trail between the 31st and 40th Street Bridges will be needed to stabilize the old RR bed for trail use down to the West End. We're talking about several million dollars, I'm sure. 4) To access trails up into that part of Beechview adjacent to and above Brashear HS, I don't know what all would be involved.
stuinmccandless
2014-04-16 09:48:06
Thanks fultonco, I might scope this out when the weather warms up. I'm sure my cross bike would be fine sneaking through this.
benzo
2014-04-17 08:21:08
@Benzo - You will be good. There is a stream to cross, some steep and overgrown sections. Also, some private property on the other side of Brashear. Have fun !!
fultonco
2014-04-17 13:57:36
@Steven said in another Wabash thread (referenced above)): The 21’6" roadway is supposed to be too narrow for two lanes of cars. It was built for trains. I just went out with my tape measure. Perrymont Road is 21'6" for two travel lanes, and handles 5,000 vehicles a day. With several blind curves, blind grades, busted pavement, eroding hillsides, and dozens of driveways and side streets accessing it. All manner of school buses, box trucks, speeding SUVs, garbage trucks, and the occasional commuter cyclist, share this space. Nobody has ever said boo about it being too narrow for two lanes of traffic. And the tunnel is unidirectional! Port Authority: Change your damned rule.
stuinmccandless
2015-05-30 09:48:44
Yeah, but Perrymont doesn't have concrete walls at the side of the 21'6"
mick
2015-05-31 22:50:19
I think it's a much better thing for the port authority to keep their rule so there's space for a cycletrack on the too narrow leftover section. Wasn't the issue that some of the funding was tied to the tunnel's HOVish-ness and modification of how it's used that brings said funding into question? Then again, didn't they make a change at some point so it wasn't all HOV associated with the west carson street stuff? Seems that somehow the process for getting an exception was navigated... so, hope? Trying to reconstruct from vague memories here so this could all be wrong.
byogman
2015-06-01 14:57:23
Yup, the feds gave PAT temporary permission to let cars with one person use the tunnel during West Carson construction. Story here. The need to get federal permission is one of PAT's many reasons not to let bikes use the tunnel. Given that it took three months for the feds to give approval for a time-sensitive temporary use, even with a whole bunch of politicians pushing them, I can see how PAT might think getting permission for bikes would be a challenge. But this is one of those challenging things that needs doing.
steven
2015-06-02 05:00:38
I remember hearing a while back that the problem with this project is that is was funded with federal monies, so there are some purse-strings attached to doing anything different with the tunnel.
jason-pgh
2015-06-02 08:21:18
My proposal is to continue unidirectional motor travel, but bi-directional bicycle travel. Bicycles and motor vehicles will share the space going one way. No need to reserve space on the same side for bicycles. With a speed limit of 25 mph, the same as nearly every two-lane street in the city, this should not be an issue. There exists a line down the middle. No need to change that. Again, this is a paperwork exercise. No engineering studies, no change to striping, lighting, lane configuration, anything of that nature. Though it is mildly annoying to have to duck under the gate for the opposite direction, so maybe some sort of modification there might be necessary.
stuinmccandless
2015-06-02 10:53:42
Think of who you're catering to and where this ultimately can, and frankly must connect, the south side trail and the river trail system generally. As much as I can dislike narrow cycletracks, is there a meaningful gradient that would make them inappropriate? Is the leftover lane really too narrow? You'd get a lot more of the interested but concerned taking the idea of riding into town seriously if it weren't shared with motorists in either direction (and hey, a lot less grumbling from motorists, too). Would probably be a less complicated thing to get an exception for as well.
byogman
2015-06-02 12:12:09
I can imagine riding through the Wabash tunnel with traffic in a sharrowed lane, but I don't think I would be brave enough to ride the other way without serious protection, probably jersey barriers. And I'm pretty brave.
jonawebb
2015-06-02 14:11:37
It would be helpful to get usage statistics on the tunnel, preferably hour by hour, if not even more granular. I'm also looking for traffic volumes for city streets. The tunnel is nearly level, though the ramp on the northern end has a noticeable gradient, as does Woodruff Street. But in terms of bike lanes (again, I am not asking for a bike lane, merely legal bike access), Forbes and Liberty are 4% and 6%, respectively. The better comparison to anything downtown is Fourth Avenue. Bikes co-exist with cars, trucks and regular transit service on Fourth, buses cannot pass slower traffic, it's one-way, and moderately uphill. If bikes are not a problem there, they won't be a problem in the tunnel.
stuinmccandless
2015-06-02 15:32:05
Uh, Fourth Ave is horrible, buses want to run you down. So, maybe that's not the best selling point.
edmonds59
2015-06-02 15:45:28
I may have made these points before but I'm too lazy to go through the thread. I like the concept of opening this up to cyclists but as Jon points out I think you need jersey barriers as protection. There have been too many bad crashes in the tunnel with just one way cars, and as a cyclists I want to truly be protected. The tunnel is also very noisy due to the loud exhaust fans. You may think this is minor, but it can be both maddening and disturbing because you can barely hear traffic coming up behind you. I've not ridden Wabash yet, but I have gone through the bus tunnel to south hills junction a few times and its very stressful not being able to hear - another good peace of mind reason for the use of jersey barriers.
marko82
2015-06-02 16:29:43
It might be more practical to use bendable candlesticks like the bike lanes downtown instead of Jersey barriers. What if a car breaks down in there, or there's a crash? With candlesticks, a tow truck or ambulance could get around a stopped vehicle. With Jersey barriers, depending on the width of the space left for cars, seems like emergency vehicles would need to drive backwards through the tunnel, perhaps a long way, since they wouldn't be able to either get past or turn around in a single narrow lane. FWIW, I think PAT has been replacing the exhaust fans in the transit tunnel this year. The new ones might be less (or more) noisy.
steven
2015-06-02 21:55:17
No way I'm riding through that tunnel, opposite traffic, protected only by candlesticks.
jonawebb
2015-06-03 06:07:07
I guess I'm nuts, I'd ride through it counter-traffic with nothing. Of course, people tell me the same when I tell them I ride through the Armstrong Tunnel, so, take for what you will.
shadow
2015-06-03 07:31:54
I agree the fans are noisy. I'm sure this is something no traffic engineer ever thought of. I suspect that not only is there no spec to work from, there has never been the slightest inkling there might be a need for a spec. But that's the sort of thinking that's going to require two decades to work out. I want access in 2015. To me, the biggest problem is speeding cars. Like on the 10,000 miles of non-tunneled streets, they're a problem. Unlike the 10,000 miles of non-tunneled streets, there is a wealth of overhead infrastructure to hook speed monitoring equipment to. They could video and ticket all 17 cars a day that use it as a speedway, and very quickly bring the more egregious violators to bear. I don't want candlesticks, barriers, anything. In fact, I'd like the stupid line down the middle removed. There is no reason at all for a mid-point line separation on a unidirectional tunnel. If they want to put paint down, put two stripes, one each six feet from either wall, giving motor traffic 12 whole feet to work with in the middle, and bikes six feet either side.
stuinmccandless
2015-06-03 13:12:07
While it's true there's a lot to hook speed cameras to, it doesn't matter. The culture of enforcement you want is not going to be here in 2015, it will take the perception that driving is an option, not a necessity before there will be meaningful inroads into making that choice an accountable one. So you're putting the cart WAAAAAY (say, a generation) before the horse, in making slow down the cars your pretty much universal answer. The route to getting interested but concerned cyclists out there is to make it not look so scary. It's been proven again and again. A jersey barrier protected cycletrack fits that mold, and really, would it be so bad? Now, I sometimes get annoyed at how narrow the current ones are and don't like what they do to intersections so I'm normally a hard sell on them vs. regular sharrows and lanes or lanes uphill, sharrows down. In a tunnel? The inability to hear what's coming, the tendency of cars to speed, the lower lighting compared to daytime, the lateral squish potential, the fact that car shrapnel has no place to gather but at the sides you'd put the bike lanes in in your last proposal, no thank you! Some dedicated and protected space for me!
byogman
2015-06-03 15:06:14
If there were plastic delineator poles, I'd bike it in either direction.
paulheckbert
2015-06-07 23:48:06
The largest issue is ventilation for pedestrians. The exposure time is longer for bikes/peds due to the lower speeds and physical exposure. I thought it was discussed previously. The liability is an issue when trying to convince governments and lawyers to take it on. I think a concrete barrier might help, but using candlesticks could allow for more flexibility in emergency vehicle types. There would need to be cameras out the wazoo since (unfortunately) we can't have nice things.
p-rob
2015-06-08 11:05:33
Do we have a baseline for air quality in the tunnel such that there could be the start of the debate whether it's adequate? If the speed limit for motorists is 25mph and it's actually been measured judged ok for that (vs. it never being measured), we can't be THAT far off, can we?
byogman
2015-06-08 12:48:10
The baseline is that the ventilation system was installed for a railroad. I do not know if it was upgraded for motorists. It is one of the reasons why there is not 2-way traffic in the tunnel - ie calculating emissions for a full tunnel with 2 lanes of traffic (worst case scenario). Anecdotal comparisons consider the systems used on Liberty and Fort Pitt Tunnels. There are OSHA regulations for humans (bike/ped) and the fans that are there currently wouldn't cut it - compared to Liberty and Ft Pitt. Also, without the connections on either end worked out in terms of network there is no complete project. Projects that utilize federal funding (like those of this magnitude) require logical termini and independent utility. I'd love to have it as a connection for bikes and pedestrians, but frankly the demand for improvements elsewhere decrease the likelihood of this being pursued anytime in the near future - lest it be with private funding. Make it a toll tunnel for everyone? But you'd still need to improve the network connection to get ridership up.
p-rob
2015-06-08 13:15:32
Actually, a worst-case scenario would involve a vehicle on fire with others backed up inside, with a number of pedestrians trying to get out.
p-rob
2015-06-08 13:24:17
A little bit of a wilder idea, but maybe we can turn lemons to lemonade here? Thinking of Pocusset Street. There the problem was that it was too expensive to repair the hillside and road foundation to support motor vehicles' weight, and so it became ours. Here, the problem is their exhaust. And is it REALLY ok with one lane of traffic or was that outcome just the result of successful begging instead of scientific fact, and if so perhaps that could a fresh set of measurements and a hard-nosed report are in order? Just saying that if the ventilation were too poor for exhaust to clear properly that's a mighty fine reason to restrict it to zero emission vehicles.
byogman
2015-06-08 16:53:55
@ byogman Just saying that if the ventilation were too poor for exhaust to clear properly that’s a mighty fine reason to restrict it to zero emission vehicles Oh, damn. I just KNEW I should have had that burrito without beans.
mick
2015-06-08 18:51:28
The baseline is that the ventilation system was installed for a railroad. Pittsburgh Bridges says the tunnel was unventilated when the railroad was using it. I do not know if it was upgraded for motorists. The tunnel got a ventilation system upgrade in 1998. Presumably they were upgrading an earlier ventilation system. They did a bunch of upgrades starting in 1971 for Skybus, so perhaps that was when they installed the tunnel's first ventilation system, or maybe it was earlier. In 2014, the Wabash was closed daily for around two weeks so they could replace the ventilation fans. This page says "The tunnel is equipped with ventilation fans, safety features such as carbon monoxide and fire detection systems, fire extinguishers, emergency telephones, and closed circuit cameras to monitor traffic. Port Authority will be stationed in the portal above the portal facing downtown 16 hours-a-day to monitor conditions and respond to problems that may arise." So I don't think the "it's inadequate for cars" approach is going to fly. :-) It is one of the reasons why there is not 2-way traffic in the tunnel – ie calculating emissions for a full tunnel with 2 lanes of traffic (worst case scenario). I've always read that it was simply the width. It's hard for me to believe that with the tens of millions they've spent on the tunnel, they couldn't put in adequate fans, if that were the only impediment to two-way traffic.
steven
2015-06-08 23:48:07
I would be so unbelievably happy if Perrymont Road had unidirectional motor traffic with bikes going both ways. Roads like that are at least half the paved surface in the county, but two-way traffic, and somehow accommodate bikes. I'm sorry, but the tunnel being "not safe enough" and "not wide enough" arguments fall flat on their faces, in my opinion. The only infrastructure change I would make is to remove that stripe down the middle.
stuinmccandless
2015-06-09 07:18:57
Looks like I am mistaken about the fans then, thanks. I was looking at OSHA and AASHTO regs to see how the standards are applied when determining "enough" ventilation. I think there is a reason that some people are engineers and others are not. Tunnels full of CO emitting vehicles and potential fires are things that cannot be dismissed to lightly. Considering the size of the tunnel, you could easily spend $10M and not have adequate ventilation for the use that is desired here. I have been in the tunnel with motorists illegally driving in the opposite direction, so width is not so much an issue as the ability to vent the tunnel and liability involved. Also consider the increase in congestion at the portals and approach roadways with 2-way traffic. The Port Authority does not want to take on mitigating it. If the state ever follows through with their HOV lanes from the Banksville interchange, it could happen, but then we would have that unfortunate new bridge across the Mon River just for commuters. Back to the original topic, it may be possible to take over the tunnel if the Port Authority continues to struggle with funding. At least if one were to come up with a funding source to relieve their maintenance/debt burden relative to the tunnel then you could negotiate. Considering the scarcity of funds and need for other improvements I do not think it is likely. Perhaps crowd sourcing it?
p-rob
2015-06-09 07:40:47
Pittsburgh has made such great progress in biking, but the south hills and west end is stuck in 1957.
mick
2015-06-09 11:48:07
Do I need to just come out and say it? Just ban cars altogether from the Wabash Tunnel, and make bicycles its primary purpose. Really. We can shut the whole thing down for a week at a time, and it doesn't make a smidgen of difference to traffic backups anywhere else. You can shut down the Fort Pitt Tunnels for hours at a time and see hardly an uptick in its usage. If vehicular pollution is the problem, fine, that's easily fixed by removing the source of the pollution. That also means you can shut off the fans, making it much quieter. It also reduces the electric bill, not having to run a dozen big motors. For that matter, you can turn off at least half the lights in the tunnel, too. It's insanely overlit. Meanwhile, as Mick said, south and west of the city essentially have no reasonable access to downtown by bike. It's 1957, and not likely to change. Ever. Unless... Not only do I propose shutting it off to cars, I previously proposed spending a huge sum of money to do the job properly to connect West and South: a bike way from River Street in the McKees Rocks Bottoms to Glenbury in Overbrook, with connecting ramps where needed. Hell, put a roof over it while we're building it at all. But connect it to town via Wabash. Yeah, it'll probably cost $50 million by the time we're finished. Yeah, tax dollars. Yeah, gas tax dollars. Yeah, no hope of recovery of those costs from those cyclists. Yeah, I'm serious. And no, I don't care that it's a screwy, "out there" sort of idea. So were the Parkway and the Fort Pitt Tunnel and two new stadiums screwy, "out there" ideas once.
stuinmccandless
2015-06-09 18:30:44
Just ban cars altogether from the Wabash Tunnel, and make bicycles its primary purpose. YEAH, DUDE ! ! ! The Wabash tunnel is, after all, an old railway tunnel.
mick
2015-06-09 18:54:52
Someone would have to pay for it. But I agree that it seems like the best use of that tunnel. It's closed half the time anyway. And the rest of the time it's rarely used. Instead of a white elephant we'd have the longest dedicated bike tunnel in the country, forming a critical link to a difficult to access area.
jonawebb
2015-06-09 20:38:47
If it's only for bikes, no pedestrians, it might qualify as the longest such tunnel. But there seem to be a few longer rail-trail tunnels in the US that allow both bikes and pedestrians.
steven
2015-06-10 04:19:43
I agree that would be wonderful to have to ourselves. I don't see it as the least bit realistic unless it was going to be shut down to motor vehicles owing to emissions anyway. I seriously doubt the bike community could shoulder a financial burden the port authority can't, and I don't think it should try. We can use a part that's unused, let's campaign like hell to do it. If there are more costs that would be associated with upgrading the ventilation for us, challenge the port authority for the vehicle counts, close it to motorists for a week, open it to cyclists, and then with the relative figures (I bet we can beat the cars or at least come close) come to the city and say, hey now, it's moving people you care about, right? And by the way this'll get used a ton more if you do X,Y and Z to connect whereas there's no way to do remotely similar bang for the buck connectors for cars.
byogman
2015-06-10 05:52:33
The argument should not be cost or engineering or ownership or traffic counts. All of those are relevant here-and-now issues, but overlook the long-term problems of access to downtown by a sizable chunk of the immediate city to the average cyclist. The corner of West Liberty and Potomac is about as far from downtown as Forbes and Dallas, but an order of magnitude more difficult by bike. This means that unless you're either dedicated or desperate, your only access is by fuel-powered means. This is a recipe for placing that entire part of town at economic disadvantage. You don't need a Ph.D. in macroeconomics to see that that's how you create a slum. Think about it. Unless you live close enough to the portals on either end -- West End Bridge downstream, Becks Run Rd upstream -- that entire region south of the ridge south of the Mon becomes an Area You Just Can't Live In because of transportation non-access, if said access is dependent upon petroleum.
stuinmccandless
2015-06-10 06:18:06
Are you saying that an area difficult to access by bike is more likely to become a slum? Or do you mean that'll be true when we run low on petroleum, whenever that happens? I agree that if you decide not to, or can't, use petroleum, then lots of the South Hills is out for you. But won't that still be true, even if we add new bike routes on the Wabash and along Saw Mill Run and various other places? You could at last get from the corner of West Liberty and Potomac to downtown without having to climb any strenuous hills, but your house isn't on that corner, it's probably up another big hill. Or maybe your house is in a valley but the nearest pharmacy or supermarket is up a hill. The South Hills will always be at a disadvantage for cyclists, compared to flatter regions. Projects like the Wabash are really about how much of a disadvantage.
steven
2015-06-10 07:45:06
I agree that the focus should be on improving access from the southern neighborhoods and boroughs rather than focusing on the tunnel. If you can gain safe access to the area where the southern end of the Wabash is, you can go up Woodruff St. and continue on Merrimac St until you get to Grandview Ave, then head down McCardle. I haven't been on Woodruff+Merrimac during rush hour, but it seems like it would be good as a designated bike route. Woodruff is wide enough that you can put a bike lane uphill and sharrows downhill, then sharrows in both directions on Merrimac (there's residential curb parking). The grade isn't easy but it's not double-digit steep either. One issue though would be that I think this is the designated alternate route for the Liberty tunnel, so that would be mean more traffic whenever that happens. If you can get enough people to bike to this area, then we can start looking into opening the Wabash for cyclists.
chrishent
2015-06-10 08:22:42
The biggest use case for the wabash tunnel in the short term, and one of the larger ones in the long run, will be as a link to one or more park and ride locations along what limited infrastructure can be tacked on from there. The further south and the more you can branch out, the more tunnel traffic and misery you can save, and the more attention it'll get. Some folks will use their bikes for a lot more, but probably most won't. The hills are one thing, but multiplied out over an entirely suburban development pattern, that's when it's really rough. As a for instance, comparing my home in squirrel hill to my parent's in the south hills and just using the google biking directions to the closest grocery store, I have a half mile trip, they have a three and a half mile trip. I have 46 feet of climbing to get there, they have 328. Both are doable, but one is a lot more so than the other. You could repeat that experiment for almost any other common destination in life and find the same thing.
byogman
2015-06-10 08:35:05
I think it would be much more useful to improve the bike-friendliness and functionality for bikes of the inclines, rather than expend much energy on this tunnel. The other end of the inclines open directly onto neighborhoods, actually neighborhoods with vast swaths of undervalued property, within city limits, that would be attractive to a demographic open to better transportation biking. As others have implied, the other end of this tunnel would still require crap-tons of additional infrastructure before it is even remotely more attractive to the casual transportation bike user. If someone is committed enough to make it from the south to the tunnel, they are likely enough to be able to make it over the last hill. SW PA is just a hard and shitty place for "casual" biking, it just has to be admitted. The level of fitness and commitment required for the easiest casual ride is very high. It's very difficult to go against billions of years of geology.
edmonds59
2015-06-10 09:40:29
I don't think admitting defeat facing topography gets us anywhere and I'm especially loathe to do so in a thread that has the potential to make some difference in the matter. There are slowly riding valleys coming from the other end going into the south hills that could get you pretty far if there were some decent infrastructure built to follow. I haven't tried the incline with a bike, or generally, in about two decades. Not that it can't be a small helpful thing, but I somewhat doubt you'll ever see truly a lot of people using it. I'm generally wary of suggesting public transit, whether it be buses or funiculars in the same breath as biking infrastructure. There's a lot of overlap to the applicability and the two can be complementary, but I know for myself, and I have to imagine for many others, it's principally as a backup plan. One of the major reasons I ride is so I can come and go freely, more freely than in a car because I'm not worried where to put the stupid thing. Put those two together and the fact that connecting that last mile or three (whether it be via bike or bus) is intrinsically harder and lower payoff with a suburban development pattern, that's why I talk a lot about park and ride. Is that not pure enough or something? Seriously folks, the south hills people will go from thinking bikes are the stupidest thing ever to the greatest thing ever, overnight, if you can spare them tunnel backup headaches getting into town. I can't comment on cost/prioritization vs. other stuff in the pipeline, but having allies matters, even beyond the city limits. I'd like to see us try and make them here.
byogman
2015-06-10 11:05:54
One thing about the inclines though - as ancient as they are, unlike buses or even the T, they are the most reliable and consistent component of the transit system. You always know where they are, and more or less when they run.
edmonds59
2015-06-10 11:55:22
Somewhat out-of-date financial info about the tunnel is here: http://www.post-gazette.com/local/city/2006/04/25/Wabash-Tunnel-has-become-expensive-venture/stories/200604250155 As of 2006, PAT paid $780K/year to a local contractor to maintain the tunnel. The PG estimates this works out to $12/trip so 65K trips/year. I think PAT would dearly like to be rid of the tunnel, if funding could be found to pay for it. They might even be willing to sell it for a good price. But it's still a matter of several hundreds of thousands of dollars / year to maintain it.
jonawebb
2015-06-10 12:38:12
It sounds like bikes in that tunnel is a pipe dream, at least for the foreseeable future. A decent enough alternative would be a separate bike path from the bottom of Crane Ave. to the bottom of Warrington, combined with a bike lane going up Warrington to Allentown. Once you hit the top of the hill at the police station, it's like skiing a big mountain out west: if you make the right turns, you can put yourself about anywhere along the base of the mountain.
jmccrea
2015-06-10 12:39:27
Only 65K trips a year, that's truly amazing and pathetic. Looking into the source of the costs: "They change gates and signs that control the alternating one-way flow of traffic, monitor closed-circuit video surveillance and carbon monoxide detection systems, respond to accidents, clear snow and handle breakdowns" Most of those costs go away if it's bike only and now I'm quite sure we could beat those ridership figures if it's either/or. If it's not either/or, none of those costs should be any higher with bikes in the mix.
byogman
2015-06-10 13:00:56
I agree with @byogman, getting 100 people to commute daily to downtown Pittsburgh using that tunnel shouldn't be hard. I genuinely think that with the right argument and right advocate, PAT could be sold on this. They're paying $780K / year for 65K trips (or whatever the current numbers are). Convert it to bikes, and they'd pay say $100K / year for some larger, and growing, number of trips. So they end up saving hundreds of thousands of dollars, and more people use the tunnel. And they don't even have to sell it.
jonawebb
2015-06-10 13:11:16
More traffic on Perrymont Road in two weeks (5000/day x 14 days =70K trips) than the Wabash Tunnel gets in a whole year.
stuinmccandless
2015-06-10 13:42:33
Or, for the bike advocate: more trips on the Penn Cycletrack in 3 months 24000 X 3 = 72000 than the Wabash Tunnel gets all year.
byogman
2015-06-10 14:59:32
"The tunnel had been forecast to attract 4,500 vehicles a day by 2015, a number officials said was predicated on other factors like connecting the south end to Banksville Road." PG, 2006 Even with the HOV restrictions lifted due to the West Carson construction, I doubt the daily usage is anywhere near this.
chrishent
2015-06-10 15:15:20
Thinking about it, the financials are very different from what I thought. Obviously PAT isn't paying a contractor $780K to maintain the tunnel for 65K cars out of the goodness of their heart. They must be doing it because they're required to, by the Feds, who paid for the renovation. Suppose we were to go to the Feds and get them to agree that the tunnel could be used for bikes so long as the total number of trips was more than is currently used by cars. They might go for that, really. And then if PAT signs the tunnel over to the city, say, with some money for maintenance and a park and ride lot at the end, they'd be relieved of a financial burden. And folks in the South Hills would get a new way into the city.
jonawebb
2015-06-10 20:56:16
I like the data comparison of riders and motorists. There is a bit more network connecting the Penn Avenue protected bike lanes then there is leading up to and from the tunnel though. But it does show how valuable the data from Penn Avenue is and will continue to be. I hit that route almost daily as part of my commute and I take my warmshowers and couchsurfing guests dahntahn to roll in the lanes too. As for air quality I found some info on the Posey Tubes, which have a bike/ped ledge of sorts. They said the air system is similar to that of the Holland Tunnel. The Holland Tunnel turns over the air completely every 90 seconds. There are a lot of comments about how bad the noise from heavy traffic is, but the Wabash would be comparatively low. I think the Port Authority wants to hold onto the tunnel as a detour route if the Mt Washington Tunnel is closed, but they could also use Arlington Avenue, albeit longer. At least if the tunnel goes back to HOV then the weekend and most of the weekday traffic would be so low as to make it easier on the ear drums and you wouldn't need so much $ to improve the ventilation (maybe).
p-rob
2015-06-12 16:01:06
Side thread cross reference to discussion about the railbed that passes near the south end of the tunnel. link There is a link in that thread back to this one.
stuinmccandless
2015-06-18 11:47:11
From Port Authority's website, 2 July 2015: Wabash Tunnel Change on July 4th The Wabash HOV Tunnel will be open to inbound motorists starting late afternoon on Saturday, July 4. The tunnel normally is open in the outbound direction from 6 am to 11 pm on Saturday and Sunday. On Saturday, the change in direction is scheduled to occur by 5 pm. The tunnel, which provides a connection for motorists between Route 51 and the South Side and Downtown Pittsburgh, will return to its normal outbound direction on Sunday. Wabash Tunnel information for the holiday weekend Friday, July 3: Open inbound 6 am to 2 pm, closed 2-3 pm, open outbound 3-11 pm. Saturday, July 4: Open outbound 6 am to 4 pm, closed 4-5 pm, open inbound 5-11 pm. Sunday, July 5: Open outbound 6 am to 11 pm. *Note that the tunnel closes for an hour when transitioning from one direction to another. Also, the tunnel closes nightly from 11 pm to 6 am the following morning. Posted on Thursday, July 02, 2015
stuinmccandless
2015-07-02 18:33:41
HOV restrictions for Wabash Tunnel to remain lifted through August WTAE story PAAC web page
stuinmccandless
2015-11-18 20:11:04
I motorcycled through it last night around 6:30. It actually had quite a bit of traffic. I had at least three cars in front of me and one behind. More significantly, the ambient speed was 48-53 mph, for the posted-25 tunnel. I followed the same three cars onto inbound 51 down to the Parkway on-ramp. On wide-open, four-lane, posted-35 Saw Mill Run Blvd, in the left lane, this same set of cars traveled 48-53 mph. The other observation is that every car in the tunnel obediently stayed to the right of the center double-yellow line. This tells me why biking through there is inadvisable: * The unneeded center line in the unidirectional tunnel directs cars to the right half of the tunnel. * Drivers already don't know they can cross a center line to pass a cyclist. * Pittsburgh drivers have it solidly ingrained in their heads not to change lanes in any tunnel. * The complete absence of adherence to the speed limit. * Right now, there seems to be a lot of high speed traffic. A good analogy would be if Butler St through lower Lawrenceville was posted 45 instead of 25.
stuinmccandless
2016-04-27 01:03:06
@stu, expect traffic through that tunnel to be higher than usual due to the construction project on the Liberty Bridge
chrishent
2016-04-27 07:12:28
I am not going to reply to the P-G article. I will take up the issue with staff directly. This might be a good thing.
stuinmccandless
2017-02-18 15:40:40
Bike trip #7 through Wabash last week. Last Tuesday evening around 9:30, Washington Rd at Peermont Ave in Dormont, to Liberty Ave at 7th St, downtown, in 23 minutes, on a bicycle, at night. Yes, it can be done. Not even on my good bike. Bike #2 only has two gears since a cable shredded on my way out there. Path of travel: West Liberty, 51, Woodruff, tunnel, West Carson, Smithfield bridge and street, 6Ave. I've been after Port Authority for years to get them to lighten up on their no-bikes policy in the Wabash Tunnel. Anytime the topic comes up, the answer is always no, and the reasoning is always "safety". Horseshit. That tunnel is empty and unidirectional. Saw three cars going outbound while I was inbound. They stayed on their side of the road; I had half the tunnel to myself. A car couldn't even get to coming up behind me because of a closed gate. Even if you had bi-directional bike traffic and unidirectional car traffic, it still wouldn't be a problem. If Port Authority was worried about safety, their trolley tracks on Arlington Avenue are an order of magnitude less safe for cyclists. Uphill, you're forced to ride far right which invites super close passes, or between the rails, causing everyone to go up the street at 5 mph behind you (because there is constant oncoming traffic so motorists can't pass). Downhill, you tangle with the tracks at 25 mph, which turn underneath you at McArdle. Either one will dump you, and right in front of moving traffic. There is no safer or easier way to get from one side of MtWash to the other on a bike except through the Wabash Tunnel.
stuinmccandless
2017-08-07 16:12:14
@stu Did anything ever become of this?/ Have you continued to take this route? Might squeak in there one of these nights to give it a try.
rybo105
2019-07-18 14:46:19
Haven't been over that way in about a year, but have made at least one trip through since my last post. At least three of those eight trips were in daylight, one of them on a weekday. This is one of several bike/transit projects I haven't put much time into recently, but the issues are still valid. This thread is not far from 10 years old, but nothing really has changed.
stuinmccandless
2019-07-19 17:17:48
Several years have passed, and we still need bicycle access thru the Wabash Tunnel, and a bike trail parallel to Saw Mill Run Blvd, to connect with it.
paulheckbert
2022-09-27 10:14:19
The Wabash Tunnel leads to the Wabash Bridge over Saw Mill Run, PA 51. From that bridge you can go by the side of the building to the railroad track, cross the track and follow the cleared path of a waterline from that railroad line to Tropical Park, a small playground on Tropical Avenue. You can then take Tropical to Beechview Avenue to Broadway Avenue to Dormont. The path up the water line is the most difficult part but is walkable. The rest is easy to bike (easy as easy to bike is defined by the hills and dales of Weatern Pennsylvania). There is a long term plan to build a "Trail with rails" along the above mentioned Rail line.  It was first built around 1900 as part of the Wabash Railroad but later become part of the Norfolk and Western Railroad. When Norfolk and Western divided up Conrail with the B&O, they had to give that line up to a small local railroad. That Railroad has worked with the Montour Trail Council in another Trails with rail bike path, so it is possible and could extend from the Mongohelia River to the Wabash Tunnel and Bridge to Bridgeville and the Ohio River (or on an abandoned part of that rail line from the Wabash Bridge to West End Circle (on its own Right of way through that circle, through some new bridges may have to be built in the Circle) to the Ohio River and Connections to the trails along the Mongohelia River and a propose trail along the Ohio River. Please note that "Trails with Rails" plan is only proposed, thus the only present option is Via the water line path to and from Tropical, Beechview and Broadway Avenues.
paul-h-mentzer
2022-09-27 11:28:04
While the HOV restriction has been waived, if the Tunnel is converted to any use other then automotive, Penndot will have to pay back all of the Federal Money used to convert the Tunnel to an HOV lane.  Given that restriction, and neither Penndot or the Port Authority wants to pay back that money, no change to a bike path. Please note this can be changed by Federal Law so go after your Congressman to change that law.
paul-h-mentzer
2022-09-27 11:35:34