BIKEPGH MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVE

Very glad to hear about plans on this front. If we're going to be serious about becoming bike friendly, we must take full advantage of all our riverfronts.

sounds good i hope at age 58 i live long enough to ride this trail its not gonna be an easy one to build

I'm curious to know how this will connect with ohio. I know that once it can be used as a connector to the montour trail, then we can switch to the panhandle trail and take that out to West Virginia. Is that the planned route?

Gah I would love to be there but the timing is awful. Wish I could do something like send a cardboard cutout of me on my bike, fearfully pedaling on West Carson.

That would be one route. However the Ohio River Trail Council (ORTC) is also working on a trail from Coraopolis westward. If we can get people to Cory. http://www.ohiorivertrail.org/index.php/ort-land-trail-proposal

Now that the Sandcastle block is shortly out of the way, it's time to start thinking of extending and linking the GAP/C & O to go all the way to the west coast.

@Mick -- something like that is already in the works with the US Bike Route System (USBRS). In its complete form it will something like a 40,000 route system. Details are at the Adventure Cycling website. The maps shows the general location of proposed corridors -- the GAP/C&O Towpath is already marked as one of those corridors. And my local favorite -- Bike Route G through central PA. All we have to do is live long enough to see it happen!

I know there are a variety of routes - and even a coast-to-coast route for walking horses and bikes. I should know more about this But there isn't a coast to coast off-road bike route yet and this could be a start. I'd like to see the first one go through Pittsburgh.

I too would love to get there, but the timing and location is a no-can-do. (What do these people think, that all we do is ride bikes around all day? Well, maybe some of us do, but others of us earn a living.) Anyway, do we know anything about the format? Whether it will be anything like that charade from back in December 2011 in the West End, telling us what they'd decided to do with West Carson? Are they truly interested in ideas? Is it pie-in-the-sky dreaming? Can we send in written ideas? I'd be really happy to be able to bike from the south end of the Wabash Tunnel to West Carson at River in McKees Rocks, using that old railroad right-of-way, a HAWK signal at Steuben Street, and something like that couple hundred yards of bike structure between 31st & 40th St Bridges, to attach to the side of West Carson where there isn't much horizontal space between the street and the railroad. Extend it the other way past the Wabash Tunnel (which itself will be opened to bikes in all of this) to West Liberty Avenue via Hargrove Street. In so doing, connecting both southern and western suburbs with a single project.

Glad to hear talk about the Wabash tunnel in terms of the south hills. I had similar thoughts. Love the old rr right of way as a way to connect west. I didn't know that existed. Thank goodness! Not sure what you're saying with the 31st and 40th street bridges "in a single project". Clarify? I'm going to be offline for a couple days, so if I don't respond no worry, but I will eagerly read the response.

So, this seems to be just a presentation of the study done by the consulting engineers (Mackin?), as well as a photo-op for Fitzy-G. I don't know that there will be any comment and response portion, we shall see. One of the engineers on the project called me and interviewed me on the phone last fall for about 20 minutes about the corridor, he had a serious and constructive view of the project, seemed not at all to just be knocking out some boilerplate study. A group of them actually rode bikes through the corridor, which I thought was in itself commendable.

i can make this ill stop at the plaza on my way to work i dont have to be at work till noon i can get my ride in on the montour trail and then go to the plaza before work

On the North Shore Trail, I was referring to the structure they built between 31SB and 40SB that actually sticks out over the river a bit. If you start at River and West Carson, there is a very wide space along the railroad, that unused "lane" of the railroad bridge, but that narrows to nothing as you go upstream. Meanwhile, that railroad bridge over West Carson by the West End Circle is the same dead line that goes past the end of Wabash. I propose a "shelf" like that, to be built along West Carson, to get bikes from River Ave to that viaduct by the West End Circle. Also, I mentioned HAWK signals earlier. [video]

Much simpler - West Carson only needs 1 automobile travel lane in each direction, except at the tiny handful of intersections. One entire lane could be a separated mixed use path. The temporary construction narrowing at the Brunot Island railroad bridge proves this clearly.

I'd like to see somethgn like the HAWK system - only with standard green, yellow, and red light signals. As presented in the video, I was ould nto consider going into that crosswalk around Pittsburgh if there wree moving cars headed to it. Don't trust the little flashing reds.

FYI, just saw this article...

The plan calls for both bicycle lanes and a share-the-road route that would pass through the city, McKees Rocks, Stowe, Neville and Coraopolis. Bike Anyplace routes will connect places where people want to work, shop and go to school, Mr. Fitzgerald said.

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/neighborhoods-west/allegheny-county-to-begin-work-on-new-trail-through-western-suburbs-687856/#ixzz2TTlE2YsN

There was a nice turn out. McKees Rocks, Stowe and Neville were well represented by their local officials. County Exec. Fitzgerald spoke forcefully about the importance of this connection, as did Tom Baxter, Scott Bricker and Amy Camp. The biggest surprise (to me) was the level of support clearly articulated by McKees Rocks.

This was awesome. Very hopeful, much more hopeful than a year or so ago when we were relying solely on PennDot to drop some scraps of consideration our way. This could happen.

WPXI had good coverage on their noon newscast but I don't see it up on their site yet. @edmonds, if you keep showing up on the TV you're going to need a stylist and makeup.

This article http://www.wesa.fm/post/plan-complete-construction-ohio-river-bike-trail-set-summer says construction starts this summer -- which I find hard to believe. Does anyone know what this means?

The PG article Benzo linked to has a headline that says "trail", but the body of the article merely talks about bike lanes and share-the-road signs. Will some of this be an actual trail, separated from cars by a barrier? Or is this all about some paint and signs to mark the road as a bike route? (Bike lanes would be nice, sure, but an actual trail would be wonderful.)

So glad to see this all. If anyone knows what else can be done to keep momentum, I'm there.

I posted this on the P-G, but FWIW as a talking point:

What a lot of people don't realize is that right now, a bicycle group coming into the PIT airport to ride to DC has one route - the Montour Trail through the South Hills, to South Park thence to DC. They don't come into Pgh and have a beer, eat dinner, stay at a hotel, get breakfast, buy gifts, etc. They bypass Pittsburgh and spend that money in Connellsville. It's been happening for a while. This Coraopolis-downtown connection provides a route from the PIT airport via the airport connector, Groveton, Cory, straight into downtown. More tourism money, more visitors, more better. For the cyclists, it's a better connection to the GAP. This is not about MAMILs wanting special privileges. This is about bringing economic development into Allegheny County, that's why the ACE was there. This is a good move for the Pittsburgh economy.

(chapeau to SR)

The original story link seems dead, here's a new one: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/neighborhoods-west/new-bike-route-on-pittsburghs-west-end-unveiled-687938/ It looks like they just propose to add sharrows to west carson st. This is just putting lipstick on a pig. It's not a safety improvement. Let's write some letters to fitz and let him know that this is NOT the way to improve this corridor. We need separate bike lanes.

Wow that's terrible. Here's the email I just sent: to: executive@alleghenycounty.us Mr Fitzgerald, I am writing to you to ask for your support in reworking the proposed bike plan for West Carson Street. West Carson between the West End Circle and Stanhope St is not suitable for biking today. It will not be suitable for biking under the proposed plan as described by the PG: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/neighborhoods-west/new-bike-route-on-pittsburghs-west-end-unveiled-687938/ That corridor is high speed, gets zero enforcement, and is dangerous even for drivers. Adding sharrows would be slapping the proverbial band-aid on the cancer patient. It's a waste of time, resources, and energy. Separated bike lanes are the only solution here. We bike. We walk. We vote. Please reconsider. [pinky's real name] Driver, Pedestrian, and Cyclist Crafton

I send the following Mr Fitzgerald, I was initially excited to hear about a plan to connect the Southside of Pittsburgh with the West End neighborhoods and the Montour trail trailhead. However, after reading about the proposal and learning that the proposal involved simply adding wider lanes and sharrows to West Carson St, I feel that no consideration has been made for the average cyclist. I lost my father when he was hit by a car on his bicycle 3 years ago, and it has greatly affected my life, so I feel the need to advocate for others. I was inspired by Dan Yablonsky, a bike-pgh intern who was hit and put in to a coma in Pittsburgh last year, spoke at the Ride of Silence on Wednesday and made the point to everyone that we have to be heard by politicians, publications, and planners. So I'm asking you to make help us make a change for the better, to improve cyclist safety. West Carson St is one of the most dangerous roads in the city, and simply adding wider lanes with sharrows will only encourage more speeding and create a dangerous situation for less experienced cyclists who see the sharrows and assume it's a safe bike route. This is simply putting lipstick on a pig. It's not going to improve safety for cyclists, and it's not going to encourage cyclists to use this route. We need to have separate bike lanes (preferably with some level of physical separation) or a separated path for cyclists to ensure a reasonable level of safety on this high speed corridor. Keeping narrow lanes and adding a wide shoulder on both sides would be more of an improvement than the current plan. This roadway is especially dangerous on weekends due to alcohol related incidents from people leaving the southside entertainment district. I was involved in an alcohol related incident in Columbus Ohio last January where a group of 7 cyclists were riding together and 2 riders near the back were directly hit, and flew past me as we rode down a 4 lane road with sharrows on the outer lane on an official city bike route. 3 Other riders were partially impacted and had damaged equipment and minor injuries. Luckily no one was killed. This was a hit and run. The driver was later apprehended. My friends left in ambulances. See this link for more details: http://urbanvelo.org/close-call-in-columbus/ I am a confident rider and ride in the city every day, and I wouldn't feel safe riding on this street with the proposed improvements, I couldn't encourage anyone else to either. As the plan now stands, I cannot support it. You need to put pressure on Penndot to revise this plan to actually accommodate the unique needs of cyclists to help prevent us from being killed on the streets. Without changes, cyclists will not feel welcome and they will not provide an economic gain to the west end communities as this plan is intended to do. Thank you, Benjamin Voytko

I wonder why Buncher couldn't be persuaded to allow passage across their horrendous eyesore of a property, 1600 West Carson. It wouldn't be conceptually any different than the Sadcastle/Keystone Gordian knot, aside from negotiations and agreements would be simple to implement. At least get people as far as the WEC. Just thinking.

Thanks so much for your advocacy! Keep the letters coming. CE Fitgerald is a good focus for these letters. So are: 1. Post-Gazette LTE 2. Senator Fontana - http://www.senatorfontana.com/ 3. Rep Dan Deasy - http://www.pahouse.com/deasy/

2 and 3 done. I will work on #1 tomorrow when I have more time. And this is my plea to the rest of the board: Please help with this! The links are all here, ready for you. Just a quick word will show that there are people interested. Let's put some oomph in it, because a half-assed plan like this will have remarkable staying power. Improvements will be difficult because "We just redid that section 5/10/15 years ago!"

We, at SPC, are seeking input on regional transportation needs as well. If you submit something to 1, 2 and/or 3 above, could you also submit an input form to SPC? The link is http://www.spcregion.org/trans_tip_projform.asp The top section will ask for your contact information. Lower in the form is a specific section for ped/bike matters. Below the radial buttons is an open comment section where you can paste the meat of your letter to 1, 2 and/or 3 above. We are seeking ideas on specific projects as well as overall needs or issues (related to any transportation mode). Any comments received by May 31st will be shared with our City and County planning partners and PennDOT in a formal project evaluation process to take place early this summer. If the form is inaccessible to you, a fax to 412-391-9160 will also work. But we encourage use of the form, if possible! P.S. This form is being used to collect transportation needs/ideas/projects in any of the 10 counties in our region - Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Fayette, Greene, Indiana, Lawrence, Washington and Westmoreland, as well as the City of Pittsburgh.

Sent to Mr. Fitzgerald earlier today, will try to find time for more on Sunday.

Just Sent: Mr. Fitzgerald, I just read in the Post Gazette the great news that the West End is finally going to receive some attention to make it more bicycle & pedestrian friendly. While I am very grateful that this is finally receiving attention, I am disappointed in the proposed plan. I think a shared lane mix-model of cars and bikes will be dangerous along this stretch. As background, I ride a bicycle on urban streets almost daily, and I have bicycled that stretch of Carson from the West End Circle down to McKeesrocks on multiple occasions. I find this stretch to be the most dangerous two mile stretch of road within the city due to fast traffic speeds and dangerous drivers. I know there were planning meetings last year that I and other cyclist attended where we made our concerns made. I also know that funding is not unlimited and not all desires can be incorporated into every plan. But this is an extremely dangerous road with no realistic alternative routes. I would be glad to accompany you on a bicycle ride through that area sometime so you can experience the issue first hand.

Swalfoort - done. Just got a nice reply from Wayne Fontana's office: Thank you for contacting me about your concerns. My office has placed a call to PennDOT this afternoon asking for details from them on the issue. Once we hear back and discuss the possibility of an alternative plan with them, I or my staff will be in touch with you. Thanks, Wayne Fontana

Here's mine, apologies to pinky, who I lifted the basic format of the letter from. County Executive Fitzgerald, I am corresponding with your office to indicate my support for cycling infrastructure on West Carson Street, but with reservations about the initial plans as reported by the Pittsburgh Post Gazette. http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/neighborhoods-west/new-bike-route-on-pittsburghs-west-end-unveiled-687938/ Sharrows have their place in the development of a diverse comprehensive multi-modal transportation policy, but when linked to widening the street (in this specific example), will only result in increased vehicular speeds and be to the detriment to the attempt to develop a cycling friendly corridor that will bring additional economic development to the city and county. Our family believes in your stated goal of "Bike Anyplace" routes that will connect places where people want to work, shop and go to school. The way to achieve the increased economic benefits from such a plan is to lay the groundwork now for solid and well planned public policy that encourages all Pittsburgh residents and visitors to utilize the infrastructure, and in this case, that involves separated bike lanes. The Bike Pgh petition to mayoral candidates, has over 1800 visible signatories who agree with the following statement: "We need our next mayor to invest significantly in the programs and infrastructure that will transform our streets and communities into healthy, vibrant places that are safe and accessible for everyone to bike and walk. Sign the petition and tell the candidates you want to put an end to dangerous driving, that you want to make it safe for Pittsburghers to bike or walk to school and work, and that you want our city to compete with all the other world-class cities investing in better bikeways and pedestrian facilities." I'm sure the sentiment can be generalized to all our elected officials and should be interpreted as an indication that there is a large and mobilized segment of the voting public that is devoted to the issue of cycling infrastructure and complete streets. We are dedicated cyclists, registered voters, residents of the City of Pittsburgh, and transplants from Minneapolis. Developing well planned cycling infrastructure is a major draw for families like ours. For us, physical cycling infrastructure is a bellwether for the health and livability of the city. There is a window of opportunity at this time. Developing an ambitious plan to illustrate that the county is behind economic development and green initiatives by developing separated bike lanes in an area that would require this treatment would be a indicator of the county's commitment to these values, rather than to window-dressing (like the attempt to hide the unfinished half-done former Hilton under a sheet during the G-20 conference). Please advocate for separated bike lanes in regards to West Carson Street. Sincerely, J_Z

Man that's a pretty great response from Fontana. I should probably write his as well.

"Hey Fitz! West End bike plan be f*cked up, yo. I vote." I didn't use quite those words, but that captures the gist of my email.

If we thought along the same lines as this plan, we could just put some sharrows on penn ave through homewood / point breeze area and call it an official route. Hell, it doesn't even have a huge stone wall on one side. It would be so much safer and cyclist friendly. NO. It wouldn't.

Received a response from AC Executive Fitzgerald's office on my Letter:

Mr. Voytko ~ County Executive Fitzgerald asked that I respond to your e-mail on his behalf. The portion of the trail that deals with the county and its municipalities begins at the City line going into McKees Rocks. The Route 51/West Carson Street Corridor is a project led by PennDot with the City of Pittsburgh. The plan announced suggests that we need a separated bike lane along that corridor, but both PennDot and the City of Pittsburgh have jurisdiction. For that reason, I encourage you to contact City officials regarding your concerns as they are the ones who would have the ability to make this change. Thanks, Amie M. Downs Director of Communications County of Allegheny 412/350-3711

This seems to indicate we should contact the city too. So, I guess I'll forward my message to Mayor Ravenstahl's office as well (and maybe the next mayor after tomorrow's election results are in)

Got the same thing. Here's my reply (not letting anyone off the hook): Hi Amie, I really appreciate your response. I have already sent my concerns out to Dan Deasy and Wayne Fontana, and I will now reach out to Mayor Ravenstahl. I hope that County Executive Fitzergald continues to monitor the planning. I understand the jurisdiction issues, but I am also aware of how interconnected our region is. It's imperative that our elected officials work together for what is best for the constituents. Many thanks again for the email.

I'm not a fan of passing the buck. Senator Fontana responded well. However, I know that Fitzgerald and Ravenstahl don't have the best working relationship.

I got nothin in my in box.... invisible again.

More from Amie, which makes me feel better: Please be assured that we will continue to stay on top of it. We have a staffer in the office who is our point person for trails, parks, etc. She has been a part of all of these meetings and also keeps the Executive up to date on what’s going on.

I assume she is talking about Darla Cravotta, whom I met at the event. I will send her an email and ask what she thinks would be the most effective means to put some pressure on PennDot and the City to not goof up the section on West Carson, the most problematic section.

23May Post Gazette: Bike route extension proposal unvieled in McKees Rocks area http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/neighborhoods-west/bike-route-extension-proposal-unvieled-in-mckees-rocks-area-688809/

Here is my letter to PennDOT about this project 12/15/11 Mr. Dan Cessna District Executive PennDOT 45 Thoms Run Road Bridgeville, PA 15017 Dear Dan: In light of the recent news that highway deaths in Pennsylvania rose last year, it is with great concern that I write you about the Route 51 designs that were introduced last week at the public meeting in the West End. Very simply, the designs will do nothing to curb the illegal speeding in an already fast moving corridor, and we fear it will do little if anything to reduce crashes. Furthermore, adding shared lane markings or “sharrows” to a 14-foot wide, high-speed cartway is not safe. Bike Pittsburgh insists that PennDOT’s consultants go back to the drawing board and approach the designs for the street from a multimodal perspective, making sure that pedestrian and bicycle safety are paramount. If those modes are made safe, safety for motorists will doubtless follow. Increasing enforcement to slow speeds is a nonstarter given both the lack of places for police to physically set up speed traps as well as the lack of police resources. The street needs to be designed with slower speeds in mind from the start. We fully understand that District 11 can’t have it all for $20 Million, the estimated price tag of this project. Given the constraints it cannot keep the same capacity for motorized vehicles, while also increasing the level of service for bicycles and pedestrians. It must be noted that the neighborhoods that are most impacted from this corridor have a lower rate of car ownership than the City of Pittsburgh’s average - which ranks 8th lowest out of the 60 most populous cities in the country, according to the U.S. Census. This fact alone should tell us that more must be done to accommodate other modes of transportation through this corridor. Three specific parts of the current design need to change, namely the superfluous motorized vehicle capacity from the West End Bridge to the busway ramp, and the turning lane from the busway ramp to the end of the project boundary with the exception, perhaps, at the Corliss Tunnel. Without the turning lane, there is more flexibility to include safe facilities for residents who currently use, or may wish to use bikes through this corridor. With so few cross streets at which to turn there is no need for a continuous turning lane the length of the corridor. Third, 14-foot lanes should not be designed for any street with speed limits less than 45-mph. 14-foot lanes will only make illegal speeding easier for motorists. If PennDOT and its consultants need any other justification for making this street more bike-friendly, look no further than West Pittsburgh’s community plan: “Create a bicycle infrastructure connecting West Pittsburgh neighborhoods and accommodating commuter access to downtown Pittsburgh. Provide continuous, attractive pedestrian infrastructure as well, starting with West Carson Street.” – West Pittsburgh Plan, Transportation chapter Sincerely, Scott Bricker Executive Director Cc: Theresa Kail-Smith, Cheryl Moon-Siranni, Todd Kravits, Kathryn Power, Patrick Hassett, Amanda Purcell, Patrick Roberts, Stephen Patchan, Jason Kambitsis, Sara Walfoort

Outstanding letter. Thanks Scott. Has that been copied to Fitzgerald, Fontana, etc., those types as well?

I have sent it to Fitzgerald and Fontana

I think all of this would get fixed correctly if the designers & politicians were forced to ride this stretch just once on a bicycle. It would be ideal if they rode solo, but even riding in a small group would get the point across. How can we help make that happen?

Scott, would it help if we also contacted Dan Cessna? Or is this a contact (because he's not elected) where more voices aren't necessarily helpful? Please just let us know how best to advocate on this.

Copying Dan Cessna, the District Executive is never a bad idea, especially if you KNOW the road in question is a state road. (West Carson a/k/a State Route 51 clearly is.) The process for getting a roadway improvement from the "idea stage" to implementation stage can be a long one. The process for doing that is the Transportation Improvement Program, or TIP, that SPC helps compile on behalf of the region. So, for forward thinking projects, input to SPC is one of the formal avenues available. The link to the SPC input form is http://www.spcregion.org/trans_tip_projform.asp This project went through the TIP process, and was originally designed to be more pedestrian and bicycle friendly, and then was redesigned to address some PennDOT (car) safety concerns. Since this project is so far along, direct communication with PennDOT is probably warranted. But, please cc: SPC on that communication so we have it in our records as well. Contact at SPC is Matt Pavlosky, Public Involvement Coordinator, Chatham II Center, Suite 500, 112 Washington Place, Pittsburgh, PA 15219. Information can also be faxed to (412) 391-9160. The email address for public input is comments@spcregion.org. The advantage to copying SPC on the process is that we retain a record of all comments received, and then share it with our Commissioners, most of whom are local elected officials. So, it serves as a request for attention to a specific issue, concern or process, but then also becomes part of a larger, aggregated call for atention on these sorts of issues.

Marko82 wrote:I think all of this would get fixed correctly if [every PennDot employee] were/was forced to ride this stretch just once on a bicycle.

Though we would need to make sure to have plenty of fully charged AED's on hand.

Sara was my letter that I posted above shared with the commissioners?

I've traveled this road on my commute for a long time, so I've been following the progress as best I can. I exchanged emails with the PennDOT project manager, Guy Rettura, and he said that the plan is to have one 14 foot lane in each direction with a 10 foot center turning lane for the entire section from the West End Bridge to McKees Rocks. The 14 foot lanes will be striped with a 10 foot traffic lane and a four foot bike lane. I requested rumble strips to separate the traffic lane from the bike lane, which he said he would take into consideration. I know it's not a separated bike lane, but a striped 4 foot lane is pretty darned awesome compared to what we have now. The loss of the extra outbound lane will reduce speeds and weaving significantly (one would hope). Also, during the two year construction, he said that there would be a pedestrian/bike corridor for the length of the construction. Car traffic will be limited to inbound only for the entire construction period. Guy Rettura has been very responsive to any questions I've sent his way. He said that bids were coming in and he was hoping to start construction in late June. This is the link to the project plans from several years ago at the public meeting: http://www.dot.state.pa.us/penndot/districts/district11.nsf/sr51westcarson None of this fixes the possibly worse section between Station Square and the West End Circle, but it's a good start in my opinion.

Scott - It will be. We will be collecting all the comments that are received by May 31st and doing a report to Commissioners on those submissions.

@Dan, that sounds pretty good.

If anyone recalls the earlier discussion, after the December 2011 public presentation, that four feet closest to the curb on the south/eastbound/upstream side where there is a tall wall never gets sunshine, so becomes essentially unusable in the winter. Any and all water gets and stays frozen. I am not sold on the plans so far.

I'm sorry for being so blunt but rumble strips are a bad idea. If any debris builds up in the shoulder and bicyclists have to cross the rumble strips to avoid the debris, they can easily lose control of their bikes. I've had to do this on Saxonburg Blvd and nearly lost my life avoiding a tree limb and needing to swerve to avoid while a car was passing me. No rumble strips.

@Stu, from my understanding, PennDOT is addressing the drainage issue on that side of the street so iciness should be reduced.

Dan, the bike lanes you're describing sound reasonable to me. A separate path on the river side (so no intersections) with a barrier between it and the cars, maybe like the "candlesticks" on the GAP section in Homestead, would be even better, but I'll settle for good bike lanes. However, do the plans really include bike lanes there? The page from 2011 you linked to shows sharrows in the "West Carson Street Rendering near Tabor" image. The "typical section" image includes bikes, but no specific lanes for them. And Scott's letters and quotes in the PG article indicate the plans are using sharrows, not bike lanes. Maybe there are bike lanes only in one area?

There are no bike lanes in the final plans. There were bike lanes in the initial plans and then when PennDOT presented in public they redesigned the project to have two 14' lanes with sharrows and a 10' turning lane the entire length of the road even though there are only 2 or 3 places to turn along the entire stretch.

Scott and I have the same information relative to the removal of bike lanes from the final design. We will have sharrows in each direction, but no striped bike lane in either direction. There will be some sidewalk improvements, but they will occur first on one side of the road, then switch over to the other side of the road, requiring all pedestrians to cross West Carson Street somewhere. There will not be continuous sidewalks on either side of the street, in other words. I think the posted speed here is 35, average speed often higher (based on personal observation and monitoring of my own behavior). This is at the extreme upper limits of where sharrows are designed for use.

Isn't this pretty much what we figured they would come up with? Look at the comments starting with December 8 2011 on this thread where the public meeting was discussed. Do you think they even thought about what we said? Or was the whole meeting a dog-and-pony show for "here's what we're going to cram down your throat after we chuck your suggestions in the trash"? Does anyone see anything qualitatively different in the final plan from what they had on December 7, 2011? Also, @swalfoort's explanations of the process (1, 2) are well worth re-reading. Edit: Look at @edmonds59's comments starting on March 22 2012. What he said they said is almost exactly what this plan is.

StuInMcCandless wrote:“here’s what we’re going to cram down your throat after we chuck your suggestions in the trash”

Yes. Damn, I hate Penndot so much. And I say that as a driver, motorcyclist, cyclist, and pedestrian. I also despise those teabaggers, but damn if Penndot doesn't confirm every blasted thing those guys claim about "government".

Wow. Does anyone know why the lane striping idea was removed? This is part of the email I got from Guy Rettura shortly after the Dec 2011 public discussion: "The proposed roadway cross section are shown on the attached website below. As you can see, the typical cross sections show two 14 foot traffic lanes and a 10 foot center turning lane. The 14 foot lanes will be striped to have 10 traffic lanes and a 4 foot bike lanes. Have a good day and a happy New Year." @Scott - I was not intending a full scale rumble strip, but rather the periodic negative indentations that give an audible sense that you are veering off the lane. They have these on the center lane of W. Carson now. I hate them there, as they do seem to make drivers fear even more crossing the center line to pass. Not sure if those are still a hazard, but as it sounds like there's no planned line in either case, I'm guessing that's not on the table. All this being said, I'm still going to be a fairly happy camper if the plan goes through as stated -- though I'm even happier to see that so many people are fighting to do this right. The sidewalk crossover doesn't seem to be a big deal to me. At some point you're going to need to cross the road in any case if you're on foot. You have three miles or so of sidewalk with a single light to cross in the middle - not too bad. For the past 10 years or so, the walkway has had rotting sheets of plywood semi-covering large holes to the railroad grade. I guess I've become so inured to the dismal conditions of this road and sidewalk that I'm missing some of the potential that exists there.

I guess I’ve become so inured to the dismal conditions of this road and sidewalk that I’m missing some of the potential that exists there.

Yup, it sounds that way to me. You've been living with the feeling that you're all alone out there because that's the way it is now, but seeing as how cycling is growing and the success following completion of the last section of the GAP, I guarantee you would be anything but alone if the connection out there were friendly. My first ride out that way would probably be Sampo (Kosher foods wholesaler). Only 4.5 miles from where I work, but avoiding Carson and going North shore trail->McKees Rocks bridge, it's 7.7. Now, multiply by two and think of a corporate acceptable lunch break. The 4.5 mile scenario works if I shop quickly, but the 7.7 mile scenario just doesn't. I'm sure there are plenty of other good things out there too... all places, even humble ones, sometimes especially the humble ones, hide cool surprises. I don't know McKees Rocks, but look forward to the possibility (if this is done halfway decently) of really putting it on my map.

If pedestrians were truly getting a single new intersection to cross, perhaps it wouldn't be a big deal. But they're not. By moving the sidewalk to the southern side, pedestrians will now have to cross at all the intersections between the busway and McKees Rocks. Before, they had to cross zero. This problem is exacerbated by the lack of bike lanes. Some cyclists, seeing the high-speed traffic (perhaps after being led there by the county's deceptive "bike route" signage from the Montour or Ohio River trails), will decide it's safer to ride the sidewalk. Instead of the current sidewalk with zero intersections, they'll get an "improved" sidewalk with twelve.

Also, a fine but important point for anyone dealing with this at the PennDot level: I could foresee Penndot making the statement that they are just following the recommendations of their consulting traffic engineers. When I attended the December 2011 public presentation of the Penndot construction plan for the corridor, I spoke to the engineer in charge, explained the inadequacies of the design for cyclists and pedestrians, and she made it abundantly clear that they had data to support the alternate original (better) design, but the pressure came from within Penndot to form the design to their more "traditional" (i.e. decades outmoded and bullshit) roadway design. So since someone above seems to have a contact within the Penndot sanctum, please tell them on my behalf that they are a bunch of assholes. Thanks.

edmonds59 wrote:I spoke to the engineer in charge, explained the inadequacies of the design for cyclists and pedestrians, and she made it abundantly clear that they had data to support the alternate original

How does this happen? Is there good documentation for this? I would hope the distinction between "sucks" and "pretty good" would be considered inmportant. This seems like a legitimate issue for bike riders to engage in civil disobedience over.

If it weren't so damn dangerous, it might be THE thing to do on the Critical Mass ride for 5/31. The real problem would be, if we do do that, and somebody does get killed on the ride, that it would be used as ammunition *against* doing the right thing instead of helping. *insert litany of anti-cyclist rants here*

Maybe we should start bugging Peduto about this now too :)