BIKEPGH MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVE

« Back to Archive
133

Schenley Drive through golf course -- PPC project may take away the 8' shoulders

Cyclists, Many of us use Schenley Drive through the golf course as a bicycling route between Squirrel Hill and Oakland. It is an attractive route in large measure because of the 8' shoulders, which accommodate both bicycle and automobile traffic without apparent conflict. The Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy is planning a project that will eliminate the 8' shoulders, thereby decreasing safety and increasing the chance of conflict. I describe the project and the obvious cycling concerns in the enclosed open letter to the Conservancy. Please spread the word that people should contact Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy or Bike Pittsburgh or the city Mayor311Office@pittsburghpa.gov (or any more personal contact you have) and ask them to revise the design to improve the bicycle friendliness of the road instead of degrading it. I'm sure there are designs that serve their stormwater management goals without ruining a good bike route. Mary Shaw [open letter follows image] PPC sketch of planned changes eliminating the 8' shoulder that support bicycling -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Open letter about Schenley Drive through the golf course Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 12:11:55 -0400 From: Mary Shaw To: Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy Dear Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy, Recent news articles about the Beacon/Bartlett project have mentioned eliminating the 8' shoulders of Schenley Drive through the golf course as a "future project". However, I see surveyor's marks along the roadway now. A week ago I sent you email asking about the status of this project. You haven't replied, so I turn to this open letter in the hope that someone who reads it will have your ear. The bicycling community has raised serious questions about this project, and I know that Bike Pittsburgh has met with you to discuss these concerns. I thought the project had been dropped, or at least deferred a few years to allow for continued discussion with interested stakeholders, but the surveyor's marks lend a sense of urgency. I have looked for a detailed project description, and the best I've found is at http://www.pittsburghparks.org/userdocs/PantherHollowWatershedMay2013.pdf where slide 20 (attached) shows the two current 8' shoulders replaced by a separated, 6-8' path. Schenley Drive is heavily used by bicyclists for commuting, recreation, training, and general transportation. The current configuration is not ideal by current standards, but it actually works pretty well. The shoulders allow cyclists to ride alongside traffic with the ability to move into the driving lane to pass pedestrians or slower cyclists. Downhill traffic, which easily reaches 25mph, is well separated from uphill traffic, which is going more like 5-10mph. It is depicted on the bicycling map of Pittsburgh as an "on-street bike route" (whereas nearby Forbes Ave is a "cautionary on-street bike route"). The good cycling on Schenley Drive was a factor in my decision to buy a home nearby. Your proposed changes would create an unsafe, dangerous, hazardous situation. Moving the bicycle and pedestrian traffic from separate 8' shoulders to a single 6-8' path would put the 25mph downhill traffic and the uphill 5-10mph traffic brushing elbows at closing speeds upwards of 30mph with no way to escape; this is asking for accidents. There would be minimal space for passing, thereby increasing congestion. There would no longer be the ability to use the traffic lane during a break in traffic to pass slower people. The result would be that many cyclists would choose to use the road, where they would no longer have the safety of the shoulder for separation from car traffic. Further, your analysis is flawed. Slide 11 of your presentation assesses the impact of several projects according to several environmental and economic criteria, but the criteria do not include other important factors such as contribution to the green transportation infrastructure, compatibility with city initiatives, and so on. In addition, you rank this project "Best" for "increased usability", whereas it would in fact very substantially reduce the usability of the park. The benefit also seem small -- the proposed project reduces the width of the pavement by 14' for a distance of a little less than 2600', a little over eight tenths of an acre in a 456-acre park. That's less than one-quarter of one percent of the park area. In addition, maintenance would be problematic. The current shoulders eventually get cleared of snow, and the driving lane is available for patches that aren't cleared; it seems much less likely that the path would be consistently cleared, and there would be no way to go around uncleared sections. I know of no local experience with porous pavement for cycling, either the quality of the surface for cycling or its durability through Pittsburgh winters. If the surface deteriorates from winter conditions, the path will become unsafe for cycling. It is extraordinarily risky to replace a working piece of infrastructure with a speculative one. I applaud most of your projects, and I definitely support stormwater management. You should certainly go ahead with grading swales and berms near Schenley Drive to control golf course runoff. You should certainly go ahead with the rain garden aspects of the project. But narrowing Schenley Drive would yield a miniscule increase in pervious surface at an extremely high cost in risk and usability to an important user group. Please revisit this project with the stakeholders who walk and bicycle on Schenley Drive. Try out the porous pavement path somewhere that doesn't now have good cycling, for example on the path through the Bartlett/Beacon meadow. Send someone to next week's Pro Bike/Pro Walk conference at the convention center to discuss better ways to achieve your water management goals in ways compatible with improving bicycle structure. But please, please, please do not destroy cycling on Schenley Drive by making it unsafe. Mary Shaw Squirrel Hill Resident A.J. Perlis University Professor of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University (for identification only, I speak for myself here)
maryshaw
2014-09-04 13:05:30
What about just moving the road over and combining the two shoulders to make a cycletrack? Maybe it would have to be a bit wider, or maybe there's enough space if you reduce the space for cars a bit. But if the cycletrack was on the south side of the road it would then connect pretty beautifully with the new cycletrack on Schenley Drive.
jonawebb
2014-09-04 13:15:02
+1
mikhail
2014-09-04 13:19:39
Forget this project and use just a tiny fraction of that porous pavement for the currently grass path through the "wildflower meadow" above Bartlett playground, making a usable connection cycling and otherwise (pushing a stroller uphill on a side-hill in wet grass is no fun) between greenfield rd / the panther hollow trail and sidewalk up to squirrel hill.
byogman
2014-09-04 13:31:15
Also, what jonawebb said about what to do with paint/reflectors.
byogman
2014-09-04 13:32:05
I don't like this plan at all. I would love for a walking path to be installed because there are are few good pedestrian facilities along the golf course, but not at the expense of the shoulders on this road which have become the defacto bike lanes. The pavement is in good condition and this would be a primary route for me from oakland to squirrel hill during the winter months, forbes ave is much more of a pain to climb and has much more traffic.
benzo
2014-09-04 13:48:10
If you simply replace the 4' vegetation buffer with a cycletrack and make other adjustments you end up with a really great transportation corridor for all uses. Make the cycletrack from porous pavement like the walking track and you'll get more water-absorbing area than in this design. You would have 2' shoulder + 11' driving lane + 11' driving lane + 2' buffer + 7' cycletrack + 6-8' walking path = 39-41' versus 40' for the current road.
jonawebb
2014-09-04 14:18:54
I'd rather have a 13-15' multi-use path, with a center line to discourage the 3 and 4 astride earbudded joggers you get on the jail trail than a 7 foot cycletrack. The relative speeds are just high for such a limited space. That's also my feeling about the existing cycletrack between the playground and schenley plaza, but the hill makes it worse.
byogman
2014-09-04 14:43:33
Part of the purpose is to slow traffic by narrowing the traffic lanes - it is a park, after all. Add some sharrows to the road for us, keep the path clear of snow for pedestrians, and their plan would be fine. An uphill cycletrack would be nice but there's not space with the current plan, which is probably happening like it or not.
richierich
2014-09-04 16:16:13
I doubt the cycletrack is conceived as uphill only and I doubt downhill sharrows would be accepted as an add on. It's worth voicing concerns here.
byogman
2014-09-04 16:59:43
I think this should be viewed as an opportunity more than as a problem. I a use Schenley Drive daily, and while the wide shoulders are indeed "de facto" non-car lanes, they are in fact undesignated and unmarked. The car/bike/ped interactions are from my perspective sub optimal. The downhill is especially iffy. I am generally going about 30 mph (technically violating one of those traffic laws drivers don't seem to notice) approaching the s-curve and being in the shoulder is absolutely not an option, as it is blind and can have pedestrians going in either direction. Immediately after is one of my least favorite intersections - the right left onto Frew, where I technically have the right of way but cars coming up Tech street frequently roll through the stop sign or simply treat it as an alternating right of way without yielding to the opposing traffic without a stop sign (me, thus violating another of those traffic laws drivers don't seem to notice). I take that at a safe and prudent speed as I know cars will try to kill me there. My solution is to remain just to the right of the white line on most of the straightaway and then to take the lane before the s curve, merging into any downhill car traffic as safety permits. I can then return to the shoulder after the s curve while signaling my right if the shoulder is clear of pedestrians or just stay in the lane if it is not. I am skeptical about a 2-way lane to the left unless it could really be kept pedestrian free. Almost all bikes are going at least 15 on the downhill, and that is just not a speed conducive to bicycle-pedestrian interactions. in general, hills of any length beyond a few percent grade seem to me to call for separated uphill and downhill lanes, with easy access to the motor vehicle lane on the downhill side. While I am at the high end of speeds for cyclists on that section I'm not a total outlier, and the issue of downhill speeds is one of those semi-unique issues that challenges multi mode transit design in Pittsburgh. Thus this is an opportunity.
neilmd
2014-09-05 03:56:30
I've sometimes wondered what I'll call a reversed polarity cycletrack (made the name up, but basically you ride on the left, not the right). The advantage is, if you put add sharrows on the adjacent lane a cyclist could theoretically exit the cycletrack and ride in a sharrowed lane while passing a slower rider and then re-enter just past. Of course a bollard/reflector spacing that allowed that would not provide as much of a walled off feel from the cars. But the lane of the cycletrack that's closer to automobile traffic would have a much lower relative velocity since it's going the same direction, so that should provide a measure of safety. Of course then there's that psychology that people prefer to see what's coming over things coming from behind, might still be a bugaboo here. I don't know. So many of these discussions depend on whether you see the problem as one of creating facilities to encourage new riders to start, or whether you see the problem as one of making life better for the folks who ride today. This idea tries to have it both ways somewhat. I'm not even advocating for it necessarily, just figured I'd throw it out there, see what folks here think.
byogman
2014-09-05 07:08:17
Mary Shaw's letter is in the PG (with a Francis Kilinsky reply!): http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/letters/2014/09/05/Parks-conservancy-plan-will-be-bad-for-Schenley-Drive-cyclists/stories/201409050084 BTW I've been thinking about it and I don't think the plan will be that bad for cyclists like me. I'll still take the lane downhill and ride to the right uphill except when traffic is bad. And people who aren't comfortable in traffic can use the pathway. Sure, the design could be better, and Mary's request to engage with stakeholders in the biking community would improve it, but the planned design won't make things worse, IMHO. At least it gets the pedestrians and slow bikers away from the motor traffic.
jonawebb
2014-09-05 08:19:48
^ I'm pretty much on board with what neilmd said. I haven't looked at the plan recently, but come to think of it, if they're calling for a bi-directional cycle track, those should just be avoided on ANY hill. The speed differential will just be asking for bad bike-on-bike crashes.
edmonds59
2014-09-05 12:26:19
Hello, all. Heather Sage here from Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy. If I may-- just want to let everyone know that the conceptual design for a green street along Schenley Drive in Schenley Park is a very early concept, but one that remains a priority for the Parks Conservancy. I've had a number of direct exchanges with many cyclists in the past couple of days, and I wanted to share the substance of the conversation here. We are committed to an open and rigorous public input process with every project we undertake. There is a great deal to be done within Schenley Park and the wider watershed to address serious stormwater management issues and ecological health. At the same time, balancing the wide range of park uses, transportation needs more broadly, and many perspectives is equally as important to us. Holistic, strategic approaches are key, and they involve a great deal of understanding related to sometimes competing priorities and interests. Finding that balance for stakeholders and delivering the highest quality results for the health of the park and park users underlies our work. Since the overall watershed restoration plan was conceived (http://pittsburghparks.org/pantherhollow), there has been a great deal changing within Schenley Park and obviously an enormous amount of attention to multi-modal transportation. The conceptual plan described for the "green street" along Schenley Drive within the Panther Hollow Watershed Restoration Plan is just that: a concept. We are literally at the very beginning of the design process. We are establishing a timeline and developing both a technical stakeholders group and an advisory group that will focus specifically on bike/ped and other user group needs and interests, as we know there are many key considerations-- many you have raised, and many others as well. We plan to meet in late September/early October with both groups to outline the preliminary design process together, and to also develop a range of public input opportunities that will include both in-person meetings and other means-- to facilitate as much input as possible. Your help in ensuring that happens is greatly appreciated. In general, the preliminary design process will involve multiple steps and there will be opportunities for the public at large, in addition to the two more specialized user groups I described above, to identify constraints, needs, opportunities, desires, priorities, etc. at the outset; react to and provide detailed input on a range of alternatives developed by our consulting team; and then to provide additional feedback on the preferred direction. We anticipate the process to take approximately 6 months. The end result of this phase will be a design that's ~20 percent completed. In other words, there's a long way to go before implementation is a reality-- but implementation is absolutely a high priority. We invite you to stay up to date by watching for project updates at: http://pittsburghparks.org/restorationupdate. We are also working closely with Bike Pittsburgh to establish a process for productively engaging with the cycling community as the design unfolds-- so you are here from the beginning, not as an afterthought. Feel free to contact me directly at hsage@pittsburghparks.org or at 412-682-7275, ext. 222. Thanks!
heathersage
2014-09-05 12:30:06
The Schenley Drive “green street” proposal is not a biking or transportation plan per se. It has been designed in the service of a much larger storm water management project aimed at revitalizing Panther Hollow Lake and its watershed. Narrowing Schenley Drive and installing permeable pavers and a vegetation strip are primarily intended to catch and control as much storm water as possible, not enhance biking, walking, or safety. So one question to consider is: Can fixing up the lake and watershed be reasonably achieved by scaling back green infrastructure implementation on Schenley Drive, or even not doing anything at all to the road? Although “implementation” has been flagged by PPC as “absolutely a high priority”, the status quo is a viable option for bikers and walkers and requires no implementation. Along similar lines, there are a couple of options that I’m not sure have been considered: 1) Remove car traffic from the stretch of Schenley Drive through the golf course. 2) Reduce car traffic to one-way, ideally from Squirrel Hill to CMU/Oakland, and perhaps extend the one-way restriction to the Westinghouse Memorial and up Circuit Drive, through the other side of the golf course to the top of Serpentine Drive. Both options would allow expansion of the bike and pedestrian paths and further narrowing of Schenley Drive (and under option 3, those opportunities would be extended the length of Circuit Drive, which currently does not provide a space for walking along a significant stretch of the road). Another point: The Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission has been doing bike counts at the top of Schenley Drive for three years and has repeatedly found that it is among the five busiest biking locations in the city. Reducing the amount of operating space in such a high demand area seems counterintuitive. More than a year ago PPC made a presentation to the board of the Squirrel Hill Urban Coalition highlighting its Schenley Drive proposal. At that time I raised particular concerns about the downhill curve just before the CMU turnoff (there is no room for error or escape route along the top of the steep ravine above Phipps Run, where a guardrail is currently installed) and the need to move an increased number of bikers and walkers from the proposed shared path, across two lanes of car traffic, to the CMU campus. Those concerns remain, along with other posters’ misgivings about increased accident potential and the likelihood of bikers choosing to mix with car traffic—an outcome that contravenes Mayor Peduto’s goal of separating bikes from motor vehicles.
chrisz
2014-09-09 14:04:52
Today's P-G has an article by Diana Nelson Jones on this project. http://www.post-gazette.com/local/city/2014/09/15/Cyclists-concerned-about-redesign-of-Schenley-Drive/stories/201409150004 It contains a newer version of the plan than the one that was in my open letter -- the 2-way bike-ped lane is now 10' wide. The total width of the redesigned road is now 42-44 ft rather than 40 for current roadway; I don't know whether this still fits between the rows of trees. There will be a stakeholder meeting on September 30, followed by public meetings. Plan to attend the public meetings -- there's no reason we can't have BOTH stormwater management and an upgrade to this very popular route.
maryshaw
2014-09-15 09:19:40
The new plan seems just about fine. It is true that cyclists and pedestrians will have to share that path, but I'm assuming that the fast cyclists running downhill will still take the road, as they should, so there would be minimal conflict between slow cyclists going uphill and pedestrians on the path. And it will increase the amount of rain captured.
jonawebb
2014-09-15 09:27:12
10' is certainly much, much, better than 6-8'. But are we likely to get a downhill sharrow here?? I don't see a lot of motorist acceptance of lane claiming for the faster riders without. Seems like it would be a small item compared to the budget of the project so I'd like to see that folded in before saying... well that's ok.
byogman
2014-09-15 10:00:40
10 feet is better than 8. I think it should still be wider since there are a lot of users of schenley park, and I think the amount of pedstrians on this path will expand once they are not running/walking on the shoulder of a roadway. Wide trails make good neighbors. Here's what the FHWA mentions about path design: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/sidewalk2/sidewalks214.cfm "The tread of a shared-use path should be at least 3.05 m (10 ft) wide. A minimum of 2.44 m (8 ft) may be used on shared-use paths that will have limited use. Shared use paths should also have graded areas at least 610 mm (2 ft) on either side of the path. On shared-use paths with heavy volumes of users, tread width should be increased to a range from 3.66 m to 4.27 m (12 ft to 14 ft)."
benzo
2014-09-15 10:01:21
A two-way pedestrian/bike track seems more dangerous than the current configuration. Many cyclists descend that hill at 25 to 35mph. When slower riders or joggers are on the shoulder, it is possible to merge left into the traffic lane. A two way path would mean crossing into oncoming (bike/pedestrian) traffic. Merging into traffic traveling in the same direction and at about the same speed is much safer. Personally, I would end up riding downhill on the road. I already get into the traffic lane when rounding the turns, being unable to see if there is anyone moving slowly on the shoulder.
dfiler
2014-09-16 11:45:41
^+that.
edmonds59
2014-09-16 11:49:09
Of course you would end up riding on the road downhill. What's wrong with that? You are traffic. The bike/ped path is for people who don't want to go fast downhill, and who can't go fast uphill.
jonawebb
2014-09-16 11:51:10
Nothing technically "wrong" with riding downhill in the traffic lane. It's just that i've been hit by a car 5 times and try to stay as far away from them as possible. As it is now, cars going 45mph on that road can safely pass me. In the new configuration, some will still attempt to pass even though it will be unsafe. Granted, there are other far more dangerous streets to ride on. But it would be a shame to see a safe road made less safe.
dfiler
2014-09-16 11:55:18
Claiming the lane downhill and using the path uphill sounds just fine to me, better than the current configuration even where being on the shoulder doesn't work well approaching tech street... if I've got sharrows downhill. Without them and especially with a path to the side the immediate assumption of motorists will be that I BELONG on the path, which would stupid and dangerous at the speed I and most adults who regularly cycle would want to travel there. I think we just need to press this point.
byogman
2014-09-16 12:18:53
Like most people, I know next to nothing about hydrology or storm water runoff. With that caveat in mind I don’t see how narrowing the roadway is at the core of this design. I think it is much more important to have the roadway grading correct and that the water catch-and-absorb systems that divert the water from streaming into the valley be adequately sized. So what is the “negative” water runoff effect of keeping the roadway width as-is? Can this percentage be regained by widening the vegetation zone or altering some other such system? I think that that’s what this discussion should be about. There is a golf course beside this roadway, I can't believe that the width of the buffer zone should be a limiting factor here.
marko82
2014-09-16 12:27:31
Sure, if you can get sharrows added, fine. But let's not turn them into a "bikes allowed here" symbol, OK? We're allowed on city streets, period. And there are techniques to ensure our safety, while we ride there. You don't need sharrows to take the lane. Just take it. You know how common accidents where the cyclist is taking the lane are? Not very. Cyclists are hit, almost always, when motorists don't notice them -- dooring, right-hook, cyclist on the right when a motorist thinks he can squeeze past, etc. If you're in the lane in front of a motorist you're safe. And if they're honking, so much better -- they definitely see you. Pick up John Forrester's "Effective Cycling" (or other info on Vehicular Cycling) sometime.
jonawebb
2014-09-16 12:30:56
I go down that hill on many weekend nights. Weekend nights= drunk drivers. I usually assume they all all are. I might be wrong sometimes (but then, maybe not), but that's my working assumption. If I think one will overtake me, I pull to the side. That doesn't happen very often.
mick
2014-09-16 12:54:41
Well, @Mick, do you think sharrows would make a difference in that situation?
jonawebb
2014-09-16 13:09:47
My advocacy for sharrows here is not based on being too shy about asserting my own rights. I don't frequently but do occasionally (including yesterday) claim the lane in the uphill direction on panther hollow rd. Rather, it's that this sort of path would be universally perceived by non-biking motorists as a clear sign that "obviously" that's where everyone but them should go. And that misconception would create hostility and drive those downhill cyclists without thicker skin to the path even if their speeds were inappropriate for it.
byogman
2014-09-16 14:02:37
Sharrows make zero diiference in how I ride on a weekend night. When I rode up Liberty last Saturday (see estatic report!), we rode on teh sidewalk - the bike lane means nothing to those who are driving between bars. Totally separating lanes, like on Penn? With Barriers? That makes a difference (but perhaps not enough when the bars close and I walk the bike on the sidewalk.). The separated lane accross the panther hollow bridge? For a weenend night? Not a lick - the last bit in the south has no bollards in the most dangerous stretch and I certainly don't expect lines on the road to restrain drunkards. I'll ride the concrete-barrier-protected sidewalk on Saturday night, thanks. What would make a HUGE difference to me (I haven't heard anyone else comment about this), is having the lights turn green, yellow, and red (particualrly red) on Liberty through bloomfield. If the lights work, the drunkards would come mainly in boluses. I could hide between parked cars or on eh sidewalk until I could follow the drunks. Then if one got behind me, I could hide again. As it is, the drunkards weave and speed up the road however the whiskey tells them to. ***** But that is on a Saturday night. The rest of the time, I would really appreciate sharrows on the downside lane of Schenley drive through the golf course. Otherwise, i would expect - as byogman implies - regular harassment from drivers for being outside the bike lane. I would expect that drivers' speeds would double (or more) the 25 mph limit in order to catch up with me so they could honk at, yell at, and buzz me. You expect something different?
mick
2014-09-16 14:38:43
Without sharrows, I expect almost all drivers to be somewhat irritated and real fraction to have an outright conniption seeing a bike in the road when there's a path "right there". With sharrows, I expect many drivers to be a little irritated but relatively few to have a conniption. I could be wrong, but dialing back mentally to before I was a cyclist it seems about right.
byogman
2014-09-16 15:03:21
I think of sharrows differently from you guys. To me they're more like advice: "Here's a good bike route." They work well for someone who's figuring out where they should ride, or when you're in an unfamiliar neighborhood. If there's a bike/ped path in Schenley Park I would expect that to fill that role. If you don't know better, you'd ride the path. I don't think drivers pay much attention to sharrows -- especially aggressive drivers. I don't think they notice them. But if they do, I don't want them to think they mean that bikes are allowed only where there are sharrows or bike lanes. That's why I'm indifferent to whether there are sharrows or not on the remodeled Schenley Drive. I could see them helping or hurting overall. But I don't think the remodeled road would be the best place for an inexperienced cyclist. The bike/ped path would be better. So it might be better not to mark it as a good route with sharrows.
jonawebb
2014-09-16 15:38:24
I trust a cyclist to make the right choice for them... as long as it feels like a choice. And no you don't need sharrows to ride, but for many who really ought to ride downhill in lane and would normally would feel indirectly but strongly pressure them to ride in the wrong place for their speed. Why? Because the presence of a path creates an impression for motorists who don't ride that there's only one, obviously correct place for bicycles to be. That impression would also bring out worse behavior on the part of motorists against those cyclists who did choose to ride in, and necessarily claim, these narrower lanes.
byogman
2014-09-16 16:00:24
wow, need to edit better: I trust a cyclist to make the right choice for them… as long as it feels like a choice. And no you don’t need sharrows to ride, but many who really ought to ride downhill in lane and would normally would feel indirectly but strongly pressured to ride in the wrong place for their speed. Why? Because the presence of a path creates an impression for motorists who don’t ride that there’s only one, obviously correct place for bicycles to be. That impression would also bring out worse behavior on the part of motorists against those cyclists who did choose to ride in, and necessarily claim, these narrower lanes.
byogman
2014-09-16 16:01:44
Regarding sharrows ... Over a year ago (April 2013), the online Pittsburgh promotional magazine PopCity did a story on the Schenley Drive "green street" proposal, portraying the bike/ped path as a done deal up until the last paragraph, where it noted that the Department of Transportation traffic engineers still need to review the plan. http://www.popcitymedia.com/devnews/ppc041013.aspx According to the article: Cyclists will still be welcome in the Schenley Drive roadway, [PPC's Erin] Copeland says, where sharrows will be painted. So that might give the sharrows/ride-in-traffic fans a lift, but it seems to be at odds with Mayor Peduto's efforts to separate bikers from vehicle traffic; a goal that many bikers support. The article also raises an important question: Have traffic engineers been reviewing the plan over the past year-plus? If so, what do they say?
chrisz
2014-09-17 11:29:57
I think our mayor, when he gets on a bike, as I think he's put out there as a goal for himself, will start to understand how much cyclist speeds vary, and their associated needs and wants vary, and how topography heavily slants (couldn't resist) things one way or the other. I'm not sure if there's any news on that front since the Penn cycletrack??
byogman
2014-09-17 12:45:29
This segment from today's Brian Lehrer talk show on WNYC is really relevant to our Pittsburgh bike lane discussions. See link below. Are Bikes Cars? http://www.wnyc.org/story/are-bikes-cars/
chrisz
2014-09-19 10:05:51
A thing to keep in mind concerning the safety of taking the lane is that traffic should be substantially slowed by the narrower lanes. I recall this being one of the main goals of the project apart from reducing runoff. If it's slowed down to the speed limit, downhill riders may not even be getting passed anymore.
richierich
2014-09-19 13:41:09
@ChrisZ It's worth noting that the WNYC segment is about New York biking. New York apparently has a mandatory sidepath law. Pennsylvania apparently used to but repealed it in 1998. So many of the bits about using the bike lanes don't apply here in the same way.
maryshaw
2014-09-19 14:33:33
Not to sound Radical, but close it to cars. Ive had so many cars pass me while Im going 30-35 down that road. Just close the street from frew to the stop sign to cars. Do what you want with it then.
steevo
2014-09-21 12:03:48
Just close the street It's a pretty useful route for drivers, and it's fixable. I would settle for better speed-limit enforcement (I can accept slowing down). But infrastructure could also improve. A stop sign or even a light at Frew/Tech would be welcome. Maybe some nice speed-bumped crossings to make all those golfers feel safer. And a narrower roadway would seem more in keeping with the park setting; surely everyone would enjoy slowing down to enjoy a pleasant pastoral interlude in that transition between work and home. No reason to exclude anyone, really. Just change a few little things and make everyone happy.
ahlir
2014-09-21 18:25:47
Yeah, if they enforced the speed limit anywhere, the f'n parks would be a great place, eh? Reducing the speed limit to 20 and enforcing the limit would be better, but 25 would still be a great improvement over the 40mph people drive with impunity.
salty
2014-09-21 21:03:48
Just announced: Schenley Drive Green Street Public Input Meeting Tuesday, November 18 5:30-7:30 p.m. Jewish Community Center 5738 Forbes Ave. "Lend your voice to help guide designs for this proposed 'green street', the first step in a public participation process that will help identify potential design alternatives. The focus of discussion is on the segment of Schenley Drive between Forbes Avenue at the Bob O'Connor Golf Course and the Schenley Park Cafe & Visitor Center." There is also an online survey for input: Pittsburgh Public Parks Green Street Survey
kbrooks
2014-11-05 13:59:01
Thanks for the link. I encouraged a redesign of the road and intersections, making them smaller and safer. We don't need a huge highway through the park. All it does is encourage speeding and careless driving. Tighter, more defined intersections would be a huge help. The massive rounded intersections make walking, cycling and driving far more dangerous.
dfiler
2014-11-05 14:19:31
I just like the idea of having two weeks' notice of such an event. Something PennDOT has notoriously *not* done.
stuinmccandless
2014-11-05 17:34:05
In addition to enforcing the speed limit, how about enforcing the stop signs? Walking home yesterday evening I watched four cars in a row barely slow down at the stop sign on Schenley Drive in front of the O'Connor golf club while I was waiting to cross. Of course, if cars were going slower in the first place it would be less onerous to stop.
maryshaw
2014-11-06 10:36:29
Maybe they need to put up a "your speed is" signs, BUT instead of showing the speed, it just says, "you are selfish for speeding". When I tell people they are selfish if we are discussing speeding, they certainly have a poor reaction to being called that. I think we need to convey to others that speeding is a selfish act, because in reality that is what it is.
gg
2014-11-06 11:09:20
Two weeks notice for a meeting is pretty fair, but the meeting's start time--5:30--is pretty inconvenient for people who work until 5:00 or later, who work or live at a distance from Squirrel Hill, or who have family, like school-aged children, to tend to after work. I've attended numerous community meetings in Squirrel Hill over the past year; none started before 6:30.
chrisz
2014-11-06 11:39:45
I'd like to see a version of those your-speed-is displays show your speed AT the stop sign. Have it say either * "Violation! Your speed thru stop sign: N mph" or * "Thank you for coming to a complete stop!"
stuinmccandless
2014-11-06 12:10:21
Maybe the sign could just say "nice driver" or "selfish jerk". One has to wonder if it would be much more effective than just showing some number.
gg
2014-11-06 12:35:24
@ Mary Show In addition to enforcing the speed limit, how about enforcing the stop signs? They shouldn't allow cars on the streets if drivers can't learn to follow the traffic laws. ;p
mick
2014-11-06 12:50:18
@Mick Yeah, they say that about us, too. So ... why don't we collect data on how fast cars are going when they roll through stop signs. Then we make the case that any cyclist going through a stop sign slower than that speed is at least as legal as a car. Idaho, here we come!
maryshaw
2014-11-06 13:53:19
Since it is unlikely that I will make it to the meeting, here is what I think Schenley Park needs - Gateways. This is a crappy concept sketch I did in 2 minutes, shown at the Forbes Ave entrance, for example. Credit to the marvelous Allegheny Cemetery gateways. There should be gateways that make it clear that you are entering a different zone, and behavior should be different. The gateways would have portals for each specific mode of movement, the automobile portal would be JUST wide enough to accomodate 2 opposing lanes, and would prevent automobiles from screaming into the park like it is a continuation of a freeway. dangit something about the posting I'm getting wrong. I miss that little camera button. img src="http...", plus less than greater than front and back??
edmonds59
2014-11-06 15:14:34
That is a great idea edmonds59, even w/o the illustration. Note that PPC referred to a "gateway" at the golf course entrance (the driveway entrance to the clubhouse, I'm assuming) in their online survey about Schenley Drive.
chrisz
2014-11-06 15:19:43
I saw the note about the gateway at the golf course entrance, but that's not where it's needed. And in fact you are entering the golf course at Forbes.
edmonds59
2014-11-06 15:26:35
There's the little fella.
edmonds59
2014-11-06 16:19:20
For Imgur, you can click "Get embed codes" near the bottom right corner of the page showing the image. Then click on the code shown for HTML and copy it to your message. Many image-hosting sites will have similar options. That way you don't have to write the HTML yourself.
steven
2014-11-06 16:43:38
I would like to see bicyclists respecting stops signs, speed limits and so on... Bicyclists should register their bicycles, and pay pendot fees to use the roads, the same way motorists do.
glug67
2014-11-06 17:56:30
^ Ha! That's funny.
edmonds59
2014-11-06 17:59:07
@glug67: Assuming you're not just bored and randomly trolling, consider the following: 1) Everyone should respect traffic laws; they're there for a reason. When I bike I follow the laws. On a given day I see many more scofflaw motorists than bikers. Why is that? 2) Motorist fees cover only about 1/3 of the cost of roads. The rest comes out of general funds. That is, for every dollar that a motorist pays in fees, a cyclist pays two dollars. And why is that? On a separate note, this board is not so great for trolling. If you're hankering to start a flame war there are way better venues. You probably already know what they are. In case not, may I suggest 4chan for a starter? Perhaps you could share your thoughts on the /b/.
ahlir
2014-11-06 18:49:07
To any current or future trolls, please know that the community you are speaking in consists of some of the most knowledgeable, most experienced, most law-abiding cyclists in the city. Ask us questions. Have an open mind. We do welcome informed, intelligent discussion. Operative word: Intelligent. If you are uninformed, we will inform you, with proper citations when necessary.
stuinmccandless
2014-11-06 19:03:35
Man, when I was little, I had one of those little plastic guys, crazy wild purple hair. I had forgotten all about him. Wonder what ever happened to that little guy?
edmonds59
2014-11-06 19:08:39
As @Ahlir said, motorist fees don't cover cost of roads. I'm tired of hearing this argument come up time after time, so I dug a little deeper. Even if bicyclists, just for the sake of discussion, "should" pay these fees, what would the fees be? I looked up PA vehicle registration fees, cars and motorcycles at http://www.dmv.state.pa.us/fees/index.shtml and trucks at http://www.dmv.state.pa.us/pdotforms/mv_forms/mv-70s.pdf (as @StuInMcCandless says, we can do citations) I plotted weight against fees. For example, a car at roughly 3000 lb is $36/year, a 19,000 lb truck is $385/year, a 46,000 lb truck is $813/year. I computed the best-approximation line that goes through all these points. The fair share for a bicycle: about 37 cents! Most of us would happily pay 37 cents a year to make this argument go away. But 37 cents is so small that it would be silly to bother collecting it -- the postage stamp to return the registration sticker would cost more!!
maryshaw
2014-11-06 19:47:23
@mary, I'll even send the 37 cents in with a self-addressed stamped envelope if it makes this stupid argument go away. @edmonds, I like the idea of a gateway, however, I prefer the wrought iron style used at Duquesne University - not that your drawing isnt pretty...
marko82
2014-11-06 20:30:45
gg
2014-11-06 20:44:37
A recent repair to my bike cost $392, about $25 of which was sales tax. That other 2/3 of the costs of paying for the roads that motor fuels taxes are not covering, come from just such taxes. One transaction. One bike. So don't say cyclists don't pay taxes. We are paying for your heavy use of the roads.
stuinmccandless
2014-11-06 22:13:05
I probably won't be able to make this, which kills me. I did send a note about how there's two categories of user, the slow: laid back recreational and younger/older user, and the fast: not so laid back recreational and commuter, and that the downhill speed, at minimum, of the latter category, was incompatible with the trail so a downhill sharrow is necessary (and also helps with the tech street intersection). I also indicated that ideally what I'd like to see where panther hollow joins schenley drive is turning that intersection into a roundabout with speed humps to reduce incoming speed, and then a pedestrian signal. Again, two use cases, slower and faster. But at minimum, what is very necessary is reducing the speed of the cars on panther hollow whipping around that corner somewhat blind approaching the intersection. Stu, what the heck happened to your bike??
byogman
2014-11-07 06:10:16
Mary, road damage is proportional to the fourth power of axle weight. So an average 4000 pound car does 160,000 times as much damage as a 200 pound rider plus bike. And since no one's pointed it out yet, there are no city taxes at all on motor vehicles. All road maintenance comes from general revenues.
jonawebb
2014-11-07 07:18:26
@jonawebb Indeed so. But a linear relation will be a stretch for the guys who can't even grasp that general funds pay for most of the road work. Asking them to understand fourth powers is beyond my imagination, even if it reduces my purported fair share from 37 cents to "vanishingly small"
maryshaw
2014-11-07 08:48:29
Actually, maybe there's a case for subsidizing bicycles in some way or other: the more riders we have the less we need to spend on road maintenance. And everyone pays less "taxes". Some of those savings could even be re-invested in bike infrastructure. Virtuous circle.
ahlir
2014-11-07 09:08:59
Don't think we need a subsidy, just tax choices according to what they cost society. That would tilt the incentives toward biking in a very large way and as a bonus reward all the other choices less bad than putting motorized two ton cages around every single person.
byogman
2014-11-07 11:21:08
If you really made road users pay for the roads according to the damage they cause, it would eliminate bus and truck traffic. A bus causes between 900 and 28,000 times as much damage to a road as a car, depending on how much it is loaded, and an 18-wheeler truck carrying the maximum legal load causes over 13 million times as much damage. There's no way the economics of moving people via bus or delivering anything via 18-wheeler truck could be justified if other road users weren't heavily subsidizing their use. In a world where road users paid proportionately to their use, we would have bicycles and very small motorized vehicles weighing between 500 and 1000 pounds (causing between 40 and 600 times as much damage as a bicycle, and taxed proportionately). And anything heavier would be transported via rail.
jonawebb
2014-11-07 11:35:26
Costs are not limited to road damage. The fact that 30 cars are probably 100 times as likely to kill or maim someone as 1 bus matters. Though we do need to get the 18 wheelers the heck off the road.
byogman
2014-11-07 13:44:15
^ The trucking industry is HEAVILY government subsidized - intermodal shipping hubs, municipalities compete to give away the most taxes to attract trucking facilities to their communities. I don't recall ever reading letters in the paper from flaming troll head taxophobes screaming about trucking hubs. Economic development, don'tcha know. And yet trucks continue to wear down infrastructure at many times the rate even of automobiles. Fab.
edmonds59
2014-11-07 14:14:20
Public meeting tomorrow (Tu 11/18) early evening. Now is the time to come and discuss what changes would be reasonable, which changes would be detrimental. It's important to get lots of cyclists there to show that we're an important "set of stakeholders". Schenley Drive Green Street Public Input Meeting Tuesday, November 18 5:30-7:30 p.m. Jewish Community Center 5738 Forbes Ave. "Lend your voice to help guide designs for this proposed 'green street', the first step in a public participation process that will help identify potential design alternatives. The focus of discussion is on the segment of Schenley Drive between Forbes Avenue at the Bob O'Connor Golf Course and the Schenley Park Cafe & Visitor Center." There is also an online survey for input: Pittsburgh Public Parks Green Street Survey https://www.pittsburghparks.org/greenstreetsurvey
maryshaw
2014-11-17 12:34:36
Never been to one of these. Is the time frame just a window for people to show up, view diagrams, and comment? Or is it more formal with an expectation of arriving when it starts and sticking around to listen to people talk?
richierich
2014-11-18 10:16:51
@Richie; I SUSPECT (but do not know for certain) that this will be an open house type meeting. There is usually some "introduction" speech or presentation - almost never starting at the event start time - and lots of time to mingle and ask questions, provide input. I think if you can spare even 20 minutes, you will get something out of it, as will the design team. If I had to "pick" those 20 minutes, I'd focus it around the 6:00 timeframe. Too early, and they'll still be waiting for the crowd to show up. Too much later, and people will be wandering home to make dinner, etc. But, those are just my expectations, based on how our organization runs this sort of meeting.
swalfoort
2014-11-18 11:04:44
Here is the agenda for tonight's meeting, at the JCC Levenson Room, from 5:30-7:30, for those of you with questions on the timing. We do intend to start as close to 5:30 as possible. We will make the PowerPoint presentation, in case anyone misses it, available online. The online input form will be available until early December as well. • Intros (5 mins)- Dave Brewton, Facilitator • Rules of engagement/project goals (2 mins)- Dave Brewton • Presentations by PPC/design team (18 mins) Erin Copeland (Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy), Michele Adams (Meliora Environmental Design), Steve Giampolo (McMahon and Associates) • Breakout groups (35-40 mins)- Attendees will be broken into small groups (max of 4, depending on size of crowd) for a review of input to date, feedback, and prioritization exercise • Report out as large group/any additional input (30 minutes)- Dave Brewton • Review of next steps of process (5 minutes)- PPC There will be light snacks and drinks provided. In addition to the small group sessions/work, we will have iPads at the meeting open to the online input form, as well as hard copies of the forms. We will be presenting the input we've received to date at the meeting so people can see the range of comments. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me directly. Heather Sage Director of Community Projects Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy 412-682-7275, ext. 222 Thanks!
heathersage
2014-11-18 12:07:20
Last night's meeting was useful and informative. After a one hour presentation, we broke into three brainstorming groups. The level of the discussion was very much "what should we do," not "here's our plan, what do you think of it?" Everything was on the table. The took lots of notes, for use during the design phase. They want to do something about the runoff problem in Schenley Park, and Schenley Drive is a channel for a lot of it, due to its width and location. So, while fixing that, they can do other things, to improve the situation for bikers and pedestrians. One thing that came through loud and clear from the bikers (and there were a lot of us) is downhill is OK -- nobody has a problem keeping up with traffic, more or less. Uphill we could have a bike lane on Schenley Drive, or some place else There are web sites where you can provide more input. I hope someone will post or repost the links so people here who weren't at the discussion last night can join in. The most interesting fact from the presentation last night: they did a traffic study, and the 85th percentile speed downhill on Schenley Drive is 40 mph. Which is 15 mph over the speed limit.
jonawebb
2014-11-19 08:52:57
Thank you, Jon, for your review of the meeting. I found the meeting to be a bit lacking in the data/information area. I too, found that the date on traffic speeds was eye-opening. We clearly need speed enforcement here. Cyclists were well represented in the room. In general, they seemed to agree that the roadway worked in the downhill direction, and the uphill direction MOSTLY worked. Pedestrians seemed to find the roadway did NOT work for them, placing them in the bike lane, or in traffic lanes, with poor lighting. Golfers also complained that the wide roadway (and the speeding traffic, I presume) made it hard to cross the road to get from one part of the golf course to another. My confusion about the goals of the meeting stems from the premise of the problem. Too much water collects in the upper reaches of Schenley Park, and then eventually flows downhill and floods out Four Mile Run (as in, "the run" near Big Jims and the new cycletrack ) So, the consultants seemed to be seeking a transportation solution to a stormwater problem. An entire range of potential water solutions is on the table, and the golf course is already implementing some of them, but there was no discussion as to the magnitude of the problem, the possible/probable "benefits" of the various options under discussion, or even a discussion of what else might be under consideration as partial solutions. What I took away from the meeting: We need to solve the problem of flooding in Four Mile Run. While a park would APPEAR to be a few hundred acres of impervious surface capable of absorbing and controlling stormwater, soils compaction makes the permeability of the golf course and other areas of the park about the same as the roadway....in other words, part of the problem, not part of the solution. Partial solutions may be found by amending the golf course, but the addition of new hazards that might help (loosing the soil by adding sand pits, water hazards, longer, shaggier grass, or creating bioswales as course hazards) will be considered, but not if it alters the community based/beginner skill set character of the course. That would have the effect of absorbing more water on the golf course, and preventing that water from reaching the roadway surface, where it sheets and gains speed and volume. The roadway, with its 40 ft paved width, is an obvious partial solution. A reduction in pavement and the creation of a "French drain" or bioswale adjacent to the pavement would be of considerable benefit. General consensus that I heard: Road works well for cars and cyclists. Cyclists and cars GENERALLY co-exist peacefully here. Road works less well for pedestrians and golfers Separating pedestrians from the roadway (via adjacent walking trail or thru park connection) would enable the City to consider a narrower roadway through this park, with a bike lane in the uphill direction, sharrows in the downhill direction. Areas formerly paved could be treated in such a way as to work to address the stormwater issue. (This one is my own: creation of a trail/path that is wide enough and all weather enough to handle both pedestrians and cyclists would have to be too wide to be useful for the stormwater needs. You could cur the roadway pavement with from 40 ft to 30 ft., or even 28 ft or so, but you'd still need a 10 ft wide path (or better) to accommodate the mix and volume of pedestrians and cyclists. And it creates a potential safety hazard, with cyclists going much faster than cyclists in the downhill direction.) The survey is still open. There are links to it provided in earlier posts. How do you use this section of the Park? What are the elements of the Park that are important to you?
swalfoort
2014-11-19 09:28:36
Thanks, Sara and Jon. We were thrilled to have so many in attendance last night. I thought the discourse was very engaging and valuable. Sara, you asked about data and the premise of the work. The context of the work is indeed the need to address stormwater management and ecological health and function within the Panther Hollow Watershed, a sub-watershed that exists within Schenley Park, that is part of the greater Four-Mile Run Watershed. In very brief summary, the health and function of the watershed has been greatly impaired over time, and the Parks Conservancy is working to improve that situation. However, all of our projects also consider historical context, park amenities, uses (past, present, future), sustainability and educational opportunities. As we moved through the work in the watershed, Schenley Drive emerged in the studies (found here: http://pittsburghparks.org/pantherhollow-reports) as a major SOURCE of runoff within the watershed. There is a detailed matrix of potential interventions in the watershed found in the study (within these two sections: http://www.pittsburghparks.org/userdocs/PH_Section_4_5_2011.pdf) that provides a lot of information about why Schenley Drive was viewed as a good opportunity (in fact, working to alter the road to make it a "green street" affords the MOST potential stormwater reduction of all interventions proposed within the Phipps Run side of the watershed.) So slightly contrary to what you said, we are not trying to solve a stormwater problem with a transportation solution. We are trying to solve a series of problems, starting first with stormwater, with a comprehensive solution that integrates ecological considerations and the complex array of uses. Because this is a road, we naturally have to consider transportation needs. The watershed study completed in 2011 did suggest a CONCEPT for the Schenley Drive Green Street, as many of you have ID'd already from having pored over the plan. What the Parks Conservancy understood then, and heard again loud and clear in the past few months, was that the public doesn't want to go too far down the design pathway without a thorough hashing out of the uses of the road and the park, the context beyond the watershed and stormwater considerations, and the possible "outside of the box" ideas that can, should and do emerge through a public design process. So the concept illustrated and described in the Watershed Restoration Plan linked above is not (nor was ever meant to be) "THE design." It was simply a concept created to allow for creative thinking about the potential, and to begin to get some estimates on the amount of stormwater reduction, economic implications and social benefits that could occur. I want to again thank all of you who have shared your ideas and thoughts thus far, and encourage you to keep it up here: http://pittsburghparks.org/greenstreetsurvey, or if you'd prefer, via email to me at: hsage@pittsburghparks.org. We will be posting the presentation from last night as well as the existing conditions data/survey that our traffic engineers generated, and once they are up, I will let the forum list know where to find them.
heathersage
2014-11-19 10:26:10
One caveat about the downhill ride and sharrows. At the first PPC Schenley Drive meeting at the end of September, Bike Pittsburgh and a couple of bikers who live near the park, myself included, submitted a three-page document to PPC entitled, "Design Considerations for Bicycling on Schenley Drive". That document includes this passage: "For many [bikers], the current configuration has proved sufficient—eight-foot shoulders on both sides of the roadway, allowing separate bike traffic flow uphill and down, and ample room to safely pass walkers and slower bikers. The current configuration is not perfect, of course: many pedestrians would prefer to be farther away from both cars and bicycles, and a blind curve on the descent to Tech St can be uncomfortable. Nevertheless, Schenley Drive has been chosen as a preferred route by a very large number of cyclists. Any changes to Schenley Drive must preserve or improve the quality of the present configuration." Moving bikers into the car lane when there is already a bike lane in place is not an improvement.
chrisz
2014-11-19 10:39:36
"Moving bikers into the car lane when there is already a bike lane in place is not an improvement." Except it's not really a bike lane. It's a wide shoulder, wider than it needs to be for cyclists, that's shared with pedestrians. Its width and the road width encourages speeding.
jonawebb
2014-11-19 10:51:08
Regarding flooding in Four Mile Run near Big Jim's: I've heard that runoff from Route 376 is a big contributor. Runoff from the freeway is dumped into the old storm water pipes and backs up when there's a downpour, causing flooding of basements and streets. I would guess that Route 376 is a bigger contributor to Four Mile Run flooding than Schenley Drive. Would addressing the Route 376 runoff problem yield more benefit than addressing the Schenley Drive runoff problem?
paulheckbert
2014-11-19 11:38:09
Thanks for the report.
edmonds59
2014-11-19 12:51:56
I wasn't there, so I'm going to talk a bit out of my hat here, but a consistent assumption seems to be that the motor vehicle roadway will remain asphalt paved. But if everything is on the table, I'm going to throw this out, understanding that something like this may already be under consideration, in my laziness to track down things that may have already been proposed: If we have 40' to work with, the road section should consist of a 20 foot wide motor vehicle roadway of cobblestones on a 12" deep compacted gravel retention bed, an 8' wide asphalt paved bike lane on each side of that, separated by a curb, and a 4' wide compacted fine gravel walking path on the North side of the roadway. That profile would reduce the impervious surface MUCH more than simply trimming width and putting paths on each side. THAT would make for a viable park road, and automobiles would certainly not be going 15 mph over the speed limit on that either. When I have time I will certainly go to the site and look at extant proposals. Thanks.
edmonds59
2014-11-19 13:16:44
I ride Schenley Drive a few times a week. It is exceptionally mellow and the drivers are more reasonable than on other roads. Still, I'm a little surprized the 85th %tile speed on Schenley Drive is only 40 mph. I'm guessing it was more like "The 85th is at 43.4 and we can round it down to 40." For most through roads with a 25 mp speed limit in pittsburgh, Like Forbes, Fifth, Greenfield, etc, I would be shocked if that 85th was less than 50 and not surprised if it was over 60 mph on certain stretches. They used to have speed traps in front of the conservatory serval times a year. I miss them.
mick
2014-11-19 13:44:23
Per Paul's question on I-376, "Regarding flooding in Four Mile Run near Big Jim’s: I’ve heard that runoff from Route 376 is a big contributor. Runoff from the freeway is dumped into the old storm water pipes and backs up when there’s a downpour, causing flooding of basements and streets. I would guess that Route 376 is a bigger contributor to Four Mile Run flooding than Schenley Drive. Would addressing the Route 376 runoff problem yield more benefit than addressing the Schenley Drive runoff problem?" You are correct, an enormous amount of runoff does come from I-376. There has been a joint effort by Rep. Frankel's office, Councilman O'Connor's office, PWSA, ALCOSAN, Greenfield community-based representatives, UPMC, Pitt, CMU, Parks Conservancy and Chester Engineering (and I am likely missing a few) to look at the flooding issue in the SW corner of the Four-Mile Run Watershed. A detailed study was performed by Chester Engineering, incorporating previous work done to examine the potential of daylighting (in part) Four-Mile Run. The low-hanging fruit is reducing runoff by PennDOT. A strategy is being formed to do just that. But the overall watershed continues to have major issues created upstream, starting in Squirrel Hill and the Oakland business district. And that is the long-term work that needs to happen.
heathersage
2014-11-19 14:57:42
I ride down Schenley Drive to Tech daily. On that upper stretch it is very, very rare for cars to go much above 30 (that is my typical speed, and yes I understand that exceeds the speed limit) and I agree that merging with cars going downhill is pretty much never a problem. I am MUCH more worried about pedestrians in the shoulder, which as Jon points out is NOT a bike lane (it is not marked as anything), especially on the blind parts. Another issue is the Schenley / Tech / Frew intersection, which I really hate, because cars coming up Tech don't reliably yield to folks (aka me) making the quick right / left from Schenley onto Frew, though they (I) have the right of way. Needless to say I approach that chute with caution. I know CMU is aware of this conversation because there was a bike committee meeting at CMU last night on top of the Schenley meeting...
neilmd
2014-11-19 16:13:26
PPC's Erin Copeland generously shared a memo from McMahon Transportation Engineers detailing Schenley Drive data that they presented earlier this week. The memo will be posted soon on PPC's website. Here's a synopsis of traffic counts at three park locations (apologies in advance if my math is off): 1) “Roundabout” intersection at Schenley Park Visitors Center, approaching from three directions (Oakland, Squirrel Hill, Panther Hollow Bridge/Bigelow Blvd.) Morning (Weekday 7-9 AM) - Bikes – 10 - Pedestrians – 37 (crossings at three locations, so could be same peds in some cases, I think) - Vehicles – 2,082 Evening (Weekday 4-6 PM) - bikes – 35 - pedestrians – 259 - vehicles – 2,252 2) Schenley Drive at Tech St./CMU, approaching intersection from three directions (Squirrel Hill, Oakland, CMU campus) Morning - 27 bikes - 36 pedestrians - 1,044 vehicles Evening - 110 bikes - 64 pedestrians - 1,157 vehicles 3) Schenley Drive at Darlington Road intersection, approaching from up and down Schenley Drive and from Darlington Morning - bikes 58 - pedestrians 56 -vehicles 898 Evening - bikes 102 - pedestrians 78 - vehicles 1,105 (Note: According to data provided by McMahon, the Southwest Pennsylvania Commission counted 102 bikes at this location the morning of September 11, 2012.)
chrisz
2014-11-20 13:38:23
4% mode share over all. Of vehicles, I mean.
jonawebb
2014-11-20 13:44:33
I think one of the really interesting and challenging aspects of this whole issue (not just the Schenley Drive design but bike lanes in general, etc) is the tremendous range of ability and comfort among cyclists, along with the dual objectives of making those who already spend a lot of time cycling on roads safer while also encouraging as much expansion as possible. Everybody can walk (even though people nowadays sometimes stop mid crosswalk to answer a text), and everybody with a license can more or less drive (HAH!!), but cyclists go from 10 year old kids to racers to my 90 year old colleague from Pitt and everything in between. The "right" answer is hard. End ramble.
neilmd
2014-11-20 16:57:31
BTW, all that Schenley Drive traffic data is for the morning and evening of one day, October 28, 2014.
chrisz
2014-11-20 17:00:43
Downhill, we're John Forester. Uphill, we're Mikael Colville-Andersen.
jonawebb
2014-11-20 17:05:41
"...I think one of the really interesting and challenging aspects of this whole issue (not just the Schenley Drive design but bike lanes in general, etc) is the tremendous range of ability and comfort among cyclists,..." I would/will miss the opportunity to jam downhill on that stretch in a 53/12 gear. :(
edmonds59
2014-11-20 17:12:40
I went around the S curve this morning at 30-ish (in a 50:12) , in the lane as always, and zipped by two joggers, side by side, in the "bike lane", heading up against traffic as joggers often do. Had I been in that lane it would have been 10-pins (well, 2-pins).
neilmd
2014-11-20 17:40:03
There's another meeting planned for the 29th. From Heather Sage: Schenley Park Green Street Community Meeting Wednesday, July 29th 6 - 8pm Schenley Park Visitor Center The goal of this public meeting is to: Review work done to date. Learn about the early design that has developed through public, stakeholder, and City input from consulting team Meliora Environmental Design and McMahon Associates. Hear feedback from the community about certain design solutions. The more we hear from community members, the better! Please share this invitation with your networks or anyone that may be interested. You can RSVP here.
jonawebb
2015-07-10 08:18:34
Wow, rsvp registration ends in < 24 hours.
benzo
2015-07-10 11:47:07
Sorry-- we're fixing the registration page. If for some reason you receive an error in the meantime, please simply send me an email that you're planning to attend: hsage@pittsburghparks.org. Thanks! -Heather Sage Director of Community Projects Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy
heathersage
2015-07-10 11:54:38
I suspect the RSVP is to get an estimate of how big a room to get, or maybe (if they're planning snacks) how much food to get. Do RSVP if you can, but if you discover you can attend after the RSVP date, don't let that stop you. Do send them email if you can. (Naturally, I'm not speaking for the PPC, but I'm betting that getting good discussion is more important to them than the RSVP)
maryshaw
2015-07-10 11:56:03
See McKinley Park vision plan. We need to give similiar feedback here to ensure that Bausman st is not made unfriendly to cyclists during redesign. Plans appear to narrow bausman st to accomodate swales, removing some of the ample shoulder space currently existing which makes climbing up this way easier in traffic. Strava heat map shows this as a very well used route from west liberty ave to hilltop / brownsville rd / 18th street. http://civicviz.com/url/mckinleyhaberman/
benzo
2015-07-13 15:19:57
Bump. This is tonight. Schenley Park Green Street Community Meeting Wednesday, July 29th 6 – 8pm
benzo
2015-07-29 15:18:00
I arrived late, but the plans look pretty reasonable to me. Two narrowed driving lanes, a 2' buffer, then 5' bike lanes on both sides, and a sidewalk on the north side of Schenley Drive. There is one stretch where there are some bollards to keep cars from drifting over; that's at a point where bikes are going to be going fast downhill, and the bollards might be a problem. But they seemed to be still exploring whether that was the right solution. There's also a tricky path to get from the downhill lane to the cycletrack in front of Phipps. And they will be adding pedestrian crossings to further slow traffic. In any case, though, it seems like a complete, thought-through solution for cyclists, at least. The room was packed with nerdy cyclists who had clearly studied the issue and had all sorts of detailed, technology-oriented questions. I wish other areas of our city had the same level of interest and knowledge; things would get a lot better here very quickly.
jonawebb
2015-07-30 08:43:19
That sounds like excellent results. My thanks to everyone who put in time and effort.
dfiler
2015-07-30 08:56:09
One woman at the meeting last night made an eloquent plea for the idea of closing Schenley Drive to cars. The officials & designers said they were looking at that option, but it sounded unlikely. Here are pictures from the current design plans. The first shows the bend to the right as you descend from Darlington Rd. The current road is 40 feet wide (12 foot car lanes and 8 foot shoulders). This drawing shows the proposed configuration. The lanes, from the bottom: curb, 5 foot uphill bike lane, 2 foot painted buffer, 10 foot car lane, 10 foot car lane, 5 foot downhill bike lane, curb, 3 foot grass strip, 6 foot sidewalk. That totals about 41 feet. The dashed strip above the sidewalk in the drawing is an alternate route for the sidewalk, being considered, for ADA compliance. The dots between car lane and downhill bike lane in the left half of this picture are planned delineators (plastic bollards). They had included them because they were worried about cars drifting into the bike lane on this bend. I urged them to omit delineators there. I pointed out that cyclists might be going fast down the hill (30 mph, say) when they get to this spot, so it would be dangerous for them to encounter a delineator at that speed. This picture is further down the hill, at Tech St. Note that they've added stop signs for both uphill and downhill traffic, at Tech St.
paulheckbert
2015-07-30 09:54:34
Oh, one other thing, since I got there late. Was there any information given about schedule?
jonawebb
2015-07-30 10:17:48
jon- as far as in know there is no schedule. this is not funded, as far as i know, so unless ppc finds funds, or is able to get it into a future capital budget, it's just in concept phase
erok
2015-07-30 10:55:10
Interesting dilemma with regard to bollards on the curve. They will prevent cars from drifting inward into the bike lane as they typically do around turns. However it also creates a more dangerous situation for bicycles going fast downhill. If there is someone moving slowly or stopped in the bike lane, it will be hard to swerve around them without hitting a bollard. I honestly don't know and won't hazard a guess if bollards are a good idea or not. Currently I take the lane when going downhill around that curve to avoid overtaking slower moving bikes and pedestrians at high speed. Also, further left, toward the center of the road there is better visibility around the right hand turn. The tech street intersection still seems too large, so large that it encourages highway off-ramp speed rather than right angle turning speed. Ironically, this improved bike infrastructure will likely not be well received by bikers. A bike stop sign at the tech street intersection will ruin their continuous high speed downhill. That's not a criticism, just an observation.
dfiler
2015-07-30 11:48:23
Overall, I'm fine with the plan. The whole Frank Curto Dr / Schenley dr / Panther Hollow Road intersection could use some work to address the confusing situation there. Their plan requires 3 crossings to get from bike lane downhill to the protected bikeway. However, that's probably the best that can be done in the scope of this project which doesn't include rebuilding that intersection (and that would be rather costly and I can understand that keeping that out of scope is appropriate). It's no worse than the current situation and makes it a bit easier for casual users to cross over to the bikeway by spelling out exactly how to cross at the safest points(crossing right in front of users at stop signs where visibility is best). I feel commuters coming down Schenley drive who are comfortable riding in traffic will continue to take the main roadway and skip the protected bikeway as they do now. New stop signs at tech street and darlington will make the street easier to cross for peds, and slow traffic (in addition to narrowing traffic lanes to 10ft). I wonder how the signage will be with respect to the stop signs around the bike lanes at tech st, indicating all way stop (except bikes) could be an option since the bike lane is somewhat protected in that spot in their design, but I'm not sure how they plan to execute the signage design there.
benzo
2015-07-30 12:40:05
Re closing Schenley Drive to cars: There was no mention of how this would affect traffic headed to/from the Frew/Tech intersection. Also, the woman who made the suggestion incorrectly said that only eight homes would be affected. She was ignoring the 14 homes on Darlington Court, which is a dead-end street off that block of Darlington so the impact on the immediate neighbors would be about three times as large as she claimed. On the other hand, what about closing Circuit Rd to automobiles? Bikes headed to Tech/Frew could use Schenley Drive, as could the cars. For bikes headed farther down Schenley Drive (Schenley Plaza, Phipps, Panther Hollow Bridge). it would provide a direct, if slightly longer, connection. If you're connecting with SqHill south of Forbes, you might prefer to connect to Darlington (the main part) rather than Forbes anyhow.
maryshaw
2015-07-30 12:43:07
Erok is correct; not a specific timeline. The current funding allows for completion of approximately 20% of total design-- i.e. nothing in the actual construction documentation realm. But given DPW Director Gable's interest in evaluating the potential for eliminating some or all car traffic on Schenley Drive, it provides a potential different direction that deserves fuller consideration. On behalf of the Parks Conservancy, I want to express my thanks to all who have so thoughtfully participated in this process to date, and those who will join in and continue to do so in the future. We will be posting materials and opportunities for further input online, and will let you know when we do. -Heather Sage, Director of Community Projects Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy hsage@pittsburghparks.org 412-682-7275, ext. 222
heathersage
2015-07-30 12:45:55
I think closing Circuit Road to cars makes a lot of sense. It's basically used as a stretched-out parking lot right now. There's very little other utility to the motorist for going that way. But I think this is a separate issue from Schenley Drive and the rainwater, speeding, pedestrian, and cycling issues that the PPC is trying to address. While I personally prefer taking Circuit Road heading east from Schenley, a lot of people prefer the straighter path up Schenley Drive, and it's definitely a better path when heading west. So the work PPC is planning on Schenley Drive still makes sense regardless of what happens to Circuit Road.
jonawebb
2015-07-30 12:57:16
Circuit Rd is low traffic and for the most part remains a parking street, which seems fine. But there are other possibilities. The rebuilding of the Greenfield Br will likely affect traffic patterns in the area, especially the use of Serpentine/Darlington as a shortcut. It would be a good opportunity to change patterns, with low additional disruption for drivers. I would like to suggest blocking the bit of Circuit between Darlington and Serpentine to cars. How about a pavilion, or a beergarden? That corner of the golf course doesn't seem to be doing much anyway.
ahlir
2015-07-30 13:14:08
I was never really clear on why circuit needed to exist as a road, is it just the vintage grand prix keeping it alive? Seems like bringing it back to a trail surface at trail width would be an easy big win for the schenley park stormwater control efforts.
byogman
2015-07-30 13:15:07
Here are the reasons for circuit road to exist. This isn't meant to justify or argue any of the tradeoffs, just trying to list the reasons. Parking is the main use for circuit rd now. Every legal spot is taken on most weekdays. There is one event/picnic pavilion alongside the road. Also as mentioned, it is necessary for the vintage grand prix. I'm not sure but that event might be a huge money maker for the park.
dfiler
2015-07-30 13:28:52
Perhaps in place of bollards, a rumble strip would work to keep cars from drifting over, without being a hazard to cyclists?
steven
2015-07-30 17:04:50
Depending on the funding maybe the road could be widened or regraded so that there's room for everyone. Or, reduce the speed limit. A couple of sign would be cheap, and the ROI (assuming they actually enforce the limit) would be awesome. Maybe even pay for the entire project.
ahlir
2015-07-30 20:51:19
Or make it toll road. one cent per 10 vehicle pounds (or per 100?). Bicyclist would also pay their dues... :)
mikhail
2015-08-02 13:52:12
@Ahlir ... Schenley Drive can't be widened. That was a major constraint on the design. There are two problems: First, up in the golf course, there are stretches where the mature shade trees line both sides of the road. Widening the road would most likely damage the trees, which everyone seems to agree would be a really bad idea. Second, below the golf course the road skirts the top edge of Phipps Run. There's a sharp dropoff on the south side, and the road can't be widened to the north without major excavation, retaining walls, and probably tree damage. A little space can be gained in the lower section if it's possible to move the walking path off the road toward the bottom of the golf course and let it sort of follow the contour of the hill. If it can be designed to satisfy all the constraints -- ADA grade, more attractive than the road, not diminishing the golfing experience, buildable without damaging trees, .... -- then there would be a little more space for cars and bikes on the road in the Phipps section. I think this is seriously worth exploring. It would be nice to get the walking path away from the road for the full length of Schenley Drive, but from the second tee to the top of the hill there doesn't seem to be space between the fairway and the road. As for the speed limit, it's already 25mph. What it needs is enforcement. My impression is that they need to get it posted better in order to enforce it. When I asked about doing that, the answer IIRC had to do with more signs being visual clutter that detracted from the park experience. (Like cars driving 40+mph doesn't detract?)
maryshaw
2015-08-02 16:07:35
Everywhere, no matter what the problem, it all always boils down to enforcing the speed limit. If motorists and their total disregard for speed limits got the amount of flak cyclists get for running reds, everyone would be safer, and cyclists would have a lot less trouble to deal with. So, why can't we enforce the speed limit, anywhere?
stuinmccandless
2015-08-02 18:00:10
Points taken. I was not precise enough in what I meant. The road through the golf course is fine. it's the curve at the bottom that, to me, is the issue. The problem is the inbound lane. Cars will naturally cut closer to the inside. At the same time we have pedestrians walking up and cyclists coming down. This is not good. The lines seem mislaid: the width of the ped/bike lane actually narrows at that point; the outbound lane in contrast is wider. The grading is likely the reason; i.e. the road is banked, but too far to the inside. Regrading seemed like the least disruptive solution: it simply reuses the existing roadbed. I'd have to check it again but I believe that if necessary the inside could be cut in a small amount (as little as a couple of feet), to allow for any necessary lane widening at that point.
ahlir
2015-08-03 08:08:39
I suspect the vegetation has grown out over the paved surface some at that point, which is well watered since a large puddle forms there when it rains, which will also be a factor in cyclists not wanting to hug the curb going down the hill.
helen-s
2015-08-03 10:02:27
As I understand it, the primary reason the PPC wants to reconstruct Schenley Drive is to improve rain capture by reducing the area that's covered in asphalt. And, secondarily, they want to take advantage of the change to reduce the speed of motorized traffic through the park and improve safety for cyclists and pedestrians. The idea is to do it without requiring increased enforcement by making the road less conducive to speeding, using known road design techniques.
jonawebb
2015-08-03 10:19:38
The plans do call for narrowing the 12 foot traffic lanes to 10 foot. I wonder how this, along with the buffered bike lanes will alter driver behavior with regards to speeding. Additional stops for traffic going downhill may also force some slowdown as well.
benzo
2015-08-03 11:01:22
Specifically, the PPC design is looking at raised crosswalks, which are speed tables with the crosswalk painted on top. (A speed table is like a speed bump that has been spread out along the length of the road from about a foot to perhaps ten feet or so and given a gentler rise and fall. It also calms traffic, but it's much more cyclist-friendly). There would probably be a couple of these on Schenley between Darlington and Tech, at the places where golfers already cross.
maryshaw
2015-08-03 11:16:41
There is a raised crosswalk up in Cranberry that seems to work well at slowing down traffic speeds, but its design needs improved because its height (made out of brick) is sinking. https://goo.gl/maps/RwlGx
marko82
2015-08-03 13:11:11
It's time to pay attention to Schenley Drive again, folks. Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy is asking for comments on the treatment of four crossings on Schenley Drive (Darlington/golf club/hole 2, the midway golfer crossing, Tech St, and that messy intersection down near Phipps). There is a survey form at https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1FfRHT2aWARnHXBfKkF7S8OUTxhe793l5SJhAQEUUpKk/viewform (They revised it this morning to make it clearer, so if you looked at it a couple of days ago and didn't finish, please go back and try again). The survey accepts free-text responses, so you can make suggestions in addition to the specific examples they ask about. It's important for the cycling community to stay engaged in this discussion, so please take the time to share your opinion and show your continued interest.
maryshaw
2015-08-14 20:45:58
Thanks Mary Shaw. I'm now following Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy on facebook so I stay more abreast of their announcements like this. https://www.facebook.com/pittsburghparks
benzo
2015-08-17 14:54:26
A co-worker told me today that yesterday (11/16/2015) morning around 8AM her friend was riding down Schenley Drive and ran into the driver's side door of a car that had unexpectedly pulled out from Tech St., at the crazy intersection at CMU. She got a mild concussion--couldn't speak very well when she woke up--the police responded, she was taken to the hospital and released later in the day. What's the latest on efforts to narrow Schenley Drive and reconfigure the Schenley Drive/Tech St./Frew St. intersection to enhance biker and pedestrian safety?
chrisz
2015-11-17 16:09:16
Yea there is a thread about that crash. Shay self-reported as OK but has been silent of Facebook today (she was told to rest). That intersection is very very bad.
neilmd
2015-11-17 17:12:24
The thread on this crash is at http://localhost/mb/topic/crash-in-schenley-park-monday-111615/#post-0 Best wishes to Shay on a quick recovery. The Oakland Green Team is meeting on Thursday, November 19, at 6:00 pm at the Oakland Career Center, 294 Semple St, 15213. Pat Hassett will be there, and the agenda includes further discussion of making Oakland streets safer. Unfortunately, I have a conflict -- but I hope others will attend. There is now some momentum for improving the Oakland situation, let's keep the pressure on. Here's the agenda: http://www.opdc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/GreenTeamFlyer-Nov-19-meeting-Joncaire.jpg
maryshaw
2015-11-17 17:26:43