BIKEPGH MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVE

I've got it on my calendar...

Nate & I will be there. (He'll know about it as soon as he checks his Google calendar.)

In addition to attending the meeting, is there a way to submit comments in writing?

It's on!

I won't be in town but love that this is moving forward. Is there any other way for me to send my support?

+1 - I really want to go to this because I think it would be awesome but I can't make it.

Good question. Not sure yet. I'll try to find out.

If I can't make it Ill send Mrs marvelous in my place. I feel this is important because it a road both her and I frequent.

Erok, do you know how much weight Carnegie Mellon is putting on community input v. university input?

A lot of the Bike PGH crowd is connected to CMU in one way or another (faculty, staff, students, alums). I wonder if it's worth it for the people with CMU connections to somehow make that obvious at the meeting. That way CMU will know support is coming from within its own ranks.

I'm sure both. It seems that CMU is very supportive of this project. This meeting is to outreach to the neighborhood partners and community.

glad to see this is moving forward. the road is far too wide, especially considering the amount of people crossing it at any given moment. i've been working at cmu for a while now, and that's one thing that really sticks out to me. i will plan to attend.

We can has a boulevard with vegetation separating motor vehicle traffic from a bike/pedestrian curb lane? Like the Dutch, but black and gold because we're not Dutch.

We can has a boulevard with vegetation separating motor vehicle traffic from a bike/pedestrian curb lane? Like the Dutch, but black and gold because we're not Dutch.

that might be nice, but i think it would be very inconvenient near morewood. i work in newell simon, so i'm always turning onto or from morewood and into or out of the gates driveway. i wouldn't want to have to stay in the bike lane all the way to the light or something.

So rolled curb and scruffy pavers, then?

Whatever is figured out, the end result should be something people here and far can point to 18 months after they leave CMU/Pittsburgh and say "Yeah, do that. After some initial, anticipated hand wringing and gritted teeth, turns out it worked out well for everyone!"

Myself, I'm already double booked that evening, so I cannot attend.

Wait, will this be Pittsburgh's first protected bike lane?

It wont be protected, at least thats what I got from the explanation above. Would be nice to see more bike lanes around Oakland though.

I would really love to see protected bike lines between Oakland and Downtown via Forbes and Fifth Avenue.... sharing the road cars-bikes, and pedestrians, while uniting the two worlds that are Oakland and Downtown, and all while hopefully invigorating the Lower Hill neighborhood....

@ Bikeygirl I really dont see that happening with such easy access to the jail trail from Oakland.

The Jail Trail is great -don't get me wrong!!! I love it!!!! But it does-add extra mileague if you are trying to do trips between them, or through them. Plus, the Jail Trail is not such a direct access to Oakland ((specially now that the trail won't connect at Bates St))....... I've actually been doing my own exploring, going fown Forbes, and let me tell you: not bad, faster, more direct. Sure, a bike-lane would be neccesary, along with some figuring-out around the Birghminham Bridge area, but other than that, PRIME to commute....

Is just a thought, but I really think that if something like that would happen, more commuting to work could happen.....

this will just be paint. other ideas aren't off the table, it's just that it's something that can be done relatively quick-like with the idea that it could be changed in the future once all of the issues are figured out and people get comfortable with the idea.

a lane reduction is going to be hard enough for many people to swallow, and i think once they realize that the world didn't end and carmegeddon didn't happen, then we'll see.

It's too bad that California's "Carmageddeon" highway closing didn't happen a few weeks ago instead of happening this weekend. Studies have shown that when a road is closed it takes a week or so of chaos for drivers to sort things out and get back to normal traffic levels. The same thing is true for bike lanes. Remove a lane of traffic and the drivers go wild but, after a week, traffic levels return to previous levels or even improve.

We may be hearing from the drivers at this meeting horror stories based on California's first week. We need to find examples from subsequent weeks. DC's PA avenue experienced this, right? They took away traffic lanes. Put in bike lanes. After things calmed down overall traffic speed improved.

Need to find the statistics.

Although it's not the best analogy, carmegeddeon didn't happen on East Liberty Blvd. There was no doubt some adjustment time, but the traffic, even during rush hour isn't bad.

(specially now that the trail won't connect at Bates St))

Is this really true?

FRUSTRATION

No, they are enhancing the entrance to make it an actual entrance, and apparently lighting it even.

where did you hear of this?

No, they are enhancing the entrance to make it an actual entrance, and apparently lighting it even.

Whew! That's more like it.

(specially now that the trail won't connect at Bates St))

Ok, just got the low down on this. There is some truth to this.

They will be improving the access to the trail down here so that it is ADA compliant. It may or may not be lighted. So technically, no you will not be able to access the trail from Bates street. Instead, you will go down Bates, under the new bridge, then make the right (technically on Second Ave) to the ramp that will take you to the trail there. this will also be the last piece of construction on the project, so when you see the bridge just about done, with no ramp, this is apparently why.

Hmmm... Seems to me that all it would have taken to get the old Bates St Acess ADA compliant would be pave it (and do more curb cuts on that area of Bates, which should be done anyhow). Am I missing something?

I really liked the Bates St entrance from zipping over to the southside and avoiding the lights.

Going down to the Bates-2nd light, then turning the wrong way to climb back up to the trail seems like a step in the wrong direction.

i think it's all of 30 ft further. from what i understand, the entrance is just on the other side of the bridge from where it was.

+1 bikeygirl's idea. If you think of the Jail Trail as bypassing neighborhoods, it's kind of like a big highway bypassing little towns.

Having cycling infrastructure connect downtown and Oakland via surface streets could also potentially benefit the neighborhoods in between. (Disclaimer: I am not an urban planner, and I have no data or studies to cite to support these opinions. I guess I just like the sound of her idea.)

Why is a bike lane necessary? Forbes is pretty manageable except for the bit at the merge with the Blvd and the Parkway but some speed reduction work - grooving the pavement, for instance, or a little enforcement -- to get the motorists down to something near the posted speed limit, would be a lot better than trying to ride in a little lane next to speeding motorists.

1. That's not true. It doesn't seem manageable to the 50 percent of the population who wants to ride but doesn't feel safe.

2. A road diet will calm speeding traffic

3. The land (edit) "lane" will have a significant buffer separating moving cars from the bikes more than just a (single) painted line.

Lyle, I've said this many times, but with all due respect, you are not the user we're trying to attract (the 1-6 percent who are either fearless or merely confident and enthused).

Lyle, pause and reflect on the following:

Infrastructure for you, Aaron and everyone in between.

Lyle I think the point is, maybe this is not the location that most needs traffic calming and a bike lane, BUT if you can get a major city entity like CMU to want to do this in their front yard, then this is where you do it. Like Mr. Penalosa said, get some pilot projects done by any means necessary. Then maybe places like Pitt will want this through Oakland, and CCAC on the North side, etc.

grooving the pavement

i love the idea of this - unless i live near it. this was brought up before, but thrown out the window because of how loud they can be. this might be one of the first "excuses" i've heard for why they can't do something that i might actually agree with. but point taken, traffic needs to slow down there.

"Lyle I think the point is, maybe this is not the location that most needs traffic calming and a bike lane,"

Remember there have been a number of crashes, especially with pedestrians along this stretch. At least one resulted in a student losing her life. I would argue that this IS one of the streets most in need of traffic calming in the city.

the interchange on forbes may as well be a highway. the reason it's treated as such is because there is nothing there but roads. if there was a reason for pedestrians to be in that area, the cars might slow themselves down.

and i think the only thing that will get them to respect bikes in that stretch is to have more bikes there.

@lyle Forbes is pretty manageable except for the bit at the merge with the Blvd and the Parkway but some speed reduction work - grooving the pavement, for instance, or a little enforcement -- to get the motorists down to something near the posted speed limit, would be a lot better than trying to ride in a little lane next to speeding motorists.

Lyle is right about Forbe's intersection with the Parkway & Blvd. Speed limit 25, average speed over 50. Only one house near there. Rumble strips would be a nice idea.

I pass by there every day. Although the cars are scary fast and close, I've never been honked at or harassed there. That's surprising given the parkway-like nature of the road there.

Changes at CMU are particularly important for pedestrians and more novice bikers - and there plenty of both around there.

mick, there's the whole neighborhood of Oak Cliff there. I lived within earshot of the parkway and the BOA, and there are rumble strips in the shoulder that people would hit and it sucks. i would say that i was a good quarter mile away, and it sounded like it was in my room at times.

I love how there are still neighborhoods in Pittsburgh that I've never heard of.

it's actually: Oakcliffe

grooving the pavement

The experience I've with my rental car, a VW Jetta, is that grooves, bad pavement, bricks, etc, are all irrelevant to someone with a nice car. It handles that stuff like it's smooth pavement.

i think it's all of 30 ft further. from what i understand, the entrance is just on the other side of the bridge from where it was.

You can see the work now. It's a skinny sidewalk that runs under the new bridge and to the right on 2nd Ave. Not a great solution for cyclists, but not the middle finger either.

Is Oakcliffe the area around Ophelia and Hamlet Streets? That area is officially part of South Oakland.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11183/1157792-53-0.stm

Just saw this video....

ahhh.... -it would be SO NICE to do this in Pittsburgh too!!

http://www.8-80cities.org/videos26.html

Just saw this video....

ahhh.... -it would be SO NICE to do this in Pittsburgh too!!

http://www.8-80cities.org/videos26.html

Back to tonight's meeting ...

Can we submit comments in writing? Turns out we're not going to make it there tonight.

Thanks.

Mary-

I was told that submitting comments in writing at this stage isn't necessary. so this step is the community outreach part of it -presenting the ideas to the neighbors community, etc.

the next stage will be to present it to PennDOT, as Forbes is a PennDOT road. This will most likely need some letters of support to PennDOT.

I guess a better way to phrase that is the only people at this point to send letters of support to is CMU and their designers and planners. They are in full support of this project. PennDOT, may or may not be in support of the project yet, so that's where the letters should go when it gets to that stage

I just got home from this meeting. It was interesting and several people had interesting point.

Hearing the Pittsburgh Police commander who attended talk with others after the meeting about how she feels her, "tax payer money" should not be spent used to make public space safe and assessable to people riding bikes because they, "want all of the rights to the road, but refuse to follow any of the laws," was a bit upsetting.

@ Nick thats very discouraging. Did the rest of the meeting seem to go positively?

we should invite that commander to the ribbon cutting... and pick her up via pedicab.

did they talk about funding, cost estimates, public or private partners like a foundation, PennDOT or the County?

Good thing cars follow all the rules, otherwise someone might get killed. You would think if anyone, a first responder has witnessed enough automobile carnage to figure it out. I think some people are just a lost cause. I'm upset *MY* tax dollars fund ignorant public servants, so there!

I pay taxes, too, for things I don't agree with and that I am sure are not beneficial for everyone. But encouraging cycling is postive for cyclists and non cyclists in ways that have been discussed at length already

There was a big turn out of older residents of the area (just like all of these things), a guy who used editorials found on the internet to combat the finding of traffic studies, a few people who followed their arguments against the proposed improvements with, "...and I ride a bike", and quite a few older people who had under-the-breath-commentary for almost everything.

Overall, I'm glad I went, and I liked almost everything I saw the representative from CMU (engineer?) presented.

how many cyclists were there? how many of the other types?

it's definitely discouraging to hear about the opposition, and the cop's extremely misguided comments. i would have tried to make her admit the truth, that *zero* cars follow the rules of the road, so her argument was completely specious.

now i'm even more sorry i couldn't make it - ironically because i was off taking motorized vehicle classes. stupid me for thinking this plan makes so much sense it should be a complete slam dunk. god forbid you might impede someone from being able to drive 45mph through a college campus for a half a mile before they have to merge down to 1 lane anyways.

Commander Gengler was way out of bounds. An officer showing up with a badge and gun should not then take part in a community meeting like a regular everyday citizen. Don't get me started on the power dynamic there. Not to mention how she only focused her ridiculously ignorant opinion on the ills of people using nonmotorized transportation to get around, while ignoring the fact that drivers are breaking the law left and right and taking people lives in their hands. My blood was boiling listening to her. My points took the wind out of her sails though.

I also wouldn't sweat the other NIMBYs. Most of them just want to vent. All the data and studies support that 1. this won't snarl traffic more than a few minutes 2. that emergency vehicles will still be able to get through and 3. it will make the street safer for all users. At least half of the people there were pro road-diet including some surprise residents. Bob Reppe, the planner who presented the information from CMU, did an exceptional job. My hat's off to him and Michael Murphy for leading that meeting.

Thanks everyone reading this who showed up to be counted.

There were maybe 40 people total (just a rough estimate) and around 10-15 cyclists (just counting the ones I knew or who had helmets). On the whole, I was impressed with the plans that CMU had put together.

The police commander was obviously suffering from major windshield vision. Everything she said about jaywalkers and other jagoffs was no doubt true--but (as Scott ably pointed out) she ignored the car drivers who also routinely ignore all sorts of rules, while piloting deadly 3,000 pound machines. (She had a couple gems: an opening riff taking umbrage at not being invited to previous meetings, gratuitous digs at students who "maybe can't read street signs" saying not to cross, and seeming disappointed that trees on Forbes Avenue weren't cut down to improve sight lines.)

I liked how the one guy was complaining about traffic on Devon Road, where he lives--which is about 1,000 feet long and by my count has no more than thirteen houses on it. He objected to people driving on his street (a public street!) who didn't live there. Then there was the guy who wanted CMU to install bike lanes on the campus proper, not just on the adjoining (public) roads. Mary Shaw's 45-year experience suggests that's a solution in search of a problem. And it might have been the same guy who had photos from MIT's campus where they had sidewalk-mounted protected bike lanes, which he preferred to encroaching on the street right of way... except in the background of the one, the sidewalk-ish lane ends, and you can see it continue on the main part of the street, exactly as was shown at the presentation.

It was awesome when one guy from Portland chimed in to answer about bike lanes/turning lanes crossing at Morewood Avenue.

I'm still not crazy about the separated bike lane on Morewood itself. I saw some signs on some diagram that prohibited bikes--hopefully that was just on the sidewalk itself, not mandating that all bikes take the separated paths. As was pointed out at the meeting, the path might be OK in the middle, but access at either end would be kind of tricky. (Cyclists riding on the sidewalk having high crash rates and all that.)

Good meeting, everyone!

@salty, don't sweat it. Even if there were only 20 people in the room who wanted to fight it (edit: without anyone in support in attendance), it's still highly likely to go through. Why? Because it's a good project that's vetted with data that's going to reduce crashes and save lives without inconveniencing people. Don't get me wrong. It's still good for Pros to show up to counteract the Cons, but there's a lot of community, government and institutional support around this project.

Bummer about that commander - ugh.

I did meet a couple of CMU's bicycle police officers @ the last Car Free Friday on the campus. I don't know how they feel about these proposed changes, but one of them said she also rides a lot in her off-duty time.

"Hearing the Pittsburgh Police commander who attended talk with others after the meeting about how she feels her, "tax payer money" should not be spent used to make public space safe and assessable to people riding bikes because they, "want all of the rights to the road, but refuse to follow any of the laws," was a bit upsetting. "

Wow. My first reaction was who is this person so I can contact them and vent a bit. While riding home my thoughts were more on wondering was she speaking as an individual, or a police commander.

After carefully stopping at all lights and stop signs on the way home, my final feelings are wow, the way we cycle evidently leaves a big impression on everyone who sees us, and if we want to be able to tell this officer (and anyone else)how we feel about the problems we have with her statement, we need to also prove her totally wrong.

So I am still curious who it was.

Commander Gengler was dressed in full Pittsburgh Police Commander regalia with a badge and a gun so to me she was representing the city as a city official. But what she's really trying to do is have her cake and eat it too. She wants to show up to a community meeting as an individual and vent as an individual would, but she wants to command the respect/authority/etc that a person wearing a badge and a gun would. However, to everyone in the room she is representing official City party line, and that's what's incredibly unfortunate about her behavior.

@helen s if we want to be able to tell this officer (and anyone else)how we feel about the problems we have with her statement, we need to also prove her totally wrong.

I disagree.

Do they ever say, "Before we can ask for tax money to improve the roads for cars, they have to start obeying the speed limit"?

Cars are the status quo. Bikes aren't. Cyclists are fighting for rights (which is why there are bike advocacy groups and not car advocacy groups). Therefore cyclists have a far greater responsibility to mind their Ps and Qs, obey the law even more visibly, etc. Make a better public impression so they can get those deserved rights.

I find that too often cyclists who want change fall into a complacent "Well, we're morally/socially superior cause we don't ride 3000lb killing machines" mindset which allows for laxness in caring about how they are perceived as a group. Guess what, your typical yinzer thinks cyclists are pushy and entitled, and sometimes that doesn't look too far off the mark.

+1

+1

Very well put

@noah -- you nailed it in 2 paragraphs and 100 words.

@ Noah Therefore cyclists have a far greater responsibility to mind their Ps and Qs, obey the law even more visibly, etc. Make a better public impression so they can get those deserved rights.

I disagree.

Bicyclists have neither more nor less social obligation to follow laws than anyone else. Why would it be otherwise?

I think the public impression is that car drivers have to work a little harder when bikes are around and that car drivers are sometimes delayed (usually by seconds) by cyclists.

I don't think that being a good cyclist will change either of those things.

I don't think an improvement in bike riding habits will change much in how our rights are enforce.

And lastly, there are plenty of extremely well-funded automobile advocate organizations. Bike riders should have it so lucky.

http://www.aaafoundation.org/home/

http://www.saferoads.org/

http://www.motorists.org/

We support higher speed limits, an end to speed traps, fairer traffic courts, and stopping the use of traffic tickets to generate revenue. We want red-light ticket cameras and photo speed enforcement off our streets, roads, and highways. We oppose road blocks, for any purpose.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2007_June_25/ai_n19313756/

Well stated, Noah.

I cannot in good conscience approach someone about wanting my rights to the road respected by starting the sentence with "I am a cyclist and I refuse to follow the any of the laws."

Mick, I think part of the point is that the arguing facts, reason, and logic has not gotten us very far. Psychological warfare is more likely to get the results we want, but a part of that battle needs to follow Noah's logic.

We're incapable as a group of policing our own members into total law compliance, that doesn't make sense. But that doesn't mean that a visible agreement and attempt won't take us far. Similar to the points being made on the letter to the editor thread. Maddening as it may be, there's correct, and there's effective, and the two don't necessarily intersect.

Mick, let me put in these terms.

Historically, disenfranchised groups, while fighting for public acceptance, rights, assimilation, etc. have done so under certain scrutiny not given to their 'socially acceptable' counterparts. Participants would have to follow every letter of the law - and THEN some - not only to keep themselves out of jail by trigger-happy John Law, but also to show the public that they were far and beyond law-abiding members of society despite whatever other stigma.

Now I wouldn't put the struggle of the cyclist on the same level of that as, say, the civil rights movement. But the truth is, police commanders are going to meetings and saying how cyclists do this and that - if we continue to turn a blind eye and say shit like, "well running a stop sign on a 30 lb bike is no big deal cause it's not a 3000 Pound Killing Machine™", well then who are we to complain when they make such statements?

We want these letters to the editors to cease? We want police commanders to have a better impression on us? Guess what, they're not going to change on their own. It's up to us, as cyclists, to go the extra mile to promote an image of responsibility and respectability. You're right, it's not fair. But it's the reality of the situation.

Sounds to me like: "If only we're good, they will stop abusing us."

That will win psychological warfare? I'm skeptical.

Really... is it too much to ask to just obey the law? Don't want to be labelled a lawbreaker? Don't break it. Simple!

it's not "if only we're good, they will stop abusing us."...

Bear with me, I'm having trouble trying to put this into words (I don't normally do subtle, but vacation has improved my temperament temporarily)...

I'm agreeing with Noah on paper. As a strategy, Noah's will go farther with Joe Motorist Schmoe than anything else I can come up with. It will definitely go farther than arguing forgiveness from laws due to lesser consequences while we are perceived as "getting in the way" and also demanding increased law enforcement of "real" traffic.

If we want to stop the "abuse", we can either run away from the "abuser" (PNW, here I come), or we can try to manipulate them on their terms, spinning public conversations in letters to the editor and on forums, while pushing on politicians, law enforcement, DAs etc to better act on our behalf and get more appropriate laws pushed through.

For me, part of that is like helen said, obeying the law so I can stand up and say "I follow laws, you should too" because it goes over a lot better than the "do as I say not as I do" stuff that motorists - who aren't thinking about consequences other than $$ and time - call as BS. Sure they're wrong. Telling them they're wrong won't change their behavior.

Note I said I agree with Noah on paper. I also recognize we're not a cohesive unit, we can't control all cyclist behavior. But as a cycling advocacy group, I'd expect that a stance of "yes, we should all follow laws" will help us be more effective than "no, YOU should follow laws, we should be forgiven because we don't kill people like YOU do". No matter how correct, the latter simply won't win people over. And without motorists in our corner, we won't get very far.

which is why there are bike advocacy groups and not car advocacy groups

See: AAA.

I am with Scott. If Commander Gengler wished to act how she did, she should have shown up, off duty, in civilian attire. Given she was dressed, acted, and spoke as if an official representative of the city, she should have kept several of her opinions to herself. It was extremely unprofessional.

Followup article: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11270/1177842-298-0.stm

Apparently they are submitting this to council. Too bad the only two people they quote in the article are the naysayers. Also I did not realize Forbes is a state road? That worries me a bit.

students jaywalking is much less of a problem than a never ending stream of cars speeding through their campus. What a typical, misguided comment, but *that* crap makes the paper.

The naysayers:

Barbara Tisherman, who has lived on Beeler Street for more than 50 years, worried that emergency vehicles might have difficulty passing through traffic if the street had only one lane in each direction.

Anne Curtis, who has lived on Unger Street since 1978, worried that adding a buffer would ignore the problem of students jaywalking across Forbes.

Older people like to complain. That's all.

Never mind that the plan addresses both those problems...

The bike lane can still be used by emergency services, imagine that. Or people can still pull into it if an ambulance comes by... Infact, I bet this will actually HELP keep the road more open in these events. (which is rare, ambulances take fifth....)

(side question, do people stop on bikes when emergency vehicles come by? I do, but I haven't see enough occurrences of this either way to know the 'trend')

The master plan calls for setting back sidewalks any time CMU reconstructs something. Will do wonders for jaywalking.

Too bad these people will never be told, listen, and understand that. Keep fighting the good fight.

And the people worried about the traffic have never read a single thing on the topic. I wonder how ambulances handle Penn Ave or any of the 100s of other narrow, one lane streets without a bike lane they can drive in.

You know a public meeting has gone sideways when the "what ifs..." start popping up.

Do they really think that the City would allow a street to be built without factoring in the need for ambulance access, fire truck access etc? I doubt it. They just don't like CHANGE is the problem.

it's been shown time and time again that bike lanes make it easier for emergency vehicles. what's easier to get past 4 lanes with cars in them or 2 lanes with cars and 2 lanes with bicycles. it's just paint, the vehicles can just use the bike lane.

also, it's silly because forbes is one lane each direction coming from squirrel hill, and there is no carmegeddon. where do all of these cars magically come from? beeler? morewood? they're not that busy.

Change = Doom. DOOM! I say!

AAAAAAAAHHHHH!!!!!

this would make a very good letter to the editor, btw

Here's another article: http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_758871.html

I was very disappointed to see someone from the Sq. Hill Urban Coalition make a negative statement about the plan, and since I'm a member I wrote them to voice my displeasure. Hopefully it's not their "official" position. I might have to actually go to one of their meetings and scope it out.

Bob Reppe's comment about "a highway dividing the campus" is right on, though I dislike how he's offering the "out" of building a pedestrian bridge. Sure, that might kind-of solve one problem (I doubt it though, when I was at Pitt I usually just crossed the street instead of walking down the the bridge) but doesn't really address the bigger issues there.

Well, looks like we lost out:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/12024/1205685-100.stm

"One idea the university scrapped after community and campus meetings about the master plan was a proposal to turn two lanes of Forbes Avenue into bike paths. The plan generated some criticism and the school decided to focus instead on ways to improve pedestrian safety on Forbes, the main artery to the campus."

This is what happens when one side has more bodies in the room for these public meetings. All it took was "some criticism" to negate that plan.

(BTW, no disrespect at all intended towards BP regarding the number of supporters in the room, I have just noticed that in my experience the body count usually carries the day unless there is some clear financial angle.)

Well, that statement is a bit misleading. below is the text for the next public hearing which i plan to post tomorrow to the blog.

it seems that for logistical reasons, the plan doesn't include the bike lane, but it does make reference to recommendations (the PCTI study) for what they want to do. I'm going to find out exactly what this means for the project, and what needs to happen.

PUBLIC HEARING SET FOR CARNEGIE MELLON MASTER PLAN

The Pittsburgh Department of City Planning has scheduled the first public hearing regarding Carnegie Mellon’s 2012 Institutional Master Plan. The hearing before the Planning Commission is scheduled for 2PM on Tuesday, February 7th, 2012 at 200 Ross St. The public hearing before the Planning Commission is the next step in the Zoning Code-required approval process for the University’s master plan; the current 2002 Campus Plan will expire in May 2012. As required, the Department posted placards on Tuesday, January 17th and began mailing notices to adjoining property owners on the same day.

The University has conducted dozens of public meetings to garner input on the plan and, as a result of this input, the plan has evolved for the better. Since the original submission of the plan in September 2011, the plan has continued to evolve and it is important that our community, business and institutional partners understand changes that are now part of the master plan being considered by the Planning Commission.

First, the master plan request now does not request any zoning district changes north of Filmore St. The University does still intend to rezone properties south of Filmore St to EMI / Educational Medical Institution; these properties include the Graphic Arts building, the former Exxon station and properties on the south side of Forbes east of S Craig St, but any other properties north of Filmore St will retain their current zoning designation.

Second, references to any proposed lane configuration changes, including the bike lane scenario, to Forbes Ave (as part of the PCTI planning process) are removed from the main body of the master plan text. Understanding that while Forbes Ave is embedded in the Carnegie Mellon campus, it is a state-owned road, and thus any safety enhancement changes proposed would need to be designed, reviewed and implemented under PennDOT jurisdiction. Instead, the PCTI report, which was completed in 2011 and included State, City and Community input, is being included for reference only in the Master Plan appendices. Carnegie Mellon still has serious concerns for pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular safety on Forbes Ave and other City streets within the campus, and so the master plan does include recommendations to assess conditions, and, in working with residents, businesses and institutions, to develop plans to work to improve safety for all means of travel in the Forbes corridor. The University looks forward to working with our partners in the near future to create an environment that serves all sectors while still being safe for residents, students and all others.

Finally, as the university committed to in mid-2011, the plan does not propose any new residential development at Forbes and Margaret Morrison nor does it request to rezone those properties. Carnegie Mellon also has committed that when and if residential development at that corner become desirous, the University will engage in a thorough and inclusive planning process with neighbors and community groups prior to any applications to the City.

The revised Carnegie Mellon 2012 Institutional Master Plan is now available on the University’s website at www.cmu.edu/cdfd ; if you have any questions or comments please contact either Bob Reppe at breppe@andrew.cmu.edu or John Hannon at jfhannon@andrew.cmu.edu.

Sincerely,

Bob Reppe

Director of Design

Carnegie Mellon University

breppe@andrew.cmu.edu

(Apologies. Shame on me for jumping the gun. Shame on the PG for the mis-characterization.)

no shame needed. who knows, the PG might know something we don't. I'm not scoring this a loss yet, or a win for that matter. there will still need to be an effort to make sure that it happens and it won't be easy.

Lest we forget: www.post-gazette.com/pg/06103/681818-53.stm

PennDOT is such a wet blanket.

here's how the trib wrote about it:

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/breaking/s_778161.html



CMU wants building start; bike lane shelved

By Bob Bauder, PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

About the writer

Bob Bauder is a Pittsburgh Tribune-Review staff writer and can be reached at 412-765-2312 or via e-mail.

Carnegie Mellon University has postponed plans for a bike lane on Forbes Avenue, but expects construction of a bio-medical research building to start this year, a university official said.

Bob Reppe, CMU's design director, said the bike lane, which drew opposition from Squirrel Hill residents fearing traffic jams, was put on hold for further discussions about pedestrian safety with the city, neighborhood representatives and the state Department of Transportation.

"Pedestrian safety is paramount to the university," said Reppe, who updated the City Planning Commission Tuesday on the university's 10-year expansion plans. "We want to look at (ways for) possible traffic calming on Forbes."...

Raymond Baum, president of the Squirrel Hill Urban Coalition, said neighbors expressed concern about the bike lane because it would have limited traffic on Forbes through the campus to one lane each way. Baum said the coalition hasn't taken an official position on the university expansion.

"Carnegie Mellon University is an incredibly important asset to the city of Pittsburgh," he said. "We have to work together. There's a lot going on in the neighborhood that we want to talk to them about."

I'm trying not to be discouraged by this but it's tough. I would love to hear something directly out of Bob Reppe's mouth (BTW, he never returned the email I sent to him months ago offering my support).

I think this is one of the best things that could happen in the city. Maybe I'm naive but it really feels to me like it could open the door for a lot of other great bike infrastructure if we could just get something like this done, and that is a perfect place to do it.

I'd love to see the traffic studied but I think the "traffic jam" card is typical FUD. Considering it essentially starts as one lane at Craig (due to turning traffic blocking the left lane) as well as at Margaret Morrison on the other side, I think it really just means "I won't be able to use the other lane to drive 40 in a 25 zone".

PennDOT is simply a blunt instrument of federal and state transportation policy.

Has CMU submitted any analysis to PennDOT for review?

All that is needed is to submit a plan and a traffic study that includes bike and pedestrian traffic counts. Should the study prove that the "level of service" of the new forbes/morewood intersection does not negatively impact motor vehicle traffic, then nothing but NIMBY/local politics would derail the new corridor.

PennDOT policy and forms are here. If you want to review the bureaucracy of doing anything on a state road click "Publications" and "Traffic Study Forms".

HA!!!

"...which drew opposition from Squirrel Hill residents fearing traffic jams"

fearing traffic jams? Have they driven lately? it's already jammed. keep turning lanes available and it's not an issue. Either there's too few cars on the road to jam things up (most of the day), or there's too many cars on the road to go fast (rush hour).

BTW, those are the same people who slow down in tunnels and coast slowly through stop signs, I just know it.

I love how planners who study this stuff can be overturned by someone afraid of a traffic jam.

I personally don't think anything is overturned. the pcti plan is a plan that cmu references and recommends in the master plan and that they can pursue on it's own - even with or without being part of the "Master Plan." I'm guessing that PennDOT doesn't like people planning their roads without all their homework being done, as well as having the Port Authority coming down on them for wanting to plan for Bus Rapid Transit in the same corridor. It's complicated, but i don't think that it's scrapped, overturned or whatnot.

The PG writer hasn't gotten back to me yet

Another thing to consider here is that the point of this next meeting is to get the Planning Commission to approve the new master plan, as the current one is set to expire in May. If the bike lane section was in the main body of the text, and PennDOT (or whoever) took issue with it, then CMU might have trouble passing the plan. If they can pass the plan, and still include the bike lane stuff as an addendum or recommendation, then they get to pass the plan and buy time to do their homework. i do know that they were recently denied federal funding to enact the next steps in the PCTI process, so no doubt this has something to do with it as well

test

by the way, if you actually read the plan, which i'm guessing the journalists didn't, it makes many references to the recommendation to install the bike lanes/road diet

www.cmu.edu/cdfd

I am absolutely shocked that the journalists wouldn't have read the source materials. Astounded. Bewildered. Flummoxed. Mortified...

Or did they find out that by talking negatively about bicycles they're guaranteed more click traffic (from this board and other cyclists) on their traffic articles?

considering how easy it is to do Command F: Bicycle