BIKEPGH MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVE

« Back to Archive
209

Greenfield Bridge Demolition/Replacement

I've heard from a reputable source that the Greenfield Bridge is slated to be demolished in December 2012 before the new one is built. (A previous plan was to build a new bridge next to the old one, keeping it open, then tear down the old one.) Construction of the new bridge could take up to 2 years, during which there will be no access.


This is a common bike commuter route, not to mention the primary access for many residents of Greenfield to Oakland, Squirrel Hill, points east, and the park. The 58, 53L, and 52L buses also use this bridge.


I don't think we can change their minds on this (although anyone who wants to try, I'm in 100%!), but could we make a case to improve alternate routes while it's gone? Bates and Swineburne (and to a lesser degree Murray) are not especially pleasant for pedestrians or cyclists, and with no bridge they will have increased vehicle traffic. Adding some bike lanes, fixing sidewalks, widening if possible, and other improvements could make the detours safer and more bearable.


Any thoughts?


(In case anyone doesn't know, it's this bridge: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=greenfield+bridge&aq=&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=33.435463,57.568359&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Greenfield+Bridge,+Pittsburgh,+Allegheny,+Pennsylvania+15217&ll=40.428639,-79.93839&spn=0.00784,0.014055&z=16&layer=c&cbll=40.428672,-79.938537&panoid=PMUbAIfLAWX1NGBRPUiK7w&cbp=12,102.5,,0,-7.83 )


jeg
2011-05-02 13:38:25

Is it being replaced? I didn't even know.


rsprake
2011-05-02 13:41:22

Yeah, it was inspected last year. Apparently it urgently needs something, and can be replaced for the same cost of restoring it, except a new bridge would last >3x as long as fixing the existing one.


jeg
2011-05-02 13:46:31

Concrete pieces have been falling off of that bridge for 15 years, at least, hence the temporary structure underneath just for catching concrete pieces. It's a grand structure, but it's about time.

2 years to replace seems like a very generous estimate, PennDot replaced a bridge of a similar span over I-79, carrying a non-critical roadway, in less than a year. Hopefully the will to fast-track it is there.


edmonds59
2011-05-02 14:09:35

I live a few blocks from the bridge, and bike across this bridge to get pretty much anywhere. The alternative for me is taking Junction Hollow and biking up the damn hill on my way home. That'll get old quick, especially with the insane amount of traffic that bridge closure will generate on Greenfield Ave. I'd say 80% of our trips in a car use this bridge too.


I was amused they bothered to build a bridge under the bridge, to collect all the chunks that fall off, rather than just fix/replace the bridge that was falling apart. Talk about an expensive band-aid.


The saddest bit is, the Greenfield community groups have been working to erect a welcome sign/portal at the end of the bridge since that is how I imagine most traffic gets to the neighborhood. Too bad nobody will see it until 2014! That two year closure will have a large detrimental effect on the neighborhood. Shame.


dwillen
2011-05-02 15:05:24

Or go to Squirrel Hill and come back via Forward/Beechwood. longer, but not as steep. There will probably be a few months where the bridge is closed to motor vehicles but passable by bicycles, and maybe you will not use it then.


I'm guessing Pocusset will get a lot worse.


lyle
2011-05-02 15:58:00

I'm glad I'm moving before all this happens.


namtrahselrahc
2011-05-02 16:06:51

Panther Hollow Blvd may actually improve while the bridge is closed (That won't do our Greenfielders any good, though.)


mick
2011-05-02 16:31:59

Maybe, but people will just cut through the park and Sq. Hill to get to the freeway via Murray Ave, or go up around the other side of Frick.


dwillen
2011-05-02 16:41:13

Supposedly Pocusset and Greenfield Road (from the park to the bridge) will also be closed as a construction staging area. Although "closed" and "impassible by bike/ped" are of course not the same, unless you're on a bridge.


Like I said, this is second-hand information but from a reliable source. Just trying to make this known in case there is something that can be done to make it less horrible.


There are plenty of alternatives to that bridge, but this is not good for Greenfield at all.


jeg
2011-05-02 17:37:40

Hmm, this will be awkward.


chinston
2011-05-02 21:41:23

When the California Ave bridge over Jacks Run was rebuilt last year, it was kept open to cyclists. The alternatives were either bad (Brighton) or obscure (Shadeland). However they managed it, it was nice to be able to bike it the whole time.


stuinmccandless
2011-05-03 01:02:03

I believe that was a rehabilitation (correct?), while this is tearing down and rebuilding from scratch.


jeg
2011-05-03 02:07:32

Jeg, might you be able to disclose your source? Doesn't have to be by name.


Full closure for two years would be very disappointing. How would they reroute the buses?


impala26
2011-05-04 06:09:24

My source comes from the Department of Public Works; got the info at a community meeting.


Buses would probably go through Squirrel Hill (which, being a former rider of the 56U, essentially means that Greenfielders lose service because the buses fill).


I totally understand that the bridge needs replaced, but think the city needs to consider the impact this will have on transportation (which is NOT just cars), and our neighborhood. There must be a better plan than no access for upwards of 2 years.


jeg
2011-05-05 13:48:43

I have spoken briefly with someone in Public Works who basically confirmed everything that jeg said along with providing a little more info. Whether it is a replacement or rehab, and PennDOT favors replacement, the favored lane configuration will be similar either way. The concrete barriers will be gone and instead there will simply be concrete curbs. The sidewalk will be on the west side and bike traffic would be accommodated somehow on the east side of the bridge. I'm not sure how someone riding a bike out from the park toward Greenfield would transition over to this bike lane. It seems they are still pretty early in the design stage, though.


Supposed aesthetics are being considered in the bridge replacement. There are two types of bridge structure being considered: a steel arch and a concrete segmental arch. PennDOT favors the steel arch because it is a older and more trusted type. The first concrete segmental arch bridge was built in France in 1948; the first of this type in the U.S. was built in Tennessee in 1993 for the Natchez Trace Parkway (see photo).




brent
2011-05-05 14:03:21

There is no way I'd go down that hill in the park and cross over multiple lanes of traffic at an uncontrolled blind corner to access a block long contraflow path on the far side of the bridge, only to cross back over the same bunch of uncontrolled lanes at a yet another blind corner when I get to the other side.


As it is, I have people passing me around that corner when we're traveling northbound and there have been at least a half a dozen near head-on collisions with people squealing around the corner from the other direction. Hopefully their bike lane/path on the east side of the bridge would fix this.


dwillen
2011-05-05 14:14:22

yeah, I don't know why people think bidrectional lanes are a good idea. Well, maybe it's not that people think they're a good idea, it's just that people don't care and they think they can hornswoggle the people who simply don't know any better. :(


lyle
2011-05-05 14:34:56

Are there two sidewalks now? Removal of one will make the lanes wider. A good example of the Rankin bridge redesign which put the sidewalk on one side which widened the shoulders. Plenty of room to easily pass.


rsprake
2011-05-05 14:49:39

Do up-to-date traffic (ped/bike/vehicle) counts confirm the new structure will have three lanes, as the current structure?

Will the city consider a longer design life, because modern codes provide very little float beyond the stated design life, as opposed to older, less precisely built structures functioning well beyond their 50 or 75 year design?

Will a new alignment be considered or traffic control devices developed for the T intersection on the Squirrel Hill/Schenley Park side of the bridge, because that corner has an unsafe sight distance for defensive pedalcyclists anticipating opposing, left-hand turning, speeding motor vehicles?

Does the bridge designer need any geotechnical assistance? :-)


sloaps
2011-05-05 14:57:03

There are two sidewalks now. I've only ever used the one on the west side of the bridge, because I live west of the bridge, and the sidewalk in the park is only on the west side. I don't really see much use in the east sidewalk.


The bridge has three very narrow traffic lanes. Greenfield Rd in the park has "two" traffic lanes. The downhill lane is over two car-widths wide though, so people usually treat it as two lanes. The lanes are too narrow for a PAT bus though, usually they can't pass anyone on the bridge, and they always need both "lanes" to make the corner to get on the bridge. I'd suggest making it one lane in each direction and putting bike lanes in, but I see how backed up it gets at 4-6pm with the hoards of people shortcutting the Oakland -> Sq. Hill bit of the freeway. Not sure how you could deter people from doing this. Lots of traffic calming on Greenfield Rd?


dwillen
2011-05-05 14:58:33

Note that there's no reason for the new bridge not to be wider than the current one (well, other than cost).

So it should be possible to get something with sidewalks and bike lanes in both directions.


Is the design work finalized, or is there still time for citizen input?


ahlir
2011-05-05 15:04:25

In the 15 years I have been using that bridge, I have always ridden in the road and run on the sidewalks, never having had a problem with either.


helen-s
2011-05-05 16:41:32

I've been pinched into the cement barrier twice, transitioning from Greenfield Rd in the park onto the bridge. I'm usually going at the speed of traffic down the hill, but people still insist on passing going around the corner, while simultaneously moving to the right lane (with me next to them). I saw it coming both times, so injuries/damage was minimal. The other problem is with people crossing over the double yellow to pass me right at the end of the bridge, without knowing who is coming around the corner, as I mentioned above. In that case, I was more worried about the cars crashing in front of me (and then into me).


While I haven't been using it for 15 years, I have only been using the bridge 2-6 times daily for the past 3 years.


dwillen
2011-05-05 16:58:21

Is there any way we can influence what will happen here? Or is it a done deal?


It will be an inconvenience while the bridge is closed, of course, but that seems OK to me, if the bridge is done well. On the other hand, if it's done badly, it will be bad for 50 years.


mick
2011-05-05 18:08:32

Perhaps somebody or some people could put a big banner up on the bridge (something very secure that wouldn't blow down into the turnpike below) telling people what's happening to the bridge


More annoyed commuters, more likely they'll work in their favor right?


sgtjonson
2011-05-05 22:10:33

Since the plan is to close the Parkway for awhile during the demolition, this idea might be worth something. Squeaky wheel gets the grease and all that.


jeg
2011-05-06 03:03:13

It's a city bridge, right? PennDOT would just be advising, and maybe fretting about the impact on the Parkway below?


Seems like Stephen Patchan, the city's bike/ped coordinator, would be the first person to talk to, as far as making sure the bike/ped facilities are done right.


As far as building the new bridge next to the old one, I'd be concerned that it could put the new bridge in a more awkward location. At the south end, there are buildings on both sides of the current bridge. Would a parallel bridge need to have some sharp turns at that end to snake around the buildings and connect up? I'm not ready to say they're making the wrong call on that, without more details on the alternatives.


steven
2011-05-06 03:06:08

If penndot is involved, then the city is most likely applying for state and/or federal funding. PennDOT would review the engineering (traffic, structural, geotechnical) investigations and the designs at 30%, 60% and 90% completion.


SPC should be aware of this project, as far as the funding.


It'd be nice to know that Steve or Sara (SPC) has been included within the early conversations for developing the project scope - can't provide quality solutions to accommodate a mode of travel that wasn't included within the project scope to investigate, provide results and recommendations to the designer and then have a designer and constructor deliver a product that meets the needs defined in the project scope.


sloaps
2011-05-06 11:21:45

I too wondered where the second bridge was going in the "build a new one next to the old one" plan.


Someone suggested building a temporary (or permanent) bike/ped bridge during construction. That would be both logistically challenging and probably cost prohibitive, but in a perfect world...


Saw these today, and it got me sarcastically thinking "where will they go when the bridge it out?" Which got me thinking about regulations for posting detours. I assume there's some for cars, but what about peds? (I am legitimately curious, not just being belligerent!)




jeg
2011-05-06 20:44:11

They were hanging those up as I biked in this morning. I don't know what the heck they are for, but since they were NAILING them to that post, I estimate peds will be detoured for a while. I bike past there, is the road closed again or something?


dwillen
2011-05-06 20:54:31

Hmm, interesting. Wonder how I will access the bridge. Do I need to go past Rialtos now?


dwillen
2011-05-07 03:59:57

That portal project went before the Art Commission. I think this is landscaping and signage, and not bridge work. Can anyone confirm?


sloaps
2011-05-07 12:40:36

so 2014-2016 is one year. love that math.


I wonder if they could have done better maintenance on it to preserve it or if at 89 years it's just at the end of its life.


They should totally put in a zipline for pedestrians. That would be awesome.


Murray, Shady, and Pocusset will become (bigger) nightmares.


ejwme
2011-10-27 19:02:09

They should totally put in a zipline for pedestrians. That would be awesome


Now that is what I call thinking!


jeffinpgh
2011-10-27 20:26:34

why replace the bridge? who says it's needed? we have plenty of bridges already.


to austerity, and beyond!


sloaps
2011-10-27 20:48:01

i, for one, wish that theyd leave a little bit of the bridge up as a ped/cycle path while they do the work. blowing up the bridge probably makes that impossible. maybe they could install a rope bridge alongside the current one :-p


is there any way to know how many pedestrians and cyclists currently use that bridge without sitting there and counting for a while?


melange396
2011-10-28 02:03:24

^^ Civil Engineering students.


rice-rocket
2011-10-28 02:59:22

You know, I've been looking at google maps around the area. For those who don't know, before the parkway was built, there was actually a street that ran all the way from Second Avenue in Lower Greenfield along the ravine (Four Mile Run) to Beechwood Boulevard in Squirrel Hill South. That road is, or was, Saline Street. This helps to explain why there are two distinct instances of the street currently, if anyone was ever curious about that.


My thought is simply this, the current end of "west" Saline Street in the run ends not all that far from Murray and Forward Avenues. What is the feasibility of making a path or even just a rough trail from the end of Saline along the Parkway right-of-way to this area?


I understand there's space and right-of-way issues (not to mention dealing with a PennDOT depot), but making a "bike entrance" to Squirrel Hill like this would be astounding. If it could be done, it would establish an even better connection between the river trails and the East End.


impala26
2011-10-28 16:01:44

hmmm, interesting idea. there might be some elevation change and geological issues to deal with there. for instance, i think pocusset st is slowly falling down the hillside into the construction staging / storage area below.


perhaps a small paved path (or even a staircase, if need be) from the saline st dead end up to the intersection of pocusset (which is essentially forward ave), greenfield rd, and greenfield bridge?


melange396
2011-10-28 20:22:45

The east end of Saline is about 150 feet below the north end of the Greenfield bridge, and about 600 feet west. So a direct path up the hill would have a 25% grade. But there's space for switchbacks.


Connecting Saline to Murray/Forward is a bit more of a climb, but over a much bigger distance. Seems like getting the trail past the Greenfield Bridge supports would be difficult though.


steven
2011-10-28 21:29:12

ejwme They should totally put in a zipline for pedestrians


According to Bill Metzger's book on teh history of the GAP, they used to have them when trolley tracks ran down just one side of the Yough. They called them "Sky Trolleys"


mick
2011-10-28 21:36:30

Things that aren't there anymore. Yeah, I can see where "East Saline" used to cross Monitor here (StreetView). Get out of SV and see where the old right-of-way was, angling off to the NW from that corner. The Parkway was plunked right atop it, it would appear.


If it could be done, this would be an amazing piece of bike-only infrastructure!


stuinmccandless
2011-10-30 16:29:05

Getting from Greenfield to Oakland by bike will become a lot more difficult while this bridge is built. If the bridge is to be demolished at the end of 2015, that means there are almost three years to make improvements to alternate bike routes.


Without this bridge, the best route to Oakland would probably be to go all the way down the hill on Greenfield Avenue to Junction Hollow trail. Going all the way to Murray Avenue is too long and Swineburn Street is too dangerous. I have seen previous discussions on this board about improving connections from the Run/2nd Avenue to Panther Hollow. Also, how easy is it to connect from the north end of this trail to Oakland? Could this end be improved?


I've never traveled to Oakland via Junction Hollow but I will likely be doing it a lot during this construction work. I think that we should push for some of this work at the meeting in addition to making sure the new bridge will accommodate bike traffic. The improvements to the alternate routes would help us get around during construction and also be a nice long term addition to the city's bike network.


brent
2013-01-14 15:26:50

You're right, that would be the best route to Oakland. It would also be nice to do something with the connection to Squirrel Hill via Beechwood and Forward Ave. Right now it's a mess for cyclists, but there's more space than usual there to play with, so maybe something can be done. I wonder if we can get some of the parking space turned into bike lanes.


jonawebb
2013-01-14 15:45:16

So here's some more info:

http://www.pittsburghfederalprojects.com/index.php/greenfield-avenue/


Although I didn't see any specs for what they are planning, word is that the plan so far is to a) have a sidewalk on one side (that's wider than either of the existing 2 sidewalks) b) have sharrows across the bridge into Greenfield and bikelanes across the bridge into Schenley. There is still time to influence the design (as in how much goes to cars, bikes, peds), although it seems that the total width of the bridge is set.


As indicated above, there's a public meeting on Wednesday Jan 16:

6 p.m. to 8 p.m. at St. Rosalia Church, 411 Greenfield Ave.


Our contact at DPW is hoping that there are cyclists to show up. They are interested in:


a) How important the bridge is for the general cycling route.

b) How to work with project team to develop viable alternative routes during construction, ie they want to know what everyone will most likely be taking in order to possibly plan for some improvements along those routes.


erok
2013-01-14 20:01:20

so please, if you can, show up to the public meeting. I'm directing our DPW contact to this thread, as there is some great info and insight in the discussion


erok
2013-01-14 20:02:07

Getting from the north end of the Panther Hollow to South Oakland is a bit trying. Joncaire St would be a good route, but it's all cobblestone.


As far as Central/North Oakland, it's not too bad. You can just take Boundary Street. It's a little uphill, but drivers are rather accustomed to having cyclists on the road and it's rather wide.


2013-01-14 20:19:01

Joncaire could possibly be improved as a route to South Oakland by making a bike path parallel to the road. As I recall on the north side it's pretty bucolic. There might be enough space there to cut into the hill and provide a bike path.


jonawebb
2013-01-14 20:31:35

It's on Wed, Jan 16, 2013, right? We have "conflict of interests"... Bakery Square 2.0 Community Meeting


Community Meeting 1-16-13


2013-01-14 21:36:37

I plan to be at the BS2 meeting.

Can anyone go to this one RE Greenfield Bridge?


pseudacris
2013-01-14 22:02:36

Boy it'd be nice to have a connection from Greenfield down to that parklet at the cut-off end of Saline Street. Before, during, and/or after bridge work.


I cannot guarantee I can make either meeting, as I have a late-day meeting myself. Given I can make either, I will try to get to the Greenfield one.


Additional problem, I just don't know the area or the issues all that well.


stuinmccandless
2013-01-14 22:36:58

The sidewalk on the uphill side of Joncaire is probably wide enough already if you cut the weeds back and cleaned up the dirt that is encroaching on the cement. It would be great to make it wider, but just marking this as a shared sidewalk so that peds would know to keep an eye out for bikes would be a huge improvement. I try to be courteous when using the sidewalk, but a lot of the peds have their attention on their phones or ipods here. Most peds I encounter are ok once I give them a ding of my bell, but you can tell they were completely oblivious prior to hearing the bell.


marko82
2013-01-14 22:40:25

^I agree, except one part with a utility pole


pseudacris
2013-01-14 22:46:09

I'll try to be at the Greenfield Bridge meeting but I can't get there until after 6:30 so I'm not sure I'll be allowed to testify.


jonawebb
2013-01-15 13:42:24

oh, and jonaweb. It looks like the meeting is an open house style, meaning there will be a presentation, it looks like at 6:30, then the project team will be there until 8 to answer questions, take comments, etc.


erok
2013-01-15 17:08:53

the 14' lane in the proposed is supposed to have sharrows


erok
2013-01-15 17:10:33

I can't help but think about a two way separated bike lane that travels through Schenley Park and continues across the bridge with some bike specific lights to get traffic integrated again.


rsprake
2013-01-15 17:18:28

Thanks for the info.

BTW I've been trying to think of an alternative route from Eliza Furnace Trail to Squirrel Hill that could be designed for use while the bridge is under construction and can't come up with anything really good (I know about the route through Schenley Park, which may have to do if there is nothing better).

I'm thinking of continuing up Beechwood Ave and then crossing under the Parkway at Forward Ave. But I can't think of any reasonably safe way to get from the right side of Beechwood to Forward Ave, with the traffic coming off the Parkway headed to the Waterfront, even if there was money for redesigning the lanes, etc.

And the reverse trip is worse -- Beechwood is one way at that point, and Forward downhill is narrow, with no shoulder, etc.

Does anyone have any suggestions on this?


jonawebb
2013-01-15 17:25:00

@jonawebb


Traveling that section of Beechwood is absolutely horrendous. If you're looking to go from the EFT to Forward, I'd try taking Greenfield to Lilac, Lilac to Murray, and Murray to Forward.


I take this route home almost every day (usually go Greenfield to Frank to Lilac to Murray). It's uphill but the traffic is pretty calm.


2013-01-15 17:37:45

@elmo, yeah, that does look better. I wonder if that could be marked as a recommended route at least while the bridge is under construction.

Edit: or, for that matter, Greenfield->Graphic->Flemington->Murray. Google maps seems to prefer that route--comments?


jonawebb
2013-01-15 17:42:07

@jonawebb The first hundred feet or so of Flemington is paved with uneven bricks, which is why I stopped taking it. Also, at Lilac and Murray, you get a stoplight.


2013-01-15 18:16:49

I was there, as was George/melange. The speaker (Patrick Hasselt) seemed genuinely interested in accommodating everyone, specifically including cyclists. There is a website http://www.pittsburghfederalprojects.com that describes the project (including the slides shown at the meeting) and a place you can send comments (http://www.pittsburghfederalprojects.com/index.php/contact-us/). I think they are legally required to take each comment into consideration in the planning.

The meeting was well attended, at least 250 people were there. They didn't plan for such a big crowd and ran out of comment forms etc.

All the planning has to be done by Oct. 2014, with demolition starting Oct. 2015. They'll be covering the Parkway in a layer of dirt and the blowing up the bridge Christmas 2015. Then building the new bridge January 2016-May 2017.

There are two options for the bridge, option A with sidewalks on both sides, and option B with no sidewalk on the Squirrel Hill tunnel side and more space for bikes. I suggested (based on a comment by someone else here) a protected two-way bike lane (they call it a cycletrack) on that side and he seemed interested. It could be extended to Panther Hollow Road because Greenfield Road is pretty wide there.

A big issue was the pedestrian detour. There has to be an ADA-approved route and the proposed route is absurdly long, up Greenfield, over to Beechwood, then across to Hobart.

I also asked about a crossing light at Forward and Beechwood (the intersection near the Parkway). He said he'd asked the Feds about that before and got turned down, but would try again. Since the road there is part of the Parkway exit they have to approve it.

He mentioned the possibility of a bike rail so you could walk your bike up the stairs to the Murray Ave Bridge. I'm not familiar with the stairs or route there, maybe someone else could comment. How would you get from Squirrel Hill to Greenfield that way, with Beechwood one way between the Squirrel Hill ramp and Forward?

I sent a comment in about the route Elmo uses, Greenfield->Graphic->Lilac->Murray. It sounds like we can get them to at least mark the preferred bike detour for us.


jonawebb
2013-01-17 01:42:37

I really appreciate the effort. I take this bridge all the time and I'm not looking forward to the construction but hopefully something constructive comes out of this.


chinston
2013-01-17 02:02:04

Thanks for the summary, jonawils.


I wasn't able to attend last night, but sent them a message regarding my suggestions as well. I don't use the bridge, so I don't feel comfortable making a call about the layout, but I did comment on the detour.


2013-01-17 13:44:44

I couldn't make this meeting as I was at the Bakery Square 2 meeting. Thanks for speaking up and suggesting the two way cycletrack jonawebb!


rsprake
2013-01-17 14:29:24

Why does this bridge need 3 lanes? Is it really that busy that people need to overtake each other on the bridge? Why not 2 wide traffic lanes and 2 bike lanes?


benzo
2013-01-17 14:47:13

@Benzo It designed to serve as a buffer zone for traffic turning left -- https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Camp+Horne+Road,+Pittsburgh,+PA&hl=en&ll=40.427288,-79.938326&spn=0.001421,0.006089&sll=41.117935,-77.604698&sspn=6.553958,12.469482&oq=Camp+Horne+Road,+pittsburgh&hnear=Camp+Horne+Rd,+Pittsburgh,+Pennsylvania&t=m&z=18&layer=c&cbll=40.427307,-79.938564&panoid=-N_unJtYB9FEs_b_wlBMNg&cbp=11,222.09,,0,3.01

I use this bridge occasionally on my car during evening rush hours (around 7 times in 2012). My recollection is that about 60% go left to Beechwood, 30% straight, and 10% right to Alger. Since there is a traffic coming from Greenfield to bridge and Beechwood is kind of backed up up to to freeway entrance, the second lane (left one) is also backed up almost to the turn.


Just trying to explain. :) I am not advocating two three lanes. :)


2013-01-17 15:10:57

BTW when I mentioned the cycletrack Mr. Hasselt first said, "We don't have a cycletrack yet. There's one planned for Downtown."

Does anyone know anything about this?


jonawebb
2013-01-17 15:53:22

Thunderdome at PPG Plaza.


rice-rocket
2013-01-17 16:02:20

If they want to see an example in the area, there is a cycletrack as part of the Steel Valley Trail/GAP in the Waterfront (between the Pump House and Marcegalia entrance).


A cycletrack downtown would be cool. Smithfield Street anyone?


sarapgh2
2013-01-17 16:06:43

Oh, I took cycletrack to mean oval, my bad.


rice-rocket
2013-01-17 16:08:30

Boy it'd be nice to have a connection from Greenfield down to that parklet at the cut-off end of Saline Street.


If we had that, and they restored the Anthony Street steps (connecting Saline Street up into Greenfield, on the opposite side of the Parkway), it would make a pretty short alternative non-ADA pedestrian detour, for those who don't mind a 200-foot climb. It's only about half a mile on the map.


It sounds like the ADA-approved detour is just under 4 miles.


steven
2013-01-17 16:26:57

Pretty certain the cycletrack is planned for Smithfield along with other improvements.


rsprake
2013-01-17 16:33:44

Yeah, I was there too. It seems that Pat is preferring the one sidewalk, bike lane option. I was mostly trying to find out if people put up resistance to that idea, which it seems they didn't (although I couldn't hear all the questions and didn't stay to the full end).


"We don't have a cycletrack yet. There's one planned for Downtown."Does anyone know anything about this?

Kinda surprised he mentioned that. it's still in the preliminary stages.


erok
2013-01-17 16:38:35

@erok, slips like that are the reason to attend these meetings.

Edit: also, the snacks.


jonawebb
2013-01-17 16:55:48

> I was mostly trying to find out if people put up resistance to that idea, which it seems they didn't


the bike lane option seemed to be the clear favorite, with the only dissent coming from people who live on pocusset (which doesnt make sense to me -- the houses are pretty far from the bridge, and the road between is in horrible shape with no sidewalk)


melange396
2013-01-17 18:21:28

@Steven If we had that, and they restored the Anthony Street steps (connecting Saline Street up into Greenfield, on the opposite side of the Parkway)

I think you should suggest this in one of the comments. It could work for bikes, I guess, if they put in a bike rail. It makes at least as much sense as putting a bike rail on the Murray Avenue Bridge, which they are considering. At least with the Anthony Street steps you get two-way access.

Edit: Oh, I see the Anthony Street steps are on the Greenfield side. How does this help with the detour?


jonawebb
2013-01-17 18:33:18

Starting from the north end of the Greenfield Bridge, you'd head down the new stairs Stu proposed to Saline Street, follow Saline Street under the Parkway to Anthony Street, follow Anthony Street and then go up the stairs (which the Pittsburgh Stairs site says are closed, so they'd have to be reopened) up to Greenfield Elementary, and you're in Greenfield, a few blocks from the south end of the bridge.


Without the Anthony Street Steps (if they only added the steps Stu proposed at the north end), you'd have to continue down Saline until you reached the bottom of Greenfield Avenue, I think. Adds maybe half a mile.


steven
2013-01-17 19:11:16

I see. I didn't connect to the new stairs Stu proposed. That is definitely something they should hear about, because it's a much better route to Eliza Furnace from Squirrel Hill than anything else they're thinking about.


jonawebb
2013-01-17 19:18:36

I sent an email to the project manager about it, so we'll see.


I'm not sure it's a route I'd use, either on foot or on a bike (preferring to go the extra distance if I can avoid climbing a very long flight of stairs), but I can believe some folks would.


steven
2013-01-17 20:12:41

I don't know about the Anthony Street steps. Are they usable today? Do they just need some brush clearing? Are there right-of-way issues with the school at the top?


As I said, I don't know this part of town, but if all it takes is traversing an existing staircase, that sounds like a feasible alternative for a bridge that's going to be out of service for a year, and eliminating a hill climb that's already difficult on a dry day in July, by most accounts.


Edit: I didn't see the five posts above when I typed this. I guess I should go make a field trip. I wonder how broken the steps are. This might be just the impetus needed to get them repaired.


stuinmccandless
2013-01-17 22:41:17

Comments at the Pittsburgh Steps site say the Anthony Street steps are "closed" and "torn down", but I haven't seen them myself. I'd think "falling apart" is more likely than "torn down".


steven
2013-01-17 23:07:52

on streetview, you can just make out steps continuing up past the ones that go right to ivondale st. but they look either totally overgrown or gone beyond that.


and obviously the real solution is zip lines.


hiddenvariable
2013-01-17 23:16:22

Looking at the link, the Anthony Street steps are #31 on the map. Using the zoom tool, it's pretty clear that the steps dead end just beyond Ivondale, and you'd have to scale a pretty steep ravine.


Again, though, the bridge project might be just the impetus needed to rebuild them.


stuinmccandless
2013-01-18 00:27:41
test
sohoweet
2013-01-29 12:29:16
My sense is that even if the stairs were in perfect condition, the Swinburn street bridge is what I'd take.
mick
2013-05-09 10:34:37
lulz, i think this was me: One (1) individual indicated that they were a Minority or Disadvantaged Group noting that they were a cyclist.
melange396
2013-05-09 10:38:37
I am not seeing my comment in there. I am sure I sent it in on time to the right place. Or maybe I just don't recall what specifically I said. Is anyone else seeing the suggestion to install steps or switchbacks on the end of Saline up to Greenfield? Does it appear that such a suggestion got made by anyone, and more importantly, does anyone interpret what did get said as identifying that as a really nice thing to have that they should pursue? I do see the reference to reinstating the Ivondale steps to the back of the school, but that would require the school signing off on it. Which says to me, no, because "security". As if someone equally undesirable doesn't walk past the front of the building now on an hourly basis.
stuinmccandless
2013-05-09 12:31:44
No, and I discussed it with Pat Hasselt at the Louisa St meeting, and he couldn't recall the comment being in the report either. We talked briefly about how it would work as a detour around the closed bridge, and how it was expensive to build steps. So I don't know what's going on. Is there a way to get the comment inserted?
jonawebb
2013-05-09 12:39:43
Having it for the bridge work would be excellent, but I see it as a very needed thing even without the bridge. It would provide a perfect, low traffic path from the entire Squirrel Hill area into downtown, via Pocusset or Wightman, a switchback, Saline, and the Jail Trail.
stuinmccandless
2013-05-09 17:30:32
"We will be looking closely at Swinburne and other potential detour streets to make them as safe as possible and, if necessary, discouraging cyclists and pedestrians." And where exactly are they going to send all the discouraged cyclists and pedestrians? Why don't we just discourage cars from one of the detours to make it safer?
jeg
2013-05-09 18:30:46
The stairs behind Greenfield Elementary do indeed stop basically after Ivondale (you can see scattered remnants of them after that) and it is a pain to climb up; I've done it with loaded panniers, I think when the ground was wet or it was snowing There are functional steps a little further down around Alexis St, but it's still a pain to get a loaded bike up them Maybe with those ramp things it would be easier, but I'd still probably just take Greenfield Ave If they don't go for the north Saline stairs, could we make our own switchback?
sgtjonson
2013-05-09 18:35:01
It is just stunning to me, though it probably shouldn't be at this point, that the response of planners to a street like Swinburne might be to discourage cyclists and pedestrians. Sure, it's narrow, but the emphasis should be on traffic controls to slow down and regulate vehicle traffic. I don't think this should be an impossible task. It's not even that long of a stretch to get from the Swinburne St. bridge up past the nursery and into Oakland, and it's potentially a nice route for non-motorized traffic. At this point, I'm afraid it's looking like the best replacement for the Greenfield bridge route from Sq Hill down to the jail trail is going to be through Schenley park on panther hollow trail, past panther hollow pond and across the railroad tracks. Which is a nice route and if the weather is decent, I love it, but in rain the area by the pond can get mighty sloppy. And of course the trail can become treacherous in snow and ice. Sigh.
chinston
2013-05-10 16:46:21
Maybe, just maybe, they can do something about the absence of facilities, speed and resulting bike unfriendliness of Schenley Park's main drag(strip), Panther Hollow Road (not trail). And Blvd of the Allies to Bates or Craft. I know not so likely given traffic volumes, but a man can dream, right?
byogman
2013-05-10 18:05:20
chinston wrote:At this point, I’m afraid it’s looking like the best replacement for the Greenfield bridge route from Sq Hill down to the jail trail is going to be through Schenley park on panther hollow trail, past panther hollow pond and across the railroad tracks. Which is a nice route and if the weather is decent, I love it, but in rain the area by the pond can get mighty sloppy. And of course the trail can become treacherous in snow and ice. Sigh.
Not to mention crossing the railroad tracks there is technically illegal, well-worn path through the weeds notwithstanding...
epanastrophe
2013-05-11 07:30:06
That reminds me. Corey O'Connor addressed the Steel Valley Trail Council's annual meeting earlier this month, and mentioned that (amazingly) the timetable for tearing down the Greenfield Bridge hasn't changed yet again. It's still supposed to be coming down in December 2015, closing the Parkway East between Christmas and New Years. One aspect was news to me: The city plans to completely close the Pocusset Street Trail (the bike-only street that leads down to the bridge) to pedestrians and cyclists for about two years, so they can use the bottom end as a construction site for the bridge work. After that they'll reopen it as bike/pedestrian-only again. I'm not sure to what extent the trail closure might extend outside the time frame for the bridge closure.
steven
2014-11-25 04:30:17
Terrible that they don't want to maintain access to the new Pocusset bike-road. There's a lot of room there, they could preserve a path.
vannever
2014-11-25 07:59:47
Whatever the status of Pocusset Street (and I do hope they keep it open), the big enchilada is the bridge itself. It's a major cycling route and its closure is going to push more people on Forbes/Fifth and further east there and Panther Hollow. It could also quite possibly push people off a bike if that's unnerving/lousy. Since Forbes/Fifth is going to be dictated by BRT schedules I'd push for aggressive sidewalk widening/intersection improvements on Panther Hollow (especially traffic calming and a pedestrian signal and ramped island at the interchange). If that improvement continued to the intersection where Panther Hollow becomes Hobart... if there were made a smooth way to get to the path across the field and that path was paved up the the beacon street bike lane level, and there were some signage/traffic calming on Beacon turning the corner toward squirrel hill that would be a really wonderful add on.
byogman
2014-11-25 10:44:38
Surprised to read they'll use Pocusset for construction staging, since one of the rationales for closing it and turning it into a trail was the fact that it wouldn't be able to beat the weight for...construction staging. Maybe something's changed in the last year, but at the meeting @byogman and I attended last fall I would swear they said Pocusset would remain open as a trail, construction vehicles would be staged on Greenfield Road, and a path would be maintained to get past them.
epanastrophe
2014-11-27 13:59:56
I was thinking the same thing, but wasn't sure enough to post. And wanted to keep the focus on turning a difficult outage for the bike community (the bridge itself, not Pocusset), into impetus for improvement of alternate routes.
byogman
2014-11-27 14:28:50
PUBLIC MEETING The City of Pittsburgh Department of Public Works, Bureau of Transportation & Engineering will be holding a Public Meeting to review the final plans for the Greenfield Avenue Bridge project which will replace the existing structure along with minor roadway upgrades. The new bridge will be constructed on the current alignment following the closure of the existing bridge in October of 2015 and implosion in December. PUBLIC MEETING DATE: Tuesday, February 3, 2015 TIME: Open House – 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM Presentation – 6:30 PM LOCATION: St. Rosalia Catholic Church, 411 Greenfield Avenue, Wuerl Hall Source: http://southoaklandpgh.org/current/public-meeting-on-greenfield-bridge-project-tue-23-6pm-411-greenfield-ave/
benzo
2015-01-16 11:07:44
I don't believe that a pointer to this presentation has been posted as yet. Of particular interest to bikers is the proposed cyclist (and ADA!) detour. Remember, climbing is good for you. And make a point of checking out the alternate designs for bike lanes on the bridge.
ahlir
2015-01-16 21:33:09
Why do the proposed bridge options depict cars passing within 4 feet of cyclists? Are the bridge planners aware of the 4 foot law?? Here's a picture from the Department of Public Works presentation that Ahlir shared, annotated to show 4 feet:
paulheckbert
2015-01-17 12:45:06
Thank you for the tip, Paul. I am going to look for that in every one of these diagrams from here on out, and scream when I see one. Why would they even think this? Are they that daft? Do they think we are? OTOH, I am heartened that they publicized this meeting well in advance. Maybe our screaming about the West Carson St fiasco got through to somebody. Of course, it has yet to be seen whether any of our comments will bypass the nearest trash receptacle.
stuinmccandless
2015-01-17 14:00:26
Maybe the cyclist just did one of those fancy 180 turns and is doing a backwards wheelie, or she's just riding the wrong way down the street...
sgtjonson
2015-01-17 17:01:59
This is probably just a show and tell meeting. I dont like the design either, but if the construction is to begin in 2015 the design is already set. So if anyone goes to the meeting just be advised of minimal expectations to influence what gets put in. For the Birmingham bridge $28 million rehab they wouldnt even consider a "walk" signal on the south end.
marko82
2015-01-17 19:15:46
The slides present 2 different options; (a) 6' sidewalks on both sides, or (b) 10' on one side with a 5' bike lane on the other (the sidewalk side has a street bike-lane as per (a)). Note that the ADA sidewalk minimum width is 60"; 6' gives the ped a foot to squeeze into when the wheelchair rolls by. My 2¢: All of this would be significantly easier to deal with if we had (say) an enforced 20mph speed limit on the bridge. And maybe for good measure a ped-activated light at the north end (to link with Pocussett).
ahlir
2015-01-17 19:43:59
^the better argument is why do they need to have three car lanes across the bridge? It certainly isn't needed to handle traffic volume; and you are either entering or exiting a park so one would hope there wouldn't need to be a reason for high speeds or even the need to pass. So why three? other than it's always been that way...
marko82
2015-01-17 20:16:36
Maybe having two southbound lanes is so that traffic making a right onto Alger doesn't have to wait behind traffic waiting for the light? "Note that the ADA sidewalk minimum width is 60?; 6? gives the ped a foot to squeeze into when the wheelchair rolls by." Wheelchairs aren't five feet wide. I suspect the ADA minimum width was set to let two wheelchairs pass. The ADA site mentions wheelchairs being 26 inches wide, so two plus a bit of room for hands would just barely fit in 5 feet. And the intent of the diagram isn't to show the actual position of cars when passing a bike. I think they're just trying to show that bikes and cars would share a single 14 foot wide lane, by drawing a car and a bike within the lane. How else should they show "bikes and cars share this lane", if not the way they did it?
steven
2015-01-18 01:53:37
A question to ask: If they don't want us filtering forward, why do they design it so that we can? Another concern: If we are relegated to using the sidewalk, how much different would it be from other bridge sidewalks, like 40th St Br, Smithfield St Br, West End Br?
stuinmccandless
2015-01-18 05:28:19
My recollection from the last meeting is that there will be a protected bike lane on the side nearest the tunnels (and no sidewalk on that side). But I haven't seen the new diagram.
jonawebb
2015-01-18 08:53:30
Just to note, the 5' bikelane would (I assume) be two-way, providing a connection to the Pocussett. (or, hey, just have that light at the north end). Though 5' seems a bit tight; maybe steal a foot from the sidewalk? The center lane is there probably because of rush hour traffic to the highway and/or Homestead. Here's a thought: double-deck the bridge and have the lower level continue on as an on-ramp (merging with the existing one). What's not to like? (Yes, yes, I know, it's all been Decided...)
ahlir
2015-01-18 10:02:16
Sorry, two way 5' or even 7' is not a step in the right direction. I'm also rather certain the bridge decking design, at least, is Decided. Option A is categorically awful (14' outside lanes and no protection for cyclists or pedestrians, really??). That needs to be fought, hard. Option B would be ok if instead of the 14' lane (that they said would be striped 11' with a 3' "rideable shoulder"), they narrowed the other lanes so it could be a 5' lane there as well. Close to original plans but better still in terms of encouraging new cyclists would be 5.5 ft. of space (a narrow line of bollards and a little less than 5 ft lane proper) in both directions which would be possible if the car lanes were all 10' as they are currently.
byogman
2015-01-18 10:39:54
Another option, I'll just throw out there as a thought experiment and also because I don't see a unidirectional protected bike lane getting plowed, but we've got an inside lane for bikes, outside lane for pedestrians pattern on Poccusset street proper. You could try and harmonize the bridge with that as follows: Each side of the bridge should have a unidirectional bike/ped area with a dividing line stripe for bikes and peds (bikes closer to the bollards, peds closer to the outside). If you keep the 10' driving lanes then you get 10.5 ft. per side to work with. You'd need some protection which would cut into that a bit, but still, you'd even be able to run a regular plow through that, right? To make crossing from pocusset street south across the bridge better, I think installing a roundabout is what makes the most sense. You'd need to narrow and slow greenfield rd. substantially to make that low stress, but there's an easy and natural way to do that, continue the same bollarded outside lane protections for both bikes and pedestrians up that hill on both sides, especially wide (and possibly keep the grade separation by keeping existing sidewalk) on the downhill side of greenfield rd for the pedestrians. The thing I don't know because I don't ride Pocusset Street much is, do the lines guide behavior, do pedestrians mostly (thinking, better than the jail trail), keep to the outside or do they walk wherever 3 and 4 abreast? Because if that's the case then even 10' isn't good. But if not, this could be a reasonable model for a lot of low stress low gradient facilities.
byogman
2015-01-18 10:50:47
"Just to note, the 5? bikelane would (I assume) be two-way" In the PDF you posted (which, granted, is two years old), the 5' bikelane in option B is one-way northbound (uphill). Southbound, cyclists are shown sharing one of the two lanes. Given that Benzo's post says the next meeting is to "review the final plans", I'm guessing they've now picked either Option A or Option B. I'd be surprised if they wound up with an Option C where the 5' one-way bikelane has turned into a 5' two-way bikelane. In any case, it's done. Per the schedule in the pdf, final design was last fall, they're doing "review" now, and bidding starts next month. We'll see soon what they've decided to build.
steven
2015-01-18 15:17:18
Just to continue beating the horse: Keeping a 5' (or whatever) bikelane clear is not an insurmountable challenge. Why is it that bikers have to do their own street/bridge shoveling? Drivers don't.
ahlir
2015-01-18 17:33:17
Agreed. I just hypothesized that an arrangement where bikes and pedestrians were in the same space would give more impetus to the idea that it's a space that needs to be kept clear, and also hypothesized that ease of clearing with existing equipment would be a useful nudge in the right direction to actually do it.
byogman
2015-01-19 09:52:16
BTW the info that's been posted here is from the Jan 2013 meeting. There may have been some accommodation made to the comments by cyclists etc. resulting from that meeting, as well as from the new focus on bikes. I'm still hoping for a cycletrack which would connect to Pocussett St (which was one of the comments I made to Pat Hasselt at that meeting).
jonawebb
2015-01-19 10:22:00
The bridge by itself is a pretty short segment without intersections... you could hug the eastern edge of the bridge with a cycletrack but then the right onto Alger becomes problematic and the already ugly left from Alger gets even more problematic. Or you could put the cycletrack on the other wise make the connections both to and from Pocusset unnatural as opposed to having at least an easy connection to. I just don't see a benefit here as compared to a lane in each direction, especially if you bother to protect those lanes. It's sorely tempting to draw these lines on the map, don't get me wrong. Especially eyeballing a continuation up the inside of the turn along greenfield rd. That seems to cast another vote for a cycletrack on the eastern edge of the bridge. But it's a bad idea. There's a real gradient on greenfield rd. and a relatively sharp point to the curve, making it blind. It would just be a recipe for producing bad wrecks.
byogman
2015-01-19 11:34:49
All this contention between cyclists and car traffic boils down to car speed. There generally won't be a problem if we could calm motor traffic to actually go the speed limit, not 150% to 250% of that. That applies to both bridge and Greenfield Rd.
stuinmccandless
2015-01-19 14:08:14
Do we need a cycle track here? I don't go through this bridge and Greenfield Rd inside the park every day. Other than the terrible pavement, I've never had any issues in this particular area. I think for this case, painted-on lanes on both sides of the bridge should be enough. The inbound lane would connect easily to Pocusset and the uphill shoulder/"bike lane". The outbound lane maybe should just have sharrows. It's been a while since I've been on this road. If I recall correctly, when you are coming downhill at speed, where you can easily hit the posted 25 mph limit, you'll make a (relatively) wide right turn into the bridge. By the time you can move over all the way to the right, you're probably 1/4 of the way through the bridge
chrishent
2015-01-19 14:51:58
It's that "move over all the way to the right" bit that bothers me. The whole point of sharrows is to remind motorists that there will be cyclists in the lane. Shared space. Slow down the motor traffic to 25 -- really, 25 max, not posted 25 and tolerate 40 -- and then there isn't a problem with cyclists right in the lane, particularly on the downhill side.
stuinmccandless
2015-01-19 20:30:45
@stu, what I meant was move all the way to the right to get inside a bike lane/cycle track on the outbound side of the bridge. Hence my preference for sharrows in this scenario. I bet anybody passing you on the bridge going outbound will likely just end up stopping at the red light on Alger.
chrishent
2015-01-19 21:12:27
I don't want anyone passing me on the bridge. I want them getting in line behind me.
stuinmccandless
2015-01-19 21:46:40
chrishent, you can't really carry the speed from Greenfield Rd. across the bridge because the turn is too sharp. That was a question that came up at the last meeting... if you make that a shared lane can you smooth that out so it's easier to carry speed. Answer then was no. That said, it's true it's not really a stressful area. I think the cycletrack comes up because of how Pocusset street is truly zero stress, and so there's strong desire to build something as close to zero stress as possible as an add on, start playing connect the dots on that. It's a very good desire, and to get the "interested but concerned" to move in large numbers you have to provide more and more connected zero stress riding in your core high ridership areas... even if you can't totally get from A to B that way if you can get close the ride gets a lot more approachable. I just have have concerns about a cycletrack from an intersection standpoint and, continuing up greenfield rd as per the budget line-item, from a speed/blindness standpoint. Talking about moderating speeds is yes, well, if cars drove slower this stuff would be pretty easy... but probably still not quite that 8-80 easy. More importantly, we're talking to ourselves. Motors and an insulated cabin inevitably create unconscious speed and until driving is looked at as an option rather than a necessity there will never be a crackdown on it. So, in conversations about how to change the physical environment to facilitate biking, I really believe we're more productive if we stick with how to change the physical environment.
byogman
2015-01-20 06:11:32
I live near here and go through not infrequently. If the pavement were less ragged I'd probably go through more. A big reason in my mind to have some kind of protected lane(s) for bikes is because during certain hours of the day traffic is pretty much at a stand-still on that bridge. There are no gaps to get onto it from Pocusset. One of the best things about bike lanes, even flawed ones, is that it allows us to bypass all that traffic. It pisses me off to no end when I have to sit in traffic to pass through my neighborhood because a bunch of idiots want to drive through it everyday at 2 miles per hour to get to the highway. Climbing Greenfield is the same way during part of the afternoon. I should not have to trackstand up a multi-mile hill to pass through a residential area to get home. All around, though, narrow lanes and sharrows would be much more practical. The bridge is short, the posted speed limit is low, traffic is minor when it isn't stop-and-go, and merging in and out of traffic on either end to get into the desired lane would be a huge headache. So if they do go with bike lanes, there should also be traffic controls that make those lanes practical to use. Head start on green lights for cyclists?
richierich
2015-01-20 18:54:28
Mayor just put out this press release: http://pittsburghpa.gov/mayor/release?id=4011 The new bridge combines a graceful design with improved accommodations for pedestrians and bicyclists.” Connecting the community of Greenfield to Schenley Park and beyond, a 10-foot pedestrian sidewalk and dedicated bike lane will make the bridge safer for drivers, walkers and bicyclists while expanding the City’s efforts to make Pittsburgh more walkable and bike-friendly. Landscaping of adjacent greenspace and its incorporation as part of Schenley Park will complement the attractiveness of the bridge upon entering and leaving Greenfield.
erok
2015-01-27 11:34:32
this is tomorrow people!
erok
2015-02-02 16:21:54
I'll be there.
byogman
2015-02-02 17:00:58
Given how politics sometimes works, if I were given the choise between something very modest that was actually built into the infrastructure VS something grand but could be painted over to make a car lane some day when King Lou Krevanstahl (or his ilk) makes his return, I'd take small and permanent.
mick
2015-02-02 23:21:01
repeat: Benzo said: PUBLIC MEETING The City of Pittsburgh Department of Public Works, Bureau of Transportation & Engineering will be holding a Public Meeting to review the final plans for the Greenfield Avenue Bridge project which will replace the existing structure along with minor roadway upgrades. The new bridge will be constructed on the current alignment following the closure of the existing bridge in October of 2015 and implosion in December. PUBLIC MEETING DATE: Tuesday, February 3, 2015 TIME: Open House – 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM Presentation – 6:30 PM LOCATION: St. Rosalia Catholic Church, 411 Greenfield Avenue, Wuerl Hall Source: http://southoaklandpgh.org/current/public-meeting-on-greenfield-bridge-project-tue-23-6pm-411-greenfield-ave/ Ahlir said: I don’t believe that a pointer to this presentation http://www.pittsburghfederalprojects.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Greenfield-Bridge-PMtng-FINAL-01-12-13.pdf has been posted as yet.
paulheckbert
2015-02-03 13:33:12
That's the old presentation, BTW -- from two years ago. Unless they reused the filename.
jonawebb
2015-02-03 14:33:38
Notes from the meeting today. Pictures to follow. Pat Hassett, asst dir of Pittsburgh’s Dept of Public Works did most of the talking. About 200 people attended the meeting - big crowd! Many were Greenfield residents worried about traffic & detours. Bridge will close approximately Oct 2015 through May 2017 - 17 months! Demolition of the bridge will be done between Christmas and New Years’ in late 2015, necessitating closure of Route 376 for a 5 day period. There was much discussion of detour traffic concerns: anticipated problems at Murray & Hobart, at Greenfield Ave & Swinburne, at Blvd of the Allies and Dawson, for example. It was pointed out that now that Route 28 has been improved, long-distance drivers needing to get between downtown and eastern areas (e.g. Murrysville, Harrisburg) during the 5 days when 376 is closed should simply take Route 28 to I-76. Someone in the audience proposed that Boundary St be converted from a trail into an auto road. Several people in the audience applauded the idea, but I booed. The new bridge, traveling north-to-south (toward Greenfield): Coming down from Panther Hollow Rd, Greenfield Rd will have protected bike lanes on both sides and one car lane in each direction (road diet from the current two lanes southbound and one lane northbound) - they’re hoping to slow traffic on Greenfield Rd. Sidewalk on the west side of the bridge, only. Southbound car traffic will expand from one lane to two on the bridge, anticipating a back-up of cars turning left from the bridge onto Beechwood Blvd during evening rush hour. They will paint a wide safety (exclusion) zone to separate the southbound cars turning right onto the bridge from the bicycles to their right. Cyclists going wanting to turn left onto Pocusset St are expected to dismount and walk their bikes across the road there, on boldly painted crosswalk. They do not plan to put bollards around this cross-hatched safety zone. Southbound cyclists across the bridge will be sharing the rightmost lane with cars (but they’ll probably be moving at good speed). Some southbound cyclists might choose to ride on the sidewalk. Traveling south-to-north (into Schenley Park): Cyclists will be on the sidewalk as they leave Beechwood Blvd headed toward the bridge. The sidewalk then ramps down to street level and becomes a bike lane across the bridge (paint, no bollards). Cyclists coming from Alger St wanting to cross the bridge will have to do roughly what they do now: cross backed up traffic at the Beechwood-Greenfield Rd intersection and turn left into the rightmost (east) lane of the bridge. But now there will be 5 foot wide bike lane all the way across the bridge. At the north end of the bridge, where Greenfield Rd bends left, cyclists will be separated from cars by a curb, for a short distance, then bollards. Pedestrians traveling north need to get to the west side of the bridge, where the sidewalk will be. There will be improvement of a bike/ped detour for the 17 months when the bridge is out: the steps from Greenfield Ave to Alexis St will be rebuilt this year (with bike rail!), then down Alexis St to Big Jim’s, follow Junction Hollow Trail to Joncaire, and the Joncaire steps up to the Frick Fine Arts Bldg and Schenley Dr will be rebuilt (with bike rail) this year, also. Q&A and announcements will be here: http://greenfieldbridge.otmapgh.org/
paulheckbert
2015-02-03 22:10:57
From the meeting. Cross sections, existing and planned, viewed from Greenfield (south) end of bridge: North end of bridge (north is to the right) South end of bridge (north is to the right)
paulheckbert
2015-02-03 22:22:47
VERY well covered. We definitely need to come out forcefully as a bike community against connecting boundary street to the run for motor vehicles, Pat mentioned that he had proposed such a thing in the past and that it didn't go well for reasons he didn't remember but that he'd look into it again. Specifically, it needs to be emphasized how the trail, boundary and then the upgraded joincare steps were the proposed alternate bike/ped crossing going north (and will still be the bike/ped routing with the least daunting hill climb thereafter) and in that light we need be looking at making those modes more comfortable, something which would be wildly incompatible with a huge stream of motor vehicle traffic.
byogman
2015-02-03 23:59:04
I will say, I was impressed by how Pat stood firm against the but... but... traffic objections to the plan to bring greenfield rd and the start of the bridge down to a narrowed single motor vehicle lane and was on point on the negative impacts the proposals for more motor vehicle throughput capacity would have in various spots. The point was pressed in a sidebar with the engineering firm that a 14 ft. shared lane doesn't really allow legal passes given the 4 ft law. It seems highly unlikely anything comes of it. But it also sounded like, in spite of the fact that it's a 14 ft outside lane and the other lanes are 11 ft, the painted "super sharrows" would be 4 ft. wide, so that's better than a line painted 3 feet from the edge of the road, the "rideable shoulder" presented before.
byogman
2015-02-04 00:07:52
Another sidebar I had strongly suggested that Pat would very much LIKE to do some sort of facility along Panther Hollow Rd continuing where the cycletrack left off... routing cyclists through the interchange was perceived as problematic, and there was fear (and I think justifiably so), the climbing cyclists would feel exposed in a cycletrack on the north side of the road facing the cars flying down the hill to one side just outside the bollards. I didn't bother to add on, CYCLISTS flying down the other side of the cycletrack. Point is, there seems there's a willingness to consider annexing some space, and that's not small!
byogman
2015-02-04 00:22:57
Thanks for debriefing on this.
ka_jun
2015-02-04 07:58:44
Thanks for the summaries and diagrams. It looks basically like the old design, but we get a little more designated space, which will be good and bad as is usually the case. Did they say anything about whether Pocusset will be closed during construction? That would be a huge unnecessary inconvenience and cut off an obvious detour for a lot of people (and my primary route to & from Oakland). Was there any indication of how wide the Greenfield Rd. protected lane approaching the bridge would be? That's a pretty fast stretch of road, and even if it were the width of the bi-directional Phipps lane it seems it would be very sketchy to lean and pedal through the curve with bollards there. There's definitely space to do it right.
richierich
2015-02-04 09:53:26
I don't understand why the sidewalk turns in to a bike lane to cross the bridge. I do not expect to be riding down a sidewalk in what looks to be a business district on beechwood blvd. I would rather just have 2 sidewalks on the bridge.
benzo
2015-02-04 10:03:57
They were indicating that plans were for a 5' lane protected in each direction. That's fine uphill, but the downhill direction generally and at at the curve especially, there ought to be more space.
byogman
2015-02-04 10:04:37
@benzo, so it's a dedicated bike lane. The whole idea is to segregate bike traffic from pedestrian traffic.
jonawebb
2015-02-04 10:16:39
Thanks for all of the updates. The idea of a road going through Panther hollow/Boundary is worrisome. There used to be a through road there up until the late 1970's, and it probably wouldn't cost all that much to put it back in either. We need to make sure that this doesn't happen.
marko82
2015-02-04 12:27:07
I was unable to attend this meeting due to previous commitments so correct me if I'm wrong, but it is my understanding that this idea to turn Panther Hollow into a road way was presented by a resident and not Pat himself, correct? This idea would be very costly nor is there much to say it would alleviate traffic. I'm sure that the residents of The Run and Lower Oakland would have something to say about it, as well.
mjacobpgh
2015-02-04 18:44:45
During the meeting it was proposed by someone in the crowd. Pat mentioned that he had proposed such a thing in the past and that it didn’t go well for reasons he didn’t remember. He didn't seem enthusiastic about it, but didn't seem dead set against either, and closed it off saying something to the effect "let's look into that, ok?" to someone taking notes.
byogman
2015-02-04 20:56:54
Panther Hollow did use to have a (gravel) road going through it (in the late 70s). I still remember riding it, and having to go past this one house with some really vicious dogs tied up in front. (Which I think you can still get to by following the street past the bikeway entrance). I would be shocked (and dismayed) if a road were put in. Pretty sure it can't happen though. It is not an efficient route (as opposed to 2nd) and the residents at the bottom (and top) will scream to high heaven.
ahlir
2015-02-04 22:17:20
I emailed this to Pat Hassett and to Chuck McClain, project manager: Mr. Hassett: thanks for the meeting last night. Please forward this to HDR Engineering, if appropriate. I think the biggest problem with the bridge traffic design shared at the meeting is the crosswalk at the north end of the bridge, and the apparent lack of physical protection of the southbound bike lane and people using the crosswalk from southbound traffic. Cars have a tendency to cut corners on the inside, unless there are curbs, bumps, or bollards in their way, so if the crosshatched “exclusion zone” shown in this diagram is just paint on the road (as I heard at the meeting), that will not keep cars out, especially after it fades and gets worn away for several years. If cars waiting to turn left on Beechwood (headed for 376 eastbound) have backed up as shown in red (something that happens most weekday evenings, I understand), and a blue car comes along that wants to go straight on Ronald St, say, it will most likely drive across the crosshatched exclusion zone in order to squeeze into the righthand lane. In the process, however, it will drive into the southbound bike lane and endanger cyclists there. My recommendations: 1) The crosshatched exclusion zone on the inside of the curve at the north end of the bridge (in front of and under the blue car) needs to have a curb or bump or bollards to keep cars from driving across it. 2) The crosswalk is inherently unsafe for cyclists. Thinking bigger, a much better option would be a bypass path under the bridge, as shown in green. Then the crosswalk would not be needed at all!
paulheckbert
2015-02-04 23:02:46
@paul, Penndot did an under-bridge path like you show up near the trail in Freeport (I think Yale would have pics of it). You should forward that example on as a spot where the engineers got it right and they would also have an idea about the costs involved in constructing it.
marko82
2015-02-05 08:40:45
That's almost exactly what we discussed a year ago about the north end of the bridge, some sort of path to get cyclists from Pocusset to Saline, if they're not going to build a switchback. And which, if they did, would create a direct path from eastern Greenfield to the Jail Trail. Also, for another simple, short, under-bridge bike path, see West Main St by the West End Circle project.
stuinmccandless
2015-02-05 09:17:12
@marko82: yes, good point, will do. Yale and I were there: Butler-Freeport bike trail where it goes under Lobaugh Bridge (aka Freeport Bridge, which carries Route 356 over the Allegheny River).
paulheckbert
2015-02-05 11:09:52
BTW no problem with making suggestions about how to handle bypasses etc. in the future, but for this project, the contracts have been let and it's going to happen pretty much the way Pat Hassett described. Any changes will happen post-reconstruction of the bridge, I'd say, and they'll probably want to see how things work in the original design before doing anything else. I think the conversion of the Junction Trail back to a street is more likely than any changes to the Greenfield Bridge project. Not that I think that's likely at all; in my experience when Pat says "please make a note of that" he means to be appearing to do something about a comment so as to move on. It would be expensive to rebuild the street, cyclists (who happen to be a core constituency of our new Mayor) would be outraged, the folks in the neighborhood would have to be consulted, etc. Not going to happen.
jonawebb
2015-02-05 11:17:54
Could we ban the spammer?
mikhail
2015-02-22 22:49:55
Here are articles about the Greenfield Bridge replacement in Hazelwood's newsletter "The Homepage" in March (scan by Yale Cohen). Clicking on the image should get you the zoomable version.
paulheckbert
2015-04-15 12:08:30
FYI, from Nextdoor Squirrel Hill mailing list:
A Greenfield Bridge Public Meeting is scheduled for tonight (6/16) at 6pm St. Regis Parish Social Hall (3235 Parkview Avenue). The Department of Public Works will join us in South Oakland to review their plans and detours for the Greenfield Avenue Bridge demolition and reconstruction. The Social Hall entrance is on Childs St.
jonawebb
2015-06-16 12:55:54
There's a sign on the bridge saying it's closing Oct. 17. That's the day of the party, right?
paulheckbert
2015-10-08 22:35:10
That's correct--the party goes until midnight, the bridge officially closes at midnight. Then they'll spend the next two months prepping for demolition the week after Christmas...
epanastrophe
2015-10-09 16:56:20
OTMA has posted a "Greenfield Bridge Pedestrian and Bicycle Alternative Routes Map" with two suggested routes north from Greenfield: - East on Beechwood to the Murray Ave Bridge, where 'bicycle assists [have been] installed on Murray Ave Steps', then winding via Murray, Phillips, Wightman, and Hobart into the Park. - Down Greenfield to Alexis, which has also allegedly gotten 'bicycle assists' on the steps, then up through Junction Hollow Trail and Joncaire Street to Bouquet and Roberto Clemente. - the map also notes that "Additional lighting [is] to be provided along [JH] Trail".... I'll be happy for any at all.... https://t.e2ma.net/webview/1w6pi/fdbc76f8336cbc665271204cfa75d73b
epanastrophe
2015-10-23 11:02:25
Does this map of recommendations from OTMA carry weight that it can be used to pressure key folks that these actually be made into viable connections? I mean, Rome wasn't built in a day, but can we stamp some durn sharrows? I rode through the interchange area in squirrel hill a few times this week. and going east wasn't too bad. Going west, you have to merge left into a potentially significant flow in a short distance after a very brief rise. I knew what was coming and planned a near sprint right before to make it less stressful, but many would just not touch such a thing. Not that it would make a categorical difference, but having something to validate that yes, you should expect us here, too, would be nice. Panther Hollow Rd. going uphill of course an extended rant of its own I've done many times and won't repeat today.
byogman
2015-10-23 11:44:48
"Down Greenfield to Alexis, which has also allegedly gotten ‘bicycle assists’ on the steps, then up through Junction Hollow Trail and Joncaire Street to Bouquet and Roberto Clemente."
I have two problems with this suggested route. 1. The Alexis St steps have only been minimally repaired and there's no indication of bike assist coming soon. 2. Joncaire is cobblestone. I have not found traveling uphill on cobblestone to be a pleasant experience.
funkydung
2015-11-05 11:16:55
I don't think many, if any, cyclists would ride up Joncaire in the street. I always take the first street on the left (sorry, don't know the name) then the sidewalk when I hit Joncaire. As the sidewalk is not business district, and usually not many pedestrians, it is a good option.
helen-s
2015-11-05 13:48:23
I think that's yarrow. It's the way I go up as well.
andyc
2015-11-05 14:02:04
I ride up the cobblestones on Joncaire, but it's definitely not for everyone, or most. I love bombing down the hill after work :)
benzo
2015-11-05 14:15:42
Riding up the Belgian block on Joncaire is suffering. Suffering is good, ride up the Belgian block, builds character. I have lost and had to recoverymany items bombing down Joncaire.
ka_jun
2015-11-05 15:49:42
I ride up both Yarow Way and Joncaire depending on my mood. Joncaire definitely builds your character.
mikhail
2015-11-05 21:13:00
FYI, you Parkway-riding miscreants: "The City of Pittsburgh Department of Public Works has announced that I-376 East (Parkway East) inbound and outbound lanes will be closed to all traffic on the following dates to accommodate work relating to the Beechwood Boulevard (Greenfield) Bridge replacement project: Friday November 4, at 10:00 p.m. until Monday, November 7, at 6:00 a.m. Saturday, November 19, at Midnight (early morning hours of Saturday, following Light Up Night celebrations downtown Friday) until 6:00 a.m. Monday, November 21"
jonawebb
2016-11-02 11:17:47
Are we getting to the point that they can start putting up the new deck?
edronline
2016-11-02 17:15:15
Steel work for the arches will be done this Fall but the deck won't be paved until next season.
nmr
2016-11-02 17:54:23
No one is planning on doing anything in regard to the information that Jon mentions above, are they? Because I might be interested in knowing that nothing is being done. Regarding that.
edmonds59
2016-11-03 11:49:34
I could not possibly participate in such a miscreantic affair as that, Friday night, being that it's my birthday and so I would want to go to bed early like a good boy.
stuinmccandless
2016-11-03 19:53:00
Hey asking for a friend if the squirrel hill tunnels will be closed
stefb
2016-11-04 13:03:10
Yes.  Closed from Wilkinsburg to Oakland
edronline
2016-11-04 13:55:08
Parkway East cameras You may have to poke around a bit. The Beechwood Blvd camera shows exiting the tunnel, while the Commerial St shows entering. Region=Southwestern (Pittsburgh); Route=I-376 Parkway East; then pick a camera, as above.
stuinmccandless
2016-11-04 13:57:35
Coincidentally, I just rode past there. The Pocussett bike path is open, except there are signs and sawhorses at the Pocussett end. The Greenfield side is completely open, except for some signs for cars. It's easy to get around the sawhorses at the Pocussett end. You never have to ride on anything but asphalt.
jonawebb
2017-09-15 15:21:19

From what I read the opening ceremony may not coincide with the bridge actually opening. There may be a few days difference. Has this changed at all?

edronline
2017-09-15 15:31:45

Whenever the tunnel is closed on the weekends Braddock and Forbes and shady become parking lot esque.

edronline
2017-09-26 17:29:50
The party starts at noon. What side of the bridge is it on?
zzwergel
2017-10-13 22:02:39
Greenfield side
edronline
2017-10-13 22:38:30
Of course, the side that is more difficult to get to!
zzwergel
2017-10-14 01:58:39
My guess is that the bridge will be open to peds during the festival if you read the schedule.
edronline
2017-10-14 07:08:50
I went to the event today. Here are some photographs of some of the associated bike infrastructure. Is anyone driving going to know what this stuff is? Are they going to obey it?
zzwergel
2017-10-14 20:14:29
Bumping this thread, I need to know.
zzwergel
2017-10-15 20:35:42
Today, I went across the bridge and noticed horses blocking the Pocusset St. bikeway. Why is it blocked? Is there some maintenance going on there?
zzwergel
2017-10-17 16:49:11
Could just be to prevent drivers from attempting to turn on to the  Pocusset St. bikeway it as they adjust to the new traffic patterns, but that's just a guess.
benzo
2017-10-18 15:12:38
@Benzo, Pocusset St. was passable today!
zzwergel
2017-10-18 19:00:09
Last Sunday I rode across the bridge from Greenfield toward the park and then turned up Pocusset. Half way I encountered an elderly couple in their car driving down Pocusset back toward the bridge. I stopped them and asked if they knew that the road was a pedestrian and bike thoroughfare. The driver said that, "I know now".  Despite the little curb thing separating the traffic crossing the bridge from Pocusset it wasn't real obvious that Pocusset was not for cars. There was no signage that I saw. I suspect that my elderly couple were not the only ones to drive to the concrete barrier at the end of Pocusset , only to turn back in confusion. I haven't been back since Sunday but the horses seem like a reasonable temporary solution.
mickmac
2017-10-18 22:17:08
Not that the "super sharrows" southbound was ever going to be ideal,  but wasn't there in the renderings the notion that there'd be green paint to support them and give a more lane-like feel? Also, not that a downhill lane around the curve on Greenfield Rd. was ever going to be ideal, but is there any way we can get more width on them around sharpest part in the curve?
byogman
2017-10-19 10:35:40
@mickmac, Did they apologize? Also, a more permanent solution should be erected such as steel bollards that can be unlocked and tilted down so that only emergency and road maintenance vehicles (Including snow plows) can have access.
zzwergel
2017-10-19 14:43:30
When I biked the Greenfield Bridge I was disturbed by what they did to the sidewalk at the corner of Beechwood Blvd and Greenfield Rd, where Bruster's Ice Cream used to be (how's that for Pittsburgh directions?). They put a giant planter box right where you'd expect the sidewalk to continue. Apparently what they're trying to do here is induce pedestrians to cross Greenfield Rd to get on the side of the bridge with a sidewalk (the west side). Unfortunately, in the process, they made this intersection more dangerous for cyclists making a right turn here. There's no option to bike on the sidewalk to make the right turn to get to the bridge's northbound bike lane. A cyclist could get right-hooked by a car here. The curb cuts are poorly done, also. Here's a photo at that intersection, looking west. https://flic.kr/p/ZqsqBs
paulheckbert
2017-11-13 20:37:53
When I drove and biked over the new bridge I was unpleasantly surprised. I expected and efficient, safe, easily navigated roadway. Let me share (see album referenced below): 1. Driving from the park, the triangle-bike-ped-xing icon seems to my reptilian brain pointing in the wrong direction; see 113, 114. 2. Same issue as 1 on the side exiting the bridge to the park; see 131, 132. 3. Driving from the park, the triangle-bike-ped-xing changes to a bike lane; see 115-118. Notice the bikelane is highlighted initially with green and a hash-painted island is created, but is very confusing--note the cars riding into it (think four foot violation)--when I first drove this section I was confused. And I just noticed the left turn arrowed green box...yikes. 4. Directional triangles pointing in the wrong direction (IMHO) in 133 are confusing also. 5. From Beechwood... a. Bikelane just starts on the sidewalk--no lead in; see 120. b. Sidewalk or bikelane--why is there a side walk here--it looks like a retrofit of a bike lane to an existing bridge--this was designed and completely rebuilt; couldn't we have done something better? c. Watch for cables from the telephone poles into the sidewalk/bikelane; see 122, 123, 124. d. Watch for the driveway as the sidewalk becomes a dedicated bikelane; see 125. 5. But watch the yellow fence on your right (see 126, 127, 128); I forgot what/who this is protecting--maybe keeping frustrated bikers from jumping off the bridge?? 6. At least the bikelane icon is pointing in the proper direction (imho). And the grating is as bike-friendly as a grating can be. See 129. ...nice fall colors... Now for what's missing...Now that we have this "great" biking infrastructure into the Park, we need to continue it into Greenfield... 1. Sharrows up Ronald to Greenfield Ave--and along Greenfield Ave...all along...in both directions. --To/from Hazelwood and then to Beechwood and its bikelane. --To/from Second Avenue... 2. Left on Beechwood to Hazelwood; from Hazelwood along Beechwood is problematic; maybe just from the east end of Boulevard Drive (for now)... It may have been easier to share what seems to be working here--let's see (the bridge is now passable...Beechwood to Schenley Park) We spent much time and effort, involving all the stakeholders; spent beaucoup bucks; waited almost two years...completely rebuilt the whole bridge form scratch...and this what we produced; one side with a bike lane; one side with sharrows; confusion; obstacles...??? Album: https://www.flickr.com/photos/130578562@N02/
yalecohen
2017-11-14 01:03:24
Those "triangles" pointed in the "wrong" direction are standard, and correctly placed, "YIELD" symbols.  That's just a simple legal traffic control device (cc: Stu).  The green turn pockets allow a cyclist getting to and from Pocusset Street not to interfere with a cyclist at speed coming downhill and continuing across the bridge.  Bollards need added to prevents drivers from cutting the corner, since they're not obeying the pavement markings. The barrier blocking the sidewalk is an important feature because a pedestrian cannot see the bridge from that crossing to know the sidewalk does not continue.  Crossing here is the only safe location.  A cyclist choosing to ride the sidewalk here is in no danger of being right hooked because they do not have the right of way.  They are a pedestrian on a sidewalk, not a cyclist in a bike lane.  They are required to wait for the pedestrian signal, which is protected, in order to exit the curb ramp into the street. The crux of this project was always the street width on the south side of the bridge.  Without widening the street and reconstructing the intersection, any additional bike infrastructure placed on the bridge would've abruptly ended in a dangerous arrangement.
nmr
2017-11-14 08:05:06
Why does the road way have a divider at the pocusset end when both sides of the divider go straight?
edronline
2017-11-14 08:05:17
The divider at Pocusset is to prevent drivers from turning left or right into Pocusset.  That street remains walk/bike-only.
nmr
2017-11-14 08:09:56
I have not ridden this yet (well, I did, but only as a U-turn off Pocusset on a group ride). So I don’t think I can comment on this properly yet. I will try to get out here sometime in the next few weeks, but tbh, I rarely get to this part of town, and crossing this bridge is perpendicular to my path of travel when I do.
stuinmccandless
2017-11-18 21:31:19
I ride it every day. I really like it. It seems reasonable to me.
jonawebb
2017-11-18 22:26:50