BIKEPGH MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVE

« Back to Archive
224

What's up with the south end of Hot Metal?

Haven't seen it in person, but my coworker just came in with a couple of pictures. There are some signs indicating that bikes can't use the sidewalk, plus a set of barricades blocking the sidewalk by the driveway next to the American Eagle building. The barricades are arranged such that one could walk through them, but riding would be really tough. Looks like the goal is to force cyclists coming off the walkway to immediately get on Hot Metal St or Water St, rather than taking the sidewalk in front of the AE building to hop onto Water via the driveway.


According to my coworker, the barricades have no official signage. Is it legit for a sidewalk to be arbitrarily blocked like that?


Anyone got the scoop?


reddan
2010-04-14 12:56:53

When riding from the SSW to Oakland, I always hop on the sidewalk early instead of getting hit by a car at the intersection. I will continue to hop that curb.


joeframbach
2010-04-14 13:19:06

Yea i really do not feel safe riding over the hot metal bridge. I will continue to take the sidewalk also. I have a related story. Over the weekend I took the sidewalk over the FT pitt bridge I think it was.(from point park to the other incline)Well they where working on the road over the weekend I guess and blocked the sidewalk with signs. It was pretty much not passable with bikes. I had to move all the sand bags and turn the sign enough to get 2 bikes past it. Anyway as I came over the same walkway on monday afternoon on my way home form work I noticed the sign was gone. I then looked over the edge and saw it down along the edge of the river. I am guessing someone wasn't as patient as me.


willie
2010-04-14 13:26:17

According to my coworker, the barricades have no official signage. Is it legit for a sidewalk to be arbitrarily blocked like that?


Seems like that would be good question for 311 or Mr. Patchen. They've blocked the whole sidewalk right at the bridge?


jeffinpgh
2010-04-14 13:32:03

No, the blockage is at the edge of the driveway cut into the sidewalk, 75 feet down along Water St.


From the bridge, you can still immediately get off the sidewalk at the intersection of Hot Metal and Water.


reddan
2010-04-14 13:36:54

i know AE has been complaining, legitimately, that cyclists are making it dangerous for people coming out of their building. surprise surprise ye people who designed the HMB intersection there.


erok
2010-04-14 14:32:37

And the "trail" on the other side of the street. You ride on it and then need to make a 90 degree turn into traffic to cross the intersection and then make another 90 degree turn to get back onto the trail. I can ride in the street and avoid that but someone in a wheelchair or otherwise using the ramps is forced to go into traffic rather than crossing as they should. What pinhead designed that?


And, yes, the intersection itself is also quite awful. That whole section still needs a lot of work.


kordite
2010-04-14 14:46:00

So, AE builds their building right on top of the existing trail, doesn't offer an alternative, and then complains about bikes. It's almost poetic.


salty
2010-04-14 14:49:01

I think the car traffic coming southbound over the bridge should have a no-turn-on-red sign at water st. This would make it much less hazardous jumping on Water st. at the intersection. As a side note, out of courtesy to pedestrians I try not to ride on the sidewalk if I can help it. They think of bikes like we thing of cars - they go too fast and don't give enough room when they pass.


Without having seen the barriers mentioned at AE, they better be ADA complient...


marko82
2010-04-14 14:57:37

I'd blame the trail/bridge designers over AE. That "merge" at that end is terrible and there were absolutely no accommodations made for the hundreds of people who use this everyday. It's like they just threw their hands up and gave up. As a result trail riders want to stay on the sidewalk and this conflicts with walkers. Hopefully this is just a temporary solution while a nicer solution is devised.


scott
2010-04-14 15:04:43

+1 Salty

I rode through there on Saturday, and the lack of clarity of where all the users are supposed to be in that whole area really struck me, since it was really busy.

Who the heck DID design that area, developers, city, consultants? Whoever, it needs to be revised.


edmonds59
2010-04-14 15:11:53

Not sure if I got my point across properly - I didn't really ride down there before the buildings went up, but the google maps satellite view still shows the old trail, and it looks to me like all of this was much less of an issue back then.


So, they plop a building on the trail and don't make any allowances for bikes. I don't know who is at fault but that obviously shouldn't have been allowed to happen.


salty
2010-04-14 15:31:30

that intersection is the Doughboy Square of the trails. the only difference is that the trail was designed in the past few years, from scratch, when they should have known better. you'd expect something like that when it was an afterthought. oh i guess i answered my own statement.


erok
2010-04-14 15:41:07

There is no trail there, it's a sidewalk. The trail ends way before the AE building and cyclists should be using the street until either they go across the Hot Metal Bridge or connect with the trail again. The trouble is there is no way to get to those places that makes any sort of sense.


rsprake
2010-04-14 15:46:23

That intersection is the Doughboy Square of the trails


I like that analogy.


Here is my solution, at least during the summer. Close off S. Water St from 28th to Hot Metal St and let non-motorized vehicles have it to themselves. This will let people get to the Hot Metal Bridge without conflict and also allow people to cross Hot Metal St.


On the opposite side of Hot Metal St either merge the trail better or add a bike box where the trail ends at the light. Cyclists can wait at the light in the bike box.


rsprake
2010-04-14 15:56:56

ALL YOU BIKERS COMPALAIN ABOT EVRYTHING THEY GIVE YOU A 10 BILLION DOALLAR BRIDGE AND YOU ARENT HAPPY WITH IT AND WANT IT ALL AND WANT TO CLSOSE STREETS. YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS TO THSI IF YOU CONTINUE TO RUN STOP LIGHTS. FOLLOW THE RULES OF TEH ROAD!!!!


erok
2010-04-14 16:02:41

whew. i feel much better now


erok
2010-04-14 16:03:49

Ha ha. We are happy with it, it's AE who is blocking off the sidewalk.


rsprake
2010-04-14 16:10:24

I think we should blame erok.


mick
2010-04-14 16:11:19

imgur for posterity:


This makes it very obvious why the cyclists are so determined to ride that sidewalk.


joeframbach
2010-04-14 16:18:22

i still wouldn't blame AE totally for this. i'd look at the people who planned it - who probably told AE that they could get whatever they wanted and just reroute the trail wherever as if it was a garden hose


erok
2010-04-14 16:19:10

I'm still not sure why cyclists use the sidewalk there. I use the 20 or 30 feet between the switchback and the curb cut and that's it.


Or is this 10 yards what is being blocked off?


Mick


mick
2010-04-14 16:30:09

i'd look at the people who planned it


Wouldn't that be the City of Pittsburgh? Someone signed off on those plans...


jeffinpgh
2010-04-14 16:31:36

it was me, but I was really hungover that day.


netviln
2010-04-14 16:33:36

Mick, it's the section in front of the AE building. The bridge still dumps people to the curb cut. But for people getting on to the bridge it's very confusing especially if there is traffic.


What do you do? Wait in traffic then all of a sudden turn left into the crosswalk? Everyone skips that mess and rides up on to the little driveway cut out in front of AE.


rsprake
2010-04-14 16:35:07

Wouldn't that be the City of Pittsburgh? Someone signed off on those plans...


yes they did


erok
2010-04-14 16:40:30

They ought to just redo both those corners so the sidwalk slopes evenly down to the street in all directions. This probably violates some street code of some kind, and you probably run a much greater risk of someone getting their toes mashed by a moving truck, but it would solve the access problem..at least make the curb cuts wider. In the grand scheme of things that wouldn't be that expensive.


jeffinpgh
2010-04-14 16:41:00

ok.. I was confused a bit as there are two AE buildings at the works.. You are refering to the new one, at the corner of water and hot metal, on the river side right?


Yeah.. when coming up water street, I just go left onto the sidewalk at the driveway. On sunday I didnt see signs there.


But I agree, for an area that is so bike populated, it should have been planned more accordingly. On a nice weekend, one can expect to see 10-20 bikes crossing that intersection every light change during peak times.


netviln
2010-04-14 16:41:34

Anyone up for non-violent protest of this in the form of attaching a sheet of paper to the signs there along the lines of "OK, so how about you accommodate for bikes instead of barricading when you chose to build on top of an existing bike trail?"


LOL, it could be more succinct than that, but you get my drift.


Also, how about cyclists being more courteous when you're riding on sidewalks huh? Generally I impose a "speed" limit" to myself if I'm forced to ride on a sidewalk. And as always, you're required BY LAW to yield to pedestrians while riding on a sidewalk.


impala26
2010-04-14 16:54:37

Along the lines of non-violent protest, I'd love to lock up a dozen or so beater bikes to those barricades, with a note saying "Thanks bunches for the new racks!"


reddan
2010-04-14 17:07:14

+1 reddan


LOL the first time I saw them I actually thought, "WTF is this? Well actually these things would make great bike racks."


impala26
2010-04-14 17:08:57

"They ought to just redo both those corners so the sidwalk slopes evenly down to the street in all directions."

Do that, and install a row of decorative concrete bollards in a row all around the corner, that's the right way to do it.


edmonds59
2010-04-14 17:36:37

ROUNDABOUT


dmtroyer
2010-04-14 17:54:34

Another non-violent protest would be to carefully place the barriers in the street, blocking a section of S Water St to car traffic and claiming it as bike/ped, as it should be since it's a completely redundant roadway.


Or to throw them in the river. Also non-violent assuming you don't hit anyone on the way down.


bradq
2010-04-14 18:18:09

sign should say "Finally, some bike racks in Southside works"


erok
2010-04-14 18:25:19

i think they should build a tunnel for automobile traffic. that way they can safely cross this intersection.


nick
2010-04-14 19:45:45

Can't wait to check this thread Monday morning.


scott
2010-04-14 19:47:58

Might be the fastest we've gone onto 2 pages in a very long time.


stuinmccandless
2010-04-14 21:43:59

I rode down there around 3 o'clock to check it out. It's one of those metal fence barriers like they use for parades. It is completely across the sidewalk right next to their driveway with a few paper signs saying no bikes on sidewalk, bla, bla, bla. It would be real easy to move… hypothetically speaking of course.


Didn’t the new casino try something like this when they opened?


marko82
2010-04-15 00:14:58

Another thing that makes me angry about that intersection is that, despite being on a bike path, the crossing is inductor triggered and the inductor doesn't detect bikes, so you have to go on the sidewalk and press a button to get the light.


alankhg
2010-04-15 00:34:19

Thanks for posting this, I was wondering about it, myself. It started with 2 metal barriers, the homemade signs I saw today.


ka_jun
2010-04-15 02:56:55

I feel totally left out, rarely using the hot metal bridge... and, when I do, admittedly, I use the sidewalk. I guess I won't be going on my weekly American Eagle shopping spree anymore.


dmtroyer
2010-04-15 03:00:37

Solution: (at least temporarily) Close S. Water Street between Hot Metal and the Hoffbrauhaus to cars. There is too much redundancy in that area with Tunnel Blvd. being a parallel.


What did AE expect when they plopped down a building in the middle of a bike trail and bridge and not accommodate for it?


impala26
2010-04-15 03:04:31

Move one of the metal barricades right over the inductor wire for the lights for Water street, that should fun things up!


edmonds59
2010-04-15 03:10:41

is there room for a bump out at that intersection? i always get real worried and slow down when i jump onto water street there about cars turning and crashing into me.


maybe they could transform the sidewalk there into a bike lane instead, that might be easier cause we'd already be in the street.


nick
2010-04-15 03:45:18

There has to be some law against blocking a sidewalk with metal barricades and claiming bikes aren't allowed. How silly. Seems it would be equally illegal to move said barricades to block their driveway, rather than the sidewalk, since the cars entering end exiting there are the source of the danger (rather than the bikes).


dwillen
2010-04-15 04:09:13

So, what is the plan for dealing with this?


Do we even know who put up the barriers? Was it AE, Soffer, the city, or someone else? If it wasn't the city, is it even legal?


Is there any viable solution to deal with the underlying problem? Closing Water St. to cars would likely do the trick but doesn't sound very realistic. Making it one-way east (and Tunnel one-way west) would probably help but I guess that won't fly either. No right on red from Hot Metal might help some but I don't think it really solves the problem. Restoring trail access seems impossible due to the buildings and doesn't help if you're not trying to get to/from the trail in the first place. I can't come up with anything very satisfying...


I generally don't ride on any sidewalks but I definitely do it there, it unfortunately seems like the safest alternative.


salty
2010-04-15 05:39:21

Contact AEO Realty Company LLC. They're the owners of the building, but not the sidewalk. And tell them to pay their taxes .


Report them to the mayor's office, 311 or Building Inspection for obstructing the public right-of-way.


The sidewalks and pavement of South Water street is city owned...


For future use: If any road, sidewalk, step or other public path is blocked and there is no building permit within eyeshot and/or no detour signage or alternate form of egress, then the obstruction is unsafe and potentially illegal. 311 for city roads, or 1-800-FIX-ROAD for PennDOT roads.


sloaps
2010-04-15 10:52:50

Why not put the trail on the median strip between Water Street and Tunnel Street? In other words, take the existing trail where it ends at 27th Street and extend it in a straight line, along the south side of Water Street, all the way to Hot Metal Street.


Then change the traffic signaling at Hot Metal and Water to include a protected crossing interval, where turning onto Water Street from Hot Metal or vice versa would be prohibited when the Walk light comes on to cross Water (if it doesn't work that way already).


steven
2010-04-15 11:39:48

!

+1 Steven. That' a good idea.

And require AE to pay for the dang improvements, instead of putting up freaking barricades.


edmonds59
2010-04-15 11:45:14

Bah. They should just close Water St completely to through traffic. I guess I can see a use case for the disabled to need to drive up to Hofbrauhaus, but there is really no other reason to have that street open to cars that I can think of. I bet in the summer it gets more bikes and runners than cars.


rsprake
2010-04-15 12:01:17

With the amphitheater going in they could easily install more bike racks on the street. I don't understand why South Side Works hasn't embraced bikes more. There are so many people on bikes just waiting to spend their money.


It makes no sense.


rsprake
2010-04-15 12:02:59

Pff. Not only have they not embraced bikes, I have had guards on that "street" in front of the theater be openly hostile. I don't know if that has changed since they started hosting Pedal Pittsburgh, but with this barricade thing, doesn't sound like it.


edmonds59
2010-04-15 12:45:08

And by "guards" I mean overweight, undereducated crackers whose goal is to do as little as possible.


edmonds59
2010-04-15 12:46:50

Oh come on, don't you think that's a bit rude? Surely it's a glandular disorder; they can't help it.


joeframbach
2010-04-15 13:18:03

Actually, EROK, there is a solution to this. That whole area will be redeveloped in the next two years as part of the CSX J&L Tunnel/National Gateway Project. They will rip up Water Street, raise the walls of the tunnel underneath, and then replace the surface, and all the existing landscaping. The total change in elevation will be just a couple of inches -- hardly noticeable to anyone by cyclists and wheelchairs...! But, CSX is working with the Soffers, and with the URA NOW. Work should be underway this Summer. Contact the URA and let them know that this is a problem in search of a solution, and that the perfect opportunity to address this problem is around the corner. To all who are getting ready to ask, yes, the trail will remain open the entire time; trail access will be maintained, and in some cases even enhanced. There may be brief interruptions in one trail access point at a time, as construction progresses, but such interupptions will be short.


swalfoort
2010-04-15 13:19:41

Has anyone followed up on @sloaps suggestion?


Don't know about Pittsburgh, but I know I did get a warning about blocking sidewalk access when I was living in central PA (Du Bois)since they are considered communal property.


This is on my new commute, and to me coming off the bridge it looks like I'm supposed to follow the sidewalk, which is what I've been doing.


(That whole trail confuses me as to when I'm supposed to be on the sidewalk and when I'm supposed to be on the road. Heading down that way, there is a parking lot which dumps out on a street with a wide sidewalk. I always take the street, but I've seen plenty of bikes on the sidewalk....)


If the city determines that we shouldn't be there, that's fine but there needs to be better signage. Having a barrier across the sidewalk in a place where the curb is an inch or two high is rather disruptive. When last I encountered this barrier, I had options of 1) turning around and going back, 2) jumping a 1-2 inch curb (guestimate) or 3) riding in their landscaping around the barrier. Neither 1 nor 2 seemed safe. (Well, ok 1 is safe if there are no pedestrians around... but if there are a bike suddenly turning seems like a ped-crash waiting to happen). Not saying which option I chose, just saying that nothing seems really safe.


If there *HAS* to be a barrier, seems like it should be up closer to the corner, rather than a 100 ft down the road.


myddrin
2010-04-15 13:48:23

I agree with sloaps too.. we all need to put in 311 tickets about it.. Or of course, we could just move the barriers, leave a nice note on them saying they were blocking a public sidewalk and right of way.


netviln
2010-04-15 14:02:12

I 311'ed this yesterday. After being on hold for 18 minutes (one person in queue!) I sent it in via web.


marko82
2010-04-15 14:07:47

I just submitted via web as well, along with a bit of a rant.


myddrin
2010-04-15 14:50:38

I sent my 311 submission, stating that I believe the barricades are illegally placed, and S. Water St. should be closed to vehicle traffic since it's already heavily used by pedestrians.


joeframbach
2010-04-15 14:52:07

On a somewhat unrelated note, but still dealing sidewalk blocking, how many people use the sidewalk along Fifth Ave to get from the Birmingham Bridge to Oakland? If you're like me I'm sure you've noticed that the car dealership thing there and the daycare place consistently block that sidewalk with parked cars and a mini-bus. Thankfully you can ride on the bus lane for a short distance without having to get off because of natural curb cuts, but I still don't think you can be blocking a sidewalk like that, lack of space or no.


I personally hate the 5th Ave sidewalk stretch because like half of it was redone and is very nice but it was like city didn't understand the concept of finishing the sidewalk between the Birmingham and Craft Ave. There are several large holes and even two big gaps, one of which was "solved" by covering it with a wooden board and the other just has a traffic cone in it.


impala26
2010-04-15 15:00:03

to get to oakland, I typically drop down to forbes from the birmingham bridge, but yeah that sidewalk is a pita.


netviln
2010-04-15 15:25:35

Here is what I got back from 311:




We have already notified a street inspector to contact the building owners to remove the barrier, as it is obstructing the sidewalk. However, it is a city ordinance that in business districts (including this location), bicyclists are to ride in the street only. However, most police officers will not enforce that law as long as you are not causing a nuisance to pedestrians, as they are aware of some of the dangers.


Regardless of the cycling law, though, this business owner cannot obstruct the sidewalk without a permit for any reason, and that issue is being addressed.


Thank you for contacting our 311 Response Center!


And my reply to their reply:



Thank you for your reply. Are there any plans to redesign that intersection? Coming off the HMB pedestrian bridge, cycles HAVE to be on the sidewalk, and as a said trying to be legal and enter the traffic on S. Water St is potentially dangerous.



myddrin
2010-04-15 15:28:17

To get to Oakland from Birmingham:

I take forbes, take the full lane at the end of the cattle chute, then signal like crazy when merging to the right.


joeframbach
2010-04-15 15:30:27

+1 I take forbes, take the full lane at the end of the cattle chute


But I try to stay to the left because there's usually less traffic coming off of the boulevard ramp and the right lane is backed up pretty far often from folks turning right.


sloaps
2010-04-15 15:38:33

Does the city have a map of "business districts" or some other way of determining if you are in a "business district"? I know parts of downtown are, and parts of Oakland. Seems this particular sidewalk is not adjacent to any retail buildings.


dwillen
2010-04-15 15:40:27

@Joe & netviln: I know that is another way to go, but being uphill in high-way speed traffic is quite intimidating on my usually loaded down mountain bike. The Fifth Ave sidewalk route is much more pleasant and slower (and gives great views to the South Side), but the sidewalk blocking and condition there is perhaps even MORE egregious than the Water Street situation.


On that note too, biking through Soho/Uptown is a test indeed. I took Mick's advice and coming back to Oakland went along Forbes to turn left on Jumonville then followed (safely) the bus lane to Birmingham (which is mostly downhill). Also, there are NO signals whatsoever if you're on the Fifth Ave sidewalk on the bridge side, making that intersection coming that way on a bike quite harrowing.


LOL, the one time I used Forbes I think it scared me to much to think to use it again...


impala26
2010-04-15 15:43:27

Their response:

Regarding the sidewalk obsturction, we have notified a street inspector to contact the buidling owners and remove the barricades, because they cannot obstruct the city sidewalk without proper permits.


Bicycling is prohibited from sidewalks in business districts. However, regardless of the reason for obstructing the sidewalk, it is illegal to do so, and this is being addressed with the building owner.


I can place a request for your idea of the changes to those streets to be considered. The Service Request ID number associated with this request is 174218.


Thank you for contacting our 311 Response Center.


My reply:

The Hot Metal pedestrian path lets out onto the sidewalk; there is no boundary visible between the bike path and sidewalk, so enforcement of the law here will be difficult. Thank you for considering the service request.


joeframbach
2010-04-15 15:43:36

This 311 operator is fantastic!


Officers do use discretion in ticketing for this, and it is very uncommon for them to do, actually. If they see that there is no where else to go, they are not going to write a ticket.


Thank you!


joeframbach
2010-04-15 15:58:47

"§ 102. Definitions.

Business district -- The territory contiguous to and including a highway when within any 600 feet along the highway there are buildings in use for business or industrial purposes, including but not limited to hotels, banks, or office buildings, railroad stations and public buildings which occupy at least 300 feet of frontage on one side or 300 feet collectively on both sides of the highway."


It doesn't have to be retail. I'm not certain if this area qualifies -- I'd have to measure it. Unfortunately, this does include warehouses, and maybe parking garages, so there are a LOT of business districts in places you wouldn't imagine.


I would like to point out the cynicism of building "bicycle facilities" that are inherently illegal to use on a bicycle, or whose construction explicitly anticipates their illegal use. Not only the HMB -- there is no way to legally reach the downtown end of the Eliza Furnace Trail on a bicycle. Or if there is, I haven't been able to find it.


lyle
2010-04-15 16:03:46

Joe, find out who this operator is and send doughnuts. I hear they are a useful negotiating/reward tool.


edmonds59
2010-04-15 16:08:25

sarah- i realize there is a plan for the future, but the bike traffic here is incredibly high, and there was obviously very little thought put into the trail detour in the interim. it's obvious considering AE's reaction


erok
2010-04-15 16:10:29

I think the operator may have been Mr. Patchan...


8-)


sloaps
2010-04-15 16:14:50

Mentioned this to Pat Hassett this morning. His suggestion is to get Mr. Patchan in the loop ASAP. I'll send him an email NOW.


swalfoort
2010-04-15 17:02:44

Sara,

I'm sure Mr. Patchan would like a few citable 311 tickets to refer to. Mine was ticket #5964. If other people here would kindly post the ticket #s, you could show with a bit more credibility that this is an issue.


joeframbach
2010-04-15 17:08:48

Mine was #5963. I asked about if they would address the issue in the future, and the response said that it had been already been forwarded to the planning committee. Is there a way for us to communicate with said committee?


myddrin
2010-04-15 17:21:57

My ticket was 5957.


reddan
2010-04-15 17:22:24

Also, nearby with me suggesting improvements to the Bates Street corridor via an online 311 form, the ultimate response I got was this:


"There is no official access to the Eliza Furnace Trail from Bates Street."


Can anyone verify this? I'm pretty sure there is existing signage that would contradict this statement. Regardless at least the response said they reported this to Mr. Patchan.


impala26
2010-04-15 17:29:10

My tix is 5950, I beat Dan by seven!


marko82
2010-04-15 17:53:37

i've always been told that it's an official entrance. they are going to be redoing a bunch of that soon, because trucks keep smashing into the bridge that carries the EFT. they say they will be making the access there much better and more welcoming too


erok
2010-04-15 17:56:34

PA law permits cycling on a sidewalk, even in a business district, when "permitted by official traffic-control devices". I'm guessing the trail signage counts, and makes cycling onto the Jail Trail or HMB legal (not merely tolerated by understanding police officers), wherever there are signs directing cyclists a certain way.


steven
2010-04-15 18:21:40

While on my way to REI to look at some camping gear I noticed the barriers on the sidewalk everyone is talking about. Someone moved them off the sidewalk and into AE's flowerbed.


On the way back from REI I noticed that someone presumably from AE moved them back to block the sidewalk. I stopped to read the sign about a $25 fine for riding bikes on the sidewalk, turned around to take in the view, and next thing I knew someone had moved them to directly in front of AE's entranceway, where they belong.


bradq
2010-04-15 18:30:11

Speaking of these mysterious "someones", some motivated individual should start a Pittsburgh security camera map, like someone has made for NYC.


edmonds59
2010-04-15 18:44:07

It would be a terrible shame if someone, following an official trail sign and riding on the sidewalk in good faith, should fall over and suffer a head injury and become disabled while attempting to avoid a willfully-placed, replaced, replaced, replaced *unlawful* barricade. It would be even more expensive than a hot cup of coffee, I think.


@steven - I'm not sure if brown signs are official traffic-control devices. I think that they're information, just like the sign that says "ZOO 2mis" is not traffic control. But that's a subtle point, and I'm not a lawyer, and I'd probably use signs as a defense if I were cited for riding on the sidewalk en route to the trail. My point is that we shouldn't have to live in a world where things we do many times a day are technically illegal but we "probably will get away with it unless some police officer wants to be a jerk, or he thinks we might be carrying weed and wants a pretext to search us, or..."


lyle
2010-04-15 18:46:51

"Someone" with a pickup truck should simply remove the "debris" from the sidewalk.


Every once in a while, I miss my truck.


reddan
2010-04-15 18:47:53

sheesh ya'll... this may get ugly with the signs and the barriers and whatnot. best to let the cozzers handle this one...


sloaps
2010-04-15 18:59:07

Maybe we should chain ourselves to the barriers in protest.


"To the barricades!"


reddan
2010-04-15 19:05:17

Erok... I mean someone bought that Kona Ute, right?


alankhg
2010-04-15 19:05:48

There is nothing wrong or ugly with a private citizen clearing a blocked sidewalk.


I'd even argue it's everyone's civic duty.


bradq
2010-04-15 19:05:49

Why are there not pictures of said obstructions yet? I expect total information awareness from this board, at least when it comes to unlawful blockades and the like.


eric
2010-04-15 19:24:47

Just move the barriers into the street to block access to S Water. :)


Nice work on the 311s everyone.


rsprake
2010-04-15 19:28:13

I get warm fuzzies from this thread.


ka_jun
2010-04-15 23:54:33

Glory!


AEO Welcome Sign


AEO Sign


sloaps
2010-04-16 00:23:29

Bike trail is located in Tunnel Park? What happens when someone takes a right off the bridge onto Water St and creams me crossing on the wrong side of the road (contraflow) from Tunnel Park to Hot Metal Bridge?


Seriously, never shopping at AE again.


dwillen
2010-04-16 00:37:43

Blocked


kordite
2010-04-16 01:03:10

See. here is my take on this. AE might technically be right. However, there is no clear marking indicating where the trail coming over HMB ends and the Business district sidewalk begins.


The point of contention for me is the AE is not the city, they are not the cops, they have no right to arbitrarily decide to block the us of a public right of way.


Pittsburgh code also requires a minimum 4ft clearance on sidewalks, and looking at the pictures, that is not 4ft of clearance.


Obviously the whole intersection and trail egress needs to be redesigned there, but if AE thinks bikes shouldnt be allowed on that section of sidewalk, then they need to call the city to rty to have it enforced, not enforce it themselves.


netviln
2010-04-16 01:51:18

Also, as a note, this likely isnt AE proper doing this, rather the building management.


netviln
2010-04-16 01:56:41

This might sound extreme, disobidient & definately sort-of illegal; but how about dropping some red paint on the bars & sidewalk?


Just a thought, of course 0_o


I personally always take the road and then get on the sidewalk at the corner of the HMB, but do think that it is rude for the AE folks to just block the sidewalk that way.


bikeygirl
2010-04-16 02:22:34

That AE sign looks like it is just aching to have these barriers chained up to it by some do-gooder who would like to make sure that no one is blocked from using the sidewalk.


bradq
2010-04-16 06:25:37

That mulch bed looks rideable, maybe that's what they're suggesting... :O


edmonds59
2010-04-16 11:31:02

@Brad: Yeah, I was wishing I had a pair of spare U-locks for that very reason this morning.


reddan
2010-04-16 11:39:21

So how long before we can expect the city to do something about this? Several of us reported yesterday and were told the situation was in hand.


I'm annoyed by this, but really I can understand what AE is thinking... I've gone by at times when there were small clutches of their employees outside and they are probably worried (rightly or wrongly) about their employee's safety. Or the building management is...either way, I can see (and am even sympathetic to) their point. (*)


Let's face it, who ever put that sign up isn't going to remember (or probably even know about) the 99 cyclists who proceed with caution and are polite. What they *are* going to remember/hear about is the 1 cyclist who was a jerk.(**)


That being said, they are going about it wrong. Rather than taking unilateral action, they should be working with the city to get clearer signage up about what to do at the 29th St/Water St intersection.

---

(*) Although, if they are really worried about their employee's safety, they should be blocking of 29th St and Water St to motorized traffic too. And maybe telling their employees to come to work wrapped in bubble wrap.


(**) And lest I seem all sanctimonious, I've been that jerk on a couple of occasions. Fatigue, being in a hurry, or just not thinking has caused me to do some things that I realized were stupid upon later reflection. (In fact, about two weeks ago, I have to admit I got a facepalm from a cop. No ticket or lecture, just the facepalm.) I'm not proud, but I do try to learn from those mistakes.


myddrin
2010-04-16 12:24:40

I am tempted to add a note to said barriers, directing them to observe Pittsburgh Code, Title 4, Article 1, Chapter 416. Specifically, sections 416.01 and 416.11.


Unless I'm grossly misreading this, the perpetrator is liable for $200-1000 per day.


416.01 MINOR STREET OBSTRUCTIONS; PERMIT REQUIRED.

(a) Except for emergencies, no person shall erect barricades or scaffolds, cover or uncover walkways, erect or relocate utility poles on sidewalks or roadways or temporary bridges, or display merchandise, or set out furniture, on a sidewalk, or make any curb cuts or lay or repair a sidewalk without first obtaining a permit from the Department of Public Works.


§ 416.11 PERMIT REVOCATION AND PENALTIES.

(a) Any person who violates any of the provisions of this article or regulations promulgated hereunder shall be subject to a fine of not less than two hundred dollars ($200.00) and not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) for each offense, and each day such a violation continues shall be deemed a separate and distinct offense. The Department of Public Works, the Bureau of Building Inspection, and the Bureau of Police provide enforcement if the permit holder violates the terms of the permit.


reddan
2010-04-16 13:09:41

I sent this to the City's ADA Compliance person this morning. This affects more than just cyclists.


swalfoort
2010-04-16 13:51:46

Has anyone contacted someone at AE about this yet? Knocked on doors, given a call, written letters, etc?


It may be the move of a disgruntled employee or group more so than how the CEO feels…


That said, I really wish I could find the spare bit of chain and lock I have around here. Would be a real shame if those fences walked off, I think a civic minded person should secure them.


wojty
2010-04-16 15:39:21

A friend of mine works at AE. I sent him an email the other night with my perspective as a cyclist about why riding on that sidewalk is so common (dangerous, poorly designed intersection, trail access that used to be where their building sits, etc). I asked him to poke around a little and forward my email as appropriate.


I think showing a little restraint would help our cause. As far as I can tell, those barriers have been illegally placed, so moving them off the sidewalk seems like a reasonable thing to do. Vandalism, etc. - not so much.


Regardless of the legality of what AE or whomever put the barriers up is doing, if that area really is a "business district" (I knew about the law but I'd never seen the official definition before Lyle posted it), then as much as it sucks, we shouldn't be riding on the sidewalk there. So, I think we're back to "develop a viable alternative".


salty
2010-04-16 15:59:07

Although it is a business district, there are no clear markings saying where the trail ends and where the sidewalk begins, so my point of view is that is still the trail, until the city puts up signage saying otherwise.


netviln
2010-04-16 17:07:38

Thanks for everyone who sent in 311 requests. Your comments and concerns are greatly appreciated. I met with the City's traffic engineer and URA staff today to develop a system that improves the safety of everyone at the terminus of the Hot Metal Street Bridge. The City's traffic engineer is mocking up signs and locations to clarify where we can ride; this is a priority, and we will get signs up asap.


The system will be a short term fix as there are a few project still in the works that will affect bicycle traffic. Think of it as a trail detour. In conjunction with these additional bicycle related projects, the Hot Metal St/ Water St intersection design is being re-evaluated by the City in order to significantly improve the safety of everyone who uses this intersection.


In the meantime:


Please access Water Street from the Hot Metal Bridge with caution. Do not ride blindly into the street. Stop and make sure ingress to the street is safe.


Please do not use the sidewalk area in front of the AE building. Only access the approach to the Hot Metal Bridge near the Hot Metal St/Water Street intersection.


Please do not move the barricades. I'm all for non-violent protests, but I would hate for the barricades to be put in an area where someone is injured. Please let the City handle the situation. It is anticipated that the barricades have been moved or will be moved asap.


Thanks!


Steve


stephen
2010-04-16 18:36:50

thanks steve! Call in the hounds! (for now)


erok
2010-04-16 19:25:34

Steve ...Patchan? I didn't realize you were a member of these fine forums! Thank you for looking into this!


If Water St. would be closed off, how would that happen? I imagine 5 or 6 bollards at either end.


joeframbach
2010-04-16 20:27:21

I went by the area of discussion tonight around 8. Barriers still in place.


I'm confused though. What looks like the main entrance is right near the corner where the trail from the bridge merges. This entrance is un-barriered. The sidewalk is blocked further down by a side entrance that looks to have good sight lines for both the sidewalk and those exiting the building.


I'd love to see the twinkle in the eye of Edgar Snyder if someone is hurt tripping over these things while walling on the sidewalk. Gotta be some deep pockets at AE and Soffer.


eric
2010-04-17 01:43:04

Cheapest thing for the city to do is eliminate motor vehicle access to south water street from hot metal street. AEO would still need access to their private drive, but that can be afforded from 28th street.


Bollards perhaps, or some leftover G20 concrete barrier should do.


sloaps
2010-04-17 02:30:43

I just like using the word Bollard. It's a fun word to say. Bollard.


joeframbach
2010-04-17 02:48:36

Bollocks is fun too, never mind the bollards.


edmonds59
2010-04-17 14:15:41

The barriers were moved today into the AE property. I have no idea if this was vigilantism or pressure on AE or what, but the sidewalk was cleared today. However, any AE maintenance person could move them back if they so desire.


impala26
2010-04-18 20:07:01

I cycled past there today on may way to my new job. The barriers are still off to the side, and the signs are still attached and visible... which seems reasonable to me. Until Stephan's new solution is in place, there should be some signage for the cyclists who don't frequent the boards.


myddrin
2010-04-19 18:18:38

They were blocking the sidewalk on Saturday evening when I went to a friend's going away party down there. Someone must have moved them again.


bradq
2010-04-19 18:38:34

As of lunchtime today, the barriers were back in place blocking the sidewalk.


reddan
2010-04-19 18:50:55

City Code, Title 4, Article 1, Chapter 416


416.01 MINOR STREET OBSTRUCTIONS; PERMIT REQUIRED.

(a) Except for emergencies, no person shall erect barricades or scaffolds, cover or uncover walkways, erect or relocate utility poles on sidewalks or roadways or temporary bridges, or display merchandise, or set out furniture, on a sidewalk, or make any curb cuts or lay or repair a sidewalk without first obtaining a permit from the Department of Public Works.


§ 416.11 PERMIT REVOCATION AND PENALTIES.

(a) Any person who violates any of the provisions of this article or regulations promulgated hereunder shall be subject to a fine of not less than two hundred dollars ($200.00) and not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) for each offense, and each day such a violation continues shall be deemed a separate and distinct offense.


sloaps
2010-04-19 19:53:12

See. I think someone should put that on a big posterboard and fix it to the barricades.


netviln
2010-04-19 20:02:02

or better yet screenprint/sharpie/stencil/etc it on corrugated plastic and cable lock it to the barricade.


cburch
2010-04-19 20:08:41

With the city's inaction on this is it safe to assume that I can block the sidewalk in front of my house without retribution? I'd love if I had a huge front porch.


They've supposedly been warned and yet continue to place the barricades out. When is the city going to collect their $200-$1000 per day?


Meanwhile on the other side of Carson St, OTB Cafe was reportedly warned just last week that they can't have tables or chairs on the sidewalk without incurring fines. I'm glad to see the city has their priorities in order - stifle business from having outdoor seating that does not block the entirety of the sidewalk by any means and drag their feet on the permitting process, but allow AE to completely block the sidewalk for no reason.


Ridiculous.


bradq
2010-04-19 20:52:23

Meanwhile on the other side of Carson St, OTB Cafe was reportedly warned just last week that they can't have tables or chairs on the sidewalk without incurring fines.


Seriously? Do they need a permit or something? And they won't give them their bike parking spot which forces us to lock up and take up space on the sidewalk with our bikes...


rsprake
2010-04-19 21:21:40

This annoys me so much! They hulk smashed all of the green space that was there on the works side and replaced it with a lane of traffic and now they are telling bars to get off the sidewalk. Where do they think all the people in the cars go after they drive there? Urban planning fail.


rsprake
2010-04-19 21:23:33

I'd be willing to start a meter fund for the parking space in front of OTB. Feed the meter, eternally park a few beach cruisers in the space and encourage patrons to lock up to the beach cruisers.


Eh?


sloaps
2010-04-19 22:31:26

When is the city going to collect their $200-$1000 per day?


What a wonderful way to solve the city's budget crisis!


ieverhart
2010-04-20 03:55:07

Kind of like how they decided the day after a huge snowstorm was a fine time to suspend fines for not shoveling your sidewalk? The city doesn't want to make money that way, someone might get upset.


salty
2010-04-20 04:55:26

Has anyone contacted district 3/Bruce Kraus about this yet? I just finished a web form and phone call in.


http://www.city.pittsburgh.pa.us/district3/


Also of note, Kraus is on the Public Works board, so nice tie in there as well…


wojty
2010-04-20 14:10:53

Hey everyone, Steve P. assures me that lots of folks are working on this and there is a meeting coming up to address this. The URA strongly encouraged the building mgrs (not sure if it's actually AE) NOT to put barricades up, but they did anyhow. Now we're dealing with this. New signs should be up shortly and the City is exploring other design options. Please hang in there and don't do anything too rash.


scott
2010-04-20 14:21:00

Just as a note, Obviously officials are probably aware of this. I took this picture yesterday from the switchback of the hotmetal bridge. Given the position of the riverfront trail sign, it does seem to indicate that the sidewalk in question is in fact the proper trail. Just saying, yaknow?




netviln
2010-04-20 14:57:53

I never noticed that. Good sleuthing!


joeframbach
2010-04-20 15:09:55

Hey, that is just a sign, like those red octagons you see all over the place. They don't really mean anything.


/sarcasm


dwillen
2010-04-20 15:14:07

Hey, that is just a sign, like those red octagons you see all over the place. They don't really mean anything.


Like the "Eliza Furnace Trail Access" sign at Bates Street where there is, officially, no trail access?


/sarcasm +1


ieverhart
2010-04-20 15:22:34

I saw a pedestrian reach those barricades and then step off the curb and out into the street. It's pretty low traffic, so not phenomenally dangerous, but gosh, you could fall and get hurt. If some pedestrian did get hurt there, the illegal barricades would make some lawyer really happy.


lyle
2010-04-20 17:34:22

“Never a Fee, Unless We Get Money For You”


eric
2010-04-20 18:38:13

@netvln Given the position of the riverfront trail sign, it does seem to indicate that the sidewalk in question is in fact the proper trail.


Has anyone brought this to the attention of either AE or the city people looking into this?


I'm guessing that the officials are not aware of this.


The city people talking with AE should know that this is not a sidewalk in a business district, it is, like the downtown end of the Liza Fur trail, a BIKE/shared-use TRAIL that just looks a bit like a sidewalk.


Mick


mick
2010-04-21 17:33:42

hey guys/gals. i haven't checked this board for a while, but erok sent me a link to this thread. i work @ ae in the marketing dept. i sent an email to the Sr. Manager of Corporate Facilities bringing the concerns brought up in this thread to his attention. He hasn't replied yet, nor do i know if he has anything to do with the barricades. i'll keep yinz posted.


destroyyourface
2010-04-21 17:40:07

Hot.. Thanks Mr. Face


netviln
2010-04-21 17:59:19

For what it's worth, as of the afternoon of 4/22/10 the barricades were back on the sidewalk.


bradq
2010-04-23 15:23:29

Living up to that "Getting it done!" motto.


dwillen
2010-04-23 15:44:56

I've made it a point to ride through the little walkway between the barricades. Current count is at four.


joeframbach
2010-04-23 15:52:34

Wow. The government of our fair city never ceases to amaze me.


If I blocked the sidewalk in front of my house for this long with my kids toys, I'm sure a nebby neighbor would already have some government type breathing down my neck threatening me with fines.


eric
2010-04-23 16:16:49

At this point they should probably just leave them there until Pedal Pgh, then that morning, at 6:00+- a.m., "someone" could install some official looking signs saying "Trail blockage brought to you by American Eagle".


edmonds59
2010-04-23 16:29:30

The city's response to this issue is snowstorm-esque. How many people are needed and how long does it take to "look into" a complaint of a blocked sidewalk?


buzz1980
2010-04-23 16:49:29

this might be worth losing a $30 ulock over


imakwik1
2010-04-23 17:45:28

Hey, it's been a while.

Any updates?


joeframbach
2010-04-26 19:50:12

Still blocked as of 7 AM today.


reddan
2010-04-26 19:52:38

Heh. The gates were moved aside from the driveway on Sunday. I didn't stop but it looked like someone from AE stapled a bunch of laws to it.


rsprake
2010-04-26 19:53:12

Yeah, they were moved on Sun., but I didn't notice the laws. I patched a flat right over by the steel sculpture :(

Maybe this is just the work of some crazy maintenance guy. Bumper bike guys nemesis, Barricade Man.


edmonds59
2010-04-26 20:00:36

Hmmm...."Barricade Bike". There's a concept...


reddan
2010-04-26 20:08:00

We need a bat-signal-esque way to call for our hero, Bumper Bike.


ieverhart
2010-04-27 02:37:39

I don't really know a lot about barricades.


Do they float?


mick
2010-04-27 03:04:33

They would most definitely sink.


ndromb
2010-04-27 03:45:21

As of Wednesday 4/28 at 5:15 p.m., the fences were moved to the side--still visible but fully out of the way.


ieverhart
2010-04-28 21:39:48

when i road by yesterday they were moved... i thought this was all over!


imakwik1
2010-04-29 00:58:58

If it wasn't clear, the fences were not blocking the sidewalk or anything else. Whoever put them up seems now to be complying with the requirement not to block the right of way.


ieverhart
2010-04-29 03:10:27

This morning: Barriers back up, all the way across so that pedestrians had to either walk in the street or the flower beds.


If anyone has any press connections, I say use'em. It is crazy that this is still going on. It's pretty clear the AE doesn't care about pedestrians, much less ADA compliance. {And it's the ADA issue that is starting to bug me more than anything at this point.)


myddrin
2010-05-05 13:14:37

I saw them last night, but.. I think is what they have done, the barriers are now technically in the driveway and not on the sidewalk. They are completely blocking the entrance to the sidewalk now though as there is no gap in between them anymore.


Steve, I thought they were contacted and told to stop this. What gives?


netviln
2010-05-05 13:18:54

It's really odd. They are protecting what I assume is a driveway for delivery trucks. They don't give a damn about their employees walking out of the front door.


rsprake
2010-05-05 13:46:24

As of 4:40PM Tuesday 5/4 they were up. I happened to be riding in the road, but I was so irate by seeing them once again, I moved them. I didn't move them off the sidewalk, I just turned them like 45 degrees so pedestrians, bikes, wheelchairs, et al. could get through.


This is getting absurd now...


impala26
2010-05-05 14:46:34

It's really odd. They are protecting what I assume is a driveway for delivery trucks. They don't give a damn about their employees walking out of the front door.


I think it's because, by blocking the driveway, they're only inconveniencing some cyclists. Blocking the sidewalk by the front door would piss off a lot more people, so is more politically fraught with peril.


I suspect they would prevent cyclists from being anywhere outside the area from bridge to curb cut on Hot Metal/Water, if they could.


reddan
2010-05-05 14:52:46

@reddan: No offense, but I'm not going to push a new curb cut along that stretch until I see two key ones along the shared sidewalk along Bates St. between 2nd Ave and Blvd. of the Allies. I've 311'd for those I think three times now, and why they haven't been done is beyond me.


Anyone besides 311 I can contact for Bates St. improvements? I fear that not much has been done because of the god-forsaken MFSOB, which would directly alter that area.


impala26
2010-05-05 15:19:12

5/5 4:00PM, barricades were up.


ka_jun
2010-05-06 01:26:33

Okay, I'm late to the party here because I've been out of town for a month. I used to ride this stretch all the time, and I agree with Scott et al that the trail connections at the south end of the bridge are pretty terrible. The sidewalk, narrow as it is, with the trees, is a safe passage because you don't have to turn left from the road to get to the bridge.


Regarding using Fifth from the Birmingham Bridge to Oakland, this has been route of choice since the snow storm. I find that dealing with 200 meters of parked cars on the sidewalk is significantly better than dealing with traffic on Forbes. I wish the city would enforce the parking laws and really turn that into a shared use sidewalk, though. I suspect the sidewalk is problematic because the car dealership and day care would be responsible for the stretches on their properties, and I'm guessing they don't want to drop the cash.


bjanaszek
2010-05-06 02:48:31

We (cyclists) want fast, easy access between the streets and the Hot Metal Bridge. On the other hand, that section of sidewalk can be pedestrian-heavy at times. I suspect that the problem that AE is dealing with is that people who work in the building are complaining about being buzzed by cyclists.


While I like to believe that most cyclists are responsible, there are some jerks, just like there are jerks driving cars. It's not the first 99 cars that pass us safely that we notice; it's the 100th that buzzes or buttonhooks us that we notice. Similarly, for the people who work in that building, the cyclists who safely traverse the sidewalk are largely unnoticed for just that reason- they don't create problems. Instead, it's the one jerk who comes barreling through that creates a stir.


I'm guessing that the AE maint staff are trying to deal with complaints from folks in the building about this, and all other things being equal, they bias in favor of the people paying their salaries.


I think that pedestrian bridge is wonderful, and I wouldn't trade it away for the world. The way the south end feeds into the sidewalk is very suboptimal, and I wonder if the people who designed it really understand the bicycle usage pattern. That said, this is what's built now, and I doubt that anyone is in a rush to drop wads of cache into changing it.


So, I pose this question: What can be done with the current set-up that would meet the needs of the cycling community, pedestrians, and the building occupants? From the cyclist point-of-view, getting rid of the barricades entirely is fine, but for the building occupants, that's a non-starter; they tried to live with that, and it didn't seem to work for them.


jz
2010-05-06 03:19:27

Close one lane of Water St? The one immediately in front of AE.


Tunnel Blvd can pick up the slack of anyone needing to go to the South Side Works, but the light at Water St can still serve those making left turns on to Hot Metal St.


And flattening the curb all the way around so we can cross Hot Metal St without the awkward turn on that funky studded surface that is slippery when wet.


tugrul
2010-05-06 04:49:07

It was a lot better before the trees were planted there as well too, when everything was first done. Making a high traffic sidewalk even narrower? Great Idea™!


I have been going back and forth with the District 3 Office on this, and they have sent a couple of inspectors by, but each time the barricades have not been there, hence unable to fine. I hate to think responsible citizens should stop moving them just in the name of causing trouble for AE…


wojty
2010-05-06 12:02:44

Perhaps pictures for the district office?


netviln
2010-05-06 12:19:19

I drove in this morning, but I noticed that there was "Trail Detour" sign leaning up against the one of the lampposts at the corner of Hot Metal and Water... looked like it was waiting to be put up. So, I wonder if that is the temporary solution that was mentioned.


myddrin
2010-05-06 13:47:00

I biked by this morning (10 a.m.) and the barricades were again in place. I didn't notice any detour signs.


ieverhart
2010-05-06 16:29:53

I just sent to 311 (thanks for looking up the codes Dan)


I previosly reported a blocked sidewalk at the end of the hot-metal bridge in South Side (Ticket ID number: 5950). For a while the barriers were removed from the sidewalk, but on a ride through the area yesterday afternoon (Mar. 5th) I noticed the sidwalk was once again blocked. I believe the building owner is breaking Pittsburgh Code, Title 4, Article 1, Chapter 416. Specifically, sections 416.01 and 416.11


Re:


416.01 MINOR STREET OBSTRUCTIONS; PERMIT REQUIRED.

(a) Except for emergencies, no person shall erect barricades or scaffolds, cover or uncover walkways, erect or relocate utility poles on sidewalks or roadways or temporary bridges, or display merchandise, or set out furniture, on a sidewalk, or make any curb cuts or lay or repair a sidewalk without first obtaining a permit from the Department of Public Works.


§ 416.11 PERMIT REVOCATION AND PENALTIES.

(a) Any person who violates any of the provisions of this article or regulations promulgated hereunder shall be subject to a fine of not less than two hundred dollars ($200.00) and not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) for each offense, and each day such a violation continues shall be deemed a separate and distinct offense. The Department of Public Works, the Bureau of Building Inspection, and the Bureau of Police provide enforcement if the permit holder violates the terms of the permit.


I would appreciate an official looking into the above code enforcement.


marko82
2010-05-06 16:59:38

I measured it yesterday. That building is just a hare under 300', and there's a vacant lot next to it. I don't think that qualifies as a "business district", technically.


lyle
2010-05-06 17:01:02

@Marko82, you meant May 5?


stuinmccandless
2010-05-06 17:46:12

maybe i'm blind but i never see these... they were there today and yesterday?!


imakwik1
2010-05-06 19:34:59

Good thinking, Lyle!


ieverhart
2010-05-06 20:06:20

Lyle, I think the 300ft is collective across both frontages, hot metal and water. So I think it would still qualify.. if I am reading it right anyway.


Also, as for reaching the downtown end of the eliza furnace trail not being legal, the eliza furnace trail is designated a multi use path, not technically a sidewalk.


netviln
2010-05-06 20:33:31

@netviln I think Lyle is referring to the Grant Street sidewalk between First Avenue and the Trail. It would only take a sign, really.


sloaps
2010-05-06 20:44:16

Some of the loathsome "no bikes" signs weren't there this afternoon. Maybe American Eagle has changed its mind. Maybe they're fixin' to get some bigger, more annoying signs. Or maybe someone went "rogue DPW" on them.


Anyone have any insights?


ieverhart
2010-08-29 23:44:25

I still see people ignoring the signs and softly pedaling by indignant A-Eers.


I think everyone would be better served if that end of water street is cut off to vehicle traffic.


sloaps
2010-08-30 11:32:10

Were those signs tied to the trees? If they were, I suspect that was the reason they were pulled.


Any idea if the ultimate plans call for the trail to go along the river, behind American Eagle and the Haufbrau House? I seem to recall that being the case but haven't seen any recent details.


kordite
2010-08-30 13:40:25

I think everyone would be better served if that end of water street is cut off to vehicle traffic.


Or at least the north lane of Water Street. It is very difficult to come off the bridge, look behind you for right turning traffic, and avoid running into pedestrians on the sidewalk as you try to enter Water St. The right-turning traffic does not have to yield to bicycles on the sidewalk (as they would if there was a proper travel lane instead of a sidewalk). I'm so tired of people who design facilities while ignoring the operational realities (and ignore or badmouth any experts who critique the design), and then when it's all done, trumpet how wonderful the result is.


lyle
2010-08-30 16:42:50

@ kordite

This is the last that i saw. sorry, this is the largest pic that i can find.




erok
2010-08-30 17:19:49

Work has come along on the trail along the river, if you go to hofbrauhaus's outside area you get a nice view of it. They even have an entrance down there for when the trail opens.


rsprake
2010-08-30 17:31:59

So, there will be a trail. Huzzah! Is that another ramp feeding off of the end of the Hot Metal Bridge there in the upper right of the illustration? Looks like it will be better than the hairpin turn midway to the sidewalk corner.


Any guess how long it will take to get this done?


kordite
2010-08-30 18:41:12

The Friends of the Riverfront detour page says "by 2011". I don't know if mean prior to 2011, or some time in 2011, but I'd think it'll happen before the CSX project. So probably some time between now and spring 2011.


steven
2010-08-30 21:24:25

Sorry, I haven't read the whole thread, but I heard from a SSW tenant that AE was helping out with a trail re-route behind their building.


I've seen the signs, but not barricades. I only ride there on weekends, when there's hardly any pedestrian traffic. Given the cluelessness of some riders I've seen on the trail there I can imagine they could be hazardous to AE workers at rush hours ... so I don't really blame them, but it is kind of offensive. I think it would be nice if they took the signs down on weekends (if that's possible).


It's still way less hazardous than Station Square. (Or the de facto Hofbrau Haus "park in the middle of the street and disgorge your women" zone a half block down from AE.)


erink
2010-08-31 21:53:38

Apart from not really understanding what AE's problem actually might be...


1) AE provides some nice benches in front of their doors at the corner. It's a great place to stop and rest. People do it all the time. I've done it. If they really hated bikers they would have ripped these out (and let their smokers fend for themselves). And they would definitely have kept the Muzak, maybe even increased the volume.


2) Recreational bikers tend to shoal up at the intersection and, for some reason, they tend to block the curb cut that people coming off the bridge use to get onto Water Street. What's up with that? Would a nice stencil on the ground fix this problem?


3) In (some) European cities (Amsterdam, Munich come to mind just now), non-car parts of the street have brick or cobblestone for the pedestrian bit and smooth surface for the bikes, making the right things happen without the need for epic confrontation (as far as I know; I just visit). Maybe AE should just redo its sidewalk?


@ErinK: I don't know which part of Station Square you're referring to, but the part behind the station building and its extensions is really not suited for bike traffic, even though it's a "trail": too make pedestrians and too many children. Use the street up from that ("W Station Drive", according to the map); it's in any case a better bike route. I've seen too many bikers zoom through this section (while I was still using it) seemingly with no awareness of their effect on the other people using the space. This is not bike "advocacy", it's just garden variety douche-ness.


ahlir
2010-09-01 02:59:13

3) In (some) European cities (Amsterdam, Munich come to mind just now), non-car parts of the street have brick or cobblestone for the pedestrian bit and smooth surface for the bikes, making the right things happen without the need for epic confrontation (as far as I know; I just visit). Maybe AE should just redo its sidewalk?


in said european countries, there's a place for bikes to be.


hiddenvariable
2010-09-01 04:31:39

If it really says "No Bikes", I say we swarm it with unicycles. It will take me a few weeks to get my skills back up to a swarmable level. The sidewalk could be under ice and snow by then..

If AE has such a freaking issue with this situation, somebody please tell them to cough up the <$5,000 to install a new curb cut just a little further down on Water Street. Then they can install a nice cobbly pavement in front of their building where they don't want the bikes, I like that idea. But then the ladies in the Manolo spikes might be crashing and burning. Oh, well.


edmonds59
2010-09-01 10:57:59

For the folks who haven't read the this whole thread, a few points.


A. This area is (probably) considered a business district. So riding on the sidewalk in front of AE is illegal. AE can't make it legal by taking down signs.


B. The trail, for users continuing west, is going to be permanently rerouted away from this intersection in the coming months.


C. The city is working on improving this intersection for those trail users who will still need to cross it.


For now, to cope with this current temporary trail situation, there are various legal alternatives:


1. Cross Water Street and use the official trail along the south side of Water Street.


2. Enter Water Street and ride in the street for a few blocks.


3. If you really, really want to stay on the sidewalk in front of AE, not on the pathway on the opposite side of the road, you could always walk your bike.


(Yes, the curb cuts farther along on the official trail on the south side of Water Street weren't done properly and are mispositioned, so that option isn't ideal. But the whole area is due to be torn up next year, so I can understand if the city is reluctant to redo them now.)


Obviously, options 1 & 2 require some caution at the intersection because you're interacting with cars.


Given that rerouting the trail is already in the works, and that there's an official (albeit somewhat misdesigned) trail in place on the opposite side of the street, I think it's unreasonable to expect AE to repave their sidewalk to make it more convenient for cyclists to illegally ride on it.


steven
2010-09-01 13:52:21

"I think it's unreasonable to expect AE to repave their sidewalk to make it more convenient for cyclists to illegally ride on it."

No, that wasn't the intent at all. The idea is for AE to physically correct the condition that is causing cyclists to ride where AE does not want them to ride, instead of half-assedly throwing up signs and barricades, sort of the equivalent of the note on the office frig.

I ride in the street, so it's a moot point for me.


edmonds59
2010-09-01 14:36:36

I think it has also been established here that as defined in the city statutes, this area in front of the AE building is not technically a business district, and therefore it is not technically against the law to ride on the sidewalk. Just because AE says it is illegal doesn't make it so.


dwillen
2010-09-01 15:03:27

I agree with the conclusion of Steven's post: let's be patient while the various construction projects swirling at that particular intersection play out. Clearly some mistakes have been made, but it looks like it's being sorted out.


atleastmykidsloveme
2010-09-01 15:06:23

@dwillen: there is a difference between "not illegal" and "right."


atleastmykidsloveme
2010-09-01 15:07:51

in addition to what dwillen said, the law states that riding in a business district is illegal except when signs indicate otherwise. when AE put up the barricades, the signs over there pointed directly along the sidewalk, apparently indicating it was part of the bike trail.


but yeah, this whole thing was sorted out (more or less inadequately, but as well as expected) months ago.


hiddenvariable
2010-09-01 17:23:45

there is a difference between "not illegal" and "right."


So is that what people mean when they yell "Get off the road"? Maybe that's not a fair comparison, but if my preferred route is a legal one, I am going to need a very persuasive argument not to use it.


Does anyone know if cyclists have been stopped by the police (or anyone other than AE management) for riding there? If someone had been issued a citation, it might be illuminating to see what the specific charge was.


ieverhart
2010-09-02 01:01:20

IIRC there is also a sign there that indicates the sidewalk *is* the trail.


Cars kill thousands of pedestrians a year, if they *really* cared they'd block the whole street so the cars can't run over their employees. But of course they can't get away with that.


salty
2010-09-02 02:53:37

I'd love them to stick the little barricades in the street and hang an 8.5x11 sheet of paper with 20 point font indicating cars should stay off "their" street.


dwillen
2010-09-02 02:57:01

Only if the 20 point font was Comic Sans.


ka_jun
2010-09-02 03:16:58

I think the sign people are talking about is on the NE side of Water Street, visible when coming off the bridge, right? It's something like "Trail" with an arrow pointing right, if I recall.


I think perhaps the sign was intended to say that the trail is about to turn right (as it does, on the opposite side of Water Street), not that the trail turns right exactly at the sign. It seems pretty clear that the city's intention was for the new path they built on the SW side to be the trail, not the sidewalk on the NE side.


For a sign to grant permission for bikes to use a business district sidewalk, the sign has to be intended to mean that. I think this somewhat ambiguous sign wasn't intended to refer to the sidewalk. (The alternative is that the city built a special trail-style path on one side of Water Street, then installed a sign saying to use the sidewalk on the opposite side instead.)


As to whether it's a business district, as I read the PA code, it is.


Business district—The territory contiguous to and including a highway when within any 600 feet along the highway there are buildings in use for business or industrial purposes, including hotels, banks or office buildings, railroad stations and public buildings which occupy at least 300 feet of frontage on one side or 300 feet collectively on both sides of the highway.


Measure off 600 feet from the middle of the Hofbrauhaus building, along Water Street, and you get almost to the middle of the AE building. So within that particular 600 feet (and various other 600 foot stretches), there are two commercial buildings. And the buildings (230 of frontage for AE, 150 for Hofbrauhaus) occupy the necessary 300 feet collectively. (The code doesn't say the 300 feet of frontage must be within a 600 foot range, only that the buildings must be. I assume it means some part of the buildings must be, since if they meant 300 feet of frontage within 600 feet, they could have said that more directly.)


Admittedly the code isn't 100% clear, so perhaps courts have interpreted it differently. But the way I read it, the area appears to be a business district.


steven
2010-09-02 05:09:28

I don't see how anyone could look at this sign and think it refers to something 2 streets away.


salty
2010-09-02 05:32:36

... or the other side of the street or wherever it is, I can't quite picture it at the moment. It doesn't really matter because the reason people take the sidewalk is to avoid the conflict with cars turning right onto Water St. - so suggesting "just go across" doesn't help.


In general, I don't ride on sidewalks, I don't advocate riding on sidewalks, I cringe when I see someone riding on a sidewalk. I think it's more dangerous for both cyclists and pedestrians. This is one of the rare exceptions. Someone f-ed this up royally and I won't accept that cyclists should be the ones who get the shaft as a result - especially not based on a technicality of whether it may or may not be a business district (which is a debate we already had a few pages ago).


How about just making Water St. a bike trail? It's not like there's not another street for cars to use 50 feet away.


There's no doubt that AE did something illegal by blocking the sidewalk in the first place. Did they ever get fined for that?


salty
2010-09-02 05:59:47

I think there are 4 main things that contribute to this problem.

1) the main path of the ss trail was destroyed with the construction and hasnt been repaired yet.

2) the temporary path in tunnel park is crap, not wide enough, not easy enough to access, and filled with rude drunks going to and from HBH.

3) the access ramp is poorly place, poorly designed and throws you into the middle of the intersection. Also lends itself to pedestrian blockage.

4) the signage coming off the trail is misleading.


I also ride in the street, but man a lot of stuff went wrong when AE built that building, and when that intersection was done in the first place.


Also, suggesting that water street be closed is pretty silly too. Emergency vehicles still need access to those building and those buildings still need the roadways for logistics.


Making water st one lane and one way might work tho.


netviln
2010-09-02 11:08:32

The absolute easiest thing that could be done here is just adjust the signal timing. Right now, it is very easy to have a cyclist come out into the road, on a green/crosswalk, and still get hooked from a right turn, or an opposing left.


Do the ped lead timing for the cross (2-3 seconds) similar to how oakland works, or have a ped-only section and no turn on red. Actually, no turn on red would be a great idea for all this anyhow (I don't think it is signed that way as it is)


Anyhow, all of that would take a day with civil timing engineer who can code the box, a cop to manage things while they test, and a day or two of observation that all is well. Cheap!


I think netviln is addressing the crux of the whole thing, that a good trail was removed for 'commercial interests' and a VERY unsatisfactory temporary arrangement was made in stead. I won't say the same thing doesn't happen to cars every now and then, but this instance seems heavily biased.


wojty
2010-09-02 12:42:20

The code doesn't say the 300 feet of frontage must be within a 600 foot range, only that the buildings must be. I assume it means some part of the buildings must be, since if they meant 300 feet of frontage within 600 feet, they could have said that more directly.


I reckon the distance between American Eagle and Hofbräuhaus at 390 feet. Here's my Google Earth screen:



If the rule is 300 feet of frontage within 600 feet, it seems clear that this area does not qualify. Any 600 feet including both buildings is going to have at most 210 feet of frontage. And neither building by itself would exceed 300 feet.


If you read it as meaning the simple presence of buildings within a 600 foot stretch that elsewhere exceed 300 feet (but that need not exceed 300 feet on that segment in question), this area is a business district. If that had been the actual intent, I think it would have been easier to say something along the lines of "A business district extends 600 feet from any building (or set of buildings) which occupies 300 feet of frontage." In this scenario, the business district extends 600 feet in every direction beyond the end of the last building, so long as the buildings extend 300 feet along the street.


Take the hypothetical where the AE building is 300 (or 301) feet wide. Would the business district extend 300 feet from the corner of the building... or 600 feet? I hold that it would extend no more than 300 feet, unless there were other qualifying business buildings nearby. And under that interpretation, given the actual buildings on the ground, I have to conclude that the area does not constitute a business district under 52 Pa. Code § 37.202.


ieverhart
2010-09-02 12:52:25

+1 on fixing the signals to make crossing safer.


steven
2010-09-02 13:09:30

+1 on no turn on red. That alone will make things way, way better.


reddan
2010-09-02 13:28:50

ian has it right - the pa code's requirement that the buildings must occupy 300 feet of frontage clearly refers to the "within any 600 feet".


So the AE building doesn't quite qualify, until they develop that vacant lot, anyway.


The law is still fairly flawed, though. I mean, what's more dangerous, riding a bike along a sidewalk next to a 1000' warehouse, or riding a bike along a sidewalk in a residential neighborhood dotted with blind driveways, small children, and pedestrians?


I'd think a general rule about a maximum speed in the presence of pedestrians would make more sense, be that in an industrial or a residential setting.


lyle
2010-09-02 16:17:35

@ salty How about just making Water St. a bike trail? It's not like there's not another street for cars to use 50 feet away.


I'm thinking they could block Water Street to though traffic at both ends, then set the street up for parking and bike trails. That could probably get support from the businesses. The motor vehicle traffic would be relatively slow and light. The proper markings could reduce door zone issues.


mick
2010-09-02 16:27:48

At the very least I like the idea of making Water Street a one way street. I'm supposing it would be best to be one-way going TOWARDS Hot Metal. That right lane could be used as a second lane to accommodate turning right onto Tunnel Boulevard instead.


If that cannot be done, really the easiest (read: cheapest) thing to do is to make it a no turn on red. Beyond that, the curb cuts could be improved and the ped signals given that "pre" phase like those along Forbes and Fifth through Oakland.


impala26
2010-09-02 16:47:43

Fact: the existing condition of HMB dumping onto the AE sidewalk is essentially a DETOUR (as in a temporary circumstance).


Fact: Water Street will be completely demolished within the next few months so the rail line beneath can accommodate double-stack train cars. The beams undergirding Water Street will be raised to make this happen, and the surface will be restored.


Fact: construction of the planned (as in intended) alignment of the trail (please see the illustration Scott posted above in this thread) is underway, and appears to be on a similar timetable to the Water Street project. The trail alignment appears to dump HMB onto the sidewalk (as it does now), but will add another switchback down toward the river where the trail will be rebuilt.


None of this is news, because none of this is new. This is part of the plan, and these kinds of plans simply take time to come to completion. All of these ideas about what should or could be done are a lot of wasted energy. There is a plan, and it is happening. It is causing certain inconveniences in the near term - and possibly some dangerous circumstances, but these are temporary conditions, and if we can all just exhibit a little patience, when the project is complete, hopefully it will solve some of these shortcomings we have identified.


(Whew. Please forgive the soap box.)


atleastmykidsloveme
2010-09-02 16:56:38

ALMKLM, if you want to direct "exhibit a little patience" at anyone, how about AE? None of this was an issue until they decided to close the sidewalk.


I think most people are aware of the plans you mentioned, but in the meantime most of the "inconvenience" is being borne by the cyclists.


Just because there is a "plan" doesn't mean it's not a shitty plan.


salty
2010-09-02 17:09:41

I'm typically against riding on the sidewalk, but am exhibiting the patience required to ride on this section of sidewalk until a safe access point to the trail is completed.


bradq
2010-09-02 17:20:43

@salty: didn't mean to poke it at anyone, but I was just noticing a lot of "we should do..." or "they should do..." and I was just trying to make the point that "they" have already decided what is being done, a plan is in place and in process, and that while it may be an inconvenience, it is not a terminal condition.


As to the quality of the plan, I'm not versed enough in what the alternatives were to say whether this plan is shitty or not. By the looks of it, it's a tough spot - a small spot as well, that has to accommodate a lot of competing needs, and so likely represents some sort of compromise. Regardless, it is the plan we have.


But, I agree, cyclists bear the brunt, and AE isn't behaving well, and it is an imperfect solution, but we're all adults, right?


atleastmykidsloveme
2010-09-02 17:32:21

The light timing and pre-walk conditions on the light should happen regardless. They would help peds, cyclists, even motorists if everyone obeyed them. So I see that as something that should be pushed for separately from any development "they" may have decided.


In the same tone, whatever "they" may have decided, that is not being communicated effectively, nor a time line actively managed. While all these things may be going on, the current signage does not in any way suggest this will change the mindset of AE or how one interacts with that area.


wojty
2010-09-02 17:54:27

Not all cyclists crossing the HMB wish to continue on the trail. Personally, I'm most likely going to REI, and I'm most likely going to want to get on Water St to do it. Everyone who wants to get from the HMB to SSW or Carson St is still going to be in conflict with right-turning automobiles. So "the plan" still fails, even in the hypothetical future.


lyle
2010-09-02 22:02:41

so there are still signs on the AE sidewalk that say to cross to tunnel park, which doesn't exist right now... someone should take them down probably...


also the path behind the AE building is complete now so maybe AE should direct people that way.


i personally will continue to ride on the sidewalk and get off of it at the curb cut right after the AE building, because that's the fastest, safest way to go in my opinion... but that's just me.


imakwik1
2012-09-07 17:29:20

Just be careful. There are people coming out AE building without looking and there are car sneaking for delivery purposes at curb cut at the end of AE building.


Personally I go on the road every time and feel pretty safe.


2012-09-07 21:38:04

I went down the south side trail for the first time in over a year last week and I was shocked at how bad the intersection is for cyclists. The button to cross is on Water St, not Hot Metal so you have to scoot over on your bike to press it. That intersection needs a bike specific light pronto.


rsprake
2012-09-08 13:18:02

I'd like to see a no right on red sign for drivers on hot metal street coming towards carson st. Both ways would actually be preferrable due to the high amount of pedestrians and cyclists crossing at the crosswalks there.


benzo
2012-09-09 14:59:20

Apologies if this has already been suggested, but how about a "scramble" light for this intersection? I think that's the term used for intersections such as the one at Forbes & Murray, where peds can activate a 4-way crossing light sequence. Combine that with a "no turn on red" sign that lights up during the 4-way ped crossing and move the buttons back far enough that cyclists can use them without dismounting.


An extra bonus would be to have a flashing bicycle icon along with the flashing pedestrian symbol.


Forbes@Shady has a "no turn on red" sign that is only on during the rush hour.


pseudacris
2012-09-09 15:18:12