Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

UrbaniDesDev

Mon Valley Expressway

Recommended Posts


Oh dear. These people probably don't know sh*t about what the project would do to our region! Will they pay for the highway to be built below grade along the river with pedestrian walkways across it? Who knows!

I really want to write to them but I am having difficulties with their website.

I am NOT happy about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear. These people probably don't know sh*t about what the project would do to our region! Will they pay for the highway to be built below grade along the river with pedestrian walkways across it? Who knows!

I really want to write to them but I am having difficulties with their website.

I am NOT happy about this.

They just need to do what they're told. They aren't designing it. They would be handed the designs, same as if a domestic company built it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but the thing is they would be paying for it (at least that is the impression I got). So even if PennDot actually wants to go with the below-grade plan, who is to say this company will be willing to pay for that extra frill?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure the guidlines are as thick as the national budget. If something changes to make this less than planned, then I would be upset, but at this point we don't have any reason to believe that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, do we even know if the plan still includes building it below-grade along the river?

I'm just very worried about the entire thing, and hearing that someone is stepping up to possibly fund it scares me. I had my hopes set on it just dying due to lack of funds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh you want it to die. Well that's different.

Folks in the Mon Valley should have access to the city. Period. 51 doesn't count. Secondary roads, while ok in the 1950s, don't cut it today. Pittsburgh needs to advance into at least the 1960s regarding transportation. This highway not create more bleeding into the burbs. Nobody will leave the city to more to McKeesport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be totally against if so much of it to the south wasn't completed. The thought of it just sitting there with no destination would really look bad and be a bigger waste of money if it weren't finished. I do believe it will happen. Perhaps we should focus on making sure the route will be the best for the entire region, including the river front.

I said it before and I'll say it again;

I wouldn't let PennDOT lay out my driveway.

I would love to see the Turnpike Commision get audited. I'll bet that would raise a few eyebrows. One thing is for sure there are a load of people that will get rich from this and I doubt it is anybody here.

They have no concept of urban living and, if they had their way, all of Pennsylvania would be one big intersection with a toll booth!

They only go unmonitored if we don't get involved.

:angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a before and after of Bates Street if the Mon/Fayette Expressway gets built.

In my opinion, it should end at Hazelwood.

Before:

107006058_3988649b89.jpg

After:

107006056_0356f3633a.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too, believe it should end at the Glenwood Bridge. At least the freeway part. They could replace the bridge with a new wider one. It would then become a wide boulevard through Glenwood and Hazelwood connecting to Second Avenue. That is a good rendition of what they have planned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh you want it to die. Well that's different.

This is a new urbanist forum and I think it's safe to say that this road goes against every principle that new urbanism stands for.

Folks in the Mon Valley should have access to the city. Period.

Then they should move to the city. There is absolutely no legitimate reason for someone to commute more than a dozen miles to work over the long term and u don't need a toll freeway for that, a boulevard will do just fine. The actual folks in Mckeesport would be better served by a T just like South Hills, even at this point in the process. Besides, if it was actually meant to serve the people then they wouldn't be trying to dump a hundred thousand cars onto Bates Street :rofl:

The TA should have though of having an unfinished road before they started building a road against federal law. Actually they did think about this and they must have been hoping for it to come to this point because they knew that if they had to approve one single EIS for the entire road then it would never get approved. That's exactly the kind of thing federal laws seek to prevent. So contrary to this bringing Pittsburgh into the 1960's, it's actually bring us back to the 1950's with the type of destructive highway development that has been made illegal since then.

This road isn't about folks, it's about politically connected road construction companies, mcmansion developers, trucking firms, and big box retailers. Now it's being used as a wedge issue so every old company town along it's route can scapegoat the thousands of people in Pittsburgh who would lose the last 50 years of work they put into their own neighborhoods. Just from the dishonest way in which this road has been planned and developed so far should be enough of a tip off to anyone that this whole thing stinks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is absolutely no legitimate reason for someone to commute more than a dozen miles to work over the long term and u don't need a toll freeway for that, a boulevard will do just fine. The actual folks in Mckeesport would be better served by a T just like South Hills, even at this point in the process. Besides, if it was actually meant to serve the people then they wouldn't be trying to dump a hundred thousand cars onto Bates Street

Well we could live in fantasy land.

Homestead is not a suburb. Duquesne is not a suburb. Mckeesport is not a suburb. and on and on....

These towns came up well before the modern burb and the came into being because of work in their own backyards. One continuous backyard from the Mon Valley to the Southside to the Beaver Valley and beyond.

These towns can't sustain themselves now as places of work, but they exist, and they are old urban towns with main streets and businesses and people. The modern economy forces them to look elsewhere for employment, so the look to the city. Should the Mon Valley collectively put up a closed sign and all move into the city?

What new urban principle advocates that?

So either we build the road and extend transit, or we can sit on some "principle" and continue to watch the valley die....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh you want it to die. Well that's different.

Folks in the Mon Valley should have access to the city. Period. 51 doesn't count. Secondary roads, while ok in the 1950s, don't cut it today. Pittsburgh needs to advance into at least the 1960s regarding transportation. This highway not create more bleeding into the burbs. Nobody will leave the city to more to McKeesport.

I'm not worried about sprawl. I am worried about the very stupid design of this highway which takes it along the river. I am worried about the neighborhoods it will cut through.

Something else, like light rail, or improvements to existing roads, could still improve access without destroying swaths of riverfront. I think the highway would do much more harm than good.

Homestead is not a suburb. Duquesne is not a suburb. Mckeesport is not a suburb. and on and on....

All the more reason why a big highway should not be needed to connect them to Downtown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a before and after of Bates Street if the Mon/Fayette Expressway gets built.

In my opinion, it should end at Hazelwood.

Before:

107006058_3988649b89.jpg

After:

107006056_0356f3633a.jpg

OH MY GOSH. I never saw that picture before. That is DISGUSTING.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I mean is, if they are not suburbs then they are essentially part of the city. Therefore a highway should not be the thing connecting them to town. It should be urban streets and public transit. The same things that connect Lawrenceville, East Liberty, and other city neighborhoods. We would not build a huge obnoxious highway to connect Shadyside to Downtown would we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We would not build a huge obnoxious highway to connect Shadyside to Downtown would we?

Ok, I think that somewhere - no offense - that common sense is getting lost in the concept of urbanism.

Shadyside is considerably closer than Mon Valley communities and even if it were city limits, doesn't mean that its close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I think that somewhere - no offense - that common sense is getting lost in the concept of urbanism.

Shadyside is considerably closer than Mon Valley communities and even if it were city limits, doesn't mean that its close.

I just don't think a huge onnoxious highway is the answer. There has to be a better way. The Citizen's Plan (the proposed alternative to the Mon-Fay) suggested improvements to existing roads combined with light rail. That would be much more urban and it wouldn't damage the landscape or hurt one neighborhood to benefit another.

The Mon-Fay reminds me of 279 North. Sure it is great for the suburbs but look what it did to the North Side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don't think a huge onnoxious highway is the answer. There has to be a better way. The Citizen's Plan (the proposed alternative to the Mon-Fay) suggested improvements to existing roads combined with light rail. That would be much more urban and it wouldn't damage the landscape or hurt one neighborhood to benefit another.

The Mon-Fay reminds me of 279 North. Sure it is great for the suburbs but look what it did to the North Side.

I want to see expanded light rail and improved secondary road as well, but this is too large of an area for that to be enough. While I don't want a highway to run through towns, I don't see much choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to see expanded light rail and improved secondary road as well, but this is too large of an area for that to be enough. While I don't want a highway to run through towns, I don't see much choice.

Have you ever looked at the Citizen's Plan? It should be the first stop of required reading to learn about the possible alternatives to this road along with their benefits and costs relative to the expressway.

http://www.pennfuture.org/files/event_camp...splan_82702.pdf

The most rhetorical question I could ask anybody about this is, why not actually give the people in the region what they really want before you shove something else down their throats? Is that democracy, anyway?

We have politicians pandering to their highest donors by selling people on the idea that boulevards, light rail, better connected neighborhoods, etc are all "impossible" under the current political climate. Then they turn around and tell the people whose communities would be wiped out that sorry, but this is what everyone else wants. Tough luck all around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you ever looked at the Citizen's Plan?
yes.

why not actually give the people in the region what they really want

what makes you think that they don't want this? There has been relatively little protest.

Is that democracy, anyway?

We don't vote on most items/issues. We have a representative government, not a democracy in the pure sense at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what makes you think that they don't want this? There has been relatively little protest.

Define protest? A huge amount of people at hearings for it were vocally against this thing. The level of corruption in pushing for this road has come to the point where a spokesman for Citizens for Alternatives to New Toll Roads was marked down as not being against this road because he spoke at length about better uses for our money rather than explicitly saying "I don't want it to be built." Even people who were simply outraged that their neighborhoods would collapse without any compensation to them for their properties were marked down as not being against the road.

We don't vote on most items/issues. We have a representative government, not a democracy in the pure sense at all.

The last time I checked our government isn't supposed to represent a small minority of campaign contributors. That's corruption, but it's not representation.

At this point I think our conversation has devolved into a bunch of irrelevant witticisms, so I'd like to know what you really think about the more significant points I've brought up that I feel you glossed over in your replies. The most important question is what do you really think of the Citizen's Plan, if it's enough to dismiss it with an empty "i've seen it" response? Because the whole argument of that plan is that there are much more beneficial ways to spend our money. In what ways, exactly, does an expressway serve people that light rail can't? One set of LRT tracks can carry more people than this turnpike will, so if this is about people getting to work in the city, which is well connected with mass transit, then what distinct advantage does the highway have that overcomes costing more, having higher maintenance, requiring more workers, causing tons of pollution, taking up much more space, worsening our energy needs, and having bigger traffic jams? And just think about the fact that the average toll charge will be more expensive than the average PAT fare but you're still burning your own gasoline and paying heavy taxes for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The corruption that grips this state is unbearable. It effects every decision that is made here. It is a large part of why people move away. What we are left with are dismantled communities. Dis functional infrastructure and a malaise that is palpable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I think that somewhere - no offense - that common sense is getting lost in the concept of urbanism.

Shadyside is considerably closer than Mon Valley communities and even if it were city limits, doesn't mean that its close.

Shadyside=City

Mon Valley=burb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.