:previous: I have read the posts regarding the 5th and Forbes Avenues, and this is my input.

Both the bike lanes and BRT lanes would be a huge benefit in both corridors. I could see the bus lane on 5th being replaced with the bike lanes, and I could see one travel lane and parking lane on Forbes give way to one BRT lane in each direction. As was mentioned above, that would remove 130 metered parking spaces in Oakland. However, this could in turn generate more ridership on the buses (or use of the bikes) by promoting parking downtown or in station square for folks trying to get to Oakland via bus or bike.

I would have the road configured in the following way:

Forbes Avenue handles traffic heading from Downtown through Oakland and into Squirrel Hill. So, I would remove the parking lane, giving me 4 travel lanes with which to work. Make the two left lanes the BRT and bike lanes, and the right two lanes being the out-bound regular travel lanes. I've seen pictures of how New York implemented the use of BRT, and this would be similar to that...

Also, I was in Cleveland last week and saw their HealthLine BRT and observed how it uses Euclid Avenue. That has 2 travel lanes in each direction with 2 BRT lanes and landscaped median in the center. Still, the overall concept is similar...

BrianTH: Exactamundo

It's good that Pittsburgh is thankfully looking outside to the professionals on this.

Here's an idea of the type of redesign that is being looked at. This is what is almost realized in Manhattan (1st and 2nd Aves):

http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/w...nd-Ave-BRT.png

Definitely. Ultimately you have to trust the firm doing the study and analysis. Working currently at a Pittsburgh civil engineering firm and having some experience in this field, I was just expressing my off-the-cuff concerns after reading the article. If it's all taken into account, it is absolutely possible that a strategy can be developed that employs all modes of transportation and reduces the gridlock.

One of the more difficult conflicts to manage will be the pedestrian volumes and crossings. Even with timed signals to usher traffic through rapidly, road widths of between 38 and 60 feet, a MUTCD-assumed crossing speed of 4ft/s (3.5 is more appropriate in a city with older people such as Pittsburgh), and the large student/hospital population create needs for relatively long timed crossings. Ultimately everything must stop for the pedestrians at some point :)

Absolutely, the very large, consistent pedestrian presence in Oakland is a big part of it... and must be figured out how it fits in with everything else if any of this is to work.

I agree, which is why I said something certainly needed to be done, even though I still don't exactly know WHAT that something is! :)

Aaron (Glowrock)

In China, pedestrian bridges and sometimes pedestrian tunnels are used. Seems if at all a possibility could also greatly help easy congestion on forbes/fifth, and also allow safer more convenient pedestrian movement.

Pedestrian tunnels are also used in several places in London to get people across busy intersections. They're pretty effective in this regard. The main downside to them is that they tend to become appealing locations for the homeless and crime during off-peak hours. Of course there are ways to limit this, but it's still a risk. Building them after the establishment of an area is also difficult given existing underground utilities.

Bridges are tough given the established business district and topography of Oakland. Given a clean slate it would be a possibility, but under the existing conditions it would be difficult and expensive to implement.

Pedestrian tunnels/bridges underneath/over highways are one thing... but I don't really think they're appropriate for city street intersections simply because those intersections have busy auto traffic (I'm not familiar with the ones in London though). I think there should be a pedestrian-first mindset, if the goal is to create or enhance activity in a neighborhood.

A pedestrian deck/park over a portion of Bigelow between Forbes and Fifth would be really effective and cool though, providing a great (and safe) setting between the Cathedral and William Pitt Union.

I've seen pedestrian tunnels in several European cities. It seemed to me people often just crossed on the surface anyway, unless traffic was really busy (not necessarily an inefficient solution, but it indicates the tunnels are not preferred).

I think we will likely just have to accept pedestrian periods, and hope good timing can keep things moving.

I think that there's a pedestrian tunnel under Bigelow at Herron but I don't know if anyone ever uses it.

Finally, it looks like real activity is occurring at the new Riverhounds stadium site at Station Square! :banana:

Aaron (Glowrock)

6/28/2012

Lot 24

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7258/7...efab95a6_b.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7139/7...25afb8d7_b.jpg

The parking garage at 23rd/24th and Smallman is getting a makeover. I believe the same people who own/developed Lot 24 and the Cork Factory also own this garage, so it makes sense for them to try to freshen up in an attempt to lure more tenants. Marty's Market is also almost ready to move in to the ground level, I think.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8157/7...f24ac76c_b.jpg


Not sure who these guys are, but they were looking at plans for the renovated garage. :haha:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7247/7...2f7272df_b.jpg
DSCN1832 by tbone7281, on Flickr

Developer's plan for Strip District evokes decades-old controversy

July 2, 2012
By Joe Smydo / Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/...#ixzz1zTZwwpO1

Gleaming new office buildings, a park-like setting, relocation of produce vendors and a huge capital investment.

Before Buncher Co.'s proposed 55-acre Strip District project, the Pennsylvania Railroad proposed its own ambitious plan for remaking the Allegheny Riverfront -- in 1966.

The railroad's proposal, billed as a 148-acre extension of the Golden Triangle and a venture six times the size of Gateway Center, faltered for financial reasons. Buncher's plan, with a prospective investment of $400 million over 10 to 15 years, highlights the Strip District's enduring economic importance and the lingering challenges of large-scale development.

Neither proposal escaped controversy. Some of the railroad's Penn Park design plans drew criticism, while Buncher's Riverfront Landing plan has been dogged by a city councilman's concerns and other objections.

For five weeks, Councilman Patrick Dowd has held up legislation that would create a tax-increment financing plan of up to $50 million for Buncher, which has proposed offices, retail and housing on a site stretching from the Veterans Bridge to 21st Street and from Smallman Street to the river. The project would involve demolishing one-third of the historic produce terminal and likely relocating the wholesalers.

Among other concerns, Mr. Dowd said the city's Urban Redevelopment Authority hasn't indicated how $40 million of the $50 million in financing would be used. Mr. Dowd has accused Mayor Luke Ravenstahl of a "laissez-faire" approach to development, but the URA said it isn't possible to say now how every dollar might be spent over the life of the project.

Ironically, given the Penn Park vision of 46 years ago, other objections to Buncher's project are coming from a railroad.

Russell Peterson, CEO of Allegheny Valley Railroad, which provides freight service to the produce wholesalers, sent city council a letter last week seeking more than $1.8 million for what he described as business losses related to Buncher's plan. He said the authority has made no move to compensate him for prospective repurposing of the produce terminal or for the loss of his biggest customer, J.E. Corcoran Co., which already has relocated to Thornburg after nearly 100 years in the Strip.

The railroad and Buncher also are locked in a property dispute. The parties are awaiting the U.S. Surface Transportation Board's ruling on whether the railroad owns an easement on Buncher property between 16th and 21st streets -- something that the railroad says could derail Buncher's project but that the URA says would not.

If Buncher loses the legal case, development would have to be planned around the easement, said Robert Rubinstein, the URA's acting executive director. Mr. Peterson said his company obtained the easement in the 1990s from Conrail, a successor to the Pennsylvania and other northeastern railroads. It wants to preserve the easement for possible establishment of commuter rail service between the Allegheny Valley and Downtown.

"I'm just trying to raise everybody's awareness" of issues surrounding the Buncher development, Mr. Peterson said in an interview. Mr. Rubinstein said he hadn't seen the letter and could not comment. Buncher representatives could not be reached.

When the Pennsylvania Railroad unveiled the Penn Park project on May 5, 1966, consultant Robert Dowling stressed "the openness of the plan," including a "great mall, with its reflection pools, fountains, sculpture, the trees, the flowering bushes, the pleasant plazas, contoured terraces -- perhaps best described as a beautiful riverside park."

Penn Park was to have stretched from 10th Street to 21st Street and from Bigelow Boulevard to the river.

Then-Mayor Joseph Barr said the project represented "one of the greatest and most ambitious forward steps in the development of Pittsburgh." Its boosters included Richard K. Mellon, a railroad director and key player in the city's first Renaissance. The project was to include a postal service distribution center, convention center, rapid transit station and series of curved office and residential buildings.

The plan called for removal of some railroad tracks and demolition of the Pennsylvanian, Greyhound terminal and the produce terminal, among other structures. Produce companies would have been relocated to Chartiers Valley Industrial Park.

By December 1971, however, the railroad had put at least part of its Strip District project site up for sale. The land eventually was taken over by Conrail, which, over the years, conveyed parts of the tract to Buncher, the URA and the Allegheny Valley Railroad.

In 1981, Conrail sold the produce terminal to the URA for $1.1 million. In the deed, the authority acknowledged that its "primary public purpose" was to continue using the building for the produce industry. It pledged to use its "best efforts ... to use it as such or some other rail-oriented use."

Now, Mr. Peterson said in his letter, the city, URA and Buncher are ignoring that stipulation with the proposed Riverfront Landing development. Mr. Dowd said the URA is prepared to sell the produce terminal to Buncher for about $1.2 million. The developer would demolish one-third of the structure to extend 17th Street to the river.

The city, URA, Buncher and the Allegheny Valley Railroad all have much at stake.

Riverfront Landing would be part of a burst of Downtown and neighborhood development that Mr. Ravenstahl calls another city Renaissance. Like the Penn Park project, Buncher would emphasize green and open space in Riverfront Landing, reflecting the mayor's broader plan to reconnect Pittsburghers to the riverfront. Instead of the curved buildings of the Penn Park design, Buncher has proposed a series of U-shaped buildings facing the river, according to a rendering in the project's tax-increment financing plan.

Mr. Peterson said many residents in the Allegheny Valley would benefit if he's able to establish a commuter line from the Allegheny Valley and across the Buncher site to Downtown. He said he wouldn't operate the passenger line himself but would sell it to another company for about $35 million. He said he might be willing to forgo his current easement, though, if the city offered him an alternate route for the commuter line and he received other compensation.

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2012/...op-gulf-tower/

The Lights come back on atop the Gulf Tower July 4th~!

With the emergence of LEDs being used for almost all facade lighting and slowly making an emergence in a lot of interior illumination applications it is a no-brainier to bring back the beacon with LED lights. They are low wattage, have long burn hours, and can easily be changed to different colors.

Seems really cool. Would like to see their other work at CMU. The bridge must have been built after I left. It is nice to see cool lighting design get recognition.

Not exactly big development news, but I've been frustrated by the empty parking lot ever since they tore down the historic building on Carson to make way for this Aldi. Glad to hear they're at least getting started building it:

http://c4241337.r37.cf2.rackcdn.com/...p-aldi_420.jpg

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/...i-site-643428/

I'm actually more frustrated with the slow process of converting the old Goodwill HQ into apartments/residences, quite frankly. I know it's a large undertaking, but it seems to be taking forever! It'll be nice to have an Aldi's walking-distance from my place, though!

Aaron (Glowrock)

http://www.riverlifepgh.org//images/...Andropogon.jpg

The case for a 95-foot riverbank setback in the Strip District.

http://www.riverlifepgh.org/blog/the...trip_district/

"The specially planned district proposed by the Buncher Company to be called Riverfront Landing was approved by the planning commission without allowances for Riverlife’s recommended setback. As the project moves forward, it’s not too late to create the space that will make Riverfront Landing as exceptional as the rest of the Strip District."

More Pittsburgh councilmen pick at Strip District development

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/...opment-643921/

As Pittsburgh City Councilman Patrick Dowd continues to hold up a financing plan for a proposed Buncher Co. development in the Strip District, two of his colleagues are voicing their own concerns about the project, including the prospective relocation of produce terminal wholesalers and possible legal hurdles...

The more I think about it, the more I have to side with these two councilmen. They're in favor of the project overall. They just want Buncher to proceed with caution and consider aspects and components of not only the project but the surrounding community. To me, that makes sense.

While it would be cool to see 17th Street extended down to the River, I am starting to lean back the other way and think that it's not worth it to level part of the Produce Terminal, especially where the current public market is, in favor of extending a street. I think this project will have to be modified somewhat -- as long as they don't reduce the height of the proposed 15-to-20-story buildings...