I previously authored a blog post in favor of the proposed residential development at the site of the former Irish Centre next to Frick Park. Since writing that post, I have heard a number of concerns that people have about the development. This follow-up post addresses some of them.
Traffic Concerns are Overblown
The biggest concern that has been expressed is that it will make traffic worse on a street that is already congested. My previous blog post acknowledged that traffic will be made worse on this specific street, but argued that this trade-off is worth it given the large benefits of building new housing.
I want to emphasize in this post that the traffic impact from the development will be small.
This can be seen by first considering the trip generation predictions that were developed for the development using the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. The development is estimated to generate 735 weekday trips, with 63 being in the PM peak hour and 60 in the AM peak hour1The existing Irish Centre property is unused/vacant but if the property were redeveloped in a manner compliant with the existing zoning code (no variances), the ITE manual predicts that the site would generate 242 weekday trips and 21 during the PM peak hour..
Traffic counts on this segment of Forward/Commercial have been recorded by PennDOT on four different weekdays over the last 16 years and have ranged from 5,151 to 6,129 motor vehicles per day2This is the total in both directions.. The most recent report on Wednesday, March 23, 2022 recorded 5,410 weekday vehicles. An hourly breakdown of traffic that day is shown in the following chart:
The number of trips predicted by the ITE manual are small compared to existing traffic. But even this comparison overstates the traffic impact of building housing.
As this Streetsblog Article ‘Why Traffic Studies are Junk Science’ explains, the method used by the ITE manual systematically overestimates the amount of traffic generated by developments. The trip generation is based only on the number of apartments added at the site and not any other factors that affect traffic. The numbers are based on surveys of the number of cars entering and leaving apartment sites built in suburban locations that have plenty of parking and are built on roads with free-flowing traffic. The numbers also assume a 0% mode share for bikes, pedestrians and transit.
Therefore the projections for redeveloping the Irish Centre site are overestimates for the following reasons:
- Most of the residents of any new housing would still live in the general area and drive cars. Many of those residents would otherwise live in East-end suburbs and their longer commutes would create more rush hour traffic. Many people bypass Parkway congestion by driving on Forward/Commercial; reducing the number of I-376 commuters by allowing people to move from the suburbs to an apartment close to the city would also reduce the number of people who use Forward/Commercial as a bypass. Therefore this development may even reduce traffic for existing Swisshelm Park residents as people start their commutes closer to the city.
This Slate article describes how vehicle miles traveled and therefore traffic is reduced by building more housing within 3 miles of activity centers, so people don’t have to drive as far to get to their destinations.
- The proposed apartment complex has less parking than the typical suburban apartment complex, and sites with less parking generate less traffic. The ITE projections take no credit for this.
- The site has excellent bike infrastructure and would be relatively easy to connect to existing transit routes3Both the 65 and 74 bus routes terminate nearby at Beechwood and Forward and could be extended past the development to Swisshelm Park.. While this site may have a higher car mode share than average for Pittsburgh, the ITE manual assumption of 100% car mode share is an overestimate.
One final consideration is that increasing urban density reduces the distances that people need to travel to get to destinations. Increasing residential density correspondingly increases the density of local businesses. When I moved from Monroeville to Squirrel Hill, I was surprised that my travel times were reduced despite the urban congestion because everything is closer together. So even if this development slows traffic somewhat, it may still reduce the travel time needed to go places.
The Development won’t Diminish the Experience of Frick Park Users
One of my favorite Pittsburgh park settings is the Schenley overlook. Being able to see tall buildings from a park doesn’t necessarily detract from the park experience and can enhance it. The proposed apartment would replace a blighted structure with a beautiful building.
One of the things I love about Frick park is that you can get lost in nature and forget you’re in a city. We won’t lose that with this development since the only parts of the park where you will be able to see this building are ones where the I-376 commercial street bridge is currently visible.
The real nuisance in this part of Frick Park would not be a new apartment, but the already existing noise issues created by I-376. This bridge is planned to be rebuilt by PennDOT in the near term, and unfortunately there are no plans to improve noise mitigation on the new bridge. It would be more constructive if the people pouring energy into blocking housing would instead push our state government to prioritize noise mitigation for this bridge.
An additional benefit of this apartment building is that it would improve safety for park users crossing Commercial/Forward from the main part of Frick Park to access 9 mile run. The developer is providing $100,000 for speed humps, a crosswalk, and improved sidewalks at what is currently a hazardous crossing point.
Finally, Frick Park depends on local tax dollars and park users who volunteer their time and attention. Having a large local tax base and more neighbors who are invested in Frick Park will support a better maintained, higher quality park.
The Development Could Help Address Poor Snow Removal on Forward/Commercial
Some nearby residents have expressed that since Forward/Commercial is land-slide prone and the city doesn’t prioritize it for winter time snow removal, it is unable to accommodate a new apartment building.
Building an apartment complex would provide the city with considerable extra property and income tax revenue, some of which could be used to better address snow removal and land-slide issues on Forward/Commercial. By adding a large number of voters who will care about the conditions on this street, the city is more likely to prioritize this street to the benefit of existing residents.
Buses can go on Forward/Commercial Avenue
Some readers have questioned whether public transport buses can go on forward avenue given that it is a narrow, winding road. I reached out to someone in the PRT planning department who confirmed that PRT buses can operate on this road. PRT buses require a minimum lane width of 10 ft and a maximum grade of 9%, which Forward/Commercial just meets. PRT buses occasionally use Forward/Commercial as a detour route. Slow maneuvering may be required around turns though when there is oncoming traffic.
It is more cost effective to expand transit to areas with dense housing than neighborhoods with single family homes. The taller the apartment that is built, the better the development will facilitate future expansions of our transit system.
Conclusion
The drawbacks of building an apartment next to Frick Park are small-to-non existent. They are negligible compared to the large benefits of building more housing and providing people more space to live.
