It’s now final: The City of Pittsburgh plans to add 120 miles of bike lanes and trails over the next decade to the existing 93 miles.
Bike lanes, of course, have been a source of considerable controversy in the city, especially in the Golden Triangle corridor that never has been easy to traverse.
And what supposedly is “gained” by such bike lanes (a 1.6 percentage point increase in the number of people who used them to commute over 21 years, according to the city) versus the cost and inconvenience to the majority of commuters never appears to have undergone a rigorous cost-benefit analysis.
So, what will the cost be of this latest expansion?
As the Tribune-Review reports it, funding will come from the city’s capital budget, grants and private funding. But the total cost was not detailed in the 40-page plan.
Said Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto in a statement:
“Now more than ever we need resiliency and safety in our transportation network.”
Well, if that’s the case, the plan also should be addressing out-of-whack Port Authority bus costs, licensing bicycles to help pay the cost of these bike lanes and, oh, yes, more consistent enforcement of traffic laws that some cyclists don’t believe apply to them.
Right?
From the email inbox, this note from Larry Steckel of McCandless:
I am so glad you are trying to educate our populace about the dangers of municipal consolidation (At Large, “Decentralization remains the answer,” 6/26/20).
“The first time I heard about this movement, some years ago, it became instantly clear that this was simply an underhanded way for the pols to get the more affluent suburbs to pay off ages-old debts run up by the City of Pittsburgh, especially after the steel mills left and before they realized that their tax base had crashed.
“I have been in several spirited arguments with folks who thought consolidation was a great idea. I replied that I had never lived in the city so why should I be on the hook for their debts?
“I also asked them if consolidation happened, would I be able to vote for the mayor of the City of Pittsburgh? The answer was always ‘NO.’
“So, I’d reply, you are asking me to cede my ability to choose who governs me and who spends my tax money.
“Lastly, I asked them to consider that, after consolidation, the Peebles Fire Department in McCandless finishes an extensive campaign to raise money to purchase a fire truck to replace one that was way past its use by date.
“The truck was delivered, they had the ceremony of pushing it back into the fire house to take up station and the truck was displayed in local festivals to show how proud they were of their new equipment.
“Now, let’s say that nine months later you happen to be driving through Braddock or Wilkinsburg and you happen to see that fire truck responding to a local call. When you question how that truck ended up on the other side of the county, you were told that ‘fire officials’ decided that they needed that truck more than Peebles did.
“Gee, this sounds a whole lot like ‘from those according to their means, to those according to their needs’.
“Nope. Never going to go along with this idea.”
Thanks for your instructive correspondence, Mr. Steckel.
Colin McNickle is communications and marketing director at the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy (cmcnickle@alleghenyinstitute.org).
