karina ricks

Key Findings from the City Controller’s Audit of DOMI

Posted on September 8, 2022 by Special Reports 0
speed humps in District 5 by ZIP code

Pittsburgh City Controller Michael Lamb’s office released its performance audit of the city’s Department of Mobility and Infrastructure (DOMI) on August 4. The 70-page document examines DOMI’s creation and functions, along with the department’s handling of projects identified as central to its mission.

In the executive summary section of the introductory letter signed by Controller Lamb, he notes that auditors could not assess DOMI’s progress toward some goals “due to DOMI and the previous mayoral administration being unable to furnish records” of DOMI’s early activities. But the audit has useful information for Pittsburghers. Of special interest to District 5 residents are the audit’s findings on traffic calming, distribution of resources, and the Mon-Oakland Connector (MOC).

Traffic calming works, but is applied unevenly

In areas where DOMI has installed speed humps and other traffic-calming measures, the number of drivers exceeding the speed limit has been reduced on average by 38 percent. The audit includes maps of where traffic calming has been put in place and where it is still absent. Figure 5 on page 31 shows a distribution map of speed humps across Pittsburgh’s nine council districts. Markers show speed humps in District 5 concentrated at the northern end, in Squirrel Hill South.

Figure 5 on p. 31 of the City Controller’s audit of DOMI
Figure 5 on p. 31 of the City Controller’s audit of DOMI

District 5’s two ZIP codes highlight the disparity. A closer look using the Western Pennsylvania Regional Data Center website shows that none of District 5’s 21 speed humps (18 shown, 3 so new they have not yet appeared in the system) are in 15207 (Greenfield, Greater Hazelwood, and the 31st Ward), although dangerous roads in these neighborhoods require urgent attention.

speed humps in District 5 by ZIP code
This map, created in the Western Pennsylvania Regional Data Center, shows District 5 outlined in blue with an additional blue line marking the border between its two ZIP codes. Speed humps, shown as yellow dots, are only in 15217. Source: wprdc.org. Accessed September 4, 2022

Street selection for repaving should be data-driven

Wealthier neighborhoods also enjoy better street maintenance, possibly for similar reasons. Before 2018, resources for streets in the worst condition (scored on an index) were split into Department of Public Works (DPW) divisions. DOMI’s director changed the method in 2018 so that money is split evenly among council districts.

According to recommendation 10 of the audit, “Before concrete and accessible data existed, it was arguably a good idea to tie paving projects in with council districts to ensure equity across the city. However, we now have more comprehensive data, and as a result, more data-driven decisions can be made.”

The audit’s findings call for a return to dividing this work into DPW districts. This would encourage paving streets in worse repair first instead of “dividing the budget by political boundaries,” as stated on page 41. They also suggest avoiding an over-reliance on calls to the city’s 311 system for input, which leads to a “squeaky wheel” approach that can elevate neighborhoods with many 311 callers above those most in need.

The MOC has deeper problems than its name

Although the audit points out DOMI’s lack of transparency, its discussion of the MOC relies on DOMI’s characterization of the project. As a result, the audit contains several inaccuracies about the MOC.

On page 24 it states, “The [MOC] project would also address flooding and stormwater issues and include the implementation of green infrastructure.” However, the MOC has always been a separate project from the Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority’s (PWSA’s) Four Mile Run Stormwater Project. PWSA originally planned to work on their project in the same physical location as the proposed MOC; that is why PWSA submitted a joint application for both projects during the permitting process. But PWSA’s project received no funding until nearly two years after the MOC was announced. In fact, the original grant for the MOC sought by the city and its partners in 2015 stated in its guidelines that funding could only be used for the shuttle road—not to fix flooding in the area.

The audit continues, “The consensus from the second public meeting found citizens selected electric scooters, electric bike-share systems, and electric shuttles to be the ideal solutions.” This statement is not sourced, but seems to have come directly from DOMI. As the audit later notes, the MOC lacked community support from the beginning—partly because the project’s estimated $23 million budget should instead go to infrastructure needs outlined in the community-generated Our Money, Our Solutions plan. These include traffic-calming interventions.

Controller Lamb’s office makes no recommendations concerning the MOC project and their only finding is as follows: “The auditors found that multiple names for this shuttle program were used to reference it. This causes confusion to the public. For example, Mon-Oakland Shuttle, Mon-Oakland Connector Shuttle or just Mon-Oakland Connector were found to be used interchangeably.”

Even so, Controller Lamb stated in a May 27 email that the audit’s review of the MOC helped inform Mayor Gainey’s decision to end the unpopular project.

The Secret of the Shuttle Route

Posted on May 5, 2021 by open letters 0

It seems like a question with a simple, straightforward answer: Where does the proposed MOC shuttle go after it leaves Schenley Park and enters The Run?

Junction Coalition sought the answer by emailing director Karina Ricks and project manager Michael Panzitta of Pittsburgh’s Department of Mobility and Infrastructure (DOMI). We got more (in terms of material for this post) and less (in terms of the answer itself) than we imagined in our wildest dreams.
***

February 22, 2021

Good Afternoon Ms. Ricks and Mr. Panzitta,

We are writing to request a detailed, clearly marked map of the proposed Mon-Oakland Connector route between the Schenley Park soccer field (by the railroad overpass) and Saline St. at Greenfield Ave. This information is missing from the presentation at your October 2020 public meetings, which you described as the “final” opportunity for public input.

In slide 11, the green line representing the proposed route ends abruptly as it enters The Run from Schenley Park. Slide 37, presented by a representative of Almono Partners, shows a vague illustration that includes an almost uniformly straight line through The Run as if there are no streets, buildings, or recreation areas in the path of the proposed route.

Confusion on the topic of MOC’s exact route occurred at a recent community meeting. One attendee insisted the route had been changed and now will not enter the neighborhood, but instead follow the “Swinburne Connection” route shown in slide 22 of your presentation.

Please provide clarification on this issue and eliminate the confusion by sending DOMI’s proposed route per the specifications above. As public servants, you have an obligation to be transparent concerning DOMI projects and their effects (potential or otherwise) on Pittsburgh residents. Residents have a right to full and complete knowledge of all plans for their communities.

Sincerely,

Junction Coalition
***

March 10, 2021

Hello Again Ms. Ricks and Mr. Panzitta,

More than two weeks have passed since we sent our previous email requesting a detailed, clearly marked map of the proposed Mon-Oakland Connector route between the Schenley Park soccer field (by the railroad overpass) and Saline St. at Greenfield Ave. We are following up with you for clarification on the proposed MOC route through The Run. We expect a reply within the next 24 hours along with the detailed, clearly marked map we requested. This information is missing from the presentation in your October 2020 public meetings, which you described as the “final” opportunity for public input.

As mentioned in the earlier email, those who are working on behalf of the public and funded with taxes have an obligation to be transparent concerning proposed DOMI projects and their effects (potential or otherwise) on Pittsburgh residents. Residents have a right to full and complete knowledge of all proposed plans for their communities.

Our request for this information is not unreasonable. The information requested should be straightforward by this point in the process. We’d prefer to not be forced to file RTK requests, but will if necessary in order to be clear on the exact path and scope of the proposed route. The Run needs to know how it would affect our community.

Sincerely,
Junction Coalition
***

March 15, 2021

Hello Junction Coalition

Attached please find the requested roll plot with call-outs to specify the details of the two trails.

·       The mobility trail terminates at the parking lot near the soccer field. At this point, trail users join the shared use of the public streets.

·       The Three Rivers Heritage Trail (aka Junction Hollow Trail) follows largely the same path it does today – continuing along the east side of Boundary street under the rail underpass, crosses Boundary Street and then continues adjacent to the rail embankment to the Saline Street cycle track, up an improved curb to and through “The Chute”.

When the “Swinburne Connection | Chute Bypass” is established (see slide 21 of the presentation), the mobility trail would split would have altered the route of the Mobility Trail will skirt around the parking lot and instead climb the embankment below Swinburne, connect to the Swinburne Bridge and provide two options: either crossing the bridge and connecting directly to the Sylvan Trail or continuing straight down Swinburne Extension for a direct connection to the Jail Trail.
***

March 17, 2021

Ms. Ricks and Mr. Panzitta,

Thank you for the reply. There is still a bit of confusion regarding the illustration you provided and the message in your email, Rather than make assumptions, we are including these few questions for clarity:

  • Your Mon-Oakland 4MR attachment shows the path of the Three Rivers Heritage Trail through the neighborhood, which as you stated appears to be largely unchanged from what it is today. But it does not show the path of the “mobility trail” through the neighborhood. Some people are interpreting this map as though the 3RHT route is showing the path of the shuttle through The Run. Can you clarify whether the shuttle will be taking this path shown in orange for the 3RHT? If not, can you please answer the original question: On what streets in The Run neighborhood will the shuttle travel?
  • Why is a “Swinburne Connection” being discussed when you previously stated in an email: “The mobility path is to be an exclusive pathway suitable for both light shuttles and other e-powered vehicles such as e-bikes and, when categorized, e-scooters and other such vehicles as may evolve over time. There is insufficient width on Swineburn to provide this dedicated path. The street cannot be widened due to the fragile soil conditions.” (emphasis added)?
  • For whom does the “Swinburne Connection” provide two options–cyclists or shuttles? Will shuttles be permitted on the Jail Trail?
  • What did you mean by “slivers” when you said you might need to take “slivers” of our neighbors’ properties on Acorn Street to accommodate the shuttle route on Swinburne Bridge?

~JC
***

April 26, 2021

Hello Again Ms. Ricks and Mr. Panzitta,

It has been more than a month since the previous email and we have not received a response. We wanted to give you another chance to respond before we publish an article on this topic. Do you have answers to any of the questions in our March 17 email?

Thank you,
JC
***

If we ever receive a response, we’ll be sure to post it here. In the mysterious world of the MOC, questions only lead to more unanswered questions.

Suddenly Swinburne

Posted on January 12, 2021 by Special Reports 0
Schenley Park, Swinburne Street. Why don't we have both?

Proposed shuttle expansion route threatens homes

Developers of the controversial Mon-Oakland Connector (MOC) aren’t deterred by years of setbacks—including widespread community opposition and City Council passing a 2021 budget amendment that shifts funds away from building the new shuttle road through two Pittsburgh neighborhoods and Schenley Park. If anything, plans presented by the Department of Mobility and Infrastructure (DOMI) and Almono Partners at their last public meeting show a stronger resolve to eliminate all obstacles in the MOC’s path.

Slide 11 maps the proposed phase 1 MOC route, which ends abruptly as it enters The Run from Schenley Park. Residents were left in the dark about the path of shuttles through their small neighborhood.

Slide 11 from October 2020 MOC meeting

Although this meeting marked the first time an Almono Partners representative was on hand to answer questions about the shuttle service they plan to run on the road, they did not show The Run in their presentation, either (see slide 37).

Slide 37 from October 2020 MOC meeting
Slide 37 from October 2020 MOC meeting
The slide refers to “trails” (plural) and “public streets” with no indication of which streets in The Run will be used.

The “Swinburne connector” (slide 22) climbs a landslide-prone hillside and merges with Swinburne Street for access to Swinburne Bridge. An FAQ on DOMI’s website says this additional road would “have a path width of 16 feet with 2-foot buffers on each side.” Longtime followers of the MOC debacle and Run residents find this phase 2 plan equally troubling for several reasons.

Slide 22 from October 2020 MOC meeting

For context, we revisit a January 2018 public meeting DOMI organized to “share the potential alternative routes” for the MOC. Run residents had no trust after learning of the plan from a 2015 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article touting an already-submitted grant application that turned out to be fraudulent. DOMI, created in 2017, claimed they were pushing the restart button on the MOC concept and seeking input from affected communities.

Michael Baker Corporation presented six routes at the meeting, including five community suggestions that left Schenley Park undisturbed. Attendees reported that the exercise seemed designed to herd them toward a conclusion that only the Schenley Park route could work. Alternatives included Swinburne Street.

DOMI director Karina Ricks later expressed a preference for the Swinburne route, but said it was not feasible because of landslides. Landslides have plagued Swinburne Street for decades; one in the 1980s caused damage in Junction Hollow that led the city to close Boundary Street to motorized vehicles. This section of Boundary Street eventually became a popular bike and pedestrian trail through Schenley Park that forms a critical link in the only car-free path between Oakland and downtown.

Given the ongoing landslides, MOC critics questioned Ricks when subsequent designs showed the inevitable Schenley Park shuttle route running along the hill beneath Swinburne Street. How could Swinburne be deemed unsuitable for small shuttles yet frequently accommodate cars, trucks, UPMC shuttles, emergency vehicles, and school buses? And since Swinburne must be stabilized to prevent a collapse onto the proposed road, why not make Swinburne the route instead of spending millions of additional taxpayer dollars to build a new road?

Ricks responded via email, “The mobility path is to be an exclusive pathway suitable for both light shuttles and other e-powered vehicles such as e-bikes and, when categorized, e-scooters and other such vehicles as may evolve over time. There is insufficient width on Swineburn to provided this dedicated path. The street cannot be widened due to the fragile soil conditions.” (emphasis added)

Swinburne Street is 19.8 feet wide on average at its narrowest point. This is significantly wider than the proposed road, which forces cyclists into close contact with shuttles. But the width is still insufficient to accommodate both existing traffic and a new “exclusive pathway” that is “16 feet with 2-foot buffers on each side.” Whatever happened to the fragile soil conditions that prevented Swinburne Street from being widened?

According to minutes from a February 2019 meeting in Mayor Bill Peduto’s office, Ricks “noted the mobility trail can’t support future traffic loads so additional transportation alternatives would be needed for future traffic loads.” DOMI first proposed widening Swinburne Bridge to accommodate a dedicated lane for MOC shuttles in February 2018, presenting an option that featured a vehicle elevator from Four Mile Run Park below. Since then, serious consequences of the Swinburne route have come into view.

2018 DOMI illustration of vehicle elevator concept
Owners of houses near Swinburne Bridge received letters referencing eminent domain.

In August 2020, several Run residents who live near Swinburne Bridge received letters from DOMI implying they may lose their homes and businesses through eminent domain. The bridge has been neglected over many years and needs repair, so residents are required to allow surveyors on their property. Although repairs could be completed with no need to acquire properties, replacing Swinburne Bridge allows DOMI to widen it for the purpose of accommodating a dedicated MOC shuttle lane.

Ricks addressed resident concerns by stating, “It is a letter written by a lawyer and, unfortunately, they do reference the right of eminent domain. The City has absolutely no intention to take properties [as part of the bridge construction]. There is a possibility there might be some slivers that will be needed to create new footings for the bridge.”

Within a week of property owners receiving the letters, an AWK Consulting Engineers team arrived in The Run. One affected property owner noticed a surveyor working in Four Mile Run Field (The Run’s only community green space). Asked why he was so far from the bridge, the AWK employee said it was because they might need to widen the bridge.

Residents throughout The Run face harm from still more asphalt surfaces and permanent tree canopy loss upstream from their homes. Phase 1 of the MOC has already compromised the Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority’s stormwater project in the area because accommodating the shuttle road is a design requirement. The stormwater project enjoys nearly universal public support because it was sold as a solution to The Run’s chronic flooding problem. But building the half-mile road through Schenley Park would generate about 295,000 gallons of additional runoff.

DOMI calls the MOC a “mobility trail” to avoid admitting it is a road—and if the MOC can be called a trail, its shuttles can run on any trail. An additional leg of the “Swinburne Connection” extends into the UPMC shuttle lot toward Second Avenue, which also happens to link to the Eliza Furnace Trail, another crucial part of Pittsburgh’s car-free network.

The MOC is a reiteration of an old idea. And it continues to shamble forward, powered by $14 million from previous budget years. The “Swinburne Connection” reveals MOC planners deceiving residents yet again, feinting away from an “alternative” route they planned to use in addition to rather than instead of Schenley Park. Communities should not be asked—let alone forced—to sacrifice themselves for the sake of a development project that serves private interests.

DOMI Director Karina Ricks Responds

Posted on December 9, 2019 by open letters 0

On October 26, 2019, Junction Coalition received a response from DOMI director Karina Ricks to our open letter. In our letter, we asked questions compiled from residents of The Run—one of the neighborhoods in the path of the proposed Mon-Oakland Connector. After introductory comments, Ms. Ricks responded to the questions one by one. Below is the full, unaltered text we received. We formatted the response section with Ms. Ricks’ responses below each original question, along with our reply to each response.

Dear Junction Coalition,

Thank you for your message and providing an opportunity to respond and provide greater clarity around the Mon-Oakland and Four Mile Run project.

First of all, safety and health are the overarching concerns of this and any Administration. Project partners including the URA, Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy, PWSA and multiple City Departments have been working for years to effectively address the stormwater issues that impact the Four Mile Run portion of Greenfield.

Concurrently, economic regeneration in Pittsburgh is also a goal in order to both provide economic opportunity to our residents and put the City back on solid financial footing in order to have the resources to meet our many critical needs and public services. The Administration is committed to ensuring that this regeneration is forward-looking, promoting transit-oriented development and other sustainable mobility choices and avoiding the auto orientation and associated impacts of the past generation.

The Mon-Oakland/Four Mile Run project does both – it addresses the critical and threatening stormwater impacts and provides an opportunity for sustainable development and job growth in a community that very much needs both. 

The attachment you sent – a URA grant application – emphasizes the stormwater project, seeking additional resources for design of stormwater mitigations, while concurrently recognizing the need for improved mobility and access. There is nothing in the grant to indicate that stormwater solutions are precluded by or subordinated to improved mobility. Clearly, both can be achieved.

1. We’ve been told that the watershed project and the roadway project are separate yet being done “in tandem.” That level of coordination requires detailed plans. When will you share full details so that resident-approved independent experts can evaluate them before construction begins?

    • K. Ricks response: The City will share 30% design drawings for the mobility path and park amenities when complete. The anticipated timeline is 30% drawings by the end of the year, 60% drawings by the end of February and a complete bid package by spring.

       

    • Junction Coalition reply: We look forward to seeing the materials you promised by the end of the year and will follow up. But design drawings are insufficient for any substantial evaluation. We have requested and continue to await the following:
      • All up-to-date and current plans for the proposed road
      • A drawing index plan of the overall Junction Hollow construction areas in Schenley Park
      • Proposed plan drawings, engineering sections, and profiles of changes to Junction Hollow’s existing landscape

2. At the January 2018 public meeting, Michael Baker Corporation presented 6 possible routes (including 5 offered by residents). [DOMI director Karina Ricks] expressed a preference for the Swinburne route but said it was not viable because of the landslides on Swinburne. Why is Swinburne unviable for smaller lighter AVs, yet currently open to at-times bumper-to-bumper traffic including cars, trucks, UPMC shuttles, emergency vehicles, and school buses?

    • K. Ricks response: The mobility path is to be an exclusive pathway suitable for both light shuttles and other e-powered vehicles such as e-bikes and, when categorized, e-scooters and other such vehicles as may evolve over time. There is insufficient width on Swineburn to provided this dedicated path. The street cannot be widened due to the fragile soil conditions.

       

    • Junction Coalition reply: This answer only supports the need for our original question—and begs additional questions:
      • How is it possible that these “light shuttles” and smaller vehicles named such as bikes and scooters require more width than the large vehicles such as school buses and UPMC shuttles that currently traverse Swinburne?
      • Just how much width is needed for the proposed roadway and how can it be called a “trail” if it needs to be wider than a two-lane road for full-sized vehicles? In the maps you most recently presented at the Nov. 21 public meeting, the mobility road is marked as 15 feet wide. The narrowest part of Swinburne is an average of 19.8 feet wide.
      • At the meeting, you mentioned vehicles that are 11 feet long and 6 feet wide. Two such vehicles could not pass each other on a 15-foot wide road while accommodating cyclists. Is DOMI considering widening the MOC road in the future?

3. The newest map shows the proposed roadway running right along the bottom of Swinburne, which has experienced landslides in the past and present, and which DOMI designated “unviable” as a route. What is the true reason you are so attached to the route through Schenley Park? Why do the private partners want this land so badly?

    • K. Ricks response: There is an existing pathway through Junction Hollow at present. There is a former roadway (Boundary Street) and a current active freight rail line. This is a current and historic transportation/mobility corridor. The Mon-Oakland project is in keeping with this historic role.

       

    • Junction Coalition reply: This response does not answer the original question. Don’t the Swinburne landslides have to be addressed in order to put a new road directly beneath the hillside as well as maintain the existing road on the hill? Regarding the history of Junction Hollow, the “former roadway” you mention was a poorly maintained dirt road. It was wiped out by, of all things, a landslide more than 30 years ago. That’s when the City closed it to traffic. The “current active freight rail line”—with trains carrying unidentified cargo (likely volatile fracking chemicals)—poses serious issues for the surrounding areas: not only our neighborhood but also the high-density residential housing in Oakland the rail line passes directly under. We should not add new potential hazards to the mix.

4. According to sources, there is a discussion happening behind the scenes about trying to buy out residents who live along Four Mile Run/Boundary streets—whose basements always flood when there is heavy rain. Is it true that you are going to attempt to buy or force those folks out through those or other means?

    • K. Ricks response: There are no plans at present to buy residential properties in The Run. There are no plans to force residents out of their homes.

       

    • Junction Coalition reply: “At present” is not a reassuring qualifier. At a 2/22/19 Mayor’s office meeting you attended, Alex Sciulli of PWSA “indicated people are going to expect with the project dollars spent that they won’t have flooding. [He] noted more cost-effective options may be to change the floodplain and purchase the affected properties.” (Quote sourced from meeting notes attained via Right-to-Know request to PWSA)

5. In 2015, public officials stated to the press that the city would go to court to overturn Mary Schenley’s deed in order to seize the publicly owned and protected property of Schenley Park. Are you still planning on going to court to force that outcome?

    • K. Ricks response: The property along Junction Hollow is a portion of Schenley Park. There are park roads and pathways throughout Schenley Park. There is no need to go to court for the proposed facility.

       

    • Junction Coalition reply: Regarding your statement that “there are park roads and pathways throughout Schenley Park,”  existing features do not justify creating a new road in an important established bike and pedestrian corridor. The Junction Hollow trail is part of the only connection between Oakland, Greenfield, Hazelwood, the South Side, and Downtown that does not require users to share a road with motorized vehicles. Moreover, the proposed road is specifically for privately operated vehicles, which goes against Mary Schenley’s original intent for the park as stated in her deed.

6. At the September 2018 meeting, PWSA head Robert Weimar stated, “We only have one chance to get this right” regarding the storm-water plan’s success. We agree, and expect access to detailed plans so that an independent, resident-approved expert can evaluate them before construction begins. When will you provide those plans?

    • K. Ricks response: Please direct requests for the stormwater design plans to PWSA.

       

    • Junction Coalition reply: At the City’s suggestion in response to our first Right-to-Know request, we directed these requests to PWSA via additional RTKs. PWSA gave us materials that seem to conflict with what DOMI has provided in its most recent public materials. Neither DOMI nor PWSA has given us current, adequately detailed plans for analysis.

7. Will you provide a list of all “project partners” with their contact information—email addresses and phone numbers?

    • K. Ricks response: The project partners are: Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority led by Robert Weimar (rweimar@pgh2o.org), Department of Mobility and Infrastructure led by myself, Department of Public Works led by Mike Gable (mike.gable@pittsburghpa.gov). The Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy serves as a project advisor having completed the Four Mile Run Conceptual Design Plan. PPC is led by Jayne Miller. The URA and Department of City Planning are occasionally consulting parties to the project as is Hazelwood Green represented by Rebecca Flora.

       

    • Junction Coalition reply: Thank you for providing this list, but the absence of private entities in your list leads to further questions. Does this mean University of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon University, the private partners named in the URA’s 2015 grant application (ID 2015073111048) are no longer involved in the project? Was the public-private partnership referenced in the grant application formally dissolved?

      If so, and if the Mon-Oakland Connector/Mon-Oakland Mobility Project is a different project, then why does it have the same goals as the Oakland Transit Connector referenced in the 2015 grant application—and why do various private entities continue to act as stakeholders in meetings throughout the process while the public is invited to participate only in reviewing already-decided plans?

8. Multiple experts have told residents that forcing the roadway onto the watershed plan will compromise flood control. A URA document titled “Project Narrative for Heinz Endowment” states, “Measure of success: We will produce several construction alternatives … and couple them with the potential design options that will not preclude any major transportation options under discussion.” In plainer language, this paragraph says that a successful flood control plan won’t interfere with the proposed roadway—in other words, the road takes precedence. This directly contradicts repeated public statements made by you [K Ricks], PWSA, and other officials. Given the true priorities behind both projects, what guarantees can residents expect regarding the success of the watershed improvement plan? When will a community benefits agreement with those guarantees be enacted?

    • K. Ricks response: The narrative above clarifies the misinterpretation that an effective stormwater solution is precluded by a supplemental pathway. [Following is the narrative we believe Ms. Ricks references here.]

      The Mon-Oakland/Four Mile Run project does both – it addresses the critical and threatening stormwater impacts and provides an opportunity for sustainable development and job growth in a community that very much needs both.

      The attachment you sent – a URA grant application – emphasizes the stormwater project, seeking additional resources for design of stormwater mitigations, while concurrently recognizing the need for improved mobility and access. There is nothing in the grant to indicate that stormwater solutions are precluded by or subordinated to improved mobility. Clearly, both can be achieved.

    • Junction Coalition reply: Actually, it doesn’t seem clear at all. We have included relevant text below and you can reference the complete document.

      Goal 3: We will create a feasible design for the area encompassing the southern area of Schenley Park to the Monongahela River. This particular design question is one of the more important and most technically challenging, and has the potential to provide the most impact to the overall question of whether a design that can truly integrate ecological/compliance goals and transportation connections is possible. It necessitates answering the question of whether a separate storm sewer from the southern end of the park to the river is feasible. But there is an extremely high amount of both above and below grade infrastructure– not to mention a high interest and need in creating multi-modal transportation connections– that requires a specialized approach to daylighting in this area (trenchless). Measure of success: We will produce several construction alternatives (such as horizontal directional boring, micro tunneling, etc.) and couple them with the potential design options that will not preclude any major transportation options under discussion.

      To summarize, the project is “technically challenging” even without “a high interest and need in creating multi-modal transportation connections.” There is an overall question of whether “a design that can truly integrate ecological/compliance goals and transportation connections is possible.” But the success of the project will be measured by how well “construction alternatives” can be “couple[d]” with “the potential design options that will not preclude any major transportation options under discussion.”

      The summary we provided here uses the actual language of the document and directly conflicts with the “narrative” you provided.

      Your response also does not answer the questions we asked: What guarantees can residents expect regarding the success of the watershed improvement plan? When will a community benefits agreement with those guarantees be enacted?

9. How was it determined that the route through two neighborhoods and Schenley Park is the only viable route? Swinburne would have to be stabilized to prevent it from collapsing onto the proposed roadway. So why spend an additional tens of millions of dollars to build a new road instead of using Swinburne as the route?

    • K. Ricks response: The response to question 2 should also answer this inquiry. Widening Swinburne Road is not feasible.

    • Junction Coalition reply: This response does not answer the original question. It only brings up more questions, as detailed in our question 2 reply.

      Moreover, your statement that “widening Swinburne is not feasible” does not make sense as the reason an existing road cannot serve as an alternative to a new road in Schenley Park. As detailed in our question 2 reply, the maps you most recently presented show the mobility road marked as 15 feet wide. According to your statements at the most recent public meeting on 11/26, this width necessitates shuttles pulling over to let another oncoming shuttle pass. The road is billed as accommodating commuter cyclists, yet it forces them into extremely close contact with motorized vehicles that frequently need to pull over. Swinburne St. is 19.8 feet wide on average at its narrowest point. It would seem that Swinburne is already significantly wider than the proposed road even at its narrowest, and therefore would not need to be widened.

      In any case, “fragile soil conditions” on Swinburne endanger the proposed roadway as much as they endanger the existing street.

10. On April 18, some residents of The Run, along with Pittsburghers for Public Transit and the Penn Plaza Support and Action Coalition, sent Mayor Peduto an open letter. We made specific, actionable demands to actually include the public in this so-called public process concerning the Mon-Oakland Connector—things like announcing the meetings at least 14 days in advance, revealing the total amount of public funds spent so far, and formatting the meetings so that all attendees can hear all the questions and answers. When will we receive a formal response, and why are you continuing to take up most of these meetings with presentations and breakout sessions?

    • K. Ricks response: Meetings have been and will be announced at least 14 days in advance. Meetings have been structured to provide time for people to engage in the means and methods most comfortable and accessible to them. This includes presentations with opportunities for written comments and feedback, whole group “plenary” discussion, small group breakouts, online information and feedback and occasionally field visits/tours and meetings with individual neighborhood organizations. While we recognize the preferred engagement method proposed by the Coalition, we also recognize that diverse individuals engage in a diversity of ways thus we will continue to provide engagement in multiple ways rather than the one means prescribed in your letter.

    • Junction Coalition reply: Have you specifically asked for feedback about engagement methods? If so, how was this accomplished and do you have records of the results? How much preference did you receive in the feedback specifically for “small group breakouts?”

11. By choosing AV, you are eliminating jobs, thus reducing the tax base. How will the City make up for this loss of revenue and pay for basic services like roads, bridges, infrastructure, etc.? Will robots pay taxes?

    • K. Ricks response: The Mon-Oakland Connector is a trail, not an operational service. The trail is being designed to accommodate use by microtransit. This service may one day be provided via self driving vehicles however at this point in time no truly self driving technology exists thus anyvehicles will have a human operator. There is a much larger policy discussion locally and nationally that is necessary around transportation funding (the current mechanism – the gas tax – is insufficient to support infrastructure maintenance and improvement, and gas tax revenues are projected to decline with greater fuel efficiency and electrification of the fleet). The future of work for the rising generation of workers is also a critical discussion. Fortunately full autonomy is still decades away and there is adequate time to prepare for a non-disruptive transition that preserves the ability for our workers to make a livable wage through dignified, rewarding work.

    • Junction Coalition reply: So the road is being built for microtransit in general, not specifically for self-driving or automated vehicles? Regarding microtransit as a solution, we invite you to read this post from public transit consultant Jarrett Walker if you have not already done so. Why are we spending tens of millions of taxpayer dollars to build a road for privately operated microtransit that by its very nature serves a small group of people?

      Your point that “any vehicles will have a human operator” because “full autonomy is decades away” means the service would essentially consist of a fleet of minivans (8,000 pounds, 11 feet long, 6 feet wide). Human operators can drive at higher speeds than 15 mph and they can travel on existing roads with other minivans. In other words, a foreseeable future of human shuttle operators undermines the rationale for an isolated corridor to accommodate a microtransit service. Even driven at normal speeds, the route through the park does not offer the dramatic shortcut originally proffered in 2015. Officials claimed commute times from Hazelwood to Oakland of 30-40 minutes, but this was based solely on rush-hour traffic. Residents stopwatch-tested the claim by driving existing routes at various times. The Second Ave.-Bates St. corridor from Hazelwood to the main campuses in Oakland took 12-14 minutes. Various existing routes from the intersection of Greenfield Ave and Saline and Irvine streets took 3-4 minutes to Hillman Library in Oakland.

      Moreover, if “no truly self driving technology exists” and automated shuttles are a far-off eventuality, please explain why Pittsburgh worked to secure the Knight Foundation grant and why you are so eager to use it to bring autonomous vehicles to events where Pittsburghers can “kick the tires” as you said. Not to mention that Uber and others are already using Pittsburgh streets as a test track for their autonomous vehicles.

      Your position in this response seems designed to have it both ways: The road must be built now for a far-off technology, and since DOMI is only building a road the service can be whatever is convenient at any given time to bolster an argument for building the road.

12. The Planning Commission approved a last-minute tripling of residential density in the Hazelwood Green plan over objections by the Greenfield Community Association and the Run Resident Action Team. Karina Ricks admitted in 2017 that if Amazon accepted Pittsburgh’s bid, the Mon-Oakland Connector would be inadequate for the increased number of users. Why are you investing public money into a roadway that is already obsolete before it’s even built?

    • K. Ricks response: Additional trail capacity will never be obsolete. The City of Pittsburgh is hopeful to regain a substantial portion of the near 700,000 residents we once had (current city population is 305,000). We cannot support this regeneration if our restored residents drive at rates common among our existing regional residents. We must promote and encourage a greater share of trips being accomplished via walking, transit, bicycle, micromobility and higher occupancy vehicles like microtransit. If we are successful in accomplishing our goal of >50% of household trips being accomplished by non-auto and active transportation means we are going to need substantially more capacity for these modes throughout our city including along theJunction Hollow Trail corridor. Furthermore, we know that the best opportunity to form lasting travel habits is when a person moves to a new residence or new job location. Doing this means we need to make their initial experience easy, dignified, and maybe even fun. If we can “train” new workers and residents to take that initial ride even on the low speed, smaller capacity microtransit, we can convince the of the “proof of concept” that transit generally is a viable mode for everyday trips and we can create a life-long a low-drive resident or worker. High capacity mass transit will always be the long term goal. Microtransit, however, can be the way to attract more riders to our region wide system.
    • Junction Coalition reply: Why do we so desperately need to increase the tax base by doubling our current population? Why not instead tax the corporations masquerading as non-profits? Public servants should not allow their constituents to be held hostage by powerful private interests. Furthermore, the utility of microtransit in benefiting the general population or attracting new residents is dubious.

13. Isn’t it a conflict of interest that some of the people involved in decision making about the roadway and storm-water projects stand to profit from developing Hazelwood Green?

    • K. Ricks response: Please see response to question 7 and further clarify.


    • Junction Coalition reply: Please refer to our reply to the same question. Again, the names you provided do not reflect the public-private partnership that originally filed a grant application for this project in 2015. Was this PPP formally dissolved? If this is truly a different project from the 2015 project, why does it have the same goals?

14. We have the agenda from a 2000 “community outreach project” meeting titled “The New Junction Hollow Vision.” The agenda advocates for a short, intense “charette” process—that means a meeting of all stakeholders where conflicts are worked out. But the meeting involved only residents of Oakland and the Oakland Community Council. Hazelwood Initiative is mentioned but not Panther Hollow or The Run—the neighborhoods that are actually located in Junction Hollow, the communities that would be affected most. Do the Oakland organizers of this meeting still think Junction Hollow belongs to them, and that they can decide its future? Why would they not include the communities of Panther Hollow and The Run?

    • K. Ricks response: The document and meeting referenced are now nearly 20 years old and no longer being used as the basis of the current public engagement process.


    • Junction Coalition reply: This answer willfully misses the point of the question. This roadway was being discussed 20 years ago and the directly affected communities were excluded. The 2015 grant application (before your involvement) violated the PA Sunshine Act. In other words, this project has a long history of secrecy and questionable conduct. More recently, new grant applications went unmentioned in all the public meetings that occurred as the applications were being prepared and filed. This is just one example of a sustained focus on the appearance of transparency at the expense of transparency itself. The “current public engagement process” does not seem to have changed all that much in 20+ years. Why have the communities of Panther Hollow and The Run been excluded for so long?

15. A URA document titled “Exhibit 1” states, “The implementation of the Oakland Transit Connector model can address a majority of these barriers and will open the opportunities for continued economic growth across Oakland and into adjoining communities.” The barriers: People already live here. There’s a public park here. Development can only address these “barriers” by eliminating them. No one consulted those “adjoining communities” about the Mon-Oakland Connector before deciding to proceed with it. And during the series of public meetings last year, DOMI filed another grant application connected to the roadway without telling residents. City officials have lamented the continuing distrust around this project, but how can they be surprised?

    • K. Ricks response: Question is rhetorical

    • Junction Coalition reply: The question is far from rhetorical to communities that face extinction as a result of decisions that are being made without their input—and further, to the detriment of their safety and quality of life.

16. Some people would like to attend these meetings but can’t because they are taking care of kids. Will you use part of the Knight Foundation grant to facilitate their participation by providing kids’ activities and supervision for future meetings?

    • K. Ricks response: That is a great suggestion. We will see if that can work. If there is a member of the Coalition that would serve as a sounding board on a structure, time and activities that would be most conducive to this type of engagement, that would be wonderful.

    • Junction Coalition reply: Barb Warwick has volunteered to act in this role. Please let us know if you do not have her direct contact information and we will provide it to you.

17. DOMI’s presentation for the February 2018 meeting included a chart that gave “Autonomous Microtransit” a higher positive ranking than conventional shuttle buses and improved Port Authority bus service. This despite the fact that no data supports the assertion that AVs have a greater ability to “deliver in the near term” or “promote sustainable mobility and development”—in fact, the proposed Mon-Oakland Connector requires completely new infrastructure and a new fleet of vehicles. Why is AV being so aggressively put forward as the solution and whose interests does this serve?

    • K. Ricks response: Please see response to question 11.
    • Junction Coalition reply: It is convenient to get around these questions by stating that you are only making decisions about the road itself—but if you have no idea what you are going to put on the road, how is that a transit solution?

18. Will people be able to use the Mon-Oakland Connector if they don’t have a smartphone or don’t want to provide personal information? What happens to the personal information a Mon-Oakland Connector app would collect?

    • K. Ricks response: 18 and 19. Please see answer to question 11. When a service is proposed to operate on the trail these questions will need to be publically answered before a permit for operation will be granted.

       

    • Junction Coalition reply: It is convenient to get around these questions by stating that you are only making decisions about the road itself—but if you have no idea what you are going to put on the road, how is that a transit solution?

19. What will happen to the Mon-Oakland Connector fare system after the fares are no longer subsidized (after 2 years)?

    • K. Ricks response: 18 and 19. Please see answer to question 11. When a service is proposed to operate on the trail these questions will need to be publically answered before a permit for operation will be granted.

       

    • Junction Coalition reply: It is convenient to get around these questions by stating that you are only making decisions about the road itself—but if you have no idea what you are going to put on the road, how is that a transit solution?

Categories

Most Shared Posts