ShareThis Page
City won’t completely reject toll road |

City won’t completely reject toll road

Erik Siemers
| Wednesday, January 9, 2002 12:00 p.m

Despite heavy opposition from Pittsburgh residents, the Murphy administration cannot voice total opposition to the Mon-Fayette Expressway, a city official said.

“Outright opposition of it would disenfranchise the city from the project,” said Patrick Hassett, assistant city director for design and development. “It would then be built with no city input.”

Hassett highlighted the city’s strategies toward lessening the negative impact of the $4 billion tollway Tuesday night during the first of three public meetings scheduled this week. Last night’s meeting was in Oakland, another is scheduled tonight at Taylor Allderdice High School in Squirrel Hill, and the third is Thursday at Burgwin Elementary School in Hazelwood, both at 7 p.m.

The Mon-Fayette Expressway is a proposed 75-mile toll road stretching from Interstate 68 in West Virginia to the Parkway East. About 4.5 miles of the roadway will be in Pittsburgh — from Bates Street in Oakland moving east along the Monongahela River to the city’s edge.

In November, Mayor Tom Murphy sent a document detailing the city’s guidelines for the development and design of the expressway to the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission.

Hassett said the city is considering the development along two tracks: one assuming the expressway will be constructed, and another considering alternatives to it since only $1.5 billion of the project’s cost has been raised.

Critics of the expressway say it would increase traffic congestion into the city, pollute the area both visually and environmentally, and disrupt neighborhoods by taking property and dividing communities from the riverfront.

Among the proposals offered by the city:

  • Creation of a park-and-ride lot in Hazelwood at the former LTV Steel site. From there, shuttles would transport commuting workers to and from the city, and an adjacent water taxi and bike trail would offer further alternative modes of travel, Hassett said.

  • Creation of neighborhood review teams to revise and approve toll road designs. Hassett said the teams shouldn’t be mere advisers, but should be allowed to make decisions.

  • A property buyout for any resident within 450 feet of the roadway who wants to be bought out. For every home lost to construction, the city suggests the purchase of a new home for that person or repayment of lost tax base to the city school district. Pittsburgh may take a $2.5 million tax hit from the project, Hassett said.

    As alternatives to the expressway, Hassett said the city is proposing expanding the current roadways, moving light-rail transit further east into the city, exploring the proposed high-speed maglev project, and the addition of a third tunnel to the existing Squirrel Hill Tunnels.

    Tom Buchele, director of the environmental law clinic at the University of Pittsburgh, said he was pleased that the mayor “is not assuming this will happen. I’m really glad to hear that.”

    However, Buchele, who was representing the group Citizens for Alternatives to New Toll Roads, said he wished the city would shift all of its energies to focusing on alternatives.

    “The first thing the city should be saying is ‘don’t build this,'” he said.

    Categories: News
  • TribLIVE commenting policy

    You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

    We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

    While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

    We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

    We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

    We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

    We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

    We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.