Mon-Oakland Mobility Plan
Next community meeting will be in late January, more details available soon!
Summary of November Public Meetings
On November 14 and 15, The City of Pittsburgh’s Department of Mobility and Infrastructure, in partnership with the Urban Redevelopment Authority, held two public meetings to discuss making connections between Hazelwood, Greenfield, Four Mile Run, and Oakland. The intention of the meetings was to provide information about current demographics, travel patterns, employment centers, and other data that will help us (community, City, and other partners) to arrive at the best solution for making better mobility connections.
This is the beginning of a new process that does has not pre-determined what type of connection would be best, how it could operate, what path it may take, what vehicle/mode it would be, etc. The goal is to have an open dialogue about the best way to solve what is a very real mobility challenge for this part of the City. The mobility needs also dovetail with other infrastructure challenges, such as stormwater management, that are being addressed via partnerships with the Parks Conservancy, PWSA, and others. The green infrastructure solutions proposed can happen independent of a mobility project, but to the extent that we can achieve efficiencies between the projects, we intend to explore those with the community.
This is a summary of what we heard at the public meetings—this is unfiltered information direct from community members. We will take this feedback into account as the process moves forward. More public meetings will take place after the holidays, and we will explore all the options on the table in an open, transparent way. Thank you for your participation in helping to shape this plan.
Feel free to add additional comments via email at email@example.com.
Definition of Success
Participants were asked to complete the sentence: “For a mobility connection to be successful for me, it must [be] …”
Concerns, Needs, Wants
Participants were asked to put a numbered dot on a map and write a note that corresponds with that number. Not every dot had a note that matched up, but of the ones that did, here’s what was written. Also, we received a few comments that either were missing a dot, or were intended to apply to a broader geography—those are here, too.
Morning (11/14) Session:
We had a pair of boards set up to get more interactive feedback using a combination of stickers, pushpins, and yarn. One board asked participants to use pushpins to indicate the beginning and end of trips they’d like to make without needing to drive, and to connect them via color-coded yarn (the colors indicated the mode of the trip: red for public transit, green for bicycle, and blue for walking).
Then, participants could use stickers (that had the same color codes for the modes) to describe the purpose of the trip(s) they assembled on the map with the yarn. The trip types could be either commute, errands, recreation, or other—some participants described their trips further with Post-it notes.
Here are things that we heard via the Q&A session immediately following the presentation. Some of these ideas may overlap with what we had on our boards, but they’re shown here for completeness.
Morning (11/14) Session:
Evening (11/15) Session:
Thank you to Mary Shaw, who emailed a concept map for Juno St, which is linked here, and will be shared with the project team for consideration.