op ed

P-G editorial admits: No shuttle road, no flood relief

Posted on August 7, 2025 by op ed 0

Note: Junction Coalition became aware of a recent P-G editorial that blamed residents of Four Mile Run and allies for Pittsburgh Water’s defunding of flood control efforts in the neighborhood. The editorial labels us “conspiracy theorists,” then concludes that residents should have allowed the community-erasing Mon-Oakland Connector (MOC) project to proceed if they wanted relief from dangerous 75-year floods on their streets. This is exactly the outcome residents have warned of for years.

Junction Coalition stands in solidarity with striking P-G writers. However, we need to correct the record in answer to their attack. The P-G rejected our response, so we are publishing it here. Please share widely!

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette’s July 13 editorial, “The real reason Four Mile Run is still a flood trap” ignores or mangles basic facts in an effort to rewrite history and preemptively blame the victims of potential catastrophic flooding in The Run. Which, indeed, could happen at any time—but not because our community exposed an attempted land grab by privateers operating behind closed doors.

The Junction Hollow Trail is part of Schenley Park. The P-G blandly labels the proposed MOC route a “corridor” to obscure its true nature: a private road through a public park.

Flood control remained unfunded long after the MOC was announced. After decades of being told Pittsburgh lacked funds to address flooding in our neighborhood, Run residents learned of the roadway from an Aug. 29, 2015, P-G article. The city planned to spend $26 million to connect Oakland university campuses and the ALMONO development in Hazelwood, eliminating The Run’s only community green space. Privately-operated “driverless shuttles” serving only university personnel and students would run every five minutes, 24/7.

The total absence of communication with affected residents about this major project violated Pennsylvania’s Sunshine Act. In addition, the P-G article reported that a newly formed public-private partnership of the URA, CMU, and Pitt filed a $3 million grant application for the project with the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED). Their application contained numerous false statements, which the application form states is “punishable by criminal prosecution.” Eventually, the DCED deemed the application “incomplete” and let it expire. Documents received through Right-to-Know requests prove this.

City officials assured residents that the multimodal grant would contain flood-control measures. The claim was quickly proven false, as that specific grant could not be used for anything other than road construction.

Then, in August 2016, a devastating flood caught on camera (and reported by Brian O’Neill) showed our need for flood control in graphic detail. Only then were officials shamed into announcing the $41+ million 4 Mile Run Watershed Improvement Plan the following year, going so far as to call it “the gold standard” for flood mitigation going forward. The catch? Any flood control plan had to be built around the MOC—yet city and Pittsburgh Water representatives rushed to insist these were “two separate projects” happening “in tandem.”

It’s hard to “generate solutions” while being deceived. Several stormwater management professionals offered ideas that were discarded because they did not accommodate the MOC. Pittsburgh Water spent eight years and $8.7 million designing for 10-year floods in a neighborhood that experienced multiple 25- and 75-year floods over the course of one decade.

Only $14 million of the project budget was slated for flood control in the “core area.” According to a 2020 email from senior manager of public affairs Rebecca Zito, “The remaining funding can go towards future projects in the upper portions of the watershed, provide opportunities to collaborate with the universities and other community organizations on future stormwater projects.”

Within six months of Mayor Gainey canceling the MOC in February 2022, Pittsburgh Water removed all green infrastructure elements from their stormwater project. But they continued to promise Run residents, “We are going to do the stormwater project no matter what” until defunding their proposed solution without public discussion at the end of 2024. Pittsburgh Water didn’t inform the public for another few months.

We are going to do the stormwater project no matter what. If the roadway stopped being planned, we would have to amend our permit, which would result in a paperwork review for PA DEP and some timing changes, but we would still do our project. For the stormwater project, the money is committed, the PWSA board has approved it, the design is essentially complete, and we are moving forward with it. We combined the stormwater project with the mobility corridor project because we wanted to limit the number of conflicts from a construction perspective and to make sure the costs were reasonable for our ratepayers and city taxpayers.
—Four Mile Run Stormwater Improvement Project Virtual Community Meeting Minutes (September 15, 2020)

Despite its “zombie status,” the MOC enjoyed a healthy budget well into 2022. The P-G implies that former city councilor Corey O’Connor dealt the MOC’s death blow by removing $4.15 million from its budget in 2020—although the same amount reappeared in the 2022 MOC budget, which totaled about $7 million. By the time Mayor Gainey campaigned against it, the MOC had supposedly become a non-issue. So which is it—did Mayor Gainey doom The Run to languish without a private roadway bulldozed through it, or did he merely glom onto Mr. O’Connor’s heroic pantomime of destroying the MOC?

Opposition to the MOC was never confined to a handful of Run residents. As the P-G admits, the MOC became a defining issue of former mayor Bill Peduto’s second term—and Mr. Peduto became Pittsburgh’s first incumbent mayor to be unseated since 1933. Pittsburgh’s taxpayers and voters have thoroughly vetted and rejected the shuttle road.

No one—including the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP)—believes the MOC was essential to successful flood control in The Run. In fact, the PA DEP’s technical deficiency letters in response to Pittsburgh Water’s joint permit application contained questions about how including the MOC in the project furthered Pittsburgh Water’s stated goal of managing stormwater in the area.

The MOC hobbled flood control from the beginning, and the stormwater project could be far more effective without it. Dedicated public servants would seize this opportunity to improve on the existing design—if they prioritized residents’ safety above the dreams of universities, foundations, and developers.

The Remaking Cities Institute of CMU stated its intentions for The Run in its 2009 “Remaking Hazelwood” report: “The urban design recommendations proposed in this document extend beyond the boundary of the ALMONO site. The end of Four Mile Run valley, the hillside and Second Avenue are all critical to the overall framework. Some of these areas are publicly-held; others are privately-owned. A map is in the section Development Constraints. The support of the City of Pittsburgh and the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) will be critical to the success of our vision. The ALMONO, LP could try to purchase these sites. Failing that, the URA can support the project by purchasing those properties that are within the scope of the recommendations and making them available for redevelopment in accordance with the proposed strategy.”

The P-G dismisses the idea that moneyed interests would hinge public safety on the MOC—then proceeds to sell this “conspiracy theory” as the solution. In doing so, they echo what we “development constraints” in The Run have warned for years: No shuttle road, no flood relief.

Why I’m Voting for Ed Gainey

Posted on April 28, 2025 by op ed 0
Mayor Ed Gainey surrounded by supporters at an April 15 fundraising event


It comes down to the Mon-Oakland Connector (MOC): a boondoggle dreamed up by some of Pittsburgh’s universities and foundations that would have ruined a popular motor-free trail through Schenley Park and established a foothold for wiping my neighborhood (Four Mile Run) off the map.

Why dwell on a project that was discredited and shelved years ago? If you have to ask, it’s because you forgot how the MOC came to be old news. Two men figure prominently in the story—and both are currently running for mayor in Pittsburgh’s Democratic primary.

During Ed Gainey’s first run, he participated in a Zoom debate with the other mayoral candidates. Some of my Hazelwood neighbors and I got a chance to ask about their position on the MOC. Gainey didn’t seem familiar with the project, but showed interest in how we overcame efforts by MOC boosters to pit our neighborhoods against each other. After the debate, I emailed Gainey’s campaign inviting him “down The Run” to see the situation for himself. His wife Michelle replied and we made arrangements for visits to The Run and Hazelwood.

The first time I met Ed Gainey, about 35 of us from both neighborhoods walked with him from Four Mile Run Field into Junction Hollow and back. He asked questions, listened to our answers, and seemed genuinely concerned about our community’s problems. Before any of us mentioned hazardous conditions around the railroad trestle, Gainey noticed and inquired about piles of railroad spikes on the trail where they land after flying off the tracks.

We talked about destructive flooding in The Run and how it’s worsened over decades as uphill neighborhoods—including Oakland university campuses—develop rapidly and tax the sewer system. When Run residents learned of plans for the MOC from a 2015 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article, those plans did not include flood control. Our city government and Pittsburgh Water were shamed into their Four Mile Run stormwater project only after media coverage of a harrowing 2016 flash flood—in which emergency responders had to rescue a father and son trapped on top of their car.

Ed Gainey made no big promises on his first visit to The Run, but soon adopted our cause as part of his campaign. Canceling the MOC was among the first actions he took in office.

Gainey’s challenger, County Controller Corey O’Connor, was our District 5 city council representative throughout our six-and-a-half year fight against the MOC. He watched my neighbors and me show up in force at public meetings, organize marches and press conferences, and file Right to Know requests. In conversations with Run residents he acted as though his hands were tied, the road a foregone conclusion. He was evasive at best when it came to answering our questions and providing information about the MOC. He flat-out lied to us on several occasions.

Corey O’Connor was having completely different conversations with some Hazelwood residents, asking or even pressuring them to publicly support the MOC. In 2021 he played a shell game with the project’s funding, crowing about having moved $4.15 million to different projects in other communities. Mysteriously, $4 million for the MOC reappeared in the 2022 budget before Ed Gainey canceled it. This stunt only showed that O’Connor could have chosen to defund the MOC at any time.

But I’m not writing this because of the status quo. Everyone knows about public officials who bend over backwards to represent the donor class. So many people told me and my neighbors, “You’ll never stop the road; there’s too much money behind it.” I’m writing this because Ed Gainey came to our neighborhood, listened to our issues, and made good on his promise to address them. That never happens!

Bucking the status quo has a cost. Ed Gainey canceling the MOC surely isn’t the sole reason for Pittsburgh’s money-starved news outlets cranking out hit piece after hit piece from the moment he took office. But it surely enraged the universities and Almono Partners when he rescinded their long-coveted private driveway. Although politicians are not known for being above reproach, I’ve never seen a local one criticized with such heavy bias.

By contrast, Corey MOConnor’s campaign has been showered with funds and fawning attention by the very same players who stood to gain from the scrapped shuttle road. I don’t believe it’s a coincidence that he chose Hazelwood Green as the place to announce his run for mayor.

The MOC may be dead and buried, but it’s still an issue in this election. It stands for sharp differences between these two candidates—in their approach to managing Pittsburgh’s resources and in their ethics. And the consequences are still playing out. After the MOC’s demise, Pittsburgh Water called off the green infrastructure part of their stormwater project in The Run. This year they announced the entire project has essentially been canceled, the funds moved elsewhere. The Run needs strong advocates—perhaps now more than ever.

Our neighborhood is a snapshot of each candidate’s priorities demonstrated through their actions. Pittsburgh can choose a mayor who returns to business as usual at our expense, or a mayor who actually tries his best to represent us. Your neighborhood’s issues might be different, but they deserve the same attention Ed Gainey has given us.

For me, the choice is as clear as it ever gets. I haven’t forgotten the MOC, and I certainly haven’t forgotten that Ed Gainey showed up for our community.

In Defense of Progress

Posted on March 20, 2025 by op ed 1
Councilor Barb Warwick (l) Dept. of Public Works Deputy Director Bill Crean, and Mayor Ed Gainey (r) respond to Greenfield residents' concerns at the Feb community 17th meeting.

Columnist Joseph Sabino Mistick’s Feb. 22 op-ed in the Tribune Review, “Progressivism killing the party, city,” spins a false narrative. After misattributing a Mark Twain quote to now deceased former County Executive Jim Roddey, Mistick misdiagnoses underlying issues at a contentious Feb. 17 Greenfield community meeting. His takeaway: Greenfield is part of a nationwide backlash against progressivism because moderate resident voices are being shut out. 

Mistick quoted Greenfield resident Joe Pegher saying, “There’s a growing tension between the longtime moderate Democrats in the neighborhood and the new progressives. They were welcomed here but have not returned the kindness.” The “moderate Democrats,” who enjoyed years of dominance in neighborhood affairs as members of Greenfield Community Association‘s (GCA’s) board of directors, were neither welcoming nor kind when other Greenfielders asked for help with serious concerns. 

Case in point: After the Mon-Oakland Connector project was announced in 2015 to erase Greenfield’s Four Mile Run community and make way for university expansion, the “moderate Democrats” aligned with that back-door deal made up of Oakland universities, private developers, and the Peduto administration. During our six-and-a-half-year opposition to the private roadway, “moderates” did much worse than sit on their hands.

As a member of the GCA’s Development/Transportation committee, I pressed the group to represent all Greenfielders, including Run residents. Then-co-chair Mr. Pegher memorably said, “The GCA does not represent the residents of Greenfield.” When asked who it represents, he refused to answer. After losing his role as co-chair, he stopped attending meetings. As more progressive members were elected to the board and became the majority, Mr. Pegher resigned as board president.

At the Feb. 17 meeting, a group of grievance-filled residents (and non-residents) showed up as an angry mob and proceeded to shriek at public servants, shout down answers to their accusations barely disguised as questions, disparage poorer neighbors, and push for removing newly installed traffic-calming infrastructure.

Councilor Barb Warwick (l) Dept. of Public Works Deputy Director Bill Crean, and Mayor Ed Gainey (r) respond to Greenfield residents' concerns at the Feb community 17th meeting.
Councilor Barb Warwick (l) Dept. of Public Works Deputy Director Bill Crean, and Mayor Ed Gainey (r) respond to Greenfield residents’ concerns at the Feb. 17 community meeting.

Some of their concerns and criticisms are valid. Clearly there is room for improvement regarding city services, and more adjustments should be made to the Ronald Street/Greenfield Avenue intersection. But the group’s behavior was churlish and abusive. Had they bothered to remain for the presentation on District 5 improvements, they would have gotten updates on significant progress. Instead, they chose to hijack the first hour and then abruptly leave.

These days, too many use their voice to scream demands while employing uber-aggressive bullying tactics as a means to return to their romanticized past—to what they believe is their community, their country. Newer Greenfield residents are now being treated with disdain, contempt, and as outsiders. Recent online community message-board posts describe neighbors being harassed for speaking Spanish at the Greenfield Giant Eagle.

Next Door post describing incident at Greenfield Giant Eagle
Next Door post describing incident at Greenfield Giant Eagle

Progressivism brought about democracy, freedom of speech and assembly, freedom of the press, women’s and minorities’ right to vote, the right to form or join a union, and much more. The root word of “progressivism” is “progress,” once described by Immanuel Kant as a movement away from barbarism toward civilization. If progressive values and accomplishments are so bad and wrong, what do more “moderate” voices intend to replace them with?

As a Greenfielder who lives in the house I grew up in, whose family history here stretches back to the late 1800s, I don’t believe my voice counts more than others’—regardless of when they moved into the neighborhood or where they’re from. And I want all my neighbors to live a good life, regardless of their level of emotional maturity and prejudices. But it seems a minority faction would rather employ authoritarian tactics to claw back their perceived entitlement to sovereign authority.

Those who are truly committed to community find a way to peacefully reach consensus. As President John F. Kennedy said, “If we cannot now end our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity.” 

It’s a Road: What’s Missing from DOMI’s Sylvan Avenue Trail Plan

Posted on September 28, 2024 by op ed 0

Plan disregards environmental issues, lacks transparency and needs more public input

At the Aug. 22 public meeting about this project, representatives from the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation and the City of Pittsburgh Department of Mobility and Infrastructure, also known as DOMI, fielded questions about management of stormwater and springs in the project area, landslide prevention, the dangerous intersection at Sylvan and Greenfield avenues, steep inclines on Waldeck Street and along the proposed trail, light pollution from proposed streetlights, landscaping maintenance and invasive plants, and the effects on nearby residents.

These matters are not easily addressed. Yet when attendees asked about them, DOMI project manager Michael Panzitta responded, “That’s a good point” or, “We’re looking into that.” How has DOMI not heard the same resident concerns since 2018, when the Sylvan Avenue Trail was first proposed as phase 2 of the Mon-Oakland Connector shuttle road between Oakland university campuses and the Hazelwood Green development?

This chart comes from a 2020 memorandum leaked to Junction Coalition in which former DOMI director Karina Ricks addressed Pittsburgh City Council and for the first time named specific components and costs of the MOC project.

Community input

Discussion of this trail began with the Mon-Oakland Connector (MOC) instead of the communities in its path. Public meetings about development and infrastructure projects should focus on dialogue, not checking the “community engagement” box in a rush toward predetermined outcomes. Since 2022, Junction Coalition has been calling on the city to adopt our guidelines for public engagement, including announcing meetings at least 14 days in advance and posting the meeting slides with the announcement.

The city continues to fall short, as well as not following state guidelines for community involvement in greenways outlined in the Pennsylvania Trail Design and Development Principles.

Transparency

The design presented bore a striking resemblance to the MOC. Controversy plagued the plan partly because of dishonest tactics used to force it on affected communities. Opacity was and is its hallmark: inadequate community outreach for public meetings, evasive answers and an unwillingness to clearly define the scope of and intentions behind each phase of the project.

For example, while holding public meetings about the shuttle road in 2018, DOMI hid its grant applications for work on the Sylvan Avenue portion of the road.

Before informing affected communities about the MOC through a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article, former mayor Bill Peduto’s administration filed a fraudulent grant application for the project for $3 million and then tried to cover it up, violated the Pennsylvania Sunshine Act, and repeatedly violated PA’s Right to Know law throughout the years-long process of trying to bully the plan through.

The recent Sylvan Avenue Trail meeting presentation did not even include a budget slide. How much money has the Sylvan Avenue Trail received as part of the MOC? How much is budgeted to address the major environmental and safety issues, like an abandoned mine under part of the project area?

Slides showed an unrealistic rendering of the trail with mature plantings to obscure removal of existing trees and gentle slopes instead of cliffs.

Some residents who arrived early said they were told city officials were holding a separate, closed-door meeting with PennDOT before the public meeting.

And according to Mr. Panzitta and Pittsburgh Neighborhood Services infrastructure engagement specialist Jan Raether, this was to be the only public meeting about the Sylvan Avenue Trail.

Unfortunately, this territory is all too familiar. It is obvious to us and others in Greenfield and Hazelwood that, although Mayor Ed Gainey canceled the MOC, DOMI has continued to plan out a buildout of the project.

What’s not missing from the Sylvan Avenue Trail project is red flags that point to a road paved with bad intentions.

Some residents of Greenfield and Hazelwood have organized meetings to discuss the project and reach consensus on an alternative proposal. Reach out to Junction Coalition at junctioncoalition@gmail.com if you are interested in getting involved.

Originally appeared in The Homepage

The Department of Mendacity and Inequity

Posted on March 1, 2024 by op ed 0
A newspaper clipping about the 1948 blockade. Photo courtesy of Ray Gerard

Greenfield Avenue’s 300 block needs traffic calming now

Residents along Greenfield Avenue’s 300 block were fed up with dangerous conditions on their street. Speeding vehicles and crumbling infrastructure caused wrecks and injuries, countless near-misses and a constant fear for children’s safety. Years of pleading with city officials to address the hazards went unanswered, so residents organized a protest. They brought their porch chairs and lined up across both lanes, shutting down all traffic on Greenfield Avenue. It was 1948.

Residents’ direct action that day caused officials to show up within two hours, repair the infrastructure and commit to policing speeding drivers. One of the organizers, Julia Grezmak, was my grandmother. Seventy-six years later, living on the block and experiencing these dangers every day, my neighbors and I feel the same frustration and outrage.

A newspaper clipping about the 1948 blockade. Photo courtesy of Ray Gerard
A newspaper clipping about the 1948 blockade. Photo courtesy of Ray Gerard

Past becomes present

Today’s city officials are inflicting the same disregard on current residents. In the last decade, numerous legally parked cars on the block have been totaled. Clipped mirrors, sideswipes and other damages by hit-and-run drivers are commonplace. Worse, residents’ and pedestrians’ physical safety is at risk 24/7. Weekly near-misses that could cause severe injury or death take a mental and emotional toll.

The critically unsafe conditions on the 300 block are well-documented, but the city continually ignores our urgent, legitimate concerns.

Since 2014, we have been requesting traffic safety measures. In 2017, we began calling for the Department of Mobility and Infrastructure, known as DOMI, to meet with us onsite to witness the danger, discuss solutions and schedule resident-approved fixes.

A 2023 petition drive demanded DOMI address three areas of Greenfield Avenue needing traffic safety improvements. The city recently committed to addressing two of them, both in upper Greenfield. The 300 block, a notorious danger zone, was included in the petition. But — incredibly — DOMI left it out of Greenfield’s hard-won traffic-calming plan.

DOMI hedges as conditions worsen

My neighbors and I are furious at again being ignored while living on the most treacherous stretch in the neighborhood. This persistent, purposeful neglect over years amounts to abuse.

Since the closure of Anderson Bridge over Schenley Park, speeding has gotten worse as impatient commuters are detoured from both directions onto Greenfield Avenue. More than ever, crossing the street or exiting a parked car is a life-or-death game of chance.

DOMI’s single proposal: a four-way traffic light at Swinburne Bridge. They won’t install it until after completely rebuilding the bridge, an extensive project that can’t even begin until work on Anderson Bridge ends. A traffic light could make the intersection at the bridge safer, but will do nothing to curb speeding on the 300 block.

Once past that intersection, eastbound drivers floor it, reaching 40-50 mph on the 25-mph residential street. Westbound drivers would have a clear path to speed downhill until reaching the bridge. A traffic light would accomplish nothing for safety on the 300 block.

DOMI has responded to our concerns and proposed traffic-calming solutions for the block with a mixture of arrogance, indifference and dismissiveness. After we confronted them at several public meetings, they said, “DOMI is aware of dangerous traffic conditions along Greenfield Avenue that led to repeated requests for traffic-calming measures … It’s in the long-range plans as resources become available.”

Resources are available… for now

Pittsburgh’s approved 2024 capital budget includes a 138% increase for traffic-calming measures, which amounts to $877,744 in additional funds. Residents’ ideas for solutions are chump change in this context. We have offered to provide the labor for installation to prevent delay and save taxpayers’ money.

If there is no traffic calming along the 300 block in 2024, the city may not fund it for years — or at all. At a public budget meeting on Oct. 4, city representatives projected a severe drop in revenue after 2024. They said the 2025-2027 budgets will be tight.

Representing corporate interests

We believe DOMI’s targeted refusal to address basic public safety needs stems from the wishes of private developers.

The foundations that own Hazelwood Green, along with CMU and Pitt, joined forces in the development plan through a public-private partnership announced in 2015. The Remaking Cities Institute’s 2009 “Remaking Hazelwood” report baldly stated their infrastructure goal: to move traffic as quickly as possible between Oakland and Hazelwood. Their report also advanced the controversial Mon-Oakland Connector, rejected by a multi-community coalition and canceled by Mayor Ed Gainey on Feb. 17, 2022.

These developers want infrastructure designed for their project rather than the safety of residents and pedestrians. It’s our public servants’ job to correct the power imbalance.

The city has publicly acknowledged that the 300 block qualifies for traffic safety improvements but chooses to prolong the danger and consciously disregard our personal safety. One neighbor dubbed it “vehicular terrorism.”

Direct action needed

If the Gainey administration is authentically committed to equitable traffic safety, they should put our money where their mouth is. After 76 years, the equitable thing to do would be to address unsafe conditions on lower Greenfield Avenue, now, before the next severe injury or fatality.

Residents on the 300 block are taking a stand. Unless DOMI commits to addressing our traffic hazards in 2024, we will implement our own safety measures to slow down drivers. It should not take causing an epic traffic jam to force officials to take adequate steps, but it might be the only way. I’m certain my grandmother would approve.

Categories

Most Shared Posts