Pittsburgh

PWSA Fields Questions on Stormwater Project Delays

On Oct. 19, the Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority (PWSA) held a meeting via Zoom to update the public on its Four Mile Run Stormwater Project. The project, announced in 2017 as a way to address severe flooding in the Four Mile Run neighborhood (The Run), has come under fire from skeptics who say it is designed around the controversial Mon-Oakland Connector (MOC) plan. The MOC, announced in 2015, calls for building a road for university shuttles on the same land as the stormwater project. During the Q&A period after their presentation, PWSA officials made several false statements related to the MOC.

Shuttle road more integral to design than previously shared

Asked if PWSA is providing space in its stormwater plan for the MOC, Mallory Griffin of construction firm JMT (which is involved in the PWSA project) answered no. Yet PWSA senior group manager Tony Igwe asserted that removing the MOC from the watershed plan would require PWSA to start over, which would cause significant delay and cost millions of dollars in changes.

“PWSA has always said the stormwater project will still move forward whether the trail is there or not,” Mr. Igwe explained. “But what we never said was how much additional cost and time would be required if the trail isn’t there… To suddenly shut down one piece of that project, take it off the table, and then ask us to do a project, the first thing that’s going to happen is now we have to redesign the project to take that Mon-Oakland [Connector] out of the equation.”

The public has been told repeatedly at public meetings that the watershed plan and MOC are “two separate projects.” PWSA’s own notes from its Sept. 2020 public meeting on the stormwater project state:

“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 [the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (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.”

In several earlier public meetings, former stormwater project manager and current PWSA Board Chair Alex Sciulli had assured residents that the stormwater project takes precedence and that removing the MOC would not cause a significant delay because they are two separate projects.

New mayor, MOC opposition portrayed as obstacles

Ms. Griffin said that the PWSA hopes to have the permit approved by this winter, but warned of consequences if the MOC is removed as residents have been requesting for years. Slide 21 of PWSA’s presentation reads, in part: “If the new City Administration changes or removes the Mon-Oakland trail design, permitting will need to start over causing significant delay.”

Outgoing mayor Bill Peduto introduced the MOC plan to advance university and foundation goals. Mayor Peduto became Pittsburgh’s first incumbent mayor to be unseated since 1933. Mayor-elect Ed Gainey, by contrast, has clearly stated that he opposes the MOC. According to his campaign website, “Ed will stop the buildout of Mon-Oakland connector and prevent the construction of other privatized or quasi-privatized mass transit systems designed to support luxury development at the expense of existing residential communities.”

Community members at the meeting reminded PWSA of this, but Mr. Igwe said, “Up until that is done officially, all we’re really dealing with is people giving us their ideas and opinions on where they stand, and until someone puts something in writing formally that says it’s from the office of the people who can make the decision, that’s where we have to assume the project is going until it’s absolutely clear that it will not.”

Run residents have suffered a total of 10 major 25- to 75-year flood events in the last 15 years. They say a 10-year flood event plan (per PWSA’s current design parameters) is dangerously inadequate and that addressing floods must be prioritized. Every flood in The Run is an illegal combined sewer overflow that contains raw sewage—not merely stormwater runoff—which independent stormwater management consultants have labeled a public health and safety crisis.

Budget numbers continue to fluctuate

PWSA will spend $42.65 million on the stormwater project, according to their latest presentation. In a June 2020 meeting, another public presentation revealed that only about $14 million is going directly to flood relief in The Run. Asked why, PWSA acting senior manager of public affairs Rebecca Zito responded in an email on Aug. 24, 2020, “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, or revisit some of the original green infrastructure projects planned for Panther Hollow Stream and Phipps Run.” (emphasis added)

Excerpt from Nov. 10 PWSA letter in response to resident statement at Oct. 22 PWSA board meeting

Subsequent presentations between then and now have added items that were not previously considered part of the “core” project in the Junction Hollow section of Schenley Park. It is unclear whether the money set aside for opportunities to collaborate with the universities has been diverted to these new items, including “Construction Management / Inspection” (which presumably was always needed to complete the project).

In a letter responding to a resident’s statement at PWSA’s Oct. 22 board meeting, Mr. Igwe included the information from the budget slide and said the budget “does not contain $26 million ‘being held back for future projects.’”

Good news break: Sidewalks restored

The Oct. 19 presentation included photos of sidewalks in The Run that were dug up in the process of moving gas lines in advance of the stormwater project. One community member commented that the strip of rocks filling the trench down the middle of the sidewalk looked like “a tripping hazard.” A Run resident said they had been told the sidewalks would not be replaced until after the stormwater project is completed.

Ms. Griffin said the sidewalks were “100% in Peoples’ scope to replace” and pledged to “follow up with them tomorrow first thing to see what their schedule is for replacing the sidewalks.”

About two weeks after the meeting, construction crews returned to The Run. As of Nov. 12, they were putting finishing touches on the new sidewalks.

PA DEP concerns downplayed

PWSA received a technical deficiency letter from PA DEP dated May 27, 2021, in response to their permit application filed for the project in August 2020. Ms. Griffin and Mr. Igwe both mischaracterized this letter during the Q&A session, stating that the deficiencies identified were unrelated to the MOC. Ms. Griffin said that in a subsequent PA DEP letter “they had no questions on the trail’s impact to the flooding.” This point is debatable, but PA DEP’s concerns in the May 27 letter regarding the MOC are not incidental. Of 35 items listed in the 8-page letter, 13 specifically mention the MOC. For example, environmental comment 26 refers to additional permit requirements associated with the MOC:

Since PWSA is the applicant, will PWSA be responsible for the operation and maintenance of this section of DOMI’s project? Alternately, please consult with DEP, regarding additional permit requirements, if PWSA will not own or have primary responsibility for this section of DOMI’s Mon-Oakland Mobility Project.”

On Oct. 29, PA DEP sent PWSA a second technical deficiency letter. They identified remaining “significant technical deficiencies” and requested a meeting with PWSA to discuss and explain them. Comment 17 in this second letter asks PWSA to “confirm that the Mon-Oakland Mobility Project is the same as the DOMI trail” and clarify that the full scope of the project is shown in a drawing called the “Boundary Street Concept North of Junction Hollow.”

“If there are additional components and/or sections of the overall DOMI Trail/Mon-Oakland Mobility Project,” the comment continued, “please note that a Comprehensive Environmental Assessment may be requested.”

After the Oct. 19 meeting and before receiving word of the second letter, residents asked the PA DEP to delay their decision to approve or reject the dual permit until at least February 2022.

Hazelwood, Run Residents React to Announced Playground Funding

On Sept. 2, Four Mile Run resident Barb Warwick found Department of Public Works [DPW] workers at the neighborhood’s playground. “[They were] replacing a lot of the old and rusted parts,” she recalled. “My kids are super happy to have their playground back.” 

OnePGH will rehabilitate playgrounds in The Run and Hazelwood 

For more than three years, neighbors in The Run had pleaded with city officials to repair and reopen their playground. It was plagued by hazards, including deep holes left by missing benches and tables. Concrete chunks had fallen from the Parkway East during PennDOT repairs, and a broken play structure had injured a child. But the sudden appearance of DPW workers was not quite what the community had asked for. 

A Sept. 3 City of Pittsburgh press release announced that “Carnegie Mellon University [CMU] and the City of Pittsburgh have partnered to provide support for the rehabilitation of Four Mile Run playground in Greenfield and improvements at Lewis playground in Hazelwood as part of the OnePGH community investment plan announced earlier this year by Mayor William Peduto.”

The press release characterized DPW’s work on The Run’s existing playground as “short-term repairs” while the new playground is being planned. But residents of The Run say no one was lobbying for a brand-new playground, and that it should be unnecessary once their playground is fully repaired. 

Plan does not include specifics for reflect neighborhood input

The press release did not say how much CMU planned to donate for each playground. OnePGH is a partnership between the city and outside nonprofits, including CMU. District 5 Councilman Corey O’Connor said there is “no set number” for the CMU donation “because we want to do a neighborhood process to see what people want at both playgrounds.”

“For The Run,” Councilman O’Connor added, “[these current repairs were] City money. We requested the repairs last fall, but there was a backlog due to COVID.”

“It’s exciting to see the work happen,” Run resident Ziggy Edwards said, but added, “We learned about these plans the same way we learned about the CMU- and Pitt-proposed Mon-Oakland Connector [MOC]: through press coverage. It’s disappointing that—once again—major decisions affecting our neighborhood came from a partnership between our elected representatives and monied interests that excluded residents.”

Hazelwood and Run residents, along with dozens of social justice and community groups, churches, and others have rejected the MOC—a proposed shuttle road between the Hazelwood Green development and Oakland campuses championed by the public-private partnership formed between CMU, Pitt, and Mayor Peduto’s administration for that purpose. Residents say building a new road through the Junction Hollow section of Schenley Park and The Run will permanently degrade the park and one day erase the neighborhood. Affected communities including The Run, Panther Hollow, Greenfield, South Oakland, and Hazelwood created their own plan for how MOC funds should be spent instead: Our Money, Our Solutions (OMOS).

The city did not seek input from Hazelwood residents on restoring Lewis Playground 

James Cole of Hazelwood said he was unaware of CMU’s playground funding commitment until contacted for this article. “How is it that no one asked the people in the neighborhoods what they want?” he asked. “I have 150 kids up [at Burgwin Field for youth programs] every day, and this is the first I’m hearing about it.”

Three Rivers Village School [TRVS] is planning a move from the Spartan Center into the former YMCA across Chatsworth Avenue from Lewis Playground. Staffer Jason White-Weidow said he had not heard about the plan to improve the playground either. 

“It would definitely be great for TRVS to have an updated park there and it would get a lot of use by our kids, including the Hazelwood residents,” Mr. White-Weidow said. “We agree though, that it is strange that the community wasn’t consulted.” He added that if other parks or community resource priorities would serve more residents, especially kids, then neighbors’ voices should be heard and respected. 

Councilman O’Connor said the community has expressed itself extensively about both playgrounds. “We’ve heard from people for a number of years,” he said, naming the Greenfield Community Association, Hazelwood Initiative, Inc., Center of Life and other community groups. He said other feedback came from community and budget meetings and 311 calls. 

Councilman O’Connor said there is no timeframe yet for the meetings the city wants to hold with residents, but stressed that “there will be opportunities for community input.”

Residents say Greenfield K-8 needs a playground 

In a similar spirit to the OMOS plan, residents are already identifying and proposing alternatives for the Four Mile Run playground funds. Ms. Warwick says a playground is desperately needed at Greenfield Elementary School. 

“Greenfield is a K-8 school with a special needs program and a Pre-K program. Right now, all they have is a field that’s often too muddy to use and a big parking lot,” Ms. Warwick explained. A group of parents from the Greenfield Community Association and the Greenfield School PTO are working together to raise funds for a playground. “We should build a playground that will improve the lives of kids from all over Greenfield,” she added.

55M More Reasons to Defund the Mon-Oakland Connector

The COVID-19 emergency has shone a harsh light on Pittsburgh’s funding priorities. One glaring example is the Mon-Oakland Connector (MOC), a controversial luxury microtransit project that primarily serves the Hazelwood Green development and has earned distrust from residents of affected communities.

The foundations that own Hazelwood Green imagine it as a second campus for CMU and Pitt. In a 2009 report, the Remaking Cities Institute of Carnegie Mellon University called a dedicated connection between Oakland and Hazelwood “the singular most important gesture that will ensure the success of the ALMONO site’s redevelopment.” (emphasis in original)

“What was problematic before the pandemic became unconscionable in this climate,” said Laura Wiens, director of Pittsburghers for Public Transit. “Funding this project would mean that other critical needs aren’t being met right now.”

Pittsburgh, like many cities, was hit hard. “Our tax revenues cratered, and there is still no clear path forward to replace them,” Mayor Bill Peduto stated in his 2021 budget speech. Pittsburgh faced a $55 million operating budget deficit at the close of 2020, and is depending on federal aid to avoid $25.6 million in personnel cuts starting in July 2021. About 634 city employees stand to lose their jobs.

A unanimously-approved budget amendment proposed by Councilman Corey O’Connor, whose district includes two MOC-affected communities, moved $4.15 million from the MOC. Those funds made up the 2021 budget for the MOC. They were redirected to the Housing Opportunity Fund (this citywide program received $1.9 million—$750,000 of which is earmarked for the Flats on Forward development in Squirrel Hill, leaving a little over half for Pittsburghers struggling to stay in existing housing), support for small businesses, and infrastructure improvements in Hazelwood.

Yet plans move forward to build the MOC shuttle road through Schenley Park and adjacent neighborhoods. Almono Partners spokesperson David Caliguiri said the foundations “believe the Mon-Oakland Connector remains a critical economic development effort for the City of Pittsburgh and the entire region” and are committed to funding the shuttle service. MOC may have lost 2021 funds from its total price tag of $23 million, but it’s still flush with an unknown portion of $14.5 million already granted in the 2018 and 2019 budgets.

The MOC has a long, shady history (its most recent chapter began with a fraudulent grant application to the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development) and continues to function as a magic-bag project with components and costs that morph according to justifications needed for it at any given time. For example, Pittsburgh’s Department of Mobility and Infrastructure (DOMI) claimed in a January 2020 memo that Irvine St./Second Ave. sidewalk repairs in Hazelwood—a key component of the community-generated Our Money, Our Solutions alternative plan—was always part of the MOC. By October, DOMI’s commitment to fund those repairs had vanished from the MOC budget.

For some neighborhoods—especially Panther Hollow and The Run—harm from the MOC goes beyond diverting limited resources. Two groups of residents in The Run are at risk of being displaced by the shuttle road: those who live near Swinburne Bridge, which DOMI has decided to replace rather than repair so the bridge can be widened for a dedicated MOC shuttle lane; and those who live in flood-prone areas near Big Jim’s.

The first group has already received letters from DOMI implying the City may use eminent domain to take property for the bridge replacement. The second group is some or all of the “affected properties” listed in PWSA documents concerning their Four Mile Run Stormwater Project. These internal documents, obtained through Right-to-Know requests, also reveal that the stormwater project was designed around the MOC and will not adequately protect people’s homes. One proposed solution involves a “discussion regarding property acquisition and other discussions that will not be widely popular.” The stormwater project, for which the PWSA secured $40 million, was billed as a solution to The Run’s flooding problem. But less than half of those funds are being spent on stormwater work in Schenley Park. According to PWSA acting 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, or revisit some of the original green infrastructure projects planned for Panther Hollow Stream and Phipps Run.” (emphasis added)

Besides forcing families out—some of whom have lived in The Run for three generations—the legally questionable use of eminent domain to serve a development project also removes affected properties from the tax rolls. About 40% of land in Pittsburgh is already tax-exempt because the government, universities, and other non-profits own it.

A lack of accountability and transparency surrounding the MOC has allowed DOMI to plan at will behind a screen of public-facing gestures since the department’s inception in 2017. But signs point to a reckoning for the MOC. According to the TransitCenter organization, “PPT is working with the city auditor to assess options for formally moving the money, and to make recommendations about how that money should be spent.”

In past years, City officials have answered public calls to defund the MOC by saying those capital budget funds can’t be applied to other areas of need like the operating budget. This position becomes harder to maintain now that $1.9 million has been moved from the MOC to the Housing Opportunity Fund, decidedly not part of the capital budget.

There is no shortage of ways Pittsburgh could reallocate $14.5 million to meet critical needs of residents. Keeping those funds in reserve for an unpopular, top-down project like the MOC is a disgrace in today’s austere climate.

O’Connor Budget Amendment Shifts Funds from Shuttle Road

Like many high-stakes public meetings this year, the Dec. 14 city budget hearing drew virtual crowds so large that technical glitches left some without access to public comment. Attendees expressed outrage at the priorities reflected in Mayor Bill Peduto’s 2021 budget, and several came out in support of Councilman Corey O’Connor’s proposed amendment that moves $4.15 million from the Mon-Oakland Connector (MOC) project to affordable housing programs and support for small businesses throughout Pittsburgh as well as infrastructure improvements in Hazelwood.

City Council unanimously passed Councilman O’Connor’s amendment. O’Connor said that “projects like [the MOC] don’t need to happen right now,” and this year the funds can instead help tackle economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic.

How 2021 MOC funds are redistributed

  • $1.9 million for the city’s Housing Opportunity Fund
  • $1 million for bike and pedestrian infrastructure in Hazelwood
  • $500,000 to housing in federally designated areas
  • $420,000 to the Urban Redevelopment Authority’s small business programs
  • $270,000 to the Avenues of Hope business district grants for historically Black neighborhoods, including Irvine St./Second Ave. (The program, introduced by Mayor Peduto, previously had no funding.)

Source: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

In addition, O’Connor pointed to a longstanding lack of transparency surrounding the MOC project. “The money that was put towards this project a few years ago never had line items as to where it was going,” he said.

Besides the MOC money Mayor Peduto requested for 2021, he committed a total of $14.5 million from the capital budget to the project in 2018 and 2019. The MOC is expected to cost $23 million overall.

Many residents of the communities MOC would affect, including Hazelwood and Greenfield, have opposed it since learning of the plan from a 2015 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article reporting on a grant the city had already applied for. The project would build a road through the southwestern corner of Schenley Park and “The Run” section of Greenfield to accommodate privately operated shuttles between Oakland university campuses and the Hazelwood Green development.

The Run faces harm from the MOC beyond losing limited resources that should go to critical needs. The small neighborhood, along with Panther Hollow on the other side of Schenley Park, has a long history of ambitious plans that exclude residents

In August, 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 would be widened to include a dedicated lane for the MOC shuttles, which DOMI proposed in 2018 as an option that featured a vehicle elevator.  

If Hazelwood Green’s powerful owners were not motivated by a desire to annex Schenley Park and adjoining neighborhoods, they would drop their single-minded focus on getting shovels in the ground as soon as possible and instead support alternative plans such as Our Money, Our Solutions (OMOS) that more effectively meet Pittsburgh’s stated goals without causing the harms of MOC. 

The community-driven plan has led to weekend service on the 93 bus line and forced DOMI to claim that key components of OMOS, such as Irvine St./Second Ave. sidewalk repairs, were always part of the MOC plan. It also calls for expanding the 75 bus line into Hazelwood.

With a lot of hard work, our communities are shifting the focus of our own tax dollars. This $4.15 million for citywide relief and essential repairs in Hazelwood is a significant step in the right direction.

PWSA Delays Stormwater Project, Declines Request to Model Improvements Without Shuttle Roadway

On June 18, the Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority (PWSA) held a Zoom meeting to discuss the Four Mile Run Stormwater Improvement project and its revised schedule. A May 18 email from the PWSA stated in part, “Additional modeling and design effort have caused a delay to the overall project construction schedule. We originally anticipated starting construction this fall, but it is now anticipated to begin in 2021.”

Chief of Program Management Alex Scuilli began the meeting by acknowledging that “people are waiting for stormwater relief.” He assured attendees, “We think we have the solution [and can provide] a level of storm protection that will be very good for residents.”

However, further discussion of the updated model revealed an apparent scaling back of protection: According to slide 17 of PWSA’s June 2020 presentation, “Designing for a 10-year event was determined to be a cost-effective solution for reduced flood risk.” Notes from a February 22, 2019, meeting at the mayor’s office (obtained via Right-to-Know request) recorded Pittsburgh mayor Bill Peduto’s chief of staff Dan Gilman “wonder[ing] if instead of a 25-year storm, which is what current development designs for, should we be designing for a larger storm event.”

PWSA’s presentation calls out two previous floods in The Run: one 25-year event in 2011 and one 75-year event in 2009. It does not mention other events, such as a 2019 flood that included higher elevations in the neighborhood and a 2016 flood that trapped a resident and his son on the roof of their car.

Run residents have asked the PWSA Board to create a model for the Four Mile Run Stormwater Improvement project that excludes the controversial Mon-Oakland Connector (MOC) road through Schenley Park. MOC opponents contend that the MOC—a development project designed to lure corporations to Hazelwood Green—should not take precedence over the stormwater project. The core project in Schenley Park has long been considered “technically challenging” even without incorporating a new road.

Department of Mobility and Infrastructure (DOMI) director Karina Ricks commented, “We firmly support [PWSA’s] decision to take the time needed to ensure the massive stormwater investment we are making is the right one to best address the stormwater impacts that have affected The Run for so many years. The Mon-Oakland project will proceed concurrent with the PWSA green infrastructure project, thus our timeline is adjusted accordingly as well.”

Asked whether the PWSA has created a model without MOC or intends to do so, PWSA acting senior manager of public affairs Rebecca Zito responded, “The mobility project is a planned project and our model has taken into consideration that it would be constructed. Not including it would set false expectations and provide an unrealistic assessment for advancing the stormwater project. We appreciate that residents from the Run took the time to address the Board in March about this project. The Board heard your request to commission a model for the stormwater project without the mobility corridor project, unfortunately, we were not directed to do so.”

Five of PWSA’s six current board members were nominated by Mayor Peduto, a longtime proponent of MOC who faces an estimated $150+ million budget shortfall this year because of COVID-19. In contrast to PWSA’s stormwater project, which addresses a clear public safety issue and will be financed by the PWSA itself, the City-funded MOC project demonstrably fails to benefit residents in the neighborhoods it affects. By all appearances, Mr. Peduto’s priorities are the only reason the PWSA would view cancelation of the MOC as “an unrealistic assessment.” 

Contact the PWSA

412-255-2423
www.pgh2o.com/report-an-issue

Right-to-Know Request Documents Provide Answers

bad governance and good governance

And Some Answers Raise More Questions

Since 2018, residents of Four Mile Run (The Run) have filed several Right To Know requests with the City of Pittsburgh regarding the proposed Mon-Oakland Connector (MOC) project. City government eventually gave residents documents that were inadequate in fulfilling the RTK requests. Missing information includes up-to-date engineering documents and large portions of City departments’ correspondence with all private partners in the project. In the city’s response to the requests, they stated that they are not required to share any information, but would do so selectively. Furthermore, they added, “We are prohibited from forwarding records that reflect the attorney-client privilege or the attorney work product privilege.”

But a section of the PA office of Open Records Right–to-Know Law states:

Section 708 of the RTKL places the burden of proof on the public body to demonstrate that a record is exempt. In pertinent part, Section 708(a) states: “The burden of proving that a record of a Commonwealth agency or local agency is exempt from public access shall be on the Commonwealth agency or local agency receiving a request by a preponderance of the evidence.” Preponderance of the evidence has been defined as “such proof as leads the fact-finder … to find that the existence of a contested fact is more probable than its nonexistence.”

The City’s position raises the question: Who is the attorney and who is the client in this case? This is the very same claim that city government made while conducting its infamous secret Amazon deal. The details of that plan, now available after Amazon turned down the bid, reveal the reasons for the secrecy. Pittsburgh promised the world’s richest man one of the most generous corporate welfare giveaways of land and taxpayer money of any city in the U.S. Those promises included the MOC.

At the suggestion of the City of Pittsburgh, residents also filed RTK requests with the Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority (PWSA), the agency tasked with constructing the Four Mile Run Watershed Plan. The scope of this crucial and technically challenging project was to include fixing The Run’s worsening chronic flooding. But the City is forcing the merger of the MOC with PWSA’s plan. PWSA failed to respond to a resident appeal and the Office of Open Records in Harrisburg ordered PWSA to hand over all documents requested. Those documents contained crucial information including:

A portion of Mayor’s office meeting document listing who attended and Mayor Chief of Staff Dan Gillman’s remarks about the MOC project.

There is more evidence of non-transparency and duplicity by city government regarding the MOC project. Throughout the process, residents have demanded they be informed of what DOMI was planning and when DOMI would be filing grant proposals or other requests for funding. DOMI has refused to do so. They applied for a 1 million dollar grant for the MOC through the Southwestern PA Commission in 2018—while DOMI was holding a series of public meetings about the project. The money was approved, but DOMI failed to notify residents beforehand and afterward. Only dogged research and policing of the project by opponents flushed out the information.

Residents more recently received another document: a 2018 request from DOMI to the City Budget office for funding. That document is mostly blank, but DOMI was nonetheless given 9 million dollars of taxpayer money. One section of the document DOMI did fill out was the section reading: Please identify the source of external funding and how the project adheres to the funding source’s rules and regulations. “Demonstrated support of the public” was a question within that section. DOMI’s response: Depends on which community!

 A section of the City Budget form shows DOMI’s response to whether the project has community support. 

What else are city officials hiding and why? Why are they so determined to bulldoze through two vibrant neighborhoods and Schenley Park when they admit their proposed shuttle road is not a transportation solution and does not serve the affected communities? University expansion through a slow-motion land grab could be the answer.

Opponents of the MOC recognize this issue as much bigger than any individual neighborhood. Our growing coalition of residents, park protectors, neighborhood organizations and other concerned citizens is committed to protecting Pittsburgh’s communities from erasure.

(This article was previously published on February 1, 2020 in the Hazelwood Homepage)

DOMI Memo Leaked to Junction Coalition

This January 7 memorandum from Department of Mobility and Infrastructure (DOMI) director Karina Ricks to Pittsburgh City Council shows a sea change in the battle for (as the memo puts it) “COMMUNITY GENERATED TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS.”

For the first time, DOMI has named specific components of the Mon-Oakland Connector project and attached dollar amounts to some of those components. Whether or not the information proves trustworthy, Pittsburghers can count its emergence as a win for accountability. Previously, DOMI refused to provide these details even in public meetings. Such details existed in a nebulous “magic bag” that constantly morphed, defying scrutiny.

The memo shows DOMI responding to our call for public infrastructure improvements listed in the Our Money, Our Solutions plan. Reluctantly—and perhaps dishonestly—but directly, and point by point. Thanks, DOMI!

Stay tuned as the fact-checkers get to work. If you want to contribute data or effort, please leave a comment on this post or email us.

DOMI Director Karina Ricks Responds

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?

This Is Our Flooding Problem

Since last year, the PWSA has had $41 million in funding to fix an urgent public safety issue in the heart of Pittsburgh. Please call 412-255-2423 to ask them, “What’s the holdup?”

As you watch the video above, imagine that Four Mile Run is your neighborhood. In a way, it is.

Those of us who live here see “The Run” as unique, but it has the basics that most neighborhoods share: houses, sidewalks churches, businesses—and a community of people. Imagine these are your streets and homes filling with water, your neighbors becoming trapped on top of their car, your children at risk of drowning.

They are.

If you live in Pittsburgh, you’ve likely traveled over The Run on the Parkway East. You may frequent or live in the better-known neighborhoods above us that get this water first—and more and more of this water ends up in The Run as unchecked development covers acres of land with impervious surfaces like asphalt.

As the flooding steadily worsened over decades, your neighbors were told time and time again that our city lacked funds to fix it. So it was a big deal when PWSA secured the $41 million earmarked for the problem. Now, even with funding finally in place, more than a year has passed and work has not started on this important and necessary project.

Why so much foot-dragging? Unfortunately, there is more to the story—and the details are dirtier than the sewage in our basements.

Please call the PWSA at 412-255-2423 to demand they fix this urgent public safety issue using green solutions.