City evacuation plan missing in action

The Tribune Review recently reported that Pittsburgh officials received a $580,000 grant from Homeland Security in 2007. The money was paid to Michael Baker Corporation to plan a mass evacuation of downtown Pittsburgh in the wake of 9/11, yet here we are in 2011 and there's still no plan. A draft was issued to the city about 8 months ago but little further information is available as the city sits in limbo. Comparatively, the city of Philadelphia started drafting a plan covering evacuation of the entire city in April 2007 and was able to implement it in April of 2008. Why does our city seem to continuously fall short of meeting it's responsibilities to citizens?


Philly's plan was in response to a 2006 report which identified gaps in the area's emergency preparedness system. Pittsburgh's impetus was the gridlock and mass confusion following the evacuation of downtown while flight 93 was still in the air in 2001.

Philadelphia: Less than 2 years from identifying need to putting a system in place
Pittsburgh: Ten years and counting, from time need was identified and still no system


Philadelphia has approximately 5 times the population of Pittsburgh and more than twice the land area of our city. That makes their plan somewhat more complex in that it must: cover more area; move more people; requires greater resources to design and implement; and must account for more contingencies than plans covering smaller, less populous areas.

Philadelphia: about 1.5 million people over 135 square miles
Pittsburgh: just over 300,000 people in an area roughly 55 square miles


One of the most disturbing differences between the two plans is that Philadelphia's covers the entire city while Pittsburgh's plan will only adress evacuation of the downtown area. City government maintains that we do have an evacuation plan but in reality the plan addresses only when to evacuate buildings, not how to facilitate an evacuation.


Other cities large and small have detailed plans in place yet this is not a priority for our city leaders despite the fact that Pittsburgh has been the target of a few of the plots foiled since 9/11. Aspects of most plans include things like designated routes for pedestrian, public transit and vehicle traffic to prevent gridlock and improve safety as well as special provisions for the most at-risk of the population, such as how to evacuate hospitals, move the disabled and assist the elderly. Our plan is to stay inside unless city officials tell you to leave but once they do, then you're on your own.


Pittsburgh has already been targeted by terrorists and had a fairly close call with flight 93. Although it's highly unlikely that warfare will ever take place in our streets, natural and man-made disasters are a very real threat and much more likely to occur.  A detailed emergency plan needs to be in place and there's no excuse for putting it off any longer.

Bank of America foreclosing on wrong homes

What happens when the bank forecloses on a home that’s not in arrears on the mortgage or one that’s owned outright? According to this ABC News report, it’s not a simple process for victims to get their homes or their possessions back. Homeowners in 4 states are accusing Bank of America of foreclosing on homes that were not in arrears. People in Florida, Kentucky, Texas and Pennsylvania have been affected so far, but there could be more victims out there.

The Reason We Have Trails & Parks

There’s been a lot of talk lately about the rights of bicyclists with the advent of the City of Pittsburgh’s new city Bicycle Czar. It’s turning into a heated debate between motorists & cyclists, but many of the real issues are being obscured by the knee-jerk reactions of the speakers.

I commute on foot but also bike frequently, as well as owning & regularly operating a car. Thus, I feel as though I’ve got a foot in every corner on this issue. I can’t help but wonder why cyclists feel that all responsibility & accountability rests on the shoulders of everyone else. Some opinions in particular really stand out as foolish & hypocritical.

Cyclists whine that motorists are ignorant of bicycle laws. This may well be true but we can’t exactly impose cycling education on drivers when cyclists aren’t required to learn anything at all. The fair solution would be for everyone to pass the same written tests & follow the same measures to maintain a license. Cyclists should have to register a license the same way that drivers register a vehicle. In this way, everyone is equally educated & equally identifiable via a state-issued photo license & vehicle plate, thus equally accountable. It’s beyond unreasonable for a select group to have all of the same rights without any of the responsibility.

Cyclists are also whining about an op-ed piece suggesting a modest fee to cyclists that would be used to fund bike-friendly improvements to our infrastructure. Some claim this “financial burden” would make decrease the popularity of biking. How about $10 per year? I hardly think such a cost would discourage anyone. That can hardly be construed as a financial burden by any stretch of the imagination. One especially ridiculous letter to the editor even claims that such fees go against the very principle of sharing the road because it would prevent cyclists from feeling entitled to our roads.

Excuse me, but right now motorists are the only people who have any entitlement to our roads. They’re shouldering the entire financial burden, yet are being asked to accommodate the (sometimes extreme) inconvenience of others. Various motorist fees, as well as the ridiculously high fuel taxes in PA, pay for the roads & bridges. Drivers are already being forced to subsidize a bus system that most of us don’t use & now we’re being told that some other group has the right to use our roads but no responsibility to help subsidize the burden. I don’t think so.

Many of the cyclists are also complaining about the cluelessness or outright rudeness of drivers. The biggest problem (from the many letters I’ve seen on this subject) seems to be drivers turning. Cyclists feel that drivers have no business turning if a bike is approaching because the cyclist is forced to slow down or stop in order to avoid riding into the turning car.

Well cyclists can’t have it both ways: either you want the same rights as motor vehicles or you want to be able to do a whole bunch of stuff that’s illegal for cars. If a car drove along the shoulder or created his own lane in traffic & hit a car making a legal turn, who’s at fault? It’s certainly never going to be the car making a legal turn, it’s going to be the jerk breaking the law.

If you want the same rights, then you have to follow the same laws. No more sidling up between me & the car to my left at the light. No more skating through the deserted intersection while I wait for the green light. How many times has this happened to you: There’s a lot of traffic on a main road where the speed limit may be as high as 35 or 40 mph, yet everyone’s going about 15 because some jerk on a bike refuses to move over so that cars may pass. But once you all get to a traffic light, the bike jerk is happy to move to the side & go around all of the vehicles already waiting at the intersection. He sneaks through, crosses the intersection against the light & half a block down the road, there’s an even longer line of cars, trucks & buses stuck behind this idiot because he just had to pass at the intersection. It’s got to end.

It sounds to me like the only “danger” cyclists truly want to avoid is accountability.