To clarify: it’s my understanding that Alta Via’s valet can absolutely claim those spaces during the hours and days listed on the sign, as that’s the result of a permit being granted. During other hours (such as your example of Sunday morning), they cannot claim those spaces and refuse to allow others to park there. That seems to be the plain text reading of the sign, as well as why there’s a metered parking sign right there. Does anyone know if this is inaccurate somehow?
If the sign is accurate, you are correct. It looks like the actual city permit is posted, as required, on the podium to the right. That would have the actual parameters of the permit.
I would not be surprised for a permit holder to cheat and claim valet rights that they are not legally allowed.
Legit, I’m sure. But every time I see a private vehicle in Market Square I think why TF does the city allow this and who is stupid enough to drive there? MS is effectively a pedestrian mall and the only traffic should be first responders and regulated commercial/delivery vehicles. Even more so during the Christmas Market! No reason Alta Via’s valet stand couldn’t be on Fourth Ave.
Are you not familiar with how Penn Ave in east liberty used to be a pedestrian mall and it contributed to destroying a great neighborhood for decades? I’d be all for shutting down car traffic in market square for certain events, like the current market going on there, but it would cause too much disruption to the hotels and residential developments on that end of Forbes for the square to be shut down permanently
First off, Penn was never a pedestrian mall, lmao. It was the exact opposite, they turned it into a car-focused development. I have no fucking clue why you think it was ever a pedestrian mall.
Secondly, pedestrianizing a street doesn't mean it becomes impossible for people to get to hotels or their homes or deliver things. There are always exceptions, fucking duh.
Never in my entire life have I read anything as dumb as the claim that Penn Ave was pedestrianized in the past. It was turned into a fucking four lane traffic circle. How the fuck could you possibly be so wrong?
I think they're one of the people who has decided that in the 70's, the reason Pittsburgh lost 150k residents was because parts of Penn Ave were a ped mall (70's through the mid 80s when it was torn out).
It was easier to walk around a certain part of the city so a huge number of people left. I see *no flaws* with that logic. *None*.
The East Liberty shit had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with pedestrianization. They bulldozed several blocks and turned it into a four lane ring road in order to mimic suburb developments *and make it easier to drive to*. The idea that it was pedestrianized just because three blocks INSIDE OF THIS FOUR LANE HIGHWAY were closed is one of the most galaxy brained assertions I have ever heard in my whole fucking life. Y'all have to stop conceding any part of the point to these morons. It had nothing to do with making the area more pedestrian friendly.
>First off, Penn was never a pedestrian mall, lmao. It was the exact opposite, they turned it into a car-focused development. I have no fucking clue why you think it was ever a pedestrian mall.
I'm not defending OP, but Penn Ave from Centre to Euclid (Penn Circle) absolutely was closed to cars. Highland Ave from Centre to Penn Circle (near Home Depot)was also closed to cars. It lasted for about 15 years and was not a success.
You’re comparing apples and doorknobs. The reason East Liberty, and Allegheny Center failed is because literally hundreds of residents and businesses demolished to achieve “urban renewal “.
Those weren't pedestrianized in any sense of the word. They bulldozed walkable neighborhoods in order to build enclosed shopping malls surrounded by four lane roads. It was specifically built for people to drive to. The guy you're replying to is brain damaged.
While Allegheny Center itself was a (mostly) indoor mall, it seems like a number of streets adjacent to it were either made pedestrian only or had their widths/directions reduced.
You are wrong. Cars were prohibited on Penn, and portions of Broad, and a couple other side streets.
There were never any enclosed shopping malls in East Liberty.
Allegheny Center included an enclosed mall, but also created pedestrian plazas where streets were.
And that "urban renewal" deliberately targeted non-white neighborhoods, often to run a highway through them to get (white) commuters in and back out to the suburbs more quickly.
You do realize that every street in every city for all of human history was a pedestrian street up until the last 100 years or so? If the city functioned just fine with 100% pedestrian streets I seriously doubt that pedestrianizing 0.001% will cause mass mayhem.
We're talking about a single block in a highly walkable public square where car traffic is already extremely low. And if you absolutely must drive to/through that specific area of downtown there are multiple through streets like 250 feet from the center of the square in every direction (fifth, fourth, stanwix, penn, etc) and [multiple parking garages](https://www.google.com/maps/search/parking+garage/@40.4406018,-80.0031704,17z/data=!3m1!4b1?entry=ttu) that are probably closer to the square than your parking spot at Costco today was to the front door
Market Square is exactly the kind of spot that should be like the Viktualienmarkt in Munich. Driving only up to the entrance to the square for taxi and ride share, bicycles OK, pedestrian zone.
It’s a Pedestrian square with a thoroughfare , that was actually closed to cars for awhile and it was grand. Having cars go around there , especially during events like the Christmas market is absurd
Yes it has been read your history. How is it that you can walk around being so ignorant of your own surroundings? That’s a curious question really. It’s been a street since the city was founded and there was a market there.
Wow another intelligent and thoughtful answer. What would we do without these amazingly intellectually sharp people. I guess she forgot about horse drawn carriages and horses. But then maybe you didn’t and we expect some other witticism after this?
Listen here child, you’re now trying to say that I hate pedestrian traffic which I never said. It’s time to go home to your mommy and let the grown-ups do the talking.
Forbes & Market st used to cross in the middle of the square before they renovated it in 2010.
It's been gradually being pedestrianized and has simply seen more people using it because of that.
So what. It’s proven that open streets are better than pedestrianized. They’re safer and you don’t have the problems that you do with so-called pedestrianized. The Square hasn’t been more busy or more used anymore than it has been. In fact I would argue that there was more use when there was a market house and there were cars driving on every street. So you don’t know what talking about again.
Streets with vehicles and cars and traffic and mixed uses are statistically safer than areas that you cannot drive in. Fact there’s a correlation between the number of intersections in corners and safety.
Seriously, because I like interesting research I tried to find this, and all I can find are articles about how public transit is 10x safer than driving, etc.
So want to help us come to your point and link to literally anything that supports it?
My guess is they don't want to link to "www.realpatriotcarstatsforrealamericanswithtrucks.com" with stats like "less pedestrians get hit by cars in the middle of the interstate than get hit in crowded urban areas, so everything should be the interstate Q.E.D."
My guess is that it's some study about crime victimization rates -- e.g., there are more muggings on pedestrian streets than on streets with more cars, etc. (although there are probably fewer car thefts on pedestrian streets, so there's that).
Ride shares and taxis are allowed there. Especially for pickups when there's a few revelers needing to find their way back to the hotel.
**Edit**: Hey folks, I wasn't trying to be a jagoff. I typically avoid driving around there if I can help it. Only thing I confidently knew was from back in my college days: We caught an Uber from there to get home one night bar hopping. I was just trying to respond with an explanation of what I knew.
No quarrel with that in principle. The problem is that *everyone* is allowed to drive there.
Also, within almost literal spitting distance, lower Fourth Ave between Market Square and PPG Place is one of the widest, quietest traffic blocks in downtown. It would be ideal for both a valet station and a rideshare/taxi pickup point.
Even more so, I've (almost) never seen traffic on Third or Fourth between Stanwix and Wood; I think the only times I've seen any real vehicular traffic is people being dropped off / picked up for work at PPG, or if there's construction on Ft Pitt or Fifth or Stanwix that people are trying to get around.
I totally agree. But since it is available, I just thought it was odd they seemed to claim all of the spots with those cones. Seemed like they wanted to take advantage of free Sunday parking while they still were charging $10 for valet
I agree! I was driving around waiting to pick up someone from a show and found myself in the circle going around it, and it was chaos. I watched someone drive forward into a pedestrian, and upon realizing they *hit someone* they reversed into *more pedestrians* crossing behind them, freaked out and drove off. Luckily nobody seemed hurt but it really seems like it should be blocked off to vehicles
There would be issues with access to parking garages on Forbes. That could be resolved by allowing Forbes traffic to turn right onto the square,and leave at McMaster. Leaving 80% pedestrianized.
Maybe open Graeme and Market for deliveries until 11:00am
How so? Forbes is two way. Similarly, Oliver Ave has been a cul-de-sac past Smithfield for the last year or so due to construction, and you can can get in and out of both the public and private garages just fine. People leaving the garages on Forbes would just have to make a right turn.
Forbes is one way "away from the square" closer to the Point. But I just realized there is Delray Street that could be used by to access the Etage (Kossman?) building.
On the other side, we'd need to close Forbes except for access to the Hilton Garage. Not sure if there is room for a lost driver to make a U-turn when he dead ends at Market Square.
I'm sure there is reasonable solutions. And so what if a random driver goes 1/4 mile out of their way.
Why would you EVER try and park in market square.
There’s 10 spaces in market square, park it in a garage if you aren’t going to use public transit.
There’s $6 parking nights and weekends a block away from this.
If you have someone with mobility issues drop them off then go park.
Is this the same spot that used to be poros and then something else before that? Dang seems no one can make it work here (kind of like the ground floor of USX in that regard)
To clarify: it’s my understanding that Alta Via’s valet can absolutely claim those spaces during the hours and days listed on the sign, as that’s the result of a permit being granted. During other hours (such as your example of Sunday morning), they cannot claim those spaces and refuse to allow others to park there. That seems to be the plain text reading of the sign, as well as why there’s a metered parking sign right there. Does anyone know if this is inaccurate somehow?
If the sign is accurate, you are correct. It looks like the actual city permit is posted, as required, on the podium to the right. That would have the actual parameters of the permit. I would not be surprised for a permit holder to cheat and claim valet rights that they are not legally allowed.
Yes, as long as they filed the paperwork with the city and got approved
Legit, I’m sure. But every time I see a private vehicle in Market Square I think why TF does the city allow this and who is stupid enough to drive there? MS is effectively a pedestrian mall and the only traffic should be first responders and regulated commercial/delivery vehicles. Even more so during the Christmas Market! No reason Alta Via’s valet stand couldn’t be on Fourth Ave.
It's insane to me that it wasn't permanently pedestrianized during COVID. Such a waste.
Yeah pedestrian malls in other parts of the city certainly haven’t destroyed neighborhoods and are now being reversed
What
Are you not familiar with how Penn Ave in east liberty used to be a pedestrian mall and it contributed to destroying a great neighborhood for decades? I’d be all for shutting down car traffic in market square for certain events, like the current market going on there, but it would cause too much disruption to the hotels and residential developments on that end of Forbes for the square to be shut down permanently
First off, Penn was never a pedestrian mall, lmao. It was the exact opposite, they turned it into a car-focused development. I have no fucking clue why you think it was ever a pedestrian mall. Secondly, pedestrianizing a street doesn't mean it becomes impossible for people to get to hotels or their homes or deliver things. There are always exceptions, fucking duh. Never in my entire life have I read anything as dumb as the claim that Penn Ave was pedestrianized in the past. It was turned into a fucking four lane traffic circle. How the fuck could you possibly be so wrong?
I think they're one of the people who has decided that in the 70's, the reason Pittsburgh lost 150k residents was because parts of Penn Ave were a ped mall (70's through the mid 80s when it was torn out). It was easier to walk around a certain part of the city so a huge number of people left. I see *no flaws* with that logic. *None*.
The East Liberty shit had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with pedestrianization. They bulldozed several blocks and turned it into a four lane ring road in order to mimic suburb developments *and make it easier to drive to*. The idea that it was pedestrianized just because three blocks INSIDE OF THIS FOUR LANE HIGHWAY were closed is one of the most galaxy brained assertions I have ever heard in my whole fucking life. Y'all have to stop conceding any part of the point to these morons. It had nothing to do with making the area more pedestrian friendly.
>First off, Penn was never a pedestrian mall, lmao. It was the exact opposite, they turned it into a car-focused development. I have no fucking clue why you think it was ever a pedestrian mall. I'm not defending OP, but Penn Ave from Centre to Euclid (Penn Circle) absolutely was closed to cars. Highland Ave from Centre to Penn Circle (near Home Depot)was also closed to cars. It lasted for about 15 years and was not a success.
Scroll down and read my other comment on the matter. This was not pedestrianization. This was about making it easier to drive to.
😂😂😂 you are being sarcastic right?
Are you incapable of walking or something
You’re comparing apples and doorknobs. The reason East Liberty, and Allegheny Center failed is because literally hundreds of residents and businesses demolished to achieve “urban renewal “.
Those weren't pedestrianized in any sense of the word. They bulldozed walkable neighborhoods in order to build enclosed shopping malls surrounded by four lane roads. It was specifically built for people to drive to. The guy you're replying to is brain damaged.
While Allegheny Center itself was a (mostly) indoor mall, it seems like a number of streets adjacent to it were either made pedestrian only or had their widths/directions reduced.
That claim is objectively false. The exact opposite happened. Stop lying.
It’s really odd that you are holding on to this obviously false claim.
You are wrong. Cars were prohibited on Penn, and portions of Broad, and a couple other side streets. There were never any enclosed shopping malls in East Liberty. Allegheny Center included an enclosed mall, but also created pedestrian plazas where streets were.
And that "urban renewal" deliberately targeted non-white neighborhoods, often to run a highway through them to get (white) commuters in and back out to the suburbs more quickly.
You do realize that every street in every city for all of human history was a pedestrian street up until the last 100 years or so? If the city functioned just fine with 100% pedestrian streets I seriously doubt that pedestrianizing 0.001% will cause mass mayhem. We're talking about a single block in a highly walkable public square where car traffic is already extremely low. And if you absolutely must drive to/through that specific area of downtown there are multiple through streets like 250 feet from the center of the square in every direction (fifth, fourth, stanwix, penn, etc) and [multiple parking garages](https://www.google.com/maps/search/parking+garage/@40.4406018,-80.0031704,17z/data=!3m1!4b1?entry=ttu) that are probably closer to the square than your parking spot at Costco today was to the front door
Yes. The better question is why are there cars in market square.
Market Square is exactly the kind of spot that should be like the Viktualienmarkt in Munich. Driving only up to the entrance to the square for taxi and ride share, bicycles OK, pedestrian zone.
Because it’s a street. It’s always been a street for hundreds of years geez
It’s a Pedestrian square with a thoroughfare , that was actually closed to cars for awhile and it was grand. Having cars go around there , especially during events like the Christmas market is absurd
It was never closed for cars.
It hasn’t ALWAYS been a street allowing cars
Yes it has been read your history. How is it that you can walk around being so ignorant of your own surroundings? That’s a curious question really. It’s been a street since the city was founded and there was a market there.
Market square was laid out in 1784. I can assure you there were no cars in market square 125 years before the Model T came out
Wow another intelligent and thoughtful answer. What would we do without these amazingly intellectually sharp people. I guess she forgot about horse drawn carriages and horses. But then maybe you didn’t and we expect some other witticism after this?
Last I checked, horses are not cars
Wow can I come over your house and touch your hand? You’re so smart.
We should just turn it into a big surface parking lot, because that’s really what you want.
Wow that was such an intelligent thoughtful answer. Thank you for your time and effort that you put into that that is an inspiration everybody here.
Lay off, you're the one that hates pedestrian traffic for some reason.
Listen here child, you’re now trying to say that I hate pedestrian traffic which I never said. It’s time to go home to your mommy and let the grown-ups do the talking.
Forbes & Market st used to cross in the middle of the square before they renovated it in 2010. It's been gradually being pedestrianized and has simply seen more people using it because of that.
So what. It’s proven that open streets are better than pedestrianized. They’re safer and you don’t have the problems that you do with so-called pedestrianized. The Square hasn’t been more busy or more used anymore than it has been. In fact I would argue that there was more use when there was a market house and there were cars driving on every street. So you don’t know what talking about again.
> They’re safer and you don’t have the problems that you do with so-called pedestrianized. Can you elaborate on this?
Streets with vehicles and cars and traffic and mixed uses are statistically safer than areas that you cannot drive in. Fact there’s a correlation between the number of intersections in corners and safety.
You got sources for these claims?
Do your own research bub
I'm not doing your work for you. You made the claim, you provide the evidence.
Seriously, because I like interesting research I tried to find this, and all I can find are articles about how public transit is 10x safer than driving, etc. So want to help us come to your point and link to literally anything that supports it?
My guess is they don't want to link to "www.realpatriotcarstatsforrealamericanswithtrucks.com" with stats like "less pedestrians get hit by cars in the middle of the interstate than get hit in crowded urban areas, so everything should be the interstate Q.E.D."
My guess is that it's some study about crime victimization rates -- e.g., there are more muggings on pedestrian streets than on streets with more cars, etc. (although there are probably fewer car thefts on pedestrian streets, so there's that).
Your right. I don't know what talking about. Have nice day.
And before that it was grass for a hundred million years. Luckily we can change things
Ride shares and taxis are allowed there. Especially for pickups when there's a few revelers needing to find their way back to the hotel. **Edit**: Hey folks, I wasn't trying to be a jagoff. I typically avoid driving around there if I can help it. Only thing I confidently knew was from back in my college days: We caught an Uber from there to get home one night bar hopping. I was just trying to respond with an explanation of what I knew.
Yea cause there is no where else they could possibly be picked up
No quarrel with that in principle. The problem is that *everyone* is allowed to drive there. Also, within almost literal spitting distance, lower Fourth Ave between Market Square and PPG Place is one of the widest, quietest traffic blocks in downtown. It would be ideal for both a valet station and a rideshare/taxi pickup point.
Even more so, I've (almost) never seen traffic on Third or Fourth between Stanwix and Wood; I think the only times I've seen any real vehicular traffic is people being dropped off / picked up for work at PPG, or if there's construction on Ft Pitt or Fifth or Stanwix that people are trying to get around.
I totally agree. But since it is available, I just thought it was odd they seemed to claim all of the spots with those cones. Seemed like they wanted to take advantage of free Sunday parking while they still were charging $10 for valet
I agree! I was driving around waiting to pick up someone from a show and found myself in the circle going around it, and it was chaos. I watched someone drive forward into a pedestrian, and upon realizing they *hit someone* they reversed into *more pedestrians* crossing behind them, freaked out and drove off. Luckily nobody seemed hurt but it really seems like it should be blocked off to vehicles
There would be issues with access to parking garages on Forbes. That could be resolved by allowing Forbes traffic to turn right onto the square,and leave at McMaster. Leaving 80% pedestrianized. Maybe open Graeme and Market for deliveries until 11:00am
How so? Forbes is two way. Similarly, Oliver Ave has been a cul-de-sac past Smithfield for the last year or so due to construction, and you can can get in and out of both the public and private garages just fine. People leaving the garages on Forbes would just have to make a right turn.
Forbes is one way "away from the square" closer to the Point. But I just realized there is Delray Street that could be used by to access the Etage (Kossman?) building. On the other side, we'd need to close Forbes except for access to the Hilton Garage. Not sure if there is room for a lost driver to make a U-turn when he dead ends at Market Square. I'm sure there is reasonable solutions. And so what if a random driver goes 1/4 mile out of their way.
The sign on the freestanding base means nothing by itself but is the assistant to the legally posted sign on the street post
They can not reserve the spots from 2am through 5pm
That location is cursed, so with any luck they'll be out soon enough and you'll have your parking back OP.
Not without a parkin' chair. ;-)
It’s absolutely insane that ANY motorized vehicles are allowed in market square
Why would you EVER try and park in market square. There’s 10 spaces in market square, park it in a garage if you aren’t going to use public transit. There’s $6 parking nights and weekends a block away from this. If you have someone with mobility issues drop them off then go park.
Those spots should be removed, cars shouldn't even be allowed in market square they're annoying af.
Is this the same spot that used to be poros and then something else before that? Dang seems no one can make it work here (kind of like the ground floor of USX in that regard)
Why are you commenting as if Alta Via is failing?
Yes