The Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission gave about 300 residents an opportunity to look at several future development scenarios for the 10-county region Monday evening and to take a "straw vote" on some of the options they favored in the 7,100-square-mile region.
In a first-ever, Web-based town meeting conducted at 11 different sites around the region, including Yost Auditorium at Washington & Jefferson College's Burnett Center, residents from the 10 counties viewed three different computer-generated scenarios for growth and transportation use for a region with a population of more than 2.6 million people.
During a brief introduction, Washington County Commission Chairman Bracken Burns noted that the SPC's "Project Region" is an attempt to determine the course of long-range planning for the next 25 to 30 years.
"The SPC is the forum where the whole region collaborates to create, coordinate and plan investment for the entire region," he said.
Other SPC officials, all of whom addressed participants over the Web from the Regional Enterprise Tower in Pittsburgh, noted that SPC also is the organization that receives state and federal funding for infrastructure in Southwestern Pennsylvania, including transportation projects and water and sewerage development.
James Hassinger, executive director of the SPC, said that regardless of which types of planning are eventually adopted for the region, its main priorities will be for revitalizing and redeveloping the region's existing communities; promoting business development with a focus on existing business retention and expansion; and maintaining the existing transportation system.
"The region's infrastructure and land use will support and enhance the regional economy and communities within it," he said in reading the SPC's comprehensive policy statement.
Participants were then shown a current map of development trends, followed by three different development scenarios that were computer-generated using several different variables, including development density, amount of land developed, households close to transit, households close to highways, ease of regional travel and basic infrastructure cost.
The three scenarios described were:
n Dispersed/fringe - which promotes lower-density development, with most development occurring outside urban cores and transportation focused on use of highways. Public transit and transit accessibility play little or no role. The scenario places emphasis on preserving and developing the tourism and hospitality industry by capitalizing on historic, cultural, recreational and ecological assets. The primary development mix has a high separation of agriculture, industrial and residential areas, but requires heavy expansion of infrastructure to previously unserved areas.
n Compact/infill/transit oriented - features high-density development with a mix of uses, with development targeted within or adjacent to core communities. The scenario is pedestrian-oriented and has a strong reliance on public transportation, but would require minimal expansion of existing utilities to accommodate new growth. The plan emphasizes revitalization and redevelopment of the region's existing communities and gives attention to well-situated brownfield locations for redevelopment.
n Corridor/cluster - places emphasis on medium- to high-density development in centers, clusters and transportation corridors, with a focus on highways, transit, railways and waterways, with excellent access to urban cores. While revitalization of the region's existing communities is a priority, investment in infrastructure improvements.
During the 15-minute discussion periods allotted for each scenario, the 16 people who attended the Washington meeting found the dispersed/fringe scenario to require large expansion of infrastructure. One woman noted that "green" areas tended to be separated by heavy development around the region's highway system. There also was concern expressed that the dispersed/fringe scenario ignored many existing communities.
Participants at the Washington meeting also found that the compact/infill/transit oriented scenario appeared to be a throwback to an earlier time, at least where Washington County is concerned. While the style would call for low separation of residences in towns and would rely on mass transit, pedestrian, water and rail transportation, several people said they did not believe that people would be willing or able to return to such a sequence, when most people walked to work and took streetcars for longer trips.
"It looks like a map of the county from 100 years ago," said one participant.
William McGowen, director of the Washington County Redevelopment Authority, noted that it would be impossible to move industrial sites like glass plants and steel mills back into cities, adding that "you can't get there politically or legally.
"Everybody wants to do this, but when the rubber meets the road," it won't happen, McGowen said.
During the discussion of the cluster/corridor option, many participants agreed that it more closely reflects regional consideration. The projected map of development showed a strong concentration along Interstate 79, similar to the current trend of development in the corridor.
In a straw vote taken among the 300 participants at the 11 meeting sites, 54 percent favored a corridor/cluster approach to development density, followed by 38 percent for compact/infill/transit.
When asked how they would proceed with land development, 48 percent voted for compact/infill, while 45 percent favored a cluster/corridor approach.
Hassinger said feedback from participants about what they like and don't like about the different scenarios will be used by SPC members to develop a "preferred scenario" for the region.
• • •
SPC REGION SNAPSHOT
Southwestern Pennsylvania, as defined by the Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission, consists of 10 counties: Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Fayette, Greene, Indiana, Lawrence, Washington and Westmoreland.
• Population: 2.65 million
• Total households: 1,081,779
• Average household income: $51,088
• Total housing units: 1,172,044
• Total employed (age 16 and over): 1,198,932
• No. of workers commuting by car, truck or van (alone): 917,427
• No. of workers carpooling: 114,674
• No. of workers using public transportation: 65,932
• Average travel time to work: 25.2 minutes
• Educational attainment
(based on population 25 years & over of 1,842,272)
Percent high school graduate or higher 84.5
Percent bachelor's degree or higher 22.8
• Major employment by industry
Educational, health & social services: 272,874
Retail Trade: 151,823
Manufacturing: 151,041
Professional, scientific, management, administrative & waste management services: 106,606
Construction: 74,689
• Figures based on 2000 U.S. Census