Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Pedestrian Safety topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council committee recommends acceptance of $316,367 settlement over Finland Street pedestrian bridge; members press for pedestrian-safety audit

3376422 · April 2, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The standing committee recommended that the city accept $316,367 in full and final settlement of litigation related to the Finland Street pedestrian bridge. Council members expressed concern that removal of the bridge leaves a gap in safe crossings on Bigelow Boulevard and requested a pedestrian safety audit.

The city should accept $316,367 in full and final settlement of litigation over the Finland Street pedestrian bridge, Pittsburgh City Council’s standing committee recommended on April 2, 2025.

The bill (15 72) was approved by voice vote in committee. During discussion Councilman Gross said the settlement resolves litigation over a bridge that had to be taken down after severe damage, but noted the removal left the neighborhood without pedestrian infrastructure and voiced safety concerns for residents who must cross Bigelow Boulevard to reach bus stops.

"This is a settlement, so it's not really anything that we can do much about," Gross said, adding that the affected crossing sits between existing crossings and that the current alternatives are not ideal. Gross asked the administration to "do an audit of pedestrian safety and give suggestions of things that can be done." The chair acknowledged the concern and noted a state decision to close a prior underpass at Heron Avenue without notifying the city.

What happens next: The committee recommended acceptance of the settlement; council members requested a pedestrian-safety audit of that stretch of Bigelow Boulevard and for staff to return with suggested mitigations.

No legislative remedy or capital appropriation for a replacement bridge was adopted at the meeting; members framed the settlement as resolving litigation while leaving outstanding operational safety questions to be addressed by city engineering and mobility staff.