EmergingIndustriesStudy

2015
Southwestern
Pennsylvania
Commission
[EMERGING INDUSTRIES CORRIDOR
AND MOBILITY STUDY]
A report that identifies potential development sites and improvements that would maximize the direct and indirect
potential associated with the oil and gas industry.

Emerging Industries Corridor and Mobility Study 2
SOUTHWESTERN PENNSYLVANIA COMMISSION
2015
Officers
Chairman: Steve Craig
Vice Chairman: Charles W. Anderson
Secretary-Treasurer: Larry Maggi
Executive Director: James R. Hassinger
Allegheny County
Rich Fitzgerald
Lynn Heckman
Clifford Levine
Robert J. Macey
David Miller
Armstrong County
Vonne Andring
David K. Battaglia
Robert Bower
Rich Fink
Richard Palilla
Beaver County
Tony Amadio
Kelly Gray
Dennis Nichols
Joe Spanik
Dwan Walker
Butler County
Jack Cohen
David Johnston
Richard Hadley
William McCarrier
A. Dale Pinkerton
Fayette County
Alfred Ambrosini
Joe Grata
Fred Junko
Daniel Shimshock
Angela Zimmerlink
Greene County
Jeff Marshall
Robbie Matesic
Charles J. Morris
Archie Trader
Blair Zimmerman
Indiana County
Michael Baker
Patricia A. Evanko
Rodney D. Ruddock
Byron G. Stauffer, Jr.
James B. Struzzi
Lawrence County
Steve Craig
Robert Del Signore
James Gagliano
Amy McKinney
Daniel J. Vogler
Washington County
Larry Maggi
Harlan Shober
Michael A. Silvestri
Diana Irey Vaughn
Christopher Wheat
Westmoreland County
Charles W. Anderson
Robert J. Brooks
Tom Ceraso
Tyler Courtney
Keith Staso
City of Pittsburgh
Scott Bricker
Rev. Ricky Burgess
William Peduto
Mavis Rainey
Aurora Sharrard
Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation (2 Votes)
H. Daniel Cessna
Joseph Dubovi
Kevin McCullough
James Ritzman
Joe Szczur
Governor's Office
Erin Molchany
Pennsylvania Department of Community
& Economic Development
Lance Chimka
Port Authority of
Allegheny County (1 Vote)
Ellen McLean
Ed Typanski
Transit Operators Committee
John Paul
Federal Highway
Administration*
Renee Sigel
Federal Transit
Administration*
Reginald Lovelace
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency*
Laura Mohollen
Federal Aviation Administration*
U. S. Economic Development
Administration*
*Nonvoting Members
The preparation of this publication was financed in part through grants from the United States Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration and
Federal Transit Administration; the U.S. Department of Commerce; the Appalachian Regional Commission; the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; the Department of
Transportation of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and, the counties of Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Fayette, Greene, Indiana, Lawrence, Washington,
Westmoreland, and the City of Pittsburgh. The views and opinions of the authors or agency expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of these agencies.
SPC Lead Staff for this Report:
Abigail Stark, Development Specialist
Lew Villotti, Planning & Development Director

Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission 3
Emerging Industries Corridor
and Mobility Study
September 2015
Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission
Two Chatham Center – Suite 500
112 Washington Place
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Voice 412.391.5590
Fax 412.391.9160
comments@spcregion.org
www.spcregion.org

The Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC) hereby gives public notice that it is the policy of the Commission to
assure full compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, Executive
Order 12898 on Environmental Justice, and related statutes and regulations in all programs and activities. Title VI and
other related statutes require that no person in the United States of America shall, on the grounds of race, color, sex,
national origin, age, or disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise
subjected to discrimination under any program or activity for which SPC receives federal financial assistance. Any person
who believes they have been aggrieved by an unlawful discriminatory practice by SPC under Title VI has a right to file a
formal complaint with the Commission. Any such complaint must be in writing and filed with SPC’s Title VI Coordinator
within one hundred eighty (180) days following the date of the alleged discriminatory occurrence. For more information,
or to obtain a Title VI Discrimination Complaint Form, please see our website at: www.spcregion.org or call 412-391-
5590.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction........................................................................................................................6
Use of this Report
Summary and Findings........................................................................................................7
The Corridor
Site Characteristics
Site Identification
Mobility
Finding and Recommendations
Phase I: Site Analysis...........................................................................................................9
Site Selection Search
Property Meetings
Phase II: Transportation......................................................................................................25
Site Visits
Planned Improvements
Findings and Recommendations .........................................................................................29
General Findings
Broad Recommendations
Transportation Recommendations
Appendix.............................................................................................................................31
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Appendix 3
Appendix 4

INTRODUCTION
The Emerging Industries Corridor and Mobility Initiative integrates the Southwestern Pennsylvania
Commission’s (SPC) roles as the Local Development District (LDD), Economic Development District (EDD) and
the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to maximize the economic opportunities of the emerging
petrochemical and energy industry, both independently of and associated with Shell’s proposed petrochemical
facility. The initiative was funded by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Department of Community and
Economic Development through a Discovered and Developed in Pennsylvania Grant.
The Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC) is the region's forum for collaboration, planning, and public
decision-making. As the official Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the ten-county region including
the City of Pittsburgh and the counties of Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Fayette, Greene, Indiana,
Lawrence, Washington, and Westmoreland. SPC is responsible for planning and prioritizing the use of all state
and federal transportation funds allocated to the region. The Commission has the authority and responsibility
to make decisions affecting the 10-county region.
As the Local Development District (LDD) and Economic Development District (EDD) for Southwestern
Pennsylvania (as designated by the U.S. Appalachian Regional Commission and the U.S. Department of
Commerce), SPC establishes regional economic development priorities and provides a wide range of public
services to the region.
The Emerging Industries Corridor and Mobility Initiative addresses specific needs related to the emerging
petrochemical industry in a defined corridor including parts of Interstates 376, 79 and 70. The intent of the
initiative was three-fold:
 Identifying appropriate sites and locations for business opportunities associated with Shell’s proposed
petrochemical facility.
 Identifying sites and locations to meet the needs of businesses associated with the emerging
petrochemical industry.
 Improving the supply chain needs by identifying and addressing the accessibility and mobility of
product needs and identifying the workforce needs to maximize the business opportunities associated
with the proposed facility.
Use of this Report
This report looks at the corridor, including Shell’s proposed petrochemical facility, to identify potential sites
and improvements that could maximize the potential associated with the facility. While the report does
identify a number of sites and mobility improvements, it does not suggest that these are the only sites in the
corridor that could meet the needs of those industries. Rather, it identifies sites that meet a specific set of
criteria identified through the course of the report’s development. The report can be used to help prioritize
the sites that meet those specific criteria, but its best use may be to build upon the criteria to continue to
identify and develop sites in the corridor, the region and throughout the state that can meet the future needs
of the industry.

SUMMARY & FINDINGS
A project workgroup consisting of economic development professionals, property development professionals
and industry experts defined the corridor for analysis, prioritized the site characteristics, indentified potential
sites, reviewed mobility characteristics and identified broad findings and specific recommendations to
maximize the corridor’s petrochemical opportunity.
The Corridor
The corridor is roughly defined as I-376 from the interchange with Route 422 in Lawrence County in the north,
to the I-376 interchange with I-79 in southern Allegheny County, along I-79 to the interchange with I-70 and I-
70 east to the Monongahela River as seen in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1: The boundaries of the study corridor

Site Characteristics
Based on research and consultation with site selection experts, priority characteristics for petrochemical
industry site selection were defined to help identify ideal potential sites.
Priority site characteristics include:
1. Size
 A minimum site size of 50 available acres with larger sites preferable depending on the
intended downstream use
2. Interstate Access
 Fifteen minutes from an Interstate
3. Rail Access
 Access on site or within a quarter mile of active rail
4. River Access
 Direct site access to the river
5. Brownfield
 Prior use as heavy industrial and/or petrochemical site
6. Zoning
 Existing zoning that allows or promotes industrial use
Site Identification
To begin site identification, the study team utilized the Pittsburgh Prospector and PA Site Search systems. This
analysis produced approximately 500 sites. The study team then applied the characteristics the workgroup
identified to reduce the number of potential sites. After careful vetting and analysis, the study reduced the
focus to 26 properties. It is important to note that first, this is a snapshot in time of sites included in the
Pittsburgh Prospector. Sites come on and off the market and their availability and the availability of lot sizes
change fairly regularly. Second, not all sites meet all six of the priority characteristics discussed above, but
some potential users will not require that all of the characteristics be met. Last, only three sites (or groups of
sites) analyzed meet all of the characteristics identified above. These include: the former Horsehead Site,
location of Shell’s proposed petrochemical facility, the Aliquippa sites (Bet-Tech 1 & 2 sites and the Aliquippa
Industrial Park) and the Mon River Industrial Park.
Mobility
This analysis focuses on a corridor defined in part by Interstates 376, 79 and 70, with mobility and access for
people, goods and services throughout the corridor generally described as good. SPC’s recently adopted
Mapping the Future: The Southwestern PA Plan includes 84 identified transportation projects that total
approximately $2.6 billion dollars of investment designed to both maintain and enhance the transportation
network within the study’s distinct corridor. In addition, there are a number of offsite transportation
recommendations that, if completed, could improve the competitiveness of the study corridor.

Findings & Recommendations
General Findings
1. The study corridor is lacking in shovel-ready industrial sites
2. Basic utility infrastructure needs to be improved
1. Identify new potential (raw) sites that are not yet on the market
2. Attract investment for site development
3. Increase funding for access to freight programs
4. Expand the site analysis throughout the entire region
1. Designate Toll 576 as an Interstate
2. Improve “last mile” connections for freight
3. Support transportation improvements at several study sites:
 Hopewell Industrial and Bet-Tech
 Cemex Property
 Clinton Commerce Park
 Mon River Industrial Park
PHASE I: SITE ANALYSIS
A small advisory group was created to guide the study and process. This small advisory group consisted of
individuals who were close to Shell’s proposed petrochemical facility project and the region’s economic
development landscape:
 Jim Palmer – Beaver County Corporation for Economic Development
 Patty Horvatich – Pittsburgh Regional Alliance
 Brent Vernon – Governor’s Action Team
The small advisory group of key economic development contacts developed the initial list of individuals to
invite to participate in the Emerging Industries workgroup, which consisted of economic development
professionals, real estate brokers, Marcellus shale representatives and additional experts in the field (See
Appendix I for a list of invited organizations). A representative from Shell’s proposed petrochemical facility
project attended the meetings as an observer to answer general questions about the project and share
information that was provided in several public sessions.
To help determine what regional and site characteristics petrochemical industry site selectors are interested
in, the study team consulted local experts and performed a literature review to help target characteristic
criteria. Based upon that research, several main themes were identified, including: raw materials availability,

energy availability, meteorological data, market, transportation facilities, water supply, waste disposal, labor
supply, taxation and legal restrictions, site characteristics, safety and environmental measures and community
factors.
Based on knowledge of the Southwestern Pennsylvania region, most of the regional site characteristics
remained constant, such as availability of raw materials and energy. The study team then focused on three
criteria that would be the defining factors and could vary by site location: general site characteristics, safety
and environmental measures, and community factors.
Next, the Emerging Industries workgroup helped to define the appropriate corridor to apply the above
mentioned criteria. The workgroup reviewed a 30-minute drive time map and a 45-minute drive time map as
options for defining the corridor (Figures 2 and 3 on the following pages show the drive time maps for the
study). The drive times were developed based on three key interchange locations in the originally proposed
study area: the I-376 interchange with the southern interchange of Route 422 in Lawrence County; the I-376
interchange with Route 18 in Beaver County; and, the I-376 interchange with I-79 in southern Allegheny
County. After the workgroup discussion on which corridor should be the priority, it was decided that the 30-
minute drive time corridor would be the “Site Area,” which was where the workgroup decided the ideal sites
would fall within. The 45-minute drive time corridor would be the “Study Area,” which was where information
on housing, workforce and other regional information would be gathered for. The Study Area allowed the
study team to examine the conditions in terms of needed workforce, transportation or housing so that the
sites in the Site Area would have the best external environment to thrive.
In addition to site criteria, the workgroup asked that the study team look at some additional factors for overall
consideration of the corridor. These included:
1. Housing
 The workgroup stated that housing is an important issue for the study to address
 Members of the workgroup stated that they have been repeatedly asked about the availability
and quality of the housing stock (in particular, housing for executives)
2. Education
 Executives and the workforce want to relocate into areas where their children can receive a
quality education
3. Rail
 The workgroup stated that it will be important to determine whether there will be an increase
in rail usage and capacity and if, in turn, there will be a need for more funding in the rail and
freight network
4. Zoning
 Zoning becomes an issue with the time and effort needed to work with sites and the multiple
municipalities that could potentially be involved
After further analysis, it was determined that education and zoning could best be addressed on a case by case
basis, therefore the study team would identify housing issues, utilities, and rail access at an overview level.

Figure 2:

Figure 3: 30-minute and 45-minute Drivetime Catchment Zones

Water/Sewer - The study team conducted a GIS analysis of existing water service (Figure 4), existing sewer
service (Figure 5).
Figure 4: Existing Water Service in the Site Area

Figure 5: Existing Sewer Service in the Site Area

Figure 6: Existing Businesses in the Targeted Petrochemical Industries in the Study Area

Permit information was gathered for the Study Area to help determine housing hot spots in the corridor. The
permit data is self-reported and can be difficult to track and thus leaves gaps in the information. Figures 7 and
8 depict the accessible permit information for the Study Area in multi-family housing and single family
housing. The dark green represents the higher permits; this follows the development trends seen in the
region, with much activity around Cranberry Township in Butler County, Washington County communities
along I-79, the North Hills area in Allegheny County, and the communities surrounding Pittsburgh International
Airport. Over 500 permits were pulled between 1990 and 2012 in the Center, Brighton, and Chippewa
municipalities, which demonstrate that there is development occurring in the communities near Shell’s
proposed petrochemical facility.

Figure 7: Number of Multi-Family Units Permitted between 1990 and 2012

Figure 8: Number of Single Family Units Permitted between 1990 and 2012

Site Selection Search
Pittsburgh Prospector and PA Site Search were chosen as the best available databases for which to start the
site identification process. Sites were pulled for within the Site Area, which covered primarily four counties:
Allegheny, Beaver, Lawrence and Washington. There were 459 sites in the four targeted counties suitable for
further analysis. The workgroup decided to further narrow down the sites by identifying sites with 50 or more
available acres, which left 104 sites in the Site Area.
As site availability changes on a regular basis, vetting of the remaining 104 sites consisted of contacting each
of the counties and property owners to discuss which properties were ideal and which were still available.
Many brokers reported that the sites listed in the system were no longer available. This information was then
reported to the Pittsburgh Regional Alliance so that the sites would no longer be searchable in the Pittsburgh
Prospector or PA Site Search system.
A site selection checklist was developed to gather the site information needed, which included: number of
available acres, current zoning, rail access, existing infrastructure and contact information. The checklist was
presented to the workgroup for comments and questions (See Appendix II for checklist) and they made
recommendations on what information should be highlighted based on their expertise in the field as economic
development professionals, site owners and site selection professionals (See Appendix III for updated
checklist):
 Transportation infrastructure was a key factor in selecting a site and should be more accessible on the
checklist
 While environmental, water supply, geotechnical and taxation information is important, the workgroup
felt that those issues were not main deciding factors that would greatly differ from site to site so this
information was moved
 It was recommended that the “Community Profile” section be gathered county by county and
highlighted in the final workbook
To narrow the site search and the number of sites, the workgroup made further recommendations:
 Identify sites within a 15-minute drive time of a designated Interstate
o The 15-minute drive time was selected based on the experience of the workgroup and from
their knowledge of what site selectors are looking for, which includes easy access to an
Interstate
 Highlight brownfield sites within this corridor
o Many manufacturers like to locate to a previously used industrial site rather than converting a
greenfield
 Extend the Site Area to capture parts of I-70
o Include the Mon River Industrial Park, located off of I-70, which was actively being considered
for a large petrochemical industry investment during the course of the study.

Active and inactive rail lines were included in the overall GIS analysis of the Site Area as shown in Figure 9.
The study team used proximity to rail as one determining factor in site analysis. The study team also met with
representatives of SPC’s Freight Forum to discuss overall movement of freight in the corridor, including rail.
While the corridor in general is well served by rail, ability to access the rail lines as per proximity to sites can
be difficult. Primary concerns are “last mile” connections and weight restricted roadway access from site to
rail.
Figures 10 and 11 portray the new corridor outline that narrowed the sites to 44, with 11 of those sites within
a quarter mile of an active rail line. After further vetting and research, the study focused in on 26 sites within
the I-376 corridor, only six of those sites were within a quarter mile of active rail.

Figure 9: Rail Service in the Site Area

Figure 10

Figure 11

Property Meetings
To evaluate the sites further, the study team met with representatives from the following properties:
 Gerald Bunda and Brian Temple – Imperial Land Corporation
 Lance Chimka and Maurice Strul – Allegheny County Economic Development
 Randy Forister – Pittsburgh International Airport Authority
 Michelle Heronn – Mon River Industrial Group, LLC
 Linda Nitch – Lawrence County Economic Development Corporation
 James Palmer – Beaver County Corporation for Economic Development
 Tony Rosenberger – Chapman Properties
 Mary Stollar of the Washington County Chamber of Commerce and Jeff Leithauser of the Washington
County Planning Department
These meetings focused on the evaluation of the sites in terms of the size, infrastructure needs and ideal use.
This information would give a greater understanding as to what the infrastructure and financial needs are for
the properties and how these properties can best be marketed to outside manufactures looking to locate to
the region. The information gathered from these meetings was then entered into a database to populate the
pullsheets for each of the properties.
Informational tables were created (See Appendix IV for tables) which prioritized the properties in different
categories: size; size and zoning; ideal use; identified needs; and most needs. This allowed SPC and the
workgroup to understand the sites and where they stand in the region and where further analysis was
needed.
After gathering more information for the site book, informational sheets were created to show the site
location, site information and infrastructure needs and their associated costs. This was put into a formal
booklet organized by county, accompanied with county-wide data gathered from PA Site Search which can be
found on the SPC website.

PHASE II: TRANSPORTATION
Site Visits
The study team conducted field views of 11 of the sites to evaluate the offsite transportation improvements
that are necessary to make the sites more marketable. The 11 sites were chosen due to their site and situation
characteristics that make them both unique in their potential and also representative of corridor issues in
terms of their transportation and mobility factors. There were obvious interchange issues, height restrictions,
signal issues and access restrictions to many of the properties, which resulted in many potential infrastructure
improvement opportunities and recommendations.
 Aliquippa Industrial Park and Bet-Tech 1&2 – Driving into these sites quickly presented many
infrastructure issues, such as signage issues, difficulty making left turns, and pedestrians roaming the
entrance area, which is an approximate 150-foot one-lane tunnel. One of the primary site entrances is a
single lane through the tunnel traveling under an active main rail line. This presents accident and
congestion problems as more traffic is traveling on and off the site. During one field view, the team noted
no less than 20 trucks using the tunnel in one 15-minute span. While access improvements from Route 51
and tunnel widening would be the optimal long term solution, it would require considerable funding. A
solution to this issue and an alternative to gaining access to these sites would be improvements to access
to and from the Henry Mancini Bridge to Route 51. Recommended access to these sites from I-376 would
be the Hopewell Exit to Route 151, using Route 151 as a truck route to Route 51 to the Henry Mancini
Bridge entrance. Suggested improvements for this route would include improvements to the Five Points
intersection, a signalized intersection with Route 51, as well as potential signalization between the on and
off ramps of I-376 and Route 151.
 Cemex Vacant Property – The main barrier for the Cemex property is the access to I-376. PA 18 South is
the best access for this site but, the site will need better access to I-376. Spot improvements for clearance
and sight distances from PA 18 to I-376 are possible solutions.
 Clinton Commerce Park – Intersection issues have previously been discussed by Findlay Township for this
site. The study team determined that the site would at least need signalization on Sweeney Road,
however, as traffic increases, roundabouts off of I-376 would be a preferred solution. Finding an
alternative way to access the site that avoids Sweeney Road would be another recommended action.
 Findlay Industrial Park – No improvement recommended.
 Hopewell Industrial Park – For the site itself, intersection improvements at Gringo Road/Gringo Clinton
Road/Route 151 is the main improvement recommended (in addition to the interchange improvements
mentioned in the Aliquippa Industrial Park and Bet-Tech 1&2 recommendations).
 Mon River Industrial Park – There are two options to gain access to the Mon River Industrial Park site. The
first option is via Elco Hill Road. This is not an ideal access road as it travels through a residential area with
a considerable downhill grade the entire route. In addition, at the bottom of the downgrade, the street
narrows. The second access option is from I-70 to PA 88. This does not have the best interchange and
access from PA 88 requires a considerable climb up the ramp. Turning I-70 into six lanes has been

discussed previously and is a possibility that would benefit this site. For direct site access, this site needs a
flyover ramp, which can be accomplished by utilizing the property on the opposite side of PA 88.
 Pittsburgh International Airport Site 10 – As this is a very large site, there is the potential for multiple
access points. Currently, access to certain areas is manageable. Proximity to I-376 gives this site great
access to an Interstate but further development would help with greater access to parts of the site.
 Westport Woods – No recommendations.
 World Trade Center – Improvements at the interchange with I-376 would benefit both this site and the
Clinton Commerce Park.
While these were the only sites for which the study team conducted transportation-specific field views, the
types of improvements are consistent with many of the sites identified through the course of the project. In
addition to these suggested improvements, there are a number of planned improvements in the corridor that
will greatly enhance the mobility of goods, services and workforce throughout the corridor. Maintaining the
existing transportation assets in the corridor is of equal importance to the mobility of the corridor.
Maintaining reliable and predictable mobility standards through effective maintenance and operational
improvements is key to keeping the corridor economically competitive on a global scale.
Planned Improvements
SPC’s current long range plan has 84 projects and $2.6 billion in infrastructure investment planned for the 15-
minute drive time corridor, which is depicted in Figure 13 on the following page. The majority of the projects
in this corridor are located within Allegheny County. The project breakdown by county can be found in Figure
12 below.
Figure 12
County LRP Projects
Allegheny 31
Beaver 18
Lawrence 10
Washington 19
Westmoreland 6
Grand Total 84

Figure 13

Figure 14 shows a breakdown of the $2.6 billion of investments by county and funding type. The $745 million
Turnpike project in Washington County is solely the Southern Beltway project that will benefit most of the
sites in Allegheny County surrounding the airport and sites located in Findlay Township. Beaver County has
$20 million going to maintenance on State Route 65. This is a primary connector between the Beaver County
riverfront communities and the City of Pittsburgh.
Figure 14
County Costs by Project Type Estimated Costs
Turnpike $904,000,000
Washington $745,000,000
Beaver $150,000,000
Allegheny $9,000,000
Interstate Maintenance Program $644,690,426
Westmoreland $282,605,802
Beaver $18,051,914
Lawrence $3,092,152
System Reliability & Safety $455,239,791
Beaver $5,000,000
Maintenance $427,295,278
Beaver $173,050,000
Lawrence $83,400,000
Economic Development $60,000,000
Beaver $60,000,000
Community & Economic Development $53,563,286
Lawrence $450,000
Transit $52,740,200
Grand Total $2,597,528,981

FINDING & RECOMMENDATIONS
General Findings
The Southwestern Pennsylvania region is lacking in shovel-ready industrial sites
The I-376 corridor is lacking in shovel-ready industrial sites. The Emerging Industries study only found
three ideal sites greater than 50 acres, with river and rail access and within 15 minutes of an Interstate.
Many brownfield sites have been or have plans to be converted to mixed use sites. Throughout the study,
it was evident that the Pittsburgh region is lacking in the appropriate shovel-ready sites with the ideal
assets such as river and rail access. After the fall of the steel industry, many ideal brownfield sites were
converted to mixed-use recreational sites throughout the city and counties. This has created a lack of
available brownfield sites with the ideal assets.
Basic utility infrastructure needs to be improved
The utilities provided by municipal authorities at some sites are not adequate. Some sites lacked adequate
sewage treatment plants for the size of the industry that the county wants to attract. These limitations will
prevent businesses from locating at a site if it restricts their production.
1. Identify new potential (raw) sites not yet on the market
 Industrial properties that are not yet on the market should be identified for future use, as there
is a lack of shovel-ready sites available. Evaluating off-market sites throughout this corridor that
have river, rail and Interstate access could create new possibilities that are currently
nonexistent.
2. Attract money for site development, for example programs such as Infrastructure and Facilities
Improvement (IFIP) and Business In Our Sites
 After discussions with the counties and property owners, it became apparent that many of
these sites have needed infrastructure improvements that are high in cost. Money needs to be
invested into the sites in Southwestern Pennsylvania to attract the industry that will want to
locate and stay in the region. The market is looking for shovel-ready sites and Southwestern
Pennsylvania needs to have those available.
 The Power of 32 Site Development Fund and initiatives like it can help alleviate some of the
concerns around funding gaps and site development strains; however, state funding is also
necessary for these improvements.
3. Increase funds and access to freight programs
 Site owners discussed the issues with freight and rail among their sites. Many do not have the
resources for the infrastructure improvements that are needed; therefore, more funds and
access to the Rail Freight Assistance Program and Rail Transportation Assistance Program would
alleviate the financial strains for site owners.

4. Expand Site Analysis
 The lack of properties in this corridor indicates that other counties may be lacking in
appropriate industrial sites and lacking in the identification of the infrastructure needs. This
corridor, which includes Allegheny, Beaver, Lawrence and Washington counties, is a developing
and growing corridor that has been invested in throughout the years. SPC recommends
expanding the site analysis to the other six counties in the SPC region. Identifying the
infrastructure needs and the inventory of the industrial sites will give a good perspective on
how the Pittsburgh region will fare on the verge of the petrochemical industry boom.
1. Designate Toll 576 as an Interstate
 Upon the completion of the Southern Beltway from Route 22 to I-79, seek Interstate
designation for the section
2. Freight
 Need for assistance to improve “last mile” connections and weight restricted road and bridge
access from site to rail or primary roadway network
3. Hopewell Industrial Site and Bet-Tech Sites
 Use the I-376 Hopewell Interchange, Route 151 and Route 51 as truck access to the Aliquippa
industrial properties
 Signalize the current on/off ramps to allow for smoother ingress/egress
 Add a left turning lane at Gringo Road to ramp for I-376
 Upgrade pavement condition along Gringo Road to the Five Points Intersection
 Further improvements to the Five Points intersection
 Signalize the intersection of Route 151 and Route 51
4. Cemex Site
 Spot improvements from PA18 to Toll 376
5. Clinton Commerce Park Site
 The site would at least need signalization on Sweeney Road; however, as traffic increases,
roundabouts off of I-376 would be the preferred solution
 Finding an alternative way to access the site that avoids Sweeney Road
6. Mon River Industrial Site
 Longer turning lanes on Route 88 access to I-70 ramps
 In the long term, a flyover access from Route 88 to the site to tie property on both sides of
Route 88 together

APPENDIX

APPENDIX 1

Acknowledgements
Organizations invited to participate in the work group in addition to the advisory group. Those
in bold were active participants throughout the entire process.
 Allegheny Conference
 Allegheny County
 Allegheny County Airport Authority
 Allegheny County Economic Development
 Avision Young
 Beaver County Corporation for Economic Development
 CB Richard Ellis
 Chemical Association of Pittsburgh
 Colliers International
 Governor’s Action Team
 Jones Lang LaSalle
 Langholz Wilson (now Hanna Langholz Wilson Ellis)
 Larson Design Group
 Lawrence County Economic Development Corporation
 Marcellus Shale Coalition
 Newmark Grubb Knight Frank
 Pittsburgh Downtown Partnership
 Pittsburgh Regional Alliance
 Pittsburgh Today
 Tall Timbers Group
 TARQUINCoRE, LLC
 Three Rivers Workforce Investment Board
 University Center for Social and Urban Research
 Washington County
 Washington County Chamber of Commerce

APPENDIX 2

Land:
Property Address:
Property Owner:
Availability of Industrial Land
# of available acres Total Land: Available Land:
Greenfield/Brownfield (existing/prior land use) Greenfield: Brownfield:
Rail access or distance to rail service Onsite? Yes _____ No _____ If no, distance to rail:
Current Zoning
Environmental Considerations (wetlands,
environmental assessment in progress, restrictions)
Water supply Potable: ___ Non-potable: ___ Onsite? Yes _____ No _____
If no, distance to water:
Taxation and Legal Restrictions
Geotechnical issues to know about
Existing Infrastructure at the site
Power Onsite? Yes _____ No _____
If no, distance to
Capacity:
Water Onsite? Yes _____ No _____
If no, distance to:
Capacity:
Sewer Onsite? Yes _____ No _____
If no, distance to:
Capacity:
Gas Onsite? Yes _____ No _____
If no, distance to:
Capacity:
Other (example: Fiber)
Contact Information:
Comments:

Buildings:
Property Address:
Property Owner:
Existing Buildings, Facilities, etc.
Size of building (sq. ft & dimensions)
Office Space (sq. ft.)
Manufacturing Space (sq. ft.)
Former use of facility
Current Zoning
Single-tenant or Multi-tenant? Single-tenant: ________ Multi-tenant: ________
Power Onsite? Yes _____ No _____
If no, distance to:
Capacity:
Water Onsite? Yes _____ No _____
If no, distance to:
Capacity:
Sewer Onsite? Yes _____ No _____
If no, distance to:
Capacity:
Gas Onsite? Yes _____ No _____
If no, distance to:
Capacity:
Comments:

Infrastructure:
Transportation
List trucking, distribution and logistics companies in area (50
miles)
Can the road handle industrial traffic?
Known limitations? Yes ___ No ___
If yes, what are they?
Distance to major markets (Note for review: This will be done on a community wide scale)
Proximity to Canadian markets
Proximity to American markets
Projections (projects/proposals that would impact the site)
Initiatives/projections for upgrading existing power
Initiatives/projections for upgrading existing water
Initiatives/projections for upgrading existing sewer
Initiatives/projections for upgrading existing roads
Comments:
List local and regional transportation networks
Closest airports (distances, services
available, etc.)
Airport: Distance to:
Closest rail hubs Rail hub: Distance to:
Closest intermodal facility Facility: Distance to:
Highway infrastructure Highways: Distance to:
Transmission Lines Onsite? Yes _____ No _____ If no, distance to:

Community Profile:
Demographics
Population
Population of surrounding area ( 2 0 m i l e s )
Population trends (last 5 years)
Age demographics
Household income level
Salaries
Labor
Unemployment rate (current and past trends)
Skilled Workforce (presence of specialized skills)
Size of available labor force
Resident employment
Residents' employment by breakdown of occupation
Availability of skilled trades labor force
Education levels of employable labor force
Salaries for petrochemical related occupations
Community Information
Public Investment made in community in last 5 years ($$,
infrastructure, etc.)
Private Investment made in community in last 5 years ($$,
manufacturing, etc.)
List of top 10 manufacturers in area.
Number of employees per top 10 manufacturers
Number of international companies located in community
Commuting times/distances for out-lying communities (up
to 30 miles)

Housing prices
Colleges, Universities in commuting area
Public schools
Training programs and facilities specific to manufacturing or
food industry
Comments:

APPENDIX 3

Land
Property Address:
Property Owner:
# of available acres
Minimum Size:
Maximum Size: Incentives
KOZ: ____
FTZ: ____
Previous land use
Greenfield: ____
Brownfield: ____ Current Zoning
Power Provider: Onsite? Yes _____ No _____
If no, distance to
Water Provider: Onsite? Yes _____ No _____
If no, distance to:
Sewer Provider: Onsite? Yes _____ No _____
If no, distance to:
Gas Provider: Onsite? Yes _____ No _____
If no, distance to:
Site Contact Information
Additional Information/Comments
(Ex: Environmental considerations, taxation and legal restrictions, geotechnical issues, known transportation limitations)
Buildings
Local and Regional Transportation Networks
Closest airports (distances, services
available, etc.)
Airport: Distance to:
Closest rail hubs Rail hub: Distance to:
Closest intermodal facility Facility: Distance to:
Highway infrastructure Highway: Distance to:
Transmission Lines Onsite? Yes _____ No _____ If no, distance to:

Property Address:
Property Owner:
Existing Buildings, Facilities, etc.
Size of building (sq. ft & dimensions)
Office Space (sq. ft.)
Manufacturing Space (sq. ft.)
Former use of facility
Current Zoning
Single-tenant or Multi-tenant? Single-tenant: ________ Multi-tenant: ________
Power Provider: Onsite? Yes _____ No _____
If no, distance to:
Capacity:
Water Provider: Onsite? Yes _____ No _____
If no, distance to:
Capacity:
Sewer Provider: Onsite? Yes _____ No _____
If no, distance to:
Capacity:
Gas Provider: Onsite? Yes _____ No _____
If no, distance to:
Capacity:
Contact Information
Additional Information/Comments

APPENDIX 4

Site Information - 50 Acres and Greater
Code Property Name Zoning Ideal Use
Max
Size
Business Park/Office Space 2,294
WA003 Cool Valley Interstate Highway Planned District High end office space 900
AL025 Findlay Industrial Park at WestPort Light Industrial Potential for 1 million+ square foot buildings on site 640
WestGate Business Park Industrial Business Park 222
WA001 Starpointe Business Park Special Use/Industrial Business Park 105
AL029 McClaren Road Commercial Class A Headquarters/Campus 100
BE022 Mall Development Site Mixed Use
Commercial properties related to proximity to the
mall 80
Hopewell Business and Industrial Park Industrial Business Park 67
LA005 Neshannock Business Park Business Park Business Park 65
World Trade Center Business Park
Corporate hangers, conventional center/hotel,
corporate headquarters, R&D, one story flex 65
AL072
Cherrington Commerce Park (Pittsburgh Int'l Airport - Site
2) Business Park Call center, advanced manufacturing, redundancy 50
Distribution/Warehouse 252
AL028 WestPort Woods Business Park Distribution & Warehouse/Flex 100
AL030 Clinton Commerce Park (Pittsburgh Int'l Airport Site 12) Heavy Industrial Bulk warehouse, R&D, TechFlex, Office 100
AL062 P&LE Flex Business Park Industrial
Distribution center due to proximity to proposed CSX
line 52
Industrial 5,382
AL024 Pittsburgh Int'l Airport - Site 10 Heavy Industrial Industrial - Ideal brownfield 1,300
WA001 Starpointe Special Use/Industrial Business and Industrial 1,035
AL164 Imperial Land Corporation - Robinson Twp Site Light Industrial Heavy Industrial 770
LA003 New Castle Development Industrial Industrial 500
WA024 Mon River Industrial Park Industrial Industrial 400
LA004 Millennium Technology Park Industrial Industrial 350
BE001 Bet-Tech Site 1 Industrial Industrial 240
LA011 Werner Farm Commercial and Industrial Industrial 160
Bessemer Plant Heavy Industrial Industrial 160
Hillsville Site Industrial Industrial 134
LA022 Morrone Brothers Property Industrial Industrial 102
LA019 Cemex Vacant Property Industrial Industrial 83

BE004 Bet-Tech Site 2 Industrial Industrial 76
BE005 Aliquippa Industrial Park, Phase 2 Industrial Industrial 72
Mixed Use/Unsure 1,827
LA021 Ambrosia Site N/A 550
Hillsville Site - Nonindustrial Conservation and Commercial 407
AL187 Chapman Westport Industrial/Business Park Industrial, flex, office, retail and hospitality 300
AL071 Fuller Trust Properties Special Use 220
Racetrack Road and Tanger Boulevard Village Commercial 154
WA013 Meadowlands Park N/A 100
WA019 485 Rankin Rd Agricultural 96
Sites by Size

Code Site Max Size
500+
AL024 Pittsburgh Int'l Airport - Site 10 1,300
WA001 Starpointe 1,035
WA003 Cool Valley 900
AL164 Imperial Land Corporation - Robinson Twp Site 770
AL025 Findlay Industrial Park at WestPort 640
LA003 New Castle Development 500
200-499
Hillsville Site - Nonindustrial 407
WA024 Mon River Industrial Park 400
LA004 Millennium Technology Park 350
AL187 Chapman Westport 300
BE001 Bet-Tech Site 1 240
WestGate Business Park 222
AL071 Fuller Trust Properties 220
100-200
LA011 Werner Farm 160
Bessemer Plant 160
Racetrack Road and Tanger Boulevard 154
Hillsville Site 134
WA001 Starpointe Business Park 105
LA022 Morrone Brothers Property 102
AL030 Clinton Commerce Park (Pittsburgh Int'l Airport Site 12) 100
AL029 McClaren Road 100
AL028 WestPort Woods 100
WA013 Meadowlands Park 100
50-99
WA019 485 Rankin Rd 96

LA019 Cemex Vacant Property 83
BE022 Mall Development Site 80
BE005 Aliquippa Industrial Park, Phase 2 72
Hopewell Business and Industrial Park 67
LA005 Neshannock Business Park 65
World Trade Center 65
AL062 P&LE Flex Business Park 52
AL072 Cherrington Commerce Park (Pittsburgh Int'l Airport - Site 2) 50
Sites by Size and Zoning

Sites by Size and Zoning Sum of Max Size
500+
Industrial 3,210
LA003 New Castle Development 500
AL025 Findlay Industrial Park at WestPort 640
AL164 Imperial Land Corporation - Robinson Twp Site 770
AL024 Pittsburgh Int'l Airport - Site 10 1,300
Other/Joint 1,935
WA003 Cool Valley (Interstate Highway Planned District) 900
WA001 Starpointe (Special Use/Industrial) 1,035
200-499
Industrial 990
LA004 Millennium Technology Park 350
WA024 Mon River Industrial Park 400
Business Park 222
WestGate Business Park 222
Other/Joint 927
AL071 Fuller Trust Properties (Special Use) 220
Hillsville Site - Nonindustrial (Conservation and Commercial) 407
AL187 Chapman Westport (Industrial/Business Park) 300
100-199
Industrial 496
AL030 Clinton Commerce Park (Pittsburgh Int'l Airport Site 12) 100
LA022 Morrone Brothers Property 102
Hillsville Site 134
Bessemer Plant 160
Business Park 100
AL028 WestPort Woods 100
Commercial 100

AL029 McClaren Road 100
Other/Joint 519
WA001 Starpointe Business Park (Special Use/Industrial) 105
WA013 Meadowlands Park 100
LA011 Werner Farm (Commercial and Industrial) 160
Racetrack Road and Tanger Boulevard (Village Commercial) 154
50-99
Industrial 350
AL062 P&LE Flex Business Park 52
Hopewell Business and Industrial Park 67
BE005 Aliquippa Industrial Park, Phase 2 72
LA019 Cemex Vacant Property 83
Business Park 180
AL072 Cherrington Commerce Park (Pittsburgh Int'l Airport - Site 2) 50
LA005 Neshannock Business Park 65
World Trade Center 65
Mixed Use 80
BE022 Mall Development Site 80
Other 96
WA019 485 Rankin Rd (Agricultural) 96
Infrastructure Needs Identified

Code Property Name Infrastructure Issue
Access Issues
AL062 P&LE Flex Business Park Access road from 51
BE001 Bet-Tech Site 1 Access issue from West Aliquippa Bridge
BE004 Bet-Tech Site 2 Access issue from West Aliquippa Bridge
BE005 Aliquippa Industrial Park, Phase 2 Access issue from West Aliquippa Bridge
BE022 Mall Development Site Interchange access
LA005 Neshannock Business Park Need access roads
LA022 Morrone Brothers Property Access from 422
WA003 Cool Valley Access issue.
WA019 485 Rankin Rd No access to the site.
WA024 Mon River Industrial Park New entrance on the bend needed.
Hopewell Business and Industrial Park Access limitations - only one way in and one way out
Traffic Signal Issues
AL024 Pittsburgh Int'l Airport - Site 10 Lights, turning lanes, and grading
AL028 WestPort Woods Transportation District for signal changes
AL030 Clinton Commerce Park (Pittsburgh Int'l Airport Site 12) Potential traffic light
AL072 Cherrington Commerce Park (Pittsburgh Int'l Airport - Site 2) Traffic Signals and lane improvements
WA003 Cool Valley Traffic study being done. Two years out.
Interchange Issues
WA003 Cool Valley Interchange issues.
WA019 485 Rankin Rd PennDOT interchange issues
World Trade Center Clinton & 376 interchange - two roundabouts or a light
On-site Roadway Issues
AL024 Pittsburgh Int'l Airport - Site 10 Significant roadway improvement
AL028 WestPort Woods Interior Roadway and off-ramps
AL072 Cherrington Commerce Park (Pittsburgh Int'l Airport - Site 2) Roadway improvements from different parts of the site
BE001 Bet-Tech Site 1 Needs Roadways
BE004 Bet-Tech Site 2 Needs Roadways
BE005 Aliquippa Industrial Park, Phase 2 Needs Roadways
WA001 Starpointe Needs Roadways

WA003 Cool Valley Needs Roadways
World Trade Center Roadway onto site
Previous Use Issues
AL024 Pittsburgh Int'l Airport - Site 10 Wetlands, Highwalls, Mine spoils, Mine fire
LA003 New Castle Development Previously a dynamite facility
LA022 Morrone Brothers Property Old junkyard issues
WA003 Cool Valley
WA019 485 Rankin Rd High quality watershed - stormwater issues
World Trade Center AMD mines, Highwalls
Utility Upgrades Needed
AL024 Pittsburgh Int'l Airport - Site 10 New Sewage plant by 2017.
AL025 Findlay Industrial Park at WestPort New Sewage plant by 2017.
AL028 WestPort Woods New Sewage plant by 2017.
AL029 McClaren Road New Sewage plant by 2017.
AL030 Clinton Commerce Park (Pittsburgh Int'l Airport Site 12) New Sewage plant by 2017.
AL072 Cherrington Commerce Park (Pittsburgh Int'l Airport - Site 2) New Sewage plant by 2017.
AL164 Imperial Land Corporation - Robinson Twp Site Water line is being upgraded. Midway Sewage better than Findlay
AL187 Chapman New Sewage plant by 2017.
WA003 Cool Valley
WA024 Mon River Industrial Park The sewer facility needs redone but it is funded.
Hopewell Business and Industrial Park Need further improved
WestGate Business Park Need increased water pressure and capacity
Utility Extensions Needed
BE001 Bet-Tech Site 1 Needs public utilities
BE004 Bet-Tech Site 2 Needs public utilities
LA004 Millennium Technology Park Some utilities need extended
LA011 Werner Farm Need extensions
LA019 Cemex Vacant Property Need extensions for water and gas. Sewage plant on property.
WA003 Cool Valley Needs utilities
WA019 485 Rankin Rd No utilities
WA001 Starpointe Need extensions

Other Utility Issues
LA005 Neshannock Business Park First Energy servicing for large users can be an issue
WA003 Cool Valley Utilities not accessible.
Infrastructure Needs Identified by Most Needs

Code Property Name Infrastructure Needs
Over five infrastructure issues.
WA003 Cool Valley
Access, traffic, interchange, roadways, previous use, utility upgrades, utility
extensions, other utility issues
Four main infrastructure issues.
AL024 Pittsburgh Int'l Airport - Site 10 Traffic, roadway, previous use, utility upgrades
WA019 485 Rankin Rd Access, interchange, previous use, utilities
Three main infrastructure issues.
AL028 WestPort Woods Traffic, roadways, utility upgrades
AL072 Cherrington Commerce Park (Pittsburgh Int'l Airport - Site 2) Traffic, roadway, utility upgrades
BE001 Bet-Tech Site 1 Access, roadways, utility extensions
BE004 Bet-Tech Site 2 Access, roadways, utility extensions
World Trade Center Interchange, roadway, previous use
Two main infrastructure issues.
AL030 Clinton Commerce Park (Pittsburgh Int'l Airport Site 12) Traffic, utility upgrades
BE005 Aliquippa Industrial Park, Phase 2 Access, roadways
LA005 Neshannock Business Park Access, utility issue
LA022 Morrone Brothers Property Access, previous use
WA001 Starpointe Roadways, utility extensions
WA024 Mon River Industrial Park Access, utility upgrades
Hopewell Business and Industrial Park Access, utility upgrades
One main infrastructure issue.
AL025 Findlay Industrial Park at WestPort Utility upgrade
AL029 McClaren Road Utility upgrade
AL062 P&LE Flex Business Park Access
AL164 Imperial Land Corporation - Robinson Twp Site Utility upgrade
AL187 Chapman Utility upgrade
BE022 Mall Development Site Access
LA003 New Castle Development Previous use
LA004 Millennium Technology Park Utility extensions
LA011 Werner Farm Utility extensions
LA019 Cemex Vacant Property Utility extensions

WestGate Business Park Utility upgrade
Unknowns
Bessemer Plant
Hillsville Site
AL071 Fuller Trust Properties
Racetrack Road and Tanger Boulevard
WA013 Meadowlands Park

Industrial Properties by Infrastructure Needs
Code Property Name Infrastructure Needs Max Size
500+
AL024 Pittsburgh Int'l Airport - Site 10 Traffic, roadway, previous use, utility upgrades 1,300
WA001 Starpointe (Special Use/Industrial) Roadways, utility extensions 1,035
AL164 Imperial Land Corporation - Robinson Twp Site Utility upgrade 770
AL025 Findlay Industrial Park at WestPort Utility upgrade 640
LA003 New Castle Development Previous use 500
200-499
WA024 Mon River Industrial Park Access, utility upgrades 400
LA004 Millennium Technology Park Utility extensions 350
AL187 Chapman Westport (Industrial/Business Park) Utility upgrade 300
BE001 Bet-Tech Site 1 Access, roadways, utility extensions 240
100-199
Bessemer Plant 160
Hillsville Site 134
LA022 Morrone Brothers Property Access, previous use 102
AL030 Clinton Commerce Park (Pittsburgh Int'l Airport Site 12) Traffic, utility upgrades 100
50-99
LA019 Cemex Vacant Property Utility extensions 83
BE004 Bet-Tech Site 2 Access, roadways, utility extensions 76
BE005 Aliquippa Industrial Park, Phase 2 Access, roadways 72
Hopewell Business and Industrial Park Access, utility upgrades 67
AL062 P&LE Flex Business Park Access 52

EmergingIndustriesStudy

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to EmergingIndustriesStudy

Similar to EmergingIndustriesStudy (20)

EmergingIndustriesStudy