Pittsburgh City Boundary

Historic Boundaries for City of Pittsburgh City Council Districts

For more recent and current council district boundaries, see https://data.wprdc.org/dataset/resources/city-council-districts-2012

This dataset portrays the boundaries of the County Council Districts in Allegheny County. The dataset is based on municipal boundaries and City of Pittsburgh ward boundaries and was updated as the result of reapportionment in September 2002. It has also been attributed with the current representatives' names.

This dataset is harvested on a weekly basis from Allegheny County’s GIS data portal.

Category: Civic Vitality and Governance

Department: Geographic Information Systems Group; Department of Administrative Services

Boundaries for Pittsburgh City Council

This dataset demarcates the municipal boundaries in Allegheny County. Data was created to portray the boundaries of the 130 Municipalities in Allegheny County the attribute table includes additional descriptive information including Councils of Government (COG) affiliation (regional governing and coordinating bodies comprised of several bordering municipalities), School District, Congressional District, FIPS and County Municipal Code and County Council District.

If viewing this description on the Western Pennsylvania Regional Data Center’s open data portal (http://www.wprdc.org), this dataset is harvested on a weekly basis from Allegheny County’s GIS data portal (http://openac.alcogis.opendata.arcgis.com/). The full metadata record for this dataset can also be found on Allegheny County’s GIS portal. You can access the metadata record and other resources on the GIS portal by clicking on the “Explore” button (and choosing the “Go to resource” option) to the right of the “ArcGIS Open Dataset” text below.

Category: Civic Vitality and Governance

Organization: Allegheny County

Department: Geographic Information Systems Group; Department of Administrative Services

Temporal Coverage: current

Data Notes:

Coordinate System: Pennsylvania State Plane South Zone 3702; U.S. Survey Foot

Development Notes: none

Other: none

Related Document(s): Data Dictionary (none)

Frequency - Data Change: As needed

Frequency - Publishing: As needed

Data Steward Name: Eli Thomas

Data Steward Email: gishelp@alleghenycounty.us

This dataset contains parcel boundaries attributed with county block and lot number. Use the Property Information Extractor for more control downloading a filtered parcel dataset.

If viewing this description on the Western Pennsylvania Regional Data Center’s open data portal (http://www.wprdc.org), this dataset is harvested on a weekly basis from Allegheny County’s GIS data portal (http://openac.alcogis.opendata.arcgis.com/). The full metadata record for this dataset can also be found on Allegheny County’s GIS portal. You can access the metadata record and other resources on the GIS portal by clicking on the “Explore” button (and choosing the “Go to resource” option) to the right of the “ArcGIS Open Dataset” text below.

Category: Civic Vitality and Governance

Organization: Allegheny County

Department: Department of Real Estate

Temporal Coverage: updated daily on Allegheny County's GIS Open Data page

Data Notes:

Coordinate System: Pennsylvania State Plane South Zone 3702; U.S. Survey Foot

Development Notes: none

Other: none

Related Document(s): Data Dictionary (none)

Frequency - Data Change: Multiple times per hour

Frequency - Publishing: Daily

Data Steward Name: Eli Thomas

Data Steward Email: gishelp@alleghenycounty.us

Watersheds for surface water streams and rivers within Pittsburgh boundaries. StreamStats was the original source, and the geometry was simplified afterwards.

City of Pittsburgh Street Centerline Data DictionaryEditor Tracking (created_date, created_user, last_edited_date, last_edited_user)Automatically recorded information indicating the creation date and user and the last modified date and user.From/To Street Name (fromstreet, tostreet)Where the street segment ends or begins. The starting point of the line segment is the From Street and the end point of the line segment is the To Street. The names of the cross streets are used where applicable. If the segment does not begin or end at a cross street, CITY LIMIT and DEAD END can both be used. The name of the street itself can also be used in situations where the beginning or end of a segment is in between cross streets.Functional Class (domi_class)A general classification system used by the Department of Mobility and Infrastructure to stratify roads by significance.• Principal Arterial - Roadways with high traffic volumes such as interstate highways, freeways, and expressways; frequently the route of choice for intercity buses and trucks.• Minor Arterial – Roadways that serve trips of moderate length and smaller geographic areas than principal arterials.• Collector – Roadways that “collect” traffic from Local Roads and connect traffic to Arterial roadways. Typically, shorter than Arterial Routes but longer than Local Roads. Collectors provide traffic circulation within residential neighborhoods as well as commercial, industrial, or civic districts.• Local – Roadways that provide direct access to adjacent land, not intended for use in long distance travel. Locals roads provide access to higher systems, and typically don’t carry through traffic movement.• Alley - Streets intended to provide access to the rear or side of lots or buildings in urban areas and not intended for the purpose of vehicular through traffic.• Park Road – Roadways that provide access into and through parks.• Private Road – Privately owned and maintained roads. Private roads are often open to the public in spaces such as shopping malls, airports, and sports arenas. Public access can be restricted to private gated properties.• UnknownLength (measurlgth)The length of the segment measured in feet, projected using the NAD 1983 State Plane Pennsylvania South FIPS 3702 (US Feet) projection.Most Recent Paving Date (replaced)The date a segment was most recently resurfaced, repaved, or otherwise restored.Number of Travel Lanes (num_lanes)Number of travel lanes in any direction of travel on an undivided road. Divided roadways using more than one segment note number of lanes on the given segment only.One Way Designation (oneway)The direction of allowed traffic flow along a route• N: Travel allowed in both directions.• FT: One way travel allowed in the direction the line segment is drawn, from the beginning of the line (from) to the end of the line (to).• TF: One way travel allowed in the opposite direction the line segment is drawn, from the end of the line (to) to the beginning of the line (from).Owner (owner)The owner of a road, usually but not necessarily always responsible for maintenance activities and project initiation.• CITY• STATE• PRIVATE• MT OLIVER• COUNTY• PORT AUTHORITY• OTHER MUNICIPALITY• UnknownRoad Status (class)The status of the road, typically indicating either the maintenance responsibility or if and why a segment cannot traversed by vehicle.Right/Left Council District (council_rt, council_lt)The Council District identifier to the right and left of a segment, when facing the direction the line segment has been drawn.Right/Left Fire Zone (fire_zn_rt, fire_zn_lt)The Bureau of Fire Zone identifier to the right and left of a segment, when facing the direction the line segment has been drawn.Right/Left Neighborhood (hood_right, hood_left)The Neighborhood identifier to the right and left of a segment, when facing the direction the line segment has been drawn.Right/Left Police Zone (zone_right, zone_left)The Bureau of Police identifier to the right and left of a segment, when facing the direction the line segment has been drawn.Right/Left Street Maintenance Division (dpw_zon_rt, dpw_zon_lt)The Department of Public Works Street Maintenance Division identifier to the right and left of a segment, when facing the direction the line segment has been drawn.Right/Left Street Sweeping (sweep_right, sweep_left)The Street Sweeping Route identifier to the right and left of a segment, when facing the direction the line segment has been drawn. The identifier consists of 3 parts: the Public Works Division, the route number, and the date of street sweeping (e.g. ‘5SW8-2W’ is done by the 5th Division, on route number 8, and completed on the 2nd Wednesday of each month).Right/Left Voting District (vote_dt_rt, vote_dt_lt)The Voting District identifier to the right and left of a segment, when facing the direction the line segment has been drawn.Right/Left Ward (ward_rg, ward_lt)The Ward identifier to the right and left of a segment, when facing the direction the line segment has been drawn.Right/Left Zip Code (zipr, zipl)The Zip Code identifier to the right and left of a segment, when facing the direction the line segment has been drawn.Road Removal Date (retired)The date indicating when a segment was removed from the street centerline dataset, usually indicating the road was removed due to new development or other changes in the immediate area.Road Surface Width (roadwidth)Surface width in feet. The measurement of the full traveled way and shoulders/auxiliary lanes.Segment ID (carteid)A unique identifier assigned to each street segment in the City of Pittsburgh.Speed Limit (speedlimit)The speed limit for traffic travelling on both sides of the road.Street Name (streetname, prefix, name, type, suffix, dir)The streetname field contains the name of a road (a combination of prefix, name, type, suffix, dir. Names in this field are written in all capital letters and their abbreviated type. (E.g. MAIN ST, E QUINN RD). The prefix field contains any prefix before the proper street name, usually an abbreviated cardinal direction (N, S, E, W). The name field contains the spelled out street name. The type field contains the type of street (e.g. road, avenue, way). The suffix field contains any suffix after the proper street name, usually an abbreviated cardinal direction (N, S, E, W). The dir field contains the direction of travel in relation to another segment, typically a tunnel, bridge, or highway.Surface Material Type (paveclass)The material used to build the street surface• Asphalt• Concrete• Brick• Blockstone• Unsurfaced• Metal Deck• Wood• Unknown

This dataset demarcates municipal voting districts in Allegheny County. These were updated in 2019 to match municipal boundaries.

To inquire about obtaining historical versions of this dataset, please contact Mark VanderVen (Mark.VanderVen@AlleghenyCounty.US).

About the G.M. Hopkins Maps History and Background of the Maps Maps produced by the G.M. Hopkins Company have made a lasting impression on the boundaries of many American cities. Between 1870 and 1940, the company produced over 175 atlases and real estate plat maps that primarily covered the Eastern sea board, including cities, counties, and townships in 18 different states and the District of Columbia. In the early years, the company produced county atlases, but gradually focused on city plans and atlases. They were among the first publishers to create a cadastral atlas, a cross between a fire insurance plat and a county atlas prevalent in the 1860s-1870s. These real estate or land ownership maps (also known as plat maps) not only depict property owners, but show lot and block numbers, dimensions, street widths, and other buildings and landmarks, including churches, cemeteries, mills, schools, roads, railroads, lakes, ponds, rivers, and streams. Originally named the G.M. Hopkins and Company, the map-making business was jointly founded in 1865 in Philadelphia, Pa., by the Hopkins brothers, G.M. and Henry. The true identity of G.M. Hopkins remains somewhat of a mystery even today. “G.M.” either stands for Griffith Morgan or George Morgan. There are three different possibilities for the confusion over his identity. “Either the compilers of the earlier [city] directories were negligent; G.M. Hopkins changed his first name; or there were two G.M. Hopkins (father and son) working for the same firm” (Moak, Jefferson M. Philadelphia Mapmakers. Philadelphia: Shackamaxon Society, 1976, p. 258).

http://digital.library.pitt.edu/abouthp/#hopkins

This dataset demarcates municipal voting districts in Allegheny County. Allegheny County Elections Districts were updated in 2019 to match municipal boundaries.

Coordinate System: Pennsylvania State Plane South Zone 3702; U.S. Survey Foot Data Dictionary: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HR24LyBNpLwvJZoaGp-tBGRw0HRoXNIef6nU4UQQMMo/edit?usp=sharing

CHANGELOG

2023-03-29: This dataset was harvested on a weekly basis from Allegheny County’s GIS data portal until March of 2023, when it was removed from the Allegheny County’s GIS portal.

This dataset contains the Allegheny County boundary.

Pittsburgh Wards

This Polygon Feature Class is of the City of Kingston former Municipal Boundary. The boundaries were for the City of Kingston, Kingston Twp, Pittsburgh Twp prior to amalgamation in 1998. This data is used for Map Presentations, Web Map Applications and General Analysis.

About the G.M. Hopkins Maps History and Background of the Maps Maps produced by the G.M. Hopkins Company have made a lasting impression on the boundaries of many American cities. Between 1870 and 1940, the company produced over 175 atlases and real estate plat maps that primarily covered the Eastern sea board, including cities, counties, and townships in 18 different states and the District of Columbia. In the early years, the company produced county atlases, but gradually focused on city plans and atlases. They were among the first publishers to create a cadastral atlas, a cross between a fire insurance plat and a county atlas prevalent in the 1860s-1870s. These real estate or land ownership maps (also known as plat maps) not only depict property owners, but show lot and block numbers, dimensions, street widths, and other buildings and landmarks, including churches, cemeteries, mills, schools, roads, railroads, lakes, ponds, rivers, and streams. Originally named the G.M. Hopkins and Company, the map-making business was jointly founded in 1865 in Philadelphia, Pa., by the Hopkins brothers, G.M. and Henry. The true identity of G.M. Hopkins remains somewhat of a mystery even today. “G.M.” either stands for Griffith Morgan or George Morgan. There are three different possibilities for the confusion over his identity. “Either the compilers of the earlier [city] directories were negligent; G.M. Hopkins changed his first name; or there were two G.M. Hopkins (father and son) working for the same firm” (Moak, Jefferson M. Philadelphia Mapmakers. Philadelphia: Shackamaxon Society, 1976, p. 258). http://digital.library.pitt.edu/abouthp/#hopkins McKeesport from the original Sanborn maps from 1889.

In 2017, the County Department of Economic Development, in conjunction with Reinvestment Fund, completed the 2016 Market Value Analysis (MVA) for Allegheny County. A similar MVA was completed with the Pittsburgh Urban Redevelopment Authority in 2016. The Market Value Analysis (MVA) offers an approach for community revitalization; it recommends applying interventions not only to where there is a need for development but also in places where public investment can stimulate private market activity and capitalize on larger public investment activities. The MVA is a unique tool for characterizing markets because it creates an internally referenced index of a municipality’s residential real estate market. It identifies areas that are the highest demand markets as well as areas of greatest distress, and the various markets types between. The MVA offers insight into the variation in market strength and weakness within and between traditional community boundaries because it uses Census block groups as the unit of analysis. Where market types abut each other on the map becomes instructive about the potential direction of market change, and ultimately, the appropriateness of types of investment or intervention strategies.

The 2016 Allegheny County MVA does not include the City of Pittsburgh, which was characterized at the same time in the fourth update of the City of Pittsburgh’s MVA. All calculations herein therefore do not include the City of Pittsburgh. While the methodology between the City and County MVA's are very similar, the classification of communities will differ, and so the data between the two should not be used interchangeably.

Allegheny County's MVA utilized data that helps to define the local real estate market. Most data used covers the 2013-2016 period, and data used in the analysis includes:

•Residential Real Estate Sales; • Mortgage Foreclosures; • Residential Vacancy; • Parcel Year Built; • Parcel Condition; • Owner Occupancy; and • Subsidized Housing Units.

The MVA uses a statistical technique known as cluster analysis, forming groups of areas (i.e., block groups) that are similar along the MVA descriptors, noted above. The goal is to form groups within which there is a similarity of characteristics within each group, but each group itself different from the others. Using this technique, the MVA condenses vast amounts of data for the universe of all properties to a manageable, meaningful typology of market types that can inform area-appropriate programs and decisions regarding the allocation of resources.

During the research process, staff from the County and Reinvestment Fund spent an extensive amount of effort ensuring the data and analysis was accurate. In addition to testing the data, staff physically examined different areas to verify the data sets being used were appropriate indicators and the resulting MVA categories accurately reflect the market.

Please refer to the report (included here as a pdf) for more information about the data, methodology, and findings.

This dataset demarcates the U.S. Legislative Congressional district boundaries within Allegheny County.

If viewing this description on the Western Pennsylvania Regional Data Center’s open data portal (http://www.wprdc.org), this dataset is harvested on a weekly basis from Allegheny County’s GIS data portal (http://openac.alcogis.opendata.arcgis.com/). The full metadata record for this dataset can also be found on Allegheny County’s GIS portal. You can access the metadata record and other resources on the GIS portal by clicking on the “Explore” button (and choosing the “Go to resource” option) to the right of the “ArcGIS Open Dataset” text below.

Category: Civic Vitality and Governance

Organization: Allegheny County

Department: Geographic Information Systems Group; Department of Administrative Services

Temporal Coverage: 2015

Data Notes:

Coordinate System: Pennsylvania State Plane South Zone 3702; U.S. Survey Foot

Development Notes: none

Other: none

Related Document(s): Data Dictionary (none)

Frequency - Data Change: As needed

Frequency - Publishing: As needed

Data Steward Name: Eli Thomas

Data Steward Email: gishelp@alleghenycounty.us

About the G.M. Hopkins Maps

History and Background of the Maps

Maps produced by the G.M. Hopkins Company have made a lasting impression on the boundaries of many American cities. Between 1870 and 1940, the company produced over 175 atlases and real estate plat maps that primarily covered the Eastern sea board, including cities, counties, and townships in 18 different states and the District of Columbia. In the early years, the company produced county atlases, but gradually focused on city plans and atlases. They were among the first publishers to create a cadastral atlas, a cross between a fire insurance plat and a county atlas prevalent in the 1860s-1870s. These real estate or land ownership maps (also known as plat maps) not only depict property owners, but show lot and block numbers, dimensions, street widths, and other buildings and landmarks, including churches, cemeteries, mills, schools, roads, railroads, lakes, ponds, rivers, and streams.

Originally named the G.M. Hopkins and Company, the map-making business was jointly founded in 1865 in Philadelphia, Pa., by the Hopkins brothers, G.M. and Henry. The true identity of G.M. Hopkins remains somewhat of a mystery even today. “G.M.” either stands for Griffith Morgan or George Morgan. There are three different possibilities for the confusion over his identity. “Either the compilers of the earlier [city] directories were negligent; G.M. Hopkins changed his first name; or there were two G.M. Hopkins (father and son) working for the same firm” (Moak, Jefferson M. Philadelphia Mapmakers. Philadelphia: Shackamaxon Society, 1976, p. 258).

http://digital.library.pitt.edu/abouthp/#hopkins