Will the proposed light rail to New Ken really happen?

[BrianTH]

Again, never is a very long time. People in Pittsburgh haven't experienced a growing core area for decades, so don't have much experience with this. But I'm familiar with what has happened in other cities that started to turn around in the 1980s or 1990s, and it is possible for the worst areas to rapidly gentrify if the potential demand is there. Braddock isn't even that bad by these standards--it is just mostly empty, but mostly empty is something gentrification can deal with.

I do think Braddock will need rapid transit to take off--that is what tends to anchor gentrification in cases like this. But that could be as simple as extending the East Busway just a bit farther from its current endpoint. Toss in a successful redevelopment of the Carrie Furnace site, and I think all the pieces will be in place.

Again, I make no guarantees about when all that will happen. But never? I just don't see it. Braddock is developable land about 10 miles from Downtown, 8 miles from Oakland, even less from much of the East End. A growing Pittsburgh is eventually going to need all such land, even if it takes a while.

[stburr91]

I agree with Brian, never is a very long time.

The real question is, will Pittsburgh ever grow enough that space is needed to the point that Braddock will become attractive. There is a lot of vacant space that would be redeveloped before Braddock. I can't see Braddock coming back in the next 10-20 years, 30-40 years...maybe. I wouldn't mind being wrong about that, but I don't think that I am.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by stburr91

There is a lot of vacant space that would be redeveloped before Braddock. I can't see Braddock coming back in the next 10-20 years, 30-40 years...maybe. I wouldn't mind being wrong about that, but I don't think that I am.

That I agree with. Less than 20 years isn't totally impossible if Pittsburgh starts growing at an unanticipated rate, but personally I wouldn't bet on it.

[airwave09]

Originally Posted by Impala26

I tend to feel that now passenger rail might be more effective in these areas than several decades ago IF you manage to pull in a large enough proportion of park-and-rides. I like to think that as recently as the 1970's people in the Pittsburgh area were still in the "honeymoon phase" of suburbia and driving their cars. I think generally more people now are looking to spend less time behind the wheel while commuting, using transit as an opportunity to multitask while en-route to a destination (read, smart-phone, etc.)

I have a plan for this, actually. I think it would take a ton of suburbs-to-city traffic off of the main thoroughfares across the region. Resulting in less wear/construction on all main roads.

Benefits for the City:

It would require many less parking garages in the city, and remove a large portion of rush hour traffic from city streets. It would give suburban commuters a reason to stick around town after working hours without trying to "beat the traffic" and get home, benefiting city businesses.

Benefits for the Suburbs:

Less stressful, much less costly (parking/gas prices), and less dangerous commutes across the board. Suburban commuters would have the ability to get some work done or just relax/sleep during the commute. No longer need to worry about weather, construction, or other drivers hampering or endangering them on the roads.


Seriously though cities like NYC, DC, and SF thrive with this setup of commuting so why can't we?