My Pittsburgh long Term Rail Transit plan (Liberty, Oakland: transfer, YMCA)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Fine, I'm off my rocker. So riddle me this, when during the height of the City of Pgh population, the 50's and 60's, why did the commuter railroad in the East not work?
I grew up on the railroads, probably been on more trains than anyone on this board. But it has never been a commuter option in this area, for whatever reason.
The YMCA moved its main club form Allies Blvd to closer to downtown due to lack of patronage.
Look at all the industrial parks along the airport corridor, look at Cranberry and Westinghouse, Downtown is NOT what it used to be.
Well you sorta are. Well over 100k people work in downtown, this is clearly established. So saying nobody works downtown is pretty off your rocker. I am here every damn weekday, and you, clearly and as you've said, are not. I've been in commuter time traffic from all directions and can attest to how many people are driving, and that's only, eh, I forget what percent because some are using the few transit options available (buses and the T). Apparently you've never tried to drive into the city at 8am or out of it at 5:30pm in all these years either.
My theory, with no backing except a rough knowledge of the numbers as presented here, is this: the reason the rail didn't work then and might work better now is that MORE people are commuting from that far away and farther now than 40-50 years ago. When 600k people live in the city, fewer of them need to commute from such outlying areas. In the 50s and 60s, Cranberry didn't exist except as farmland. Same is true of some other areas. What you appear to be missing is that the population decline of the city proper did not result an equal percentage shift in the number of jobs downtown. It's lopsided. The city's population is roughly half, but the downtown job count is steady if not more than before. And since fewer people live in the city, they have to commute in for these jobs. That's what people have been moving towards all these intervening years.
I can't back that up with anything though. Just a logical guess. It also doesn't guarantee that the commuter rail would be better utilized this time either. It's just one thought process as to why it could potentially be more utilized now. Not so much from McKeesport, though, but from some of the key outlying bedroom suburbs.
The YMCA moved from their Blvd of the Allies location because they had an opportunity to sell the building to Point Park University. It's quite possible the 5th Avenue location will be better utilized as it is a little bit closer to the higher density buildings. But I don't recall a particular emphasis on that aspect as part of the move. They had an opportunity to sell, they had a willing developer looking for them to move in. Win-win. Because of the timing of things, I suspect they made money on the building sale.
Their are lots of office and industrial parks in the suburban areas. Many people do work there too. There are 2 million odd people in the general area here, and 100k-odd work downtown. So yeah, people work out there too. That does not indicate that downtown is dead. And Westinghouse (which is strictly Westinghouse Nuclear, division of Toshiba) moved from Monroeville to Cranberry. What does that indicate? Nothing, except they didn't decide to move into downtown. Cranberry gave them incentives to move there. They chose another suburban campus with room to grow. And the building built for them is ugly and not indicative at all of such an advanced tech company. Really lame in fact. But it says nothing about how many people work downtown, nor did they pull from downtown. There hasn't been anything with Westinghouse downtown in 10 years or so now, and yet their former building has filled up pretty well. Net decrease in downtown workers? Zilch.
But its a commuter option right now, for a lot of the South Hills, and the T is used by lots of people working. While, yeah, a rail line going from PGH to McKeesport would ABSOLUTELY fail, I just can't really believe that a train going from, say, Downtown to Oakland (the third largest business district in the state) to Squirrel Hill to Regent Square would be lacking for riders. I tend to think the same thing about the T would be true about the North Hills. Anything else probably would have a tough time remaining viable (hence the "make-a-wish" tag).
bingo. extend the T to manchester and there will be more butts on the T. Downtown seems a fairly stable employment center and Oakland fast growing. connect people with jobs and entertainment in a timely and cost effective manner and it will probably work . I didn't ride the old commuter operation, i don't know the timetables, etc. many thing led to the downfall of the railroads, not least among them overregulation and the fact uncle sam ran them into the ground during the way, handed them back in tatters, instead fo reimbursing them, thanks them with highways. by the 60's, as i understand it, many railroads were falling apart, using ancient equipment, and highly unreliable. today SEPTA is carrying more people thanit did 30 years ago despite the fact that the city has few jobs and the network was cut back drastically since then. why? it resembles a fairly reliable way to avoid traffic. gas prices are also up from their historic lows in the 1990's.
I work in town, my neighbors two doors down work in town, as do their neighbors after that. In a block of 15 homes I'd say half of them have at least one person in the home working in town. More than that, there are 12 apartments in my building and five of us (in different apartments) work in town. This is not accounting for the elderly whom I know go into town daily for shopping. (I'm not joking, several of my neighbors get up, get dressed up, and go into town to shop. It's like a trip...)
Downtown is not dead. Though, the lack of transit may kill it.
Also, for the curious, I live in Dormont. Home of just outside the city perks such as low taxes. (Though, now that I'm looking to buy a house, I can see why people wouldn't want to buy in the city.. crazy taxes and a $1700 tax stamp just for the privilege.. ugh.)
Downtown is, if anything, growing as a long-distance commuter destination, for the reasons explained above.
That said, I personally think that when you step back and look at the whole picture, the most pressing need for rapid mass transit in the region is centered on Oakland, not Downtown. Rapid mass transit to Downtown could and should be upgraded and extended, and I do think commuter rail is likely now viable in at least a couple direction. Nonetheless, there is already at least something of a mass transit network in place for serving Downtown, many parts of which are working pretty well (such as the T and the Busways).
Oakland, on the other hand, has emerged as a very important second CBD for the region, but it basically has no rapid mass transit at all. So not only does it lack decent connections to the suburbs, it lacks decent connections to the rest of the City. And this massive hole in the local transportation system ripples into many other problems--for example, much of the road congestion getting into Downtown is in part caused by people using the same routes to try to get into Oakland.
And yet solving this problem won't be at all easy, because Oakland is a real challenge to get to--it is surrounded on most sides by hills, cliffs, ravines, and a river, and the one decent path in (from the East via Shadyside) is densely built up. As some people know, for these reasons I have proposed my own general solution to this problem--a network of urban gondolas centered on Oakland and spreading in multiple directions into the City, with connections to other rapid transit networks extending farther out into the Metro.
And while I do think that is likely the most cost-effective possible solution, I wouldn't mind seeing competing proposals from rail advocates. But that is indeed what I would like to see: an Oakland-centric network designed to fill this massive gap in the modern Pittsburgh transportation system.
Downtown is, if anything, growing as a long-distance commuter destination, for the reasons explained above.
That said, I personally think that when you step back and look at the whole picture, the most pressing need for rapid mass transit in the region is centered on Oakland, not Downtown. Rapid mass transit to Downtown could and should be upgraded and extended, and I do think commuter rail is likely now viable in at least a couple direction. Nonetheless, there is already at least something of a mass transit network in place for serving Downtown, many parts of which are working pretty well (such as the T and the Busways).
Oakland, on the other hand, has emerged as a very important second CBD for the region, but it basically has no rapid mass transit at all. So not only does it lack decent connections to the suburbs, it lacks decent connections to the rest of the City. And this massive hole in the local transportation system ripples into many other problems--for example, much of the road congestion getting into Downtown is in part caused by people using the same routes to try to get into Oakland.
And yet solving this problem won't be at all easy, because Oakland is a real challenge to get to--it is surrounded on most sides by hills, cliffs, ravines, and a river, and the one decent path in (from the East via Shadyside) is densely built up. As some people know, for these reasons I have proposed my own general solution to this problem--a network of urban gondolas centered on Oakland and spreading in multiple directions into the City, with connections to other rapid transit networks extending farther out into the Metro.
And while I do think that is likely the most cost-effective possible solution, I wouldn't mind seeing competing proposals from rail advocates. But that is indeed what I would like to see: an Oakland-centric network designed to fill this massive gap in the modern Pittsburgh transportation system.
If Transportation planning is centered around Rapid Transit to Oakland then they might as well add E Liberty into mix as well....because seems like the Burgh is well on its way to having 3 prominate CBD's and a single rapid transit line connecting all 3 in 20 mins time Downtown - Oakland - E Liberty would easily feed off each other.
If Transportation planning is centered around Rapid Transit to Oakland then they might as well add E Liberty into mix as well....because seems like the Burgh is well on its way to having 3 prominate CBD's and a single rapid transit line connecting all 3 in 20 mins time Downtown - Oakland - E Liberty would easily feed off each other.
The thing is, East Liberty already has better rapid transit infrastructure than Oakland (two stops on the East Busway), and it also has a nice collection of arterial streets heading in all directions. In that sense, you can already get to Downtown from East Liberty in well less than 20 minutes--it is the Oakland part which is missing, which gets us back to my original point.
Generally, I'm not against identifying additional alternative nodes to Downtown and Oakland (in fact, next up after East Liberty should probably be Wilkinsburg, my own municipality, but like East Liberty, it already has a couple East Busway stops). The truly crazy thing is that Oakland is SO far behind, being completely off the rapid transit network--although that isn't quite so crazy when you realize that Oakland is a relative newcomer as far as economic centers in Pittsburgh is concerned.
But Oakland to E Liberty will be a vital link as more companies that either cannot find the space or are priced out of the tight Oakland market, yet they want to be close to the Brain Power of Oakland ala Google and UPMC. emagine if Apple, Disney etc out grow their spaces at CMU the way Google did and Central East Liberty turns into Silicon Valley Lite......having a Rapid transit line that connects all 3 business centers again would allow each CBD to feed off one another....
The Busway would still provide the rapid service of the East End to Downtown, I dont see a Rapid Transit serving Downtown, Oakland, East Liberty competing or syphoning people away from the busway, people going between downtown and E Liberty will still chose to bypass Oakland therefore using the Busway.
But Oakland to E Liberty will be a vital link as more companies that either cannot find the space or are priced out of the tight Oakland market
Sure, but that route could still be part of an Oakland-centric network. And a broader Oakland-centric network could give them even more choices (imagine direct links from Oakland to the North Side, South Side, Strip, Lawrenceville, the Hazelwood LTV and Carrie Furnace sites, and so on).
Quote:
having a Rapid transit line that connects all 3 business centers again would allow each CBD to feed off one another....The Busway would still provide the rapid service of the East End to Downtown, I dont see a Rapid Transit serving Downtown, Oakland, East Liberty competing or syphoning people away from the busway, people going between downtown and E Liberty will still chose to bypass Oakland therefore using the Busway.
I guess I don't see the need for a single line connecting all three. Again, if you want to get from Downtown to East Liberty or back, there is no need to go through Oakland--that connection already exists, and as you point out it would be tough for a route through Oakland to compete. Oakland to Downtown and Oakland to East Liberty are both notable possibilities for a new Oakland-centric system, but that could be two separate lines, not one single line, since there is no need for through service from Downtown to East Liberty.
I know this takes a shift of perspectives from the normal way of talking about possible Pittsburgh transit networks, but seriously, you are supporting here the need for an Oakland-centric system, where Downtown becomes just one of the many places connected to Oakland, and many other places (like East Liberty) could have direct connections to Oakland that had nothing in particular to do with Downtown.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well over 100k people work in downtown, this is clearly established. So saying nobody works downtown is pretty off your rocker. I am here every damn weekday, and you, clearly and as you've said, are not. I've been in commuter time traffic from all directions and can attest to how many people are driving, and that's only, eh, I forget what percent because some are using the few transit options available (buses and the T). Apparently you've never tried to drive into the city at 8am or out of it at 5:30pm in all these years either. 
