What pieces of the puzzle does Pittsburgh lack to be a great city? (York: taxes, rail)

[MonVoyage]

Originally Posted by MathmanMathman

Buses and LRTs are simply inadequate. Best used by the poor and when traffic is heavy. We enjoy our standard of living because of cars. Trains and trolleys are of the "poor" years for a reason.

I think you have an unfair stereotype about who uses public transportation. Go to cities like Denver, Portland, Dallas, and even Pittsburgh! - you'll see that light rail is utilized by everyone for convenience. It's simply faster and more efficient to have 40 people riding 1 light rail vehicle, then having 1 person in 40 cars.

Why are buses and LRT inadequate? What standard of living do cars provide that transit cannot?

A beltway still doesn't solve the problem of putting more vehicles on a narrow and dense street system.

[PreservationPioneer]

Cars provide the ability to go wherever you want, whenever you want. You aren't limited by the service locations or times, or when it is in operation. You also aren't forced to walk long distances. Cars also offer storage, so you can buy big things and transport them in the trunk. If you like to travel, especially to places that are not on the grid, cars are the way to go.

[Devout Urbanist]

Originally Posted by MathmanMathman

Buses and LRTs are simply inadequate. Best used by the poor and when traffic is heavy. We enjoy our standard of living because of cars. Trains and trolleys are of the "poor" years for a reason.

This is hilarious. You have clearly never taken public transit in New York City (all those poor people coming down from Stamford into Manhattan everyday!), Chicago, San Francisco, Boston, D.C., or Philadelphia. Even the light rail systems in Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta attract middle-class people. All major cities have heavy traffic, by the way, which, by your own admission, is reason enough for robust public transit. And our "standard of living" comes at a price. It's called global warming.

[I_Like_Spam]

Originally Posted by Devout Urbanist

This is hilarious. You have clearly never taken public transit in New York City (all those poor people coming down from Stamford into Manhattan everyday!), Chicago, San Francisco, Boston, D.C., or Philadelphia. Even the light rail systems in Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta attract middle-class people. All major cities have heavy traffic, by the way, which, by your own admission, is reason enough for robust public transit. And our "standard of living" comes at a price. It's called global warming.

NY is sort of a unique situation because of its ultradense population and concentration of jobs.

The facts are that in a place like the Pittsburgh region, it would be extremely difficult to duplicate the kind of public transit system that would allow the people to want to live without automobiles. The complexity of designing a system for just a single suburb, like Cranberry, to provide for transportation for people's commutes to work, shopping and other errands, would be mind boggling. The area is quite vast, and its residents work over an even more vast area.

[zman63]

Originally Posted by szug-bot

to be a great city, Pittsburgh should demand better results from its schools. no more spending, but instead:
uniforms, disciplined learning, holding parents accountable for any liability caused by their children, and academic results.

that, and a quick, efficient circulatory transit system for the golden triangle, the lower north side, and the south side flats.

I agree, but I also think the amount of regional government and school district fragmentation is a huge problem. People are paying a lot in taxes to support something big and redundant that isn't thriving or flourishing as it could or should.

[I_Like_Spam]

Originally Posted by zman63

I agree, but I also think the amount of regional government and school district fragmentation is a huge problem. People are paying a lot in taxes to support something big and redundant that isn't thriving or flourishing as it could or should.

Why do you think that a larger government separated from the people would be more efficient and produce better results for lower cost?

[Devout Urbanist]

Originally Posted by I_Like_Spam

NY is sort of a unique situation because of its ultradense population and concentration of jobs.

New York City isn't that unique. Surely you noticed that it was not the only city I mentioned.

Originally Posted by I_Like_Spam

The facts are that in a place like the Pittsburgh region, it would be extremely difficult to duplicate the kind of public transit system that would allow the people to want to live without automobiles. The complexity of designing a system for just a single suburb, like Cranberry, to provide for transportation for people's commutes to work, shopping and other errands, would be mind boggling. The area is quite vast, and its residents work over an even more vast area.

Yet 30 percent of people who live in Pittsburgh don't even own cars. That's pretty high. Of course, everyone does not have to join the ranks of that 30 percent but I think that 30 percent deserves access to a much better system. No one said anything about "designing a system for just a single suburb," which would be ludicrous. Pittsburgh does not have to "duplicate" New York's system. The country's top transit systems are not all the same. Pittsburgh could easily adopt policies from various places and create a unique system that does a much better job of serving local residents.

[pman]

Originally Posted by MonVoyage

...Why are buses and LRT inadequate? What standard of living do cars provide that transit cannot?
A beltway still doesn't solve the problem of putting more vehicles on a narrow and dense street system.

you are right, the beltway idea is about as reasonable as a light rail map with 10 different lines. in the end, unless you are a fan of sprawl, beltways don't "create jobs" they just disperse them. if job growth isn't there you just create a weaker metro, if it is there, like DC, you still get nightmare traffic. in the end, you have to ask questions. what is the problem we are trying to address? you are right that no matter how many neighborhoods are destroyed by highways like the north side, you still have a small compact city...and why bother spending all themoney to destroy it when there are plenty of places that are already sprawling?

Originally Posted by I_Like_Spam

NY is sort of a unique situation because of its ultradense population and concentration of jobs.

The facts are that in a place like the Pittsburgh region, it would be extremely difficult to duplicate the kind of public transit system that would allow the people to want to live without automobiles. The complexity of designing a system for just a single suburb, like Cranberry, to provide for transportation for people's commutes to work, shopping and other errands, would be mind boggling. The area is quite vast, and its residents work over an even more vast area.

yes, NY is a bad example but Philadelphia might work in this case. some people live without cars, primarily young people, poor people, people with disabilities, and elderly people but there are others. on a regional basis good transit allows people not to live without a car but also to live with one car instead of two which reduces vehicle miles travelled as well as expense for residents. lots of people take the train downtown but still drive most other places. this is probably the kind of scenario one might expect in Pittsburgh. now, cranberry is a sprawl town. a creation of necessary and unnecessary highways. the key is to ask the question what problem is being solved. if the problem being solved is economic growth, forget the beltway and the lrt and work on the state tax system or the city's regulatory system for businesses, things like that. if you want to raise property values, a transit line that connects places people with places that they work or play is also valuable. if traffic reduction is the goal then ask where are the worst bottlenecks and where are the people going to and from? the answer isn't going to be a beltway but it might be transit since it's a good pressure valve. I tend to think that what is missing the most are two things...proper pricing for city transit (short trips shouldn't cost $5!) and effective regional transit...a way for people to get downtown (or Oakland) without hitting the tunnels or taking ineffective transit. those are the people clogging up the tunnels. my opinion of course. I'd also add that Pittsburgh's transit ridership is relatively strong, more on par with eastern cities than Midwestern ones, despite funding crisis and a lack of capital investment so it's obvious that people will ride when it makes sense.

[zman63]

Originally Posted by I_Like_Spam

Why do you think that a larger government separated from the people would be more efficient and produce better results for lower cost?

Because as city residents we pay taxes to the county and the city. Right now what is the purpose to pay county taxes when the city provides my services? What do I see for my tax dollars? I am paying to keep the parks and pools in the suburban county parks afloat.

The amount of money wasted on 42 school districts is incredible. Each has their own governing board and they do not do joint purchase agreements on books, supplies, services etc. You have sto rox with hardly any tax base left and unable to pay their teachers or keep their lights on, then you have montour high school five miles away with tens of millions in surplus. I am sorry I just do not see how this is sustainable. These kids have no hope and no access to quality education. You could have a child living in section 8 that is well behaved and has the intelligence to contribute positively to society. You have to give hope to them.

Plus we do not need 200 fire departments, 130 police departments, 130 public works and a county public works.

Merge all of these governments and school districts into one, set a flat tax that everybody in the entire county pays. It doesn't matter if you live in the urban proper or wexford, everybody has the chance at the same education and is paying the same police/fire/public works chiefs.

[I_Like_Spam]

Originally Posted by zman63

Because as city residents we pay taxes to the county and the city. Right now what is the purpose to pay county taxes when the city provides my services? What do I see for my tax dollars? I am paying to keep the parks and pools in the suburban county parks afloat.
.

County taxes pay for the courts, jails, sheriff, medical examiners, roads (some of which are in the city) as well as county parks.

BTW, each other subdivision- not just the city- has parks and pools.

You can talk about "same chance", but I think a lot of the excellence of areas that have really invested in public education would evaporate if they were all merged into a single, distant conglomerate.