America's Most Miserable Cities - Pittsburgh Didn't Make the List (Washington: low crime, job market)

[JoeLeaphorn]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I would suggest that the explanation is that for a city of its size, Pittsburgh actually scores pretty well on things like public transportation (the bus system specifically is quite good, particularly if you can make use of the Busways)

It scores well among the people who ride it. Not well by those who don't most of whom don't because the service is not convenient. All one has to do is look at the number of people who take public transportion into town versus those who prefer to sit in traffic and you realize that the system serves some people, well, and most people, poorly.

I've lived in DC, Chicago, New York and Boston (among other places). Pittsburgh is the first city that I had no choice but to drive a car to work. People who think that PAT is a good system either live along a busway, the East corridor or have never lived anywhere that had truly good public transportation.

There isn't even a good transportation hub where most forms of transportation meet. To go from my neighborhood to Oakland, I have to take one bus downtown and then walk four blocks to maximize my chances of getting the first bus to Oakland.

Nearly all the Fifth and Forbes buses have bus stops at almost every corner. It is amazing that anyone ever gets anywhere.

About the one thing that is actually favorable about Pittsburgh's public transportation system (although it is fiscal nonsense), is the fact that you can get a transfer that can be used on a return trip.

[BrianTH]

In the latest ranking I have seen (using 2002 data), Pittsburgh was #9 among large cities in terms of the percentage of workers using public transportation. New York was easily #1 (and the only place over 50%), followed by DC, Boston, San Francisco, Chicago, Philly, Newark, and Baltimore. Pittsburgh was next, followed by Minneapolis, Seattle, Atlanta, Buffalo, Oakland, New Orleans, Cleveland, Portland, St. Paul, LA, and Honolulu (to round out the top 20).

Anyway, I think that is a pretty respectable ranking, particularly considering the local topography.

[JoeLeaphorn]

Statistics aren't answers, they are questions. The percentage of workers who use public transportation is interesting, but more interesting are the whys and why nots. These tell you whether a transportation system is effective or no.

Only 25% of New Yorkers own cars. This is no different than in 1939. It probably is not the case for Pittsburgh because the emphasis has been on building roads, not better public transit. So being 9th is not really relevant. What is relevant is in how many of those cities can you actually live without owning a car.

[alleghenyangel]

I lived in the suburbs of Pittsburgh (Forest Hills) and commuted to work every day to Oakland via the bus. I had no problems with it.

[JoeLeaphorn]

Originally Posted by alleghenyangel

I lived in the suburbs of Pittsburgh (Forest Hills) and commuted to work every day to Oakland via the bus. I had no problems with it.

I did not say that certain communities were not well served. I loved the service when I lived in Squirrel Hill; it isn't practical for Sewickley. And during the time that I spend waiting for the 16A I saw at least four East Busway busses.

The fact is that the number of vehicles/household for Allegheny County is more like that of a city without good public transportation than a city with good public transportation.

People don't shell out $15-20K or more for a second vehicle unless there is a compelling case for that or they have a lot of disposable income. Pittsburgh has a significant percentage of two-wage earners in the families. The conclusion one might draw is that there are few places to live where both partners can work and do it via public transportation (unless both work in the same area).

[pirate_lafitte]

Originally Posted by subdivisions

America's Most Miserable Cities - Forbes.com

Forbes ranked America's most miserable cites, based on weather, commute times, crime, tax rates, and toxic waste.

Guess what? Despite all the bitching and moaning on this site about all 5 of the above items, Pittsburgh didn't make the top ten.

However, a number of cities that are often used to paint Pittsburgh in an unfavorable light did make the list. These include:

#4 - NYC (land of everything exciting, unlike Pittsburgh's provincial dullness)

#5 - Philadelphia (a "true" eastern city, unlike Pittsburgh's provincial midwesterness)

#7 Los Angeles (wasn't this supposed to be paradise on earth for at least one City-Data Forum troll?)

And last but not least, the oft mentioned...*drum roll*

Charlotte, NC, coming it at #9. Yes, Charlotte, which is supposed to be just like Pittsburgh except 1000 times better in every imaginable way.

Good for PGH. Personally, this should be a moral boost. Personally, I believe there are worse places than Pgh.

[BrianTH]

I think if one takes New York City as the standard by which one judges good public transportation, there is exactly one city in the United States meeting that standard, namely New York City.

Generally, larger and/or denser cities are going to tend to have better public transportation. I would suggest that among U.S. cities of a comparable size and density, Pittsburgh provides relatively good public transportation. Compared to far larger and denser cities, up to and including New York, it may fall short--although not always (e.g., I think all things considered, Pittsburgh outperforms LA in this area).

That said, I also think with a relatively moderate investment (as compared to cities starting from a much weaker base), Pittsburgh could significantly upgrade its public transportation system. And hopefully the funding for those upgrades will become available in at least the medium term.

[JoeLeaphorn]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I think all things considered, Pittsburgh outperforms LA in this area).

LA is terrible for public transportation and has one of the highest vehicles/household of any American city. It is also one of the largest, so size doesn't matter.

NYC has always invested in public transportation. People don't own cars because they don't need them. Public transportation, as opposed to parking garages, means higher population densities. That is what transit oriented development is all about.

The mentality in Pittsburgh has been not to lay down LRT/commuter rail because there is too much flux in population densities. This is just the type of moronic thinking that keeps us in the 19th century. You put fixed rail transportation in to STABILIZE communities. You can take a bus away, anytime. It isn't as easy to move a train.

Finally, I don't give a * about how Pittsburgh compares to other municipalities of a similar size. The fact is that Pittsburgh (including urban areas), has a relatively high ratio of vehicles/households. That means one thing; public transportation is not a viable alternative for many.

When my mother-in-law was a little girl, she used to take the commuter train from Aliquippa into Pittsburgh. In a little more than 1/2 century, we have dismantled a functioning network of rails, streetcars and busses. Now we pat ourselves on the back for what? The East Busway? A former railroad bed? How about the Wabash Tunnel (which used to be part of the Panhandle railroad route). Old maps of the county show a short line railroad which used to run from downtown through the East Valley (where, today, cars sit in bumper to bumper traffic trying to get into town), Ross, McCandless and beyond. Some progress.

Bottom line. I could live almost anywhere in metro DC, New York, Boston or Chicago and have a number of options for commuting and never need to own a car. I don't have a single practical option in Pittsburgh and I live only 12 miles away off of a heavily crowded thoroughfare.

Public transit stinks, here. You pretend that you are good and that leaves you with little incentive for improvement.

[BrianTH]

There is a pretty obvious correlation between the extent of public transit networks and both size and density of cities in the United States. In other words, New York, Chicago, DC, and Boston are not exactly a random collection of cities: those are all in the top eight largest urban areas, and in the top eleven by weighted density of the urban area. It isn't a perfect correlation, however, which is why you can have outliers such as Los Angeles or Detroit. The age of cities also matters (note all of the four cities listed are also older cities), with cities like Phoenix and Houston actually just getting going on building out serious public transit (age, of course, helps explain why Pittsburgh does in fact have relatively good public transit for a city of its size and density). Of course almost all American cities had most or all of their streetcars ripped out, and a lot of commuter rail was lost too--which is a true national tragedy, but at the same time not limited to Pittsburgh.

With respect to the future, I would agree that Pittsburgh can and should build more public transit infrastructure. However, I actually think a lot of light rail at this point would be a mistake. Our topography tends to makes it very expensive per mile, and at the same time interferes with development along the lines. Accordingly, I think we would get a lot more bang for the buck from expanding and improving the Busway system: the Busways are cheaper to build out, and allow combined local/express routes where a bus circles a particular neighborhood then hops on the Busway for express service to get to Downtown or Oakland. At the same time, because they are embedded infrastructure, they can help stimulate local development (to the extent feasible in Pittsburgh).

That said, if we had enough money to spend, expanding the T at least to Oakland might be a good idea. We could also add (or, more properly, restore) commuter rail along one or more the river valleys, although in that case you would really be betting on stimulated demand to justify the costs in the long run.

Edit: For the sake of completeness, Pittsburgh's urban area is #22 by size, #29 by weighted density. Again, our topography doesn't help that weighted density score.

[plaidmom]

Originally Posted by pirate_lafitte

Good for PGH. Personally, this should be a moral boost. Personally, I believe there are worse places than Pgh.

I agree.

We just spent a long weekend in Pgh. My daughter lives there and we visit several times per year.

I hope some of you younger, and perhaps even older, but visionary, folks will stay in your fine city and work work work to make it the best that it can be.

I urge you to work out your public transportation issues. You have a couple of things on your side: high-density housing, curvy, narrow roads (not always in the best condition) and limited parking. Those are not negatives from a public-transport POV.

The "entrance" to the city via 279 is just.... amazing. I wonder how many of you natives take that for granted? You roll through a tunnel , then bam, pop out into light and city and skyscraper and water and bridges... it's like giving birth. Next time you make that drive, try not to focus so much on your road rage/cell-phone and drink it in as an artist or architect might.

Finally, your neighborhoods. We spent some time riding our bikes around this week. Over and under bridges. Up and down hills. Through neighborhoods with lovingly restored brick mansions and in industrial and warehouse distrcits. We rode through areas that had boarded-up houses and storefronts and houses. So sad! So beautiful! Waiting for someone to champion their cause like a mutt at the pound. Pick me, pick me!

I see burgeoning growth in art, design, music and food. Also an amazing cycling culture (Dirt Rag/ Urban Velo etc).

I'm crossing my fingers for you.