Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
Ok fine - if we need to have density within the urban core, then we need to focus on our public transportation system outside of the urban core and make it easy and RELIABLE for folks to get into the urban core.
We (as a region) cant just keep concentrating the job growth within the core, keep pushing for gentrification of the core, and tell everyone too poor to live in the core to pound sand.
In terms of reducing traffic, and increasing transit usage, there's basically two things we need to do.
The first is locate as many new units of housing as possible within the urban core, ideally along rapid transit lines like the East Busway. Pittsburgh is already doing this in spades, which is great, because every person who lives in Eastside Bond instead of in a rando apartment building in Ross or Robinson or whatever means one less car commuter.
The other part which is concentrating jobs in the most transit-heavy areas. We're actually moving backwards here. Downtown employment is stagnant, and possibly declining slightly as more old office buildings are converted into hotels and apartment buildings. Oakland's NIMBY population has defeated a good deal of attempts to build denser concentrations of office space there as well. Instead we're seeing more "fringe space" in areas like the Strip, the North Shore, South Side Works, Pittsburgh Technology Center, and Bakery Square. This is bad, because although more people will walk/use transit in these areas than in a suburban office park, a lot less will than if they were in Downtown or "Downtown Oakland." To the extent these jobs are relocated from the suburbs, it's probably a net plus for traffic, but to the extent they are jobs which would otherwise be in our CBDs, it makes traffic worse. Ultimately I think the only good way around this will be if all of the different office-heavy areas are linked together in some sort of rapid-transit circulator route.
Yeah. No. I've heard about the working conditions there. Showing up to work at 7 AM and then finding out at 2 PM an hour before you're supposed to leave that you need to stay until 11 PM because the person who was held over the day before for 16 hours called off. No thanks. It would mean you could never have a reliable romantic or social life. Also not commuting to Findlay Township to work.
Yeah, what a stupid idea it was to move that thing all the way out there.... County services should not be placed near the border of another county where getting to it will be made inconvenient for so many employees.
A decentralized city is pretty much the worst possible thing when it comes to traffic. Think of somewhere like Northern New Jersey, where there are industrial/office parks scattered everywhere, along with residences. People have little choice in terms of getting a job close to their home, and can't always relocate to be close to their job. So once density reaches a certain point, rush hour just means gridlock on every highway and major state route, with no real way to correct it via either transit or road upgrades, since it's everywhere.
Yeah, when I think of the idea of living somewhere like Northern NJ or the DC metro, I feel like that would be a miserable existence, especially with commuting.
Yeah, when I think of the idea of living somewhere like Northern NJ or the DC metro, I feel like that would be a miserable existence, especially with commuting.
i am in accordance with that. not everyone will be, since some do not mind that daily routine.
this has actually held me back from opportunities, because i do not want another 2 hours of my day taken wasted (if you are using the bus, you at least can use the time to accomplish some tasks).
then there is the carbon footprint thing. i like knowing i am keeping mine as low as i can.
We (as a region) cant just keep concentrating the job growth within the core, keep pushing for gentrification of the core, and tell everyone too poor to live in the core to pound sand.
I agree with you here. I've decided that if and when we buy our first house we're going to focus in on Beechview because it's still cheap (enough) for first-time home-buyers, and you can still live there without needing a car everyday. I work Downtown and can just take the "T". My partner works in the Strip. He can take the "T" Downtown, and then his employer offers a shuttle between the "T" station and their office. I don't mind all the hills. My partner does, but too bad.
I actually think if the Strip is going to continue to boom with office development, then more major employers in the Strip should offer circulator shuttles between their offices and the "T". Another option for those working in the Strip but coming in from the North Hills or the northeastern suburbs along Route 28 would be to have a park & ride lot somewhere in like Shaler or O'Hara and have multiple shuttles picking people up and bringing them to the Strip offices.
In terms of reducing traffic, and increasing transit usage, there's basically two things we need to do.
The first is locate as many new units of housing as possible within the urban core, ideally along rapid transit lines like the East Busway. Pittsburgh is already doing this in spades, which is great, because every person who lives in Eastside Bond instead of in a rando apartment building in Ross or Robinson or whatever means one less car commuter.
The other part which is concentrating jobs in the most transit-heavy areas. We're actually moving backwards here. Downtown employment is stagnant, and possibly declining slightly as more old office buildings are converted into hotels and apartment buildings. Oakland's NIMBY population has defeated a good deal of attempts to build denser concentrations of office space there as well. Instead we're seeing more "fringe space" in areas like the Strip, the North Shore, South Side Works, Pittsburgh Technology Center, and Bakery Square. This is bad, because although more people will walk/use transit in these areas than in a suburban office park, a lot less will than if they were in Downtown or "Downtown Oakland." To the extent these jobs are relocated from the suburbs, it's probably a net plus for traffic, but to the extent they are jobs which would otherwise be in our CBDs, it makes traffic worse. Ultimately I think the only good way around this will be if all of the different office-heavy areas are linked together in some sort of rapid-transit circulator route.
But we also need to increase the reach of transit to the farflung areas that need them. It is ironic that for all of the Social Justice Warriors that we have on this forum, and given that I'm one of the boogeymen conservatives, that I'm one of the few who sees how wrong it is to spend tens of millions of dollars on a showpiece public transit project (BRT between Oakland and Downtown) while we gentrify more and more people out to places like the Mon Valley and we don't give more public transit to those who most need it.
Its one of my chief complaints - I'm an evil Social Darwinist, but its the likes of me who sees the injustice and poor policy in the BRT.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelCityRising
I actually think if the Strip is going to continue to boom with office development, then more major employers in the Strip should offer circulator shuttles between their offices and the "T". Another option for those working in the Strip but coming in from the North Hills or the northeastern suburbs along Route 28 would be to have a park & ride lot somewhere in like Shaler or O'Hara and have multiple shuttles picking people up and bringing them to the Strip offices.
It would be nice to have more 'hubs' instead of ALL ROUTES GO TO DOWNTOWN. It would be nice if 'circulator' buses could pick circulate around a certain region, pick people up, and then take them to a 'hub' station. From this 'hub' station, there could be good connections to downtown or to other nearby 'hubs'. Large and accessible park and ride lots could be built at these 'hub' stations.
I'm not a hater of government or public services - but what I really hate is the blind obedience to poor policies. And unfortunately, the transit policies in this region are UTTER CRAP and the infrastructure is at its carrying capacity.
I'm tired of having my car get hit, and I'm tired of having the bridges COMPLETELY backed up. But at the same point, the bus service is so unreliable in my area, and so hit-or-miss, and when I have to wait in a dangerous area to get my bus home (I've seen a knife pulled at my bus stop in the Cultural District when I was a regular rider) I prefer to roll the dice and drive my car. I'd rather get hit in my car at 15 mph than get stabbed - but ideally, I would love to actually have reliable public transit available to me where I didnt have to wonder if it was going to show up or not and where I didnt have to wonder if I was going to be the victim of random violence while innocently waiting to use transit.
But we also need to increase the reach of transit to the farflung areas that need them. It is ironic that for all of the Social Justice Warriors that we have on this forum, and given that I'm one of the boogeymen conservatives, that I'm one of the few who sees how wrong it is to spend tens of millions of dollars on a showpiece public transit project (BRT between Oakland and Downtown) while we gentrify more and more people out to places like the Mon Valley and we don't give more public transit to those who most need it.
Its one of my chief complaints - I'm an evil Social Darwinist, but its the likes of me who sees the injustice and poor policy in the BRT.
I find it ironic again bringing this up - since I'm a socialist and you're a conservative - but it all sort of comes down to money, and the Port Authority attempting to turn a profit (or at least, not lose quite so much money).
In the transit world, there's a term called "farebox recovery ratio." This basically measures the total amount of money brought in via fares, versus the total amount of money to operate. Internationally speaking, there are a handful of systems which actually make money (all of them other than the London Underground in Asia). But in the U.S. running profitable transit systems became impossible in the 1950s, as too much of our population went into the suburbs. This meant that our formerly private transit system was municipalized/regionalized basically everywhere, and supported by public taxation, because the alternative would have been a general collapse of mass transit everywhere in the country.
The latest figures I have seen for the Port Authority suggest that the average trip costs $5.93. Out of this $1.44 is paid for via fare, with the other $4.47 being non-recovered costs which have to be paid for via other means. But the cost per rider on the P1/P2 is only $2.41 - the lowest of any route in the system. This is largely a function of how popular the bus is - it's standing room only in rush hour, and the more people are packed into the bus, the cheaper it is per person to operate.
From the perspective of the Port Authority's finances, it only makes sense to double-down on providing more service where the service is cheapest. Thus you see continued ramping up of the P1 (around five sometimes you see 2-3 back-to-back) along with the Port Authority investing in TOD projects which build apartments on Port Authority owned land like Eastside Bond - or the Castle Shannon apartments - which will result in a captive audience for transit utilization.
The problem with more suburban lines is basically that it's the Port Authority throwing money at a bad (or at least risky) investment. Most suburban lines would go through relatively low-density areas which would necessitate park and rides, which also means that outside of the twice-a-day rush hour traffic these lines would be little used. Given PAT has limited resources, it chases after providing better service to existing customers rather than trying to rope in new ones.
But the City still wants to jack up taxes even further.
Ya know.. you could work for County 911 and enjoy the higher pay and sweet benefits, while STILL serving the community
As a city resident and someone who works/lives almost exclusively in the city, what taxes are they trying to increase? Just curious as I have not heard anything.
As a city resident and someone who works/lives almost exclusively in the city, what taxes are they trying to increase? Just curious as I have not heard anything.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 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 2 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.
