Commute from Mt Lebanon to Oakland? (Washington, Liberty: quality of life, live in, gym)

[kate1048]

We live in Mt Leb and I currently work further south, so I have a relatively easy 25 minute commute to work. There are a couple organizations I'm interested in, profesionally, that are in Oakland. But I'm wondering how brutal the commute would be from Mt Leb to Oakland? I've been stuck on Banksville and W. Liberty a couple times during random morning/evening rush hours and it looks pretty bad . Can anyone who commutes between Mt Leb to Oakland comment on the level of frustration they encounter with the commute? How long does it take, on average? I'm trying to weigh issues of career advancement with quality of life issues.

[fleetiebelle]

The typical shortcut I'd recommend would be cutting through Beechview via Broadway Ave to Crane Ave. If you make a left down to Banksville, you could get into the Ft. Pitt mess as the last possible second, or you can make a right down to 51 and either go through the Liberty Tunnel or cut up and over Mt. Washington to the Liberty Bridge and take the Blvd of the Allies into Oakland. I live in Beechview, so I'm farther along on the continuum, but it rarely takes me more than 25 minutes to get to Oakland.

[gallacus]

I take shortcuts to avoid Banksville as well, but it takes me 20 minutes to get from the Beverly shops area of Mt. Lebanon to the Squirrel Hill Tunnel, leaving at 7:15am.

[XRiteMA98]

why don;t you take the T to downtown and then any bus that goes to oakland? ther's plenty if them.

[gallacus]

Originally Posted by XRiteMA98

why don;t you take the T to downtown and then any bus that goes to oakland? ther's plenty if them.

That would likely take in excess of an hour one way, when driving would take only 20 minutes. On a daily basis, that would come down to about 2.5 hours of commute time vs. 45-60 minutes. I'm a huge proponent of public transportation, especially the T, but that just seems like something no one would subject themselves to if they owned a car.

[fleetiebelle]

Originally Posted by gallacus

That would likely take in excess of an hour one way, when driving would take only 20 minutes. On a daily basis, that would come down to about 2.5 hours of commute time vs. 45-60 minutes. I'm a huge proponent of public transportation, especially the T, but that just seems like something no one would subject themselves to if they owned a car.

And it would also depend on the OP's parking situation in Oakland. If she doesn't have a place to park, driving may not even be an option.

[Impala26]

Originally Posted by gallacus

That would likely take in excess of an hour one way, when driving would take only 20 minutes. On a daily basis, that would come down to about 2.5 hours of commute time vs. 45-60 minutes. I'm a huge proponent of public transportation, especially the T, but that just seems like something no one would subject themselves to if they owned a car.

Honestly though, I think this conclusion varies from person to person. Me personally, I have a anything-but-a-car-if-reasonably-possible attitude. Meaning, if the trip is short enough (roughly less than a half hour and/or under 10 miles) I'll opt to take transit or even ride my bike if that's a reasonable option.

Even if it takes twice as long than driving, there are several advantages. In this era of mobile technology one could easily be productive or shoot the breeze while on the internet, and in either case you're increasing productivity while you're actually AT work. If you ride your bike instead this wouldn't apply, but you would be engaging in ACTIVE transportation. When you walk or ride a bike you're actually exercising your body and generally relieving stress, quite the opposite of being behind the wheel of an auto. You can save time and money without that gym membership.

And if you have a car and you choose these other modes, you're saving money on daily wear-and-tear, fuel, and parking costs--all of which can add up quickly over the course of a year. Now suddenly you have a bit more free spending cash, hooray!

[gallacus]

Originally Posted by Impala26

Honestly though, I think this conclusion varies from person to person. Me personally, I have a anything-but-a-car-if-reasonably-possible attitude. Meaning, if the trip is short enough (roughly less than a half hour and/or under 10 miles) I'll opt to take transit or even ride my bike if that's a reasonable option.

Even if it takes twice as long than driving, there are several advantages. In this era of mobile technology one could easily be productive or shoot the breeze while on the internet, and in either case you're increasing productivity while you're actually AT work. If you ride your bike instead this wouldn't apply, but you would be engaging in ACTIVE transportation. When you walk or ride a bike you're actually exercising your body and generally relieving stress, quite the opposite of being behind the wheel of an auto. You can save time and money without that gym membership.

And if you have a car and you choose these other modes, you're saving money on daily wear-and-tear, fuel, and parking costs--all of which can add up quickly over the course of a year. Now suddenly you have a bit more free spending cash, hooray!

Yup, you're preachin' to the choir. I'm always trying to convince friends to join me on public transportation -- even though it always takes longer -- just because I like it. But, when it comes down to spending an hour or more less time with my family each day, that's gone too far for me. Not saying that everyone would feel that way, but the comparison of driving vs. public transportation between Mt. Lebanon and Oakland specifically seems to work out heavily in favor of using the car, especially if you already have one.