What pieces of the puzzle does Pittsburgh lack to be a great city? (Philadelphia: purchase, school district)

[ex-burgher]

Originally Posted by Geeo

The thing with beltways is that they work for a few years until junk gets build up around them, and then they're just as clogged as all the other roads. The DC beltway and Perimeter Road in Atlanta come to mind. Both are disasters.

Agree - beltways worsen sprawl. Charlotte's southern beltway needed widening within one year of it's construction due to rampant development. Of course it's taking much longer - rush hour traffic is horrendous. Then it will still be clogged.

[_Buster]

It seems like a true beltway would be nearly impossible for Pittsburgh at this point due to terrain and lack of space, unless it was 15 miles or more out from the city. not sure it would be too useful at that distance. I would think an alternate highway spur from 79 near the airport and connecting to the east end of the city would be useful, to avoid 376 and the tunnels, but that may be just as impossible.

[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.

[Geeo]

Beltways were originally envisioned for cross-country or long-distance travelers as a way to avoid city centers on their interstate highway trip. They were never meant to be a suburb-to-suburb route (since there was little sub-urban development back then). Naive notion in the 1950s, I guess.

[MonVoyage]

Originally Posted by MathmanMathman

I really think an expressway beltway is needed to help mobility. It needs to be one that stretches out to intersect with the airport like Cincinnati and Indianapolis have. You need an effective way to move not only people but stuff.

It is advantageous for urban environments to have denser forms of transportation (namely buses, light rail, etc.). Once the cars come off the beltway, where are they going to go? It would be really hard to widen streets made back in the 1800s. Not to mention all of the energy usage and pollution from personal vehicles.

It's more efficient to transport people using mass transit (namely the t). It leads to denser, more sustainable development (including walkable streets, better outlets for small businesses/boutiques, better all around communities etc.). The densely clustered, pedestrian-catered communities of Pittsburgh are not built to handle large traffic volumes (thus why we are seeing all the congestion problems today). Beltways are antiquated.

If you want to encourage more sprawl amidst rising oil prices, be my guest...

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by pman

and yet neither of those places are particularly great or successful

Cincinnati and Indianapolis have growth rates exceeding Pittsburgh's. Charlotte will pass Pittsburgh in size. How are they not successful? You want success but no growth?

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by ex-burgher

Agree - beltways worsen sprawl. Charlotte's southern beltway needed widening within one year of it's construction due to rampant development. Of course it's taking much longer - rush hour traffic is horrendous. Then it will still be clogged.

So Pittsburgh should take the stagnation approach? No infrastructure that might encourage development? Pittsburgh is being marginalized by other cities and will be soon passed by other metros in size as its growth rate ranges between negative and anemic. Hard to be a great metro/city when you are among the small places.

[Moby Hick]

Originally Posted by MathmanMathman

You want success but no growth?

Basically. Success with growth might be better if you want to win a regional statistics comparison, but having a whole bunch of people in my way when I try to go somewhere doesn't really help me in the least.

[steindle]

Originally Posted by MathmanMathman

Hard to be a great metro/city when you are among the small places.

This makes no sense to me. What does population have to do with being "great?" Is Savannah less "great" because its metro area is like 1/8 the size of Pittsburgh's? Is the Detroit metro "greater" than Pittsburgh's because it has 1.5 million more people?

I'm reminded of this skit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aF8wLg5Asgo

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by MonVoyage

It is advantageous for urban environments to have denser forms of transportation (namely buses, light rail, etc.). Once the cars come off the beltway, where are they going to go? It would be really hard to widen streets made back in the 1800s. Not to mention all of the energy usage and pollution from personal vehicles.

It's more efficient to transport people using mass transit (namely the t). It leads to denser, more sustainable development (including walkable streets, better outlets for small businesses/boutiques, better all around communities etc.). The densely clustered, pedestrian-catered communities of Pittsburgh are not built to handle large traffic volumes (thus why we are seeing all the congestion problems today). Beltways are antiquated.

If you want to encourage more sprawl amidst rising oil prices, be my guest...

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.