Parkway East Survey (Pittsburgh, McKeesport, Duquesne: houses, neighborhoods, schools)

[FreightTrainRunning]

Originally Posted by Pitt Chick

IDK... people like me who live "way out" often spend more money in the city than many of those who live inside.
The Parkway east is congested because we are all...
commuting to work
going to museums
attending football games
attending basketball games
attending baseball games
attending operas
attending concerts
attending plays
eating out
attending lectures
etc
etc
etc

Many of us would prefer a train or something of the sort... but that will never happen.

That's what convinced me to move back into the city. I realized that we were basically only sleeping in Murrysville and everything else we did was in the city.

[Pitt Chick]

Eventually we want to move into the city, but that won't happen until DH retires.

For now, we double up events as much as we can so that we are not back and forth so often.

[Ghostrider275452]

Originally Posted by dtw0592

I came across this article from the Tribune Live regarding the condition of the Parkway East (I-376.) A major improvement project to the Parkway East is probably not very likely, but I think it is still needed. I do not live in Pittsburgh at the moment, but I took part in the survey in-case I ever do find myself living in the city. I think it would be great if they widened the road, but they would have to tear down a lot of the businesses that exist near the highway. I know that development of this "project" is in its very early stages. Do you think an improvement project on the Parkway East is a much needed endeavor?

It is needed, but unless you do something about the tunnels, it would be a waste of money.

[SteelCityRising]

Originally Posted by h_curtis

I agree. If you want to live way out in Westmoreland County, why should the taxpayers pay for your convenience. The money would be better spent on those NEAR the city, not that far out. It is ridiculous. Urban sprawl is really not what the future holds. Each decade that passes will obviously bring people closer and closer to the city. Just look at Europe, which is ahead of us and learn from them. Make things great IN the city and maybe the first ring around the city, but not way out. People are working longer hours, less pay and they are going to want to spend less time commuting due to the massive debt from college and then a home and the never ending debt cycle that the banks (middlemen) have created with the help of the US government/lobbyists. This cycle is much too powerful to go away. This young generation will want to have shorter commutes, not sitting in traffic for hours or whatever. Wider roads will do nothing. Where are people going to go when they get downtown and those little exits and such? It will just be more dangerous and people dream of making time. Public transportation of high quality is a better option. Massive surface parking lots are horrible for all. Look at that riverfront waste in the Strip! How sad!

I also don't believe sprawling masses of cul-de-sac exurbs such as Murrysville, Cranberry Township, Cecil Township, Peters Township, etc. are the "wave of the future", and spending hundreds of millions (or billions, actually, when factoring in the tunnels) of tax dollars to widen roads to ease their commutes into and out of the city at the expense of MORE vehicles on our highways (and poorer air quality for we urbanites) is beyond ludicrous. If you're looking for "suburban" you can easily live IN the city at a place like Summerset at Frick Park (new urbanism); Swisshelm Park or Ridgemont (1950s-era suburbia); or in a place like Hays where you can be surrounded by nature due to decades of abandonment. Many city neighborhoods are so isolated by topography, including my own Polish Hill, that they function like intimate small towns of 1,000-3,000 people while still being walking distance to Downtown. Yes, I'm aware population growth IN the city will continue to cause median rents IN the city to escalate, and we can afford that if that were to occur because we both work full-time. I'd gladly spend a bit more in rent if it meant more people were eschewing urban sprawl in favor of urbanity. Mayor Peduto is already trying to entice more developers to build more rentals in the city in an effort to attract thousands of new residents to help reinforce our tax base, and developers DO seem receptive to this.

I have no sympathy for "tax jumpers" who are building new homes in places like Cecil Township or Murrysville and power-commuting just to save less money annually in taxes than what they lose in terms of the opportunity cost of their lost time via their longer commutes. Then they want to be "rewarded" by having those longer commutes subsidized by taxpayers? It's their choice to live so far from work. If you're employed somewhere that "moves around a lot", then renting is always an option so you can keep moving closer to work. If you're employed somewhere that's unlikely to move your site too often (i.e. BNY Mellon, PNC, UPMC, Google, and most other major local employers) then why would you choose to live an hour away, commute, and then whine that you want your longer commute subsidized at the expense of city-dwellers?

I actually admire greg42. He has a long commute from Beaver County into Downtown Pittsburgh on a daily basis, yet he doesn't whine about it the way the woman quoted in that newspaper article did. He realizes he chose to live in Beaver County for whatever reason it was appealing to him at the time, and the consequence of a long commute was an unavoidable trade-off. Pitt Chick chose to live in Westmoreland County. That's fine. It's a free country. People should be able to live wherever they want. With that being said my tax dollars should NOT "reward" power-commuters. It's not like this is Metro NYC or Northern Virginia where some people NEED to power-commute due to an astronomical cost-of-living. You can live very comfortably right in our urban core while making not making a ton of money, as my partner and I have proven. Discussing making it easier for people to commute into the city from 30 miles away at a cost that's more expensive than making it easier for people to commute around 2-4 miles within the city itself is asinine. Why should someone in Murrysville get to cruise on in on an 8-lane freeway while those of us in the increasingly-crowded East End only have a freakin' bus and no train to commute around on?

[dbsteel]

People are always going to want to live in the suburbs. That's were the families are. That's where the land is. You can dream all you want about families moving into the cities, and some will, but many want the quieter life with better schools and safer neighborhoods that the suburbs have to offer. The people in the suburbs are the ones actually working and spending time and money downtown. Rowhouses and lack of parking and neighbors jammed right on top of you isn't for everyone.

I'm not complaining... I also work in the suburbs. And still close enough to jump downtown for a game or a show. You have to keep the city accessible because its the people in the suburbs who are spending money and working down there.

[greg42]

Originally Posted by dbsteel

People are always going to want to live in the suburbs.

All I want to say is, "always" is a very long time.

[szug-bot]

i think a huge help might be reconfiguring the ramp from Braddock Avenue to inbound.

that pinch point is a killer. fixing that wont solve congestion problems, but up to a certain point of volume, it will help with traffic flow.

besides that, i cant ever see improvement unless there is added capacity. the topography just doesn't allow it.

but heres an idea - instead of that, what if Braddock Avenue, Forbes Avenue, and Penn Avenue were improved to accomodate better moving rush hour traffic?

is parking allowed on Braddock in Regent Square during morning rush hour? that can be one thing - no parking lane for 1.5 hours, as an example.

[WPANative]

Originally Posted by szug-bot

i think a huge help might be reconfiguring the ramp from Braddock Avenue to inbound.

that pinch point is a killer. fixing that wont solve congestion problems, but up to a certain point of volume, it will help with traffic flow.

besides that, i cant ever see improvement unless there is added capacity. the topography just doesn't allow it.

but heres an idea - instead of that, what if Braddock Avenue, Forbes Avenue, and Penn Avenue were improved to accomodate better moving rush hour traffic?

is parking allowed on Braddock in Regent Square during morning rush hour? that can be one thing - no parking lane for 1.5 hours, as an example.

Another great idea is to put a LARGE sign at the end of that ramp that says "THERE IS NO STOP SIGN AT THE END OF THIS RAMP"

[szug-bot]

Originally Posted by WPANative

Another great idea is to put a LARGE sign at the end of that ramp that says "THERE IS NO STOP SIGN AT THE END OF THIS RAMP"

i have to disagree. if someone stops, that has no bearing on how the freeflow traffic moves. it may be an annoying inconvenience, but overall, it doesnt matter.

[WPANative]

Originally Posted by szug-bot

i have to disagree. if someone stops, that has no bearing on how the freeflow traffic moves

There's no doubt you're a typical Pittsburgh driver, if you believe what I quoted.