Living Car Free - Pittsburgh Massive Transit Cuts Effect the CarFree

I don't know how many of you are watching the potential massive transit cuts in Pittsburgh. It's incredible how they are about to eliminate 50% of all bus lines! It turns out, they spent 300 million in putting a tunnel to the new stadium and now the bus routes have to suffer. Unbelievable.

Pittsburgh is not flat by any stretch of the imagination. It's has some pretty steep hills you can't really bike to work in some locations. Funny, I went to the pro-cycling website in Pittsburgh and you would never know there was an impending transit crissis! LOL! I guess cyclist don't use buses but all of Pittsburgh coaches have external bike racks.

Regardless, most of the carfree don't bike and like me, depend on bus and rail. With gas going up, we're going to see alot of transit cuts like this going on all over the nation. It's just starting so get ready.

Also, the fact they have an anti-transit Republican governor doesn't help either.


http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2012/02/29/riders-demand-action-to-prevent-port-authority-cuts/

Also, the fact they have an anti-transit Republican governor doesn't help either.


I guess at some point when the world has moved on and cities like Pittsburgh are mired with car infrastructure that they can no longer afford to maintain and their downtown cores are littered with parking garages...and no longer livable for the new generation who wants urban living... maybe then things will improve.

Of course, by that time, the intellectual capital that drives a lot of modern economies will have moved to cities other than Pittburgh.

I think I saw a statement a while back that all parking garages should be converted to housing for the homeless, because there won't be any cars using them...

Aaron :)

I guess at some point when the world has moved on and cities like Pittsburgh are mired with car infrastructure that they can no longer afford to maintain and their downtown cores are littered with parking garages...and no longer livable for the new generation who wants urban living... maybe then things will improve.

Of course, by that time, the intellectual capital that drives a lot of modern economies will have moved to cities other than Pittburgh.

Living in the urban core maybe the only solution because once they get rid of the buses, lot of people will have to drive or walk! I would study the bus lines that aren't going to be cut and move along that route. Moving is a cheaper alternative to driving in the long run.

I think I saw a statement a while back that all parking garages should be converted to housing for the homeless, because there won't be any cars using them...

Aaron :)

I haven't bee to Pittsburgh but it never occured to me they created a parking lot city? What a waste. It reminds me of Altantic City.

The odd thing is that Pittburgh has been one of the few success stories with its downtown. At least that's the spin.

Hmm... Luckily, Tulsa ain't Pittsburgh. Tulsa Transit made cuts about a year ago- back when I depended on it. But they didn't eliminate half of the routes. They constantly do rider surveys, drivers radioing into dispatch how many get on or off at a given stop, and they shuffle resources accordingly. They were in the process of retiring some of the oldest parts of the fleet- which just happened to have the highest seating capacity- with smaller, more efficient models, some running CNG, and a couple of hybrids.

Unfortuately for me, I picked the one burb that doesn't tie into that transit service. Nearest bus stops are 12 to 15 miles away to the N, NE, and E..

The odd thing is that Pittburgh has been one of the few success stories with its downtown. At least that's the spin.

I was really sad to hear about the transit cuts in Pittsburgh because the city has been held up as a model for the redevelopment of a "rust belt" city. It sounds like they're taking a huge step backward.

I was really sad to hear about the transit cuts in Pittsburgh because the city has been held up as a model for the redevelopment of a "rust belt" city. It sounds like they're taking a huge step backward.

I guarantee you that the people who put in that new stadium won't share your point of view. They will call it progress, maybe even the crown jewel of the master plan, while undoubtedly profiting off of it somehow. Plus, new sports venues makes for a great selling point for the Chamber of Commerce and/or Tourism.

I guarantee you that the people who put in that new stadium won't share your point of view. They will call it progress, maybe even the crown jewel of the master plan, while undoubtedly profiting off of it somehow. Plus, new sports venues makes for a great selling point for the Chamber of Commerce and/or Tourism.

I think a stadium can do a lot of good for a city. But if segments of the population can't get to work and (especially) school or vocational training, you're going to have stagnation because the work force can't keep up with the demands of new industries. This is very short-sighted and stupid, IMO.

But if segments of the population can't get to work and (especially) school or vocational training, you're going to have stagnation because the work force can't keep up with the demands of new industries. This is very short-sighted and stupid, IMO.

Yes... but why can't the policy makers understand this?

You can't grow jobs if people can't efficiently arrive at work. You can't grow your economy if you are draining intellectual resources like education. You can't consume your last resource as though there was an endless supply.

What makes policy makers think this way?

Yes... but why can't the policy makers understand this?

You can't grow jobs if people can't efficiently arrive at work. You can't grow your economy if you are draining intellectual resources like education. You can't consume your last resource as though there was an endless supply.

What makes policy makers think this way? IMHO I don't think they think. Too many stadium type projects get rammed through because someone is being paid off, owns the land, or stands to profit from it some way. I am almost convinced that you have to have a frontal lobotomy to get elected to any public office anymore...

Aaron :)

Will it ever get so bad that private companies begins taking people into the cities? I know there are shuttle buses from far out in the suburbs in some places with large populations. Will they ever expand their services to shorter runs from suburbs?

I don't know what they would need to charge per trip to make that profitable. A driver will cost $11-20 per hour. Fuel will be used at six miles per gallon at whatever cost it is. On top of that there needs to be all the expenses of the buses and then add in profits. What fee would need to be charged to make such a route profitable?

If they charged $10 per person per one way trip I think it would not work. Other than New York City and Downtown Chicago, it would probably cost just as much for somebody to take a car into the city for the day. Car owners would choose to use their own car over a bus.

IMHO I don't think they think. Too many stadium type projects get rammed through because someone is being paid off, owns the land, or stands to profit from it some way. I am almost convinced that you have to have a frontal lobotomy to get elected to any public office anymore...

Aaron :)

True, but I think some of the blame has to go to the electorate. We keep getting the political leaders that we vote for, through some strange process. A lot of voters don't comprehend (or don't agree with) the concept that buses are a needed public service like police and fire service. But a shiny new football stadium, on the other hand.... Politicians who don't bow to public opinion never gat a chance to make policy,

We seem to have two distinct models in this country.

Model One: Good education system (and thus higher taxes), well educated work force, technological development -- examples would obviously include Silicon Valley, Boston area, and the Research Triangle in NC.

Model Two: Attract industry with low taxes and cheap labor -- examples would be the textile industry and more recently the auto industry in various part of the Southeast. These areas may not produce many of the well educated people needed to manage the businesses, but such people can always be brought in from elsewhere after they have been educated on somebody else's dime. However, it is OK to spend tax money on professional and college sports facilities, which, like low taxes, are frequently cited in the media as criteria that make for an attractive community in those "best places to live" lists.

I had heard that after the decline of the steel industry Pittsburgh was trying to remodel based on Model One, and having some success, but it sounds like maybe now they're heading in the other direction.

Will it ever get so bad that private companies begins taking people into the cities? I know there are shuttle buses from far out in the suburbs in some places with large populations. Will they ever expand their services to shorter runs from suburbs?

I don't know what they would need to charge per trip to make that profitable. A driver will cost $11-20 per hour. Fuel will be used at six miles per gallon at whatever cost it is. On top of that there needs to be all the expenses of the buses and then add in profits. What fee would need to be charged to make such a route profitable?

If they charged $10 per person per one way trip I think it would not work. Other than New York City and Downtown Chicago, it would probably cost just as much for somebody to take a car into the city for the day. Car owners would choose to use their own car over a bus.

One of the few forms of motorcoach transport that is private owned and can replace standard city bus transport are the "Mexican" Jitney vans. I really believe this is going to become the transport of choice for many cities in the near future as towns can no longer afford to subsidize their buses. I know those buses can be really run down and smell but we are seeing for the first time in my life, numerous bus companies go out of business. I can't count the number of private bus lines I've seen go bankrupt. I live in one of the most densly populated areas in the United States!

To be honest, I used to be an anti Jitney van person but not anymore. Yes the buses tend to be smelly at times but it's better than nothing. In Union City New Jersey, they run one right after another and you don't need a bus schedule. Seriously, there are so many Jitneys running, it's usually only 5 or 10 minute wait time.

Unfortunately, the people that really suffer are those in wheel chairs since the vans have no lifts.

Very sad. But they have to solve the problem of running out of money.


"The Port Authority which runs the system now spends just as much -- $32 million a year -- on health care for retired employees "
http://redtape.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/06/21/6903901-in-pittsburgh-drastic-bus-service-cuts-strand-commuters

That is 1/2 of the budget shortfall of 64 million. And more and more government agencies are going to realize that providing health care benefits to retirees is not sustainable.

We seem to have two distinct models in this country.

Model One: Good education system (and thus higher taxes), well educated work force, technological development -- examples would obviously include Silicon Valley, Boston area, and the Research Triangle in NC.

Model Two: Attract industry with low taxes and cheap labor -- examples would be the textile industry and more recently the auto industry in various part of the Southeast. These areas may not produce many of the well educated people needed to manage the businesses, but such people can always be brought in from elsewhere after they have been educated on somebody else's dime. However, it is OK to spend tax money on professional and college sports facilities, which, like low taxes, are frequently cited in the media as criteria that make for an attractive community in those "best places to live" lists.

I had heard that after the decline of the steel industry Pittsburgh was trying to remodel based on Model One, and having some success, but it sounds like maybe now they're heading in the other direction.

American cities who follow Model Two are now competing with cities in Brazil, India, Russia, Mexico and so forth. That means declining wages and decreases in the standard of living that will eventually match Third World levels.

True, but I think some of the blame has to go to the electorate. We keep getting the political leaders that we vote for, through some strange process. A lot of voters don't comprehend (or don't agree with) the concept that buses are a needed public service like police and fire service. But a shiny new football stadium, on the other hand.... Politicians who don't bow to public opinion never gat a chance to make policy,

The electorate sucks at picking politicians IMHO...and now we have Corporations granted the same rights as people? :WTF: I saw a sign during one of the Occupy demonstrations that stated: " I will believe a corporation is a person when Texas executes one"

I vote every chance I get, but between incumbents and rapscallions I am not getting much of anywhere...:P

Aaron :)

Very sad. But they have to solve the problem of running out of money.


"The Port Authority which runs the system now spends just as much -- $32 million a year -- on health care for retired employees "
http://redtape.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/06/21/6903901-in-pittsburgh-drastic-bus-service-cuts-strand-commuters

That is 1/2 of the budget shortfall of 64 million. And more and more government agencies are going to realize that providing health care benefits to retirees is not sustainable.

Good post.

I had no idea it was health care that was breaking the system. When it comes to health care in the country, it's a race to the bottom. Well, you can't cut lose the retired employees so they must find a way to increase funding. Strange how the government voided a toll for route 80 to save the bus.

I wonder why no one thought of having Mexicans run Jitneys vans??

The only way to make public transportation expand is to limit the traffic within the city to only residents, buses, and delivery vehicles during early mornings and business hours. That way people entering cities would be forced to use mass transit. Of course bicycles would be allowed too.

I think the suburbanites and some businesses would scream out loud against such a policy. If any city were brave enough to enact something like this for just a year I think many minds would change. Perhaps if this policy were just implemented within certain parts of downtown business districts at first it could succeed. Then it could expand several blocks per year until it reached its practical limits.

The only way to make public transportation expand is to limit the traffic within the city to only residents, buses, and delivery vehicles during early mornings and business hours. That way people entering cities would be forced to use mass transit. Of course bicycles would be allowed too.

I think the suburbanites and some businesses would scream out loud against such a policy. If any city were brave enough to enact something like this for just a year I think many minds would change. Perhaps if this policy were just implemented within certain parts of downtown business districts at first it could succeed. Then it could expand several blocks per year until it reached its practical limits.

That only works if the city next to you doesn't take advantage of your displaced customers. Santa Monica tried that years ago and LA and Brentwood welcomed the customers with more liberal parking.

Budget cuts are not as bad as.....a transit strike and complete shutdown of the bus/train system. It happens periodically here in the Los Angeles area. The people here has in the distant & recent past plan accordingly. The people that can afford a car turn their backs on public transit and drive (albeit very slowly through the resulting gridlock) their personal insurance against being held transit-captive(!). My parents told me the real dirty little secret behind the loss of the original streetcar system back in the mid century-it was not so much selling buses to the local government that killed the streetcars-it was the people themselves abandoning them. Now presently going and doing without to have their assured private access to their own piece of the road (bikes don't cut it as they cannot keep up to even slow moving traffic) & are not very private-too open to the world and it's elements. Overwhelming attitude here: Mass transit/other alternate transportation options is a nice dream & practice-for the other guy. They rather pocket the tax dollars for public funding for their own cars rather than intended to pay for a real good public transit system for all users, both residents and visitors.

This is what my parents told me their cohorts threw away.....and another mass transit dream proposal and big winded photo op from the latest local leaders.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5C65fZLwg8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5C65fZLwg8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5C65fZLwg8)
Do you really think attitudes have changed since the old streetcars ran along these same streets? I don't think so.

I've noticed that when there are transit strikes by GO or TTC, car drivers tend to announce "See! This is why I can't rely on transit!" As though transit strikes are a death toll.

As far as families go, I've noticed how people carry so much crap with them. Meeting up with friends at a restaurant lunch date with a 5 month old. They have a minivan with formula, bottles, water, bib, pacifier/dummy, diapers, wipes, diaper rash cream (overflowing diaper bag), portable changing pad, change of clothes, giant car seat, giant stroller, portable swing, snacks, toys, plus stuff for the parents. People carry a lot more junk with them than I'm sure they used to. Cars are turning into mobile living rooms even with their own tv's in the back. And so many people have said how it's all needed for trips. How do people carry all of this stuff if they take public transit? It certainly doesn't compute with many that we survived 3 babies without a minivan or suv. Even then, we've been told, just we wait until we have 3 teenagers, then we'll really need a something big.

I look at old pictures, people didn't used to bring so much stuff everywhere with them. Families survived before even stationwagons. Not a lot of families are willing to forego mobile living rooms and take transit or walk anywhere. And families make up a large portion of society.

Yeah, TVs were too big to go in the back seat when I was a kid. And the power cords way too short. ;)

I've noticed that when there are transit strikes by GO or TTC, car drivers tend to announce "See! This is why I can't rely on transit!" As though transit strikes are a death toll.

An grandiose excuse if I ever heard one. I heard the same and similar comments here in the Los Angeles area. And sadly, in many ways, it is accurate and true. Especially in such a large spread out geographic region that is generally filled with many times cold selfish car orientated people who don't believe in giving rides to anyone, stranger or even friend. Many times the only way to get to a long distance at a quick pace (within the city/county limits even) destination is by car or some other high power vehicle. Bikes can't do that sort of thing here in such a limited time frame that a motor vehicle could.



As far as families go, I've noticed how people carry so much crap with them. Meeting up with friends at a restaurant lunch date with a 5 month old. They have a minivan with formula, bottles, water, bib, pacifier/dummy, diapers, wipes, diaper rash cream (overflowing diaper bag), portable changing pad, change of clothes, giant car seat, giant stroller, portable swing, snacks, toys, plus stuff for the parents. People carry a lot more junk with them than I'm sure they used to. Cars are turning into mobile living rooms even with their own tv's in the back. And so many people have said how it's all needed for trips. How do people carry all of this stuff if they take public transit? It certainly doesn't compute with many that we survived 3 babies without a minivan or suv. Even then, we've been told, just we wait until we have 3 teenagers, then we'll really need a something big.

You really don't think that owning a motor vehicle like a mini van/SUV stops these possession luggers from bringing on board their junk do you? Trust me, I have seen it all using what passes for public transit here (buses, lightrail, and passenger trains). With all the miscellaneous items that are many times very large that have been taken a board the buses & trains has become very epidemic even hazardous among the crap toting crowd. Large things like yes, bicycles, human bodies, baby carriage complete with squalling baby (not so much the little fold up portables-I mean those huge jogger thingies), luggage for airports/train stations travel, smelly cans/bottles stuffed in holey garbage plastic bags for selling at recycling centers, and the list goes on and on. On the lightrail train it is worst of all. While seating was removed to fit all the garbage people want to bring with them, most of the time, the junk and the people wind up-right in front of the entrance/exit doors. And I do believe that puts off and turns off many people here to public transit-or public anything else for that matter.



I look at old pictures, people didn't used to bring so much stuff everywhere with them. Families survived before even stationwagons. Not a lot of families are willing to forego mobile living rooms and take transit or walk anywhere. And families make up a large portion of society.

Actually people did not live out of or even through their motor vehicles then. They had actual homes they took pride then and even something called a life.

I guess at some point when the world has moved on and cities like Pittsburgh are mired with car infrastructure that they can no longer afford to maintain and their downtown cores are littered with parking garages...and no longer livable for the new generation who wants urban living... maybe then things will improve.

Of course, by that time, the intellectual capital that drives a lot of modern economies will have moved to cities other than Pittburgh.
Actually, Pittsburgh has one of the best downtown cores of any large American city.

I wonder how big the parking lot for that new stadium is, and mow many tons of petroleum will rinse into the nearby river every time it rains.

And I wonder if even one person thought about shuttling the football crowds to the stadium in buses rather than building that huge parking lot.

Of course it's a little late to mention it now, since the parking lot has been built and they got rid of all the buses too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5C65fZLwg8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5C65fZLwg8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5C65fZLwg8)
Do you really think attitudes have changed since the old streetcars ran along these same streets? I don't think so.

I think people have changed with regards to light rail. Here are some of the latest headlines.

http://www.lightrailnow.org

What's holding LA back is the fact they spent too much money on high speed rail! The last governor stipped the transit funds for bus and light rail and put all the eggs on a system that's going to cost tens of billions to get off the ground. They don't have the money to complete it and never will especially with this economy. I truly believe they are buidling a rail line to nowhere. In short, don't expect any trolley to make it's appearance in the next 25 years.

I was thinking today with all the cuts Pittsburgh is making with bus elimination, they are going to have serious revenue shortfalls when it comes time to pay the health insurance for the retired employees. With insurance going up each year, it will continue to consume more of the fare box.

I think people have changed with regards to light rail. Here are some of the latest headlines.

http://www.lightrailnow.org

What's holding LA back is the fact they spent too much money on high speed rail! The last governor stipped the transit funds for bus and light rail and put all the eggs on a system that's going to cost tens of billions to get off the ground. They don't have the money to complete it and never will especially with this economy. I truly believe they are buidling a rail line to nowhere. In short, don't expect any trolley to make it's appearance in the next 25 years.

I was thinking today with all the cuts Pittsburgh is making with bus elimination, they are going to have serious revenue shortfalls when it comes time to pay the health insurance for the retired employees. With insurance going up each year, it will continue to consume more of the fare box.

Do not forget the intensely personal "love affair" the typical Los Angeles area resident has with his/her own vehicle. It might have lessen a bit over the years, but it is still very important to them. I have seen the most recent immigrant-legal and illegal both-adopting the biggest tank vehicle to drive around their neighborhood showing off their idea of American living to their fellow expats. I don't know whether or not to laugh :lol: or cry:cry:.

I wonder how big the parking lot for that new stadium is, and mow many tons of petroleum will rinse into the nearby river every time it rains.

And I wonder if even one person thought about shuttling the football crowds to the stadium in buses rather than building that huge parking lot.

Of course it's a little late to mention it now, since the parking lot has been built and they got rid of all the buses too.

The lot is rather big, but its size seems to be shrinking as they add more buildings like hotels, music venues, casino's etc. People are increasingly being forced into parking in the main downtown area, across the river from the stadiums due to high parking prices and congestion. There are a few water taxi's that ferry you to other areas of the city for those who don't want to walk a few miles to their car. Buses would never be able to get out of the area without a dedicated busway. It amazes me that out of 65,000 or so people that attend Steeler games, there are never more than 4-5 bikes locked to the bike racks outside the stadium. The new "subway" or whatever its called won't alleviate any car congestion either, it will shift it to other areas of the city where people park their cars. The cuts are a shame, but Pittsburgh is increasingly becoming a great place to get around on a bike.

The cuts are a shame, but Pittsburgh is increasingly becoming a great place to get around on a bike.

Sorry, but IMO it is absolutely not a great place to bike if it doesn't have good public transit.

Sorry, but IMO it is absolutely not a great place to bike if it doesn't have good public transit.

That doesn't make sense. It's not a great place to ride a bike if it isn't a great place to not ride a bike?

I understand how much better it can be if you can synergize the two, but I can remember many years of good bike riding without using public transit.

That doesn't make sense. It's not a great place to ride a bike if it isn't a great place to not ride a bike?

.

It's not a great place to live since public transit is the engine for those who want to be car free. The bus in particular, is the vehicle of choice for the millions in this country without a car. All those people you see on buses and trains would have to buy a motorcar (including myself) since we work too far or are not athletic enough to bike commute. The people on this forum are in the minority when it comes to lving car free through bike commuting.

It's not a great place to live since public transit is the engine for those who want to be car free. The bus in particular, is the vehicle of choice for the millions in this country without a car. All those people you see on buses and trains would have to but a motorcar (including myself) since we work too far or are not athletic enough to bike commute. The people on this forum are in the minority when it comes to lving car free through bike commuting.

The quality of public transit is irrelevant to dogus's original statement of "but Pittsburgh is increasingly becoming a great place to get around on a bike." A place can be a paradise to bike even with zero public transportation. The two are not necessarily connected. Which is why I objected to Roody's statement that attempted to force the two to be married to each other. Dogus is right. They can happen together, but they don't have to happen together.

That doesn't make sense. It's not a great place to ride a bike if it isn't a great place to not ride a bike?

I understand how much better it can be if you can synergize the two, but I can remember many years of good bike riding without using public transit.

If there's no transit, I don't have a backup plan for when I can't ride due to injury or mechanical problems. Then I have to own a car for my backup. If I own a car, I'm probably going to ride the bike less. So how can it be a great place for bicycling if I end up riding less?

I don't know if this is logical, but it's how I look at it.

If there's no transit, I don't have a backup plan for when I can't ride due to injury or mechanical problems. Then I have to own a car for my backup. If I own a car, I'm probably going to ride the bike less. So how can it be a great place for bicycling if I end up riding less?

I don't know if this is logical, but it's how I look at it.

I agree. I wouldn't be going car free if I didn't have transit available as a part of my plan.

I was successfully car free for many years without the aid of transit, so I disagree with your bias. The two are independent variables.

I'm simply suggesting that bicycle advocacy and infrastructure in Pittsburgh has come a long way despite poor planning and budget cuts in mass transit. The layout of the city lends itself well to getting around by bike. I don't see mass transit and bicycle friendliness as being married either.

I've noticed that when there are transit strikes by GO or TTC, car drivers tend to announce "See! This is why I can't rely on transit!" As though transit strikes are a death toll.

As far as families go, I've noticed how people carry so much crap with them. Meeting up with friends at a restaurant lunch date with a 5 month old. They have a minivan with formula, bottles, water, bib, pacifier/dummy, diapers, wipes, diaper rash cream (overflowing diaper bag), portable changing pad, change of clothes, giant car seat, giant stroller, portable swing, snacks, toys, plus stuff for the parents. People carry a lot more junk with them than I'm sure they used to. Cars are turning into mobile living rooms even with their own tv's in the back. And so many people have said how it's all needed for trips. How do people carry all of this stuff if they take public transit? It certainly doesn't compute with many that we survived 3 babies without a minivan or suv. Even then, we've been told, just we wait until we have 3 teenagers, then we'll really need a something big.

I look at old pictures, people didn't used to bring so much stuff everywhere with them. Families survived before even stationwagons. Not a lot of families are willing to forego mobile living rooms and take transit or walk anywhere. And families make up a large portion of society.

Had this conversation with the woman recently (who grew up on the other side of the world). It's insane how badly the consumerist mentality has affected raising a baby/small child. Newborn babies in the western hemisphere own more clothes, furniture, and toys than most people in a developing country. Babies and young children weigh nearly nothing, need nothing beyond food, water, warmth and love, and yet so many end up literally ton's of stuff buy the time they hit their 2nd birthday.

Had this conversation with the woman recently (who grew up on the other side of the world). It's insane how badly the consumerist mentality has affected raising a baby/small child. Newborn babies in the western hemisphere own more clothes, furniture, and toys than most people in a developing country. Babies and young children weigh nearly nothing, need nothing beyond food, water, warmth and love, and yet so many end up literally ton's of stuff buy the time they hit their 2nd birthday.

The marketing starts early. I started getting ads and free samples from my second trimester with my oldest child. Even if you don't watch tv, corporations are sending junkmail with your name on it before day one. Young families are heavily marketed at.

I was successfully car free for many years without the aid of transit, so I disagree with your bias. The two are independent variables.

There is a correlation for me. What do you do when you're injured or you find out your bike is dysfunctional just as you're leaving for work? There were long periods (many months) when injuries kept me from riding. If I didn'tt have the bus stop in front of my house, I would have had to buy a car.

I'm simply suggesting that bicycle advocacy and infrastructure in Pittsburgh has come a long way despite poor planning and budget cuts in mass transit. The layout of the city lends itself well to getting around by bike. I don't see mass transit and bicycle friendliness as being married either.

In my city, we've had good success with a coalition of bike advocates, public transit, walkers, senior citizens, and business leaders. For example, the bike advocacy groups joined in the battle to get a millage increase for the bus company passed. The millage won, two-to-one, in the height of the Great Recession, in one of the largest car producing regions of the world. The bus company also joined in when we were trying to pass a Commplete Streets Ordinance. The ordinance won--first one in Michigan to win on a ballot vote.

It just makes so much more sense to me that we make these struggles more inclusive, instead of the usual battle of one special interest group against another one. On some level, we all want the same thing--a better community--so why would we not work together?

There is a correlation for me. What do you do when you're injured or you find out your bike is dysfunctional just as you're leaving for work? There were long periods (many months) when injuries kept me from riding. If I didn't have the bus stop in front of my house, I would have had to buy a car.

They are still independent variables. A place can be great for bicycling and terrible for public transit or terrible for cars.

I agree. I wouldn't be going car free if I didn't have transit available as a part of my plan.


I was successfully car free for many years without the aid of transit, so I disagree with your bias. The two are independent variables.

You definitely can go car free without a transit backup, but you will need some kind of backup plan in case you sprain your ankle or whatever. That might be taking a cab or getting a ride with someone... but you need something. That's why bicycling and transit work well together.

But on the other hand, cycling is a nice replacement for auto travel. A lot of the layout of North American cities prevent people from navigating on foot, largely because main infrastructure points (jobs, groceries, entertainment, schools...) are scattered several miles apart. The bicycle can handle those very well. But to rely on a bicycle totally...?

Actually, Pittsburgh has one of the best downtown cores of any large American city.

Oddly enou I have one of my largest clients in Pittsburg. I visit them sever times a year.

Parking in downtown is almost a nightmare. Just getting into downtown is a process. I stay at a hotel about 6 miles from their location and it still takes me 45 minutes some trips to get in.

I can tell you each time I go, I think to myself, there is no way I would work here.

Oh, and then there is the parking cost....seems to me I paid 10 per day. If I have to pay 200 after tax money each month just so I can park at work, what do you have to pay me for that to make sense.

I have never understood any major cities downtown?

Parking in downtown is almost a nightmare. Just getting into downtown is a process. I stay at a hotel about 6 miles from their location and it still takes me 45 minutes some trips to get in.


I was thinking of it from the car-free perspective, and your concern is all about how hard it is to drive and park downtown, so it's not surprising we have diametrically opposed views. Why not stay at a hotel closer to the client, and walk over?

I have never understood any major cities downtown?

The downtown of cities like Pittsburgh were built before cars, and that's how they're best experienced.

If you need to stay so far away from your destination, you should think about taking public transit instead of driving. In fact, riding a bike would probably be a lot faster than driving, if you can arrange that.