Pittsburgh in the 1950's:
Pittsburgh today:
Posted on 10/14/2018 8:10:47 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
“Livability” rankings have been all the rage for a number of years. Various entities devise the ratings; the media dutifully report them with little or no context. Public officials and booster organizations then tout the most laudatory rankings and reports as proof-positive that their respective cities and/or regions are “getting it right” or “on the move” or some other feel-good bromide.
But as two recent cases illustrate, all ranking methodologies are not created equal and some of the criteria employed are suspect, bordering on “bogus,” according to an analysis (Policy Brief Vol. 18, No. 38) by the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy.
It was in August that The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) ranked Pittsburgh as the 32nd most-livable city in the world and second-best in the United States (behind Honolulu). But this past spring, U.S. News & World Report ranked Greater Pittsburgh 57th in its “Best Places to Live” rankings (with Honolulu ranked 35th).
“So, can anything useful be gleaned from these rankings?” ask Frank Gamrat, executive director of the Pittsburgh think tank, and Jake Haulk, its president emeritus and senior advisor. “Or are they essentially a meaningless exercise?”
The Economist’s methodology utilized qualitative (non-numeric) and quantitative (numeric) measures to rank cities. The former was based on the judgment of an in-house expert on a respective country and a field correspondent in each city.
Of the 30 categories gauged, only four (or 13 percent) were quantitative, or data-driven, while 26, or 87 percent, were qualitative, based on the judgment of individuals.
“Thus, the EIU ranking methodology is extraordinarily subjective rather than based on objective, verifiable facts – which is appropriate since the whole notion of ‘livability’ is very subjective,” Gamrat and Haulk say.
That said, many of The Economist’s rankings defy credulity.
Take, for instance, Pittsburgh’s best score – 100, or “ideal” -- in the EIU’s education category in which the availability of private education and the quality of that and public education were considered. The EIU measure did not delineate what aspects of education were evaluated – K-12, higher education, or both.
But if the focus was on K-12, the Allegheny Institute repeatedly has documented Pittsburgh Public Schools’ morass.
“Consider that just over a year and a half ago the district was excoriated by the Council of the Great City Schools for not improving student achievement in 10 years,” the scholars stress. “Anyone following Pittsburgh schools should have known about that extremely critical study.
“In short, the EIU ranking on education is bogus,” say Gamrat and Haulk.
Additionally, The Economist ranks Pittsburgh’s infrastructure quite high (at 96.4). But it makes no mention of the abject failures, operationally and financially, of the Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority.
Neither does it appear that the EIU study took into account the outrageously high cost of bus service by the Port Authority of Allegheny County – second-highest in the nation behind only New York City. Perhaps it was blinded by the faux glitter of the severely truncated and over-budget North Shore Connector light-rail line.
Nor did the judgment of the experts include the use of millions of dollars in public subsidies to pervert the market and attempt to command demand by propping up new airlines and/or flights at Pittsburgh International Airport.
Then there’s the EIU’s take on Pittsburgh’s heavily publicly subsidized cultural amenities, which, at 87.7, was lowest of all its scoring.
“Given the amount of money the taxpayers have ponied up for world-class sporting facilities, not to mention the Regional Asset District subsidies handed out to cultural amenities, city officials must undoubtedly believe they were short-changed on this category,” Gamrat and Haulk add.
Contrast The Economist study, heavy on the qualitative, with the more quantitative-based U.S. News study and the fact-based conclusions are sobering. Again, the U.S. News analysis covers the seven-county metropolitan statistical area (MSA) and not the city proper itself.
It scored Greater Pittsburgh poor on net migration; poor for its stagnant employment climate that, as the Allegheny Institute repeatedly has noted, lacks more meaningful goods-producing jobs; a generally poor quality of life (determined by the crime rate; quality and availability of health care; “well-being” and a commuter index).
The respective livability rankings offer a contrast in styles and shed two different lights on the city and region. The EIU ranking looks mostly at the city through subjective and possibly a very biased observer lens.
“It doesn’t take into account any of the hard data on the cost of government or the cost of providing services such as education or transportation,” areas for which the think tank has found “Pittsburgh to be woefully lacking when compared to other cities,” Gamrat and Haulk reiterate.
On the other hand, the U.S. News rankings used more hard data from the U.S. Census and Bureau of Labor Statistics to draw a starkly different assessment.
“The economy of the metro” – and as the Allegheny Institute has demonstrated for the City of Pittsburgh proper – “as measured by jobs data, has been stagnant for quite some time. … Weak job gains and little or no net migration are undoubtedly related,” the researchers say.
“The city and the MSA’s poor business climate are key elements in the comparatively weak economic performance,” Gamrat and Haulk remind. “And unfortunately (they) are likely to continue to be a drag on the economy.”
One would not know that, however, from the Economist Intelligence Unit’s methodology and the media’s context-lacking reportage.
-- Colin McNickle is communications and marketing director at the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy
There’s no way Pittsburgh is second! HAHAHA! That’s just not happening! Someone had to be paid a lot of Money to even consider it!
RE: There’s no way Pittsburgh is second!
They are ranked 32nd, not second.
I’ll follow up by saying you are RIGHT. They ARE 2nd .... IN THE USA, but this is a WORLD ranking.
Ping.
Pittsburgh in the 1950's:
Pittsburgh today:
Great point. Same thing has happened in almost every big city. Los Angeles was clouded with smog through the early 1990s. Today the air is pristine compared to what it was a generation ago. The drastic reduction of air pollution is one of the environmental movement’s proudest achievements...
My livability rankings depend on the availability of good barbecue, proximity to good college football, respect for gun rights, low taxes, drivability, lower population density/undeveloped land, proximity to good hiking and lack of cold weather.
The whole idea is of course, ridiculous. Everybody will have their own criteria.
As much as people on FR HATE EPA for its overreach, you have to admit the improvement in air and water quality in the US has been astounding. Here in Silicon Valley, 35 - 40 years ago you couldn’t see the surrounding mountains on most summer days. There was a hideous brown cloud below 1,000 feet most summer days. Now it happens less than five days per year. The biggest source of summer air pollution now is forest and brush fire smoke blowing in from hundreds of miles away.
Thanks anyhoo.
WE WANT everyone to move to Pittsburg (or anywhere else.)
As an aside, Jerry Brown has not been our friend, here. Wayyy too many Cars w Cali license plates hereabouts.
.
Ditto .
My town is no 1. Everyone knows it
Fairfax ca
Yes.
Where is the list of US and world cities?
This was a typical fall/winter day in Denver in the 1980s. This was caused by a warm air inversion layer keeping the same air over the city, plus fine dust particulates from the gravel left on the streets after a snow. The cities clean up after snow much faster now, and we almost never see this anymore.
As much as people on FR HATE EPA for its overreach, you have to admit the improvement in air and water quality in the US has been astounding.
And oddly, the last people who will draw attention to all this progress is environmentalists themselves. My problem with environmentalists is that they don't recognize any other priorities, and they don't acknowledge their own success. Back in 1950 or so, Pittsburgh could make a big difference with a little money, say putting some scrubbers on smokestacks, and maybe pollutants would go from 1/100 parts pollution in the air to 1/1000. But then going from 1/1000 parts pollution to 1/10,000 is not nearly so easy or cheap, and going from 1/1,000,000 to 1/1,000,000,000 may not even be possible, might not even affect health, or might be so expensive it would even bankrupt the city. Maybe for the same money we could cure a disease and save more lives than cutting a barely measurable amount of pollution.
Of course, no one wanted to make the connection back then, but it was obvious even to a 7th grader. Diesels = teamsters usnion and no one wanted to take them on.
The C.A.R.B. annual tests are just a scam. They will fail you on picayune visual crap even if your car blows 0% emmisions.
“The drastic reduction of air pollution is one of the environmental movement’s proudest achievements...”
At what cost in treasure and loss of freedom?
Far as I’m concerned, the greentards owe humanity trillions of dollars.
I thought this was good news till it wasn’t...
Well, we exported most of the pollution - along with the types of jobs that created it - to China. Many on FR now want it all back.
Technology created Clean Air, not the EPA.
EPA over reaches and makes air dirty again.
1990s technology is clean air.
2000 & 2018 tech is junk.
Ban the EPA for dirtying our air.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.