So, here’s my more organized thesis for that paper, in more understandable language. I think that after the development of the T and the east busway in pittsburgh, there was likely a turnover of residents and an intensification of development within “walking distance” of the service points. I think that more, smaller units were built (converting houses to apartment buildings, say), that the minority/poverty demographic of the neighborhoods increased. Though I think that demographic changes in the T neighborhoods would not favor minorities as heavily as the east busway neighborhoods would.
I think I can find out whether or not I’m right with census data.
It feels like a silly question that someone living in the area at the time could better answer than census data. But if it makes a paper, so be it.
You could try to contrast that with the North Hills. The north hills form of “mass transit” is the HOV lane.
But some of the neighborhoods around the T in the south hills have been apartment based for a while, you can tell from the age of the buildings.
I remember the T being controversial for a while. Black leaders were accusing PAT of racism for giving the South Hills a lightrail, and giving the primarily black east areas a busway.
This is disjointed, but you posted an interesting thought. I’ve considered Pittsburgh to be a very segregated city ever since I’ve noticed the racial divide. The black neighborhoods are a very complicated issue. MLK jr wasn’t a socialist until he moved to a slum in Chicago.