Changes in the Pittsburgh Region's Banking Landscape, 1996–2025
PCRG’s first Mortgage Lending Study was published in 1996, when the region’s banking landscape looked very different from today. Over the past 30 years, the number of banks and branches has declined, deposits have become more concentrated, and the neighborhoods served by those branches have changed. This section examines those changes and what they may mean for community access to banking and investment.
Fewer institutions and branches
Between 1996 and 2025, the number of institutions operating in the region fell by approximately 42%, while the number of branches declined by about 25%. The decline in institutions is therefore considerably steeper than the decline in physical offices, pointing to a banking landscape increasingly composed of fewer institutions.
This difference matters: the region has lost institutions at a much faster rate than it has lost physical branches, meaning fewer institutions now operate a somewhat smaller branch network.
This mirrors a long-term national consolidation of the banking industry. While the reduction in branches is a national story, Pennsylvania is among the top states with highest branch losses from 2019 to 2023. The FDIC's Community Banking Study found that mergers and consolidations have been the principal drivers of declining bank charters. Between 2012 and 2019, for example, the number of community banks declined from 6,802 to 4,750, with voluntary mergers between unaffiliated institutions identified as the primary cause of the decline in insured depository institutions.
Fewer institutions and branches do not necessarily translate directly into less banking access, particularly as digital banking has expanded. However, research indicates that physical branches can remain important for relationship-based lending. A 2024 Federal Reserve study used bank closures associated with mergers and acquisitions to examine their economic effects and found that nearby branch closures reduced small-business employment growth and business entry, highlighting the continuing importance of local bank relationships for small businesses.
Together, these findings suggest that the shrinking branch network should not be viewed simply as a measure of declining access. But it does raise questions about where branches have closed, which communities retain physical banking services, and how those changes affect relationship-based lending.
Increasing concentration of deposits
The three largest banks held 68.15% of regional deposits in 1996, compared with 71.99% in 2025. The increase in the top-three-share is relatively modest, but there has been a much larger change at the very top of the market: Mellon Bank held 28.36% of regional deposits in 1996, while PNC holds 50.97% in 2025.
In other words, the region's overall concentration among its three largest banks changed only modestly, while the share held by the largest institution increased substantially.
The Pittsburgh findings should be understood within the broader consolidation of the U.S. banking industry. FDIC research identifies mergers and consolidations, and a decreased rate of new bank charters among the primary reasons for a lower number of banks.
The Pittsburgh results go further by showing what this consolidation looks like locally: not simply fewer institutions, but a substantially larger share of regional deposits held by the dominant institution.
This concentration is an important part of the region's banking story: fewer institutions operate in the market, while a much larger share of deposits is held by its largest bank.
More deposits despite fewer banks and branches
Even after adjusting the 1996 figure for inflation, deposits captured by branches in the seven-county region have more than doubled.
Changes in banking participation, household and business wealth, income, savings, population, economic activity, and banks' geographic organization may all matter in explaining the growth of deposits.
The combination of much higher deposits and substantially fewer branches and institutions is more revealing than either trend alone. The regional banking system is handling a much larger deposit base through a smaller physical and institutional footprint.
Digital banking provides important context for how this has become possible. In 2023, 48.3% of banked U.S. households identified mobile banking as their primary method of accessing their bank account, up dramatically over the previous decade. It demonstrates how the way households interact with banks has changed alongside the shrinking physical branch network.
The combination of these trends does not by itself show that banking access has declined. It does show that the region's banking system now manages substantially more deposits through fewer institutions and a smaller physical network.
Branch loss varies substantially across counties
Six of the seven counties lost substantial numbers of branches, but the magnitude varies dramatically. Beaver County lost 59.42% of its branches, compared with only 3.03% in Butler County.
Branch counts alone do not establish whether physical access to banking has deteriorated by the same amount because access also depends on how far residents must travel to reach a branch and whether other nearby branches remain available. This is particularly important for interpreting Beaver County. A 59% decline in branches is striking, but determining the effect on residents requires further examination.
A short table showing each county's 1996 branch count, 2025 branch count, and percentage change would make this comparison much easier for readers to interpret.
Where possible, the percentage change should be paired with the actual number of branches lost. A 59.42% decline can represent a very different change in access depending on the size and geographic distribution of the original branch network.
The accompanying 1996 and 2025 maps provide visual information about where branches disappeared, where they remained, and which institutions maintain a physical presence in particular communities.
1996 Bank branch map
2025 Bank branch Map
The income geography of the region has changed, particularly through the growth of upper-income areas
The underlying geography against which branch distribution should be evaluated itself changed considerably.
Upper-income tracts increased from 18.85% to 25.25% of all tracts, while the percentage of the regional population living in them increased from 24.21% to 32.76%. As you also see from the maps above that the 2025 map has more darker shades or areas with relatively higher income.
Middle-income tracts remained relatively stable as a share of all tracts, moving from 43.08% to 42.55%, while their share of population declined from 50.19% to 43.03%.
Moderate-income tracts declined slightly from 23.85% to 22.27% of tracts, and from 20.78% to 18.65% of population.
Low-income tracts increased from 4.36% to 6.67% of tracts and from 2.85% to 4.68% of population.
These changes matter because the income category of a census tract can change over time. As a result, the 1996 and 2025 categories do not necessarily represent the same neighborhoods.
This context changes how branch distribution should be interpreted. That is also consistent with the logic regulators use when assessing branch distribution under the CRA. Branch percentages are not considered in isolation; benchmarks include the percentage of an assessment area's tracts and households falling into each tract-income category.
For this study, that means changes in branch shares should be considered alongside changes in the number of tracts and residents in each income category.
Branches are increasingly concentrated in upper-income areas, while moderate- and middle-income communities have experienced greater losses
The distribution of bank branches matters because physical access is not equally important to all communities. Lower-income households are more likely to rely on in-person banking, and limited branch access can create additional barriers to financial services and wealth building. Philadelphia Fed research similarly notes that lower-income populations may have greater demand for physical banking services and may face greater consequences when nearby branches disappear. Philadelphia Fed: U.S. Bank Branch Closures and Banking Deserts
This concern is also reflected in the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). CRA examinations consider the distribution of branches across low-, moderate-, middle-, and upper-income communities and give particular attention to whether branch openings and closings affect access for low- and moderate-income communities and individuals. Federal Reserve: Community Reinvestment Act
Against this context, the Pittsburgh region shows a notable shift in where branches are located. Upper-income areas have become a larger part of the region, but their growth alone does not explain their increasing share of the branch network. By 2025, upper-income tracts contained 38.7% of all branches, despite accounting for 32.8% of the population and 25.2% of census tracts. Moderate- and middle-income tracts, by comparison, contained about 62% of the regional population but only 52% of branches.
******[VERIFY AGAINST THE UNDERLYING BRANCH COUNTS BEFORE PUBLISHING: The branch counts listed below total 656 in 2025. If those counts use the same universe as the figures above, upper-income tracts would account for about 40.1% of branches, while moderate- and middle-income tracts would account for about 53.8%.]******
Population-adjusted branch presence shows the same pattern, as do the raw branch counts.
Low-income: 29 → 40 branches, a 37.9% increase
Moderate-income: 221 → 109, a 50.7% decrease
Middle-income: 395 → 244, a 38.2% decrease
Upper-income: 235 → 263, an 11.9% increase
These changes are worth emphasizing because they show where the contraction occurred, rather than simply showing that the regional branch network became smaller overall.
Thus, while the regional branch network contracted overall, the contraction was concentrated in moderate- and middle-income communities. Upper-income tracts not only avoided an absolute decline in branches but increased their share of the remaining network. Low-income tracts also gained branches, an important exception to the overall pattern and particularly meaningful given the greater importance of physical banking to many lower-income households.
The low-income increase is especially important to contextualize: low-income tracts represented only 4.68% of the region's population in 2025, so the 11-branch increase should not be interpreted as evidence that low-income communities broadly experienced improved banking access. It is a finding about branch presence, not a direct measure of accessibility.
The Pittsburgh pattern should also be understood within the national context. Philadelphia Fed research found that from 2019 to 2023, the largest number of branch closures occurred in middle- and upper-income communities, reflecting the large number of branches located there. However, relative to the number of branches they started with, low- and moderate-income communities experienced a slightly higher rate of branch loss: 5.9% compared with 5.4% in middle- and upper-income communities.
The region's racial geography has changed
The seven counties became more racially diverse between 1996 and 2025:
Tracts with more than 50% minority population increased from 7.18% to 9.36% of all tracts.
Tracts with 30–50% minority population increased much more substantially, from 3.46% to 10.35%.
This demographic change means that simply comparing the percentage of branches located in minority neighborhoods in 1996 and 2025 can be misleading. The number and distribution of neighborhoods falling into those categories have themselves changed.
Branch presence remains lower in areas with larger minority populations
The racial distribution of branches is important because physical banking access can have different consequences across communities. Philadelphia Fed research notes that Black and Hispanic households use cash more frequently than White households and may therefore be more dependent on nearby physical banking services. The same research finds that the emergence of banking deserts can have particularly important consequences for communities where residents face greater barriers to alternative financial services. Philadelphia Fed: U.S. Bank Branch Closures and Banking Deserts
In the Pittsburgh region, the clearest finding is that areas with larger minority populations have fewer branches relative to population today. In 2025, tracts with less than 30% minority population had 3.02 branches per 10,000 residents, compared with 2.28 in tracts with 30–50% minority population and 2.31 in majority-minority tracts. Thus, both groups of tracts with at least 30% minority population have roughly one-quarter fewer branches per resident than tracts with less than 30% minority population.
The changes since 1996, however, are more complicated. Majority-minority communities therefore actually experienced an increase in branch presence relative to population, while areas with less than 30% minority population experienced a modest decline. The very large decline in the 30–50% category requires more caution. The number of tracts in this category nearly tripled, from 27 to 73, while their population grew from approximately 57,000 to 206,000. The 1996 and 2025 figures therefore represent substantially different sets of neighborhoods, and the decline cannot be interpreted simply as branches closing in the same 30–50% minority communities over time.
National research nevertheless provides an important reason to examine these differences. The Philadelphia Fed found that majority-Black neighborhoods gained banking deserts at a significantly faster rate than the country overall between 2019 and 2023. The researchers also note that racial disparities in cash use and other forms of banking behavior can make the loss of physical banking services particularly consequential for some minority communities. Philadelphia Fed research on banking deserts
Taken together, the Pittsburgh results do not show a straightforward retreat of branches from minority communities over time: majority-minority tracts actually improved on the population-adjusted measure. The more important finding is the current distribution. In 2025, communities with at least 30% minority population have fewer branches relative to their populations than communities with less than 30% minority population. Whether this translates into unequal physical access requires further geographic analysis, since income, population density, commercial centers, development patterns, transportation, and proximity to branches in neighboring tracts can all influence where branches are located and how accessible they are.