Crosswalk improvements ahead for 3 Pittsburgh neighborhoods
The School for the Blind in Oakland is lobbying to get the intersection of Bellefield Avenue and Fifth Avenue in Oakland an audio crosswalk signal.
Photo by Justin Merriman | Tribune-Review
Pittsburgh is spending about $50,000 to upgrade pedestrian crosswalks with audible signals at busy intersections in three East End neighborhoods.
Department of Public Works Director Rob Kaczorowski said the money is coming from the city's capital improvements budget.
DPW has ordered parts to do the work, which should be complete by year's end, he said.
The Islamic Center in Oakland, Pennsylvania Interfaith Impact Network and community groups asked the city to improve the intersection at Fifth and Bellefield avenues in Oakland because of its proximity to the University of Pittsburgh and the Western Pennsylvania School for Blind Children.
Chief Financial Officer Sue McAleer said the school for the blind supports the installation of audible signals, but its students typically do not walk across the intersection, which is about five minutes away by foot.
On Wednesday, the Interfaith Impact Network is holding a public event at the intersection to secure a public commitment from the city to do the work.
Kaczorowski said the city also will install audible signals at Forbes and Murray avenues and Forbes and Shady avenues, both in Squirrel Hill, and at Fifth and Beechwood Boulevard in Point Breeze.
Bob Bauder is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-765-2312 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.