Scott residents' reactions mixed on Port Authority bus route
Some Scott Township residents are voicing support for a bus route that other residents criticized a few weeks ago as a nuisance.
Residents in the dozens expressed concerns at the Oct. 22 commissioners meeting over the fate of Port Authority of Allegheny County's 38 route. Frustrations over the bus route's impact on Orchard Spring Road were a topic at the Oct. 8 meeting.
Marjorie Ann Tomawlewski, an Orchard Spring resident who takes the bus into Downtown, defended the route.
“I have kids, and we have never been negatively affected by the buses,” she said.
Resident Heather McCutheon said the bus service is vital to the area. Residents complaining about the route, she said, are concerned more with themselves.
“It's ‘me, me, me,'” she said. “They're voicing concerns about the inconvenience of public transportation? They're thinking about themselves.
“If you don't like to hear buses, move to the country,” she said.
Residents at the Oct. 8 meeting voiced concerns over the frequency of buses coming down Orchard Spring. Mary Lou Blasko, who lives on the street, told commissioners 60 buses go past her house each day.
Port Authority figures show about 1,000 people ride the 38 route each day.
Commission President Thomas Castello said he did not want to rehash Port Authority bus concerns. He did say the township was not trying to eliminate of the 38 route or change the frequency of buses, but rather would like to move the route away from the residential Orchard Spring Road.
Megan Guza is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. She can be reached at 412-388-5810 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.