Study calls for new signs in Aspinwall
It could be easier for drivers and walkers to find their way through Aspinwall.
Officials are considering a study of signage in the borough by Carnegie-based KMA Design as the first part of a plan to improve how people traverse the borough.
The study would cost $6,605 and include a review of all the current signs in the borough and ideas for the design of new signs and an estimate of the cost. A committee first began looking at signs through the borough's participation in the Allegheny Together program, an economic-development program run through the county.
Though members of the committee had hoped council would approve the study last week, officials wanted more time to review the proposal.
Councilman Kevin Gordon said while he wasn't against the firm or the need for more signs, he wanted to take a closer look at the information presented before making a decision.
“We really weren't aware of what you were doing,” Gordon said.
Councilman Joseph Warren said while he was fine with waiting to vote on the proposal, improved signs would be beneficial to the community and help local businesses.
“We might have the businesses but we need to complement it with the signage and wayfinding systems,” Warren said.
If the firm is hired it would take care of removing old signs and work with PennDOT for any signs needed on Freeport Road, borough manager Melissa Lang said.
Marianne Gladstone, a member of the committee that reviewed the need for signs, said after looking at signage in other communities, it became clear that Aspinwall has a need.
“All of the other neighborhoods have these signs,” Gladstone said. “We should have that.”
Tom McGee is an associate editor for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-856-7400, ext. 1513, or firstname.lastname@example.org.
Show commenting policy
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 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.