Quaker Valley traffic report released but no quick fix, officials say
Quaker Valley school directors said Tuesday there will be no immediate action following the release this week of a report detailing ideas to reduce traffic congestion and improve safety for students at the high school in Leetsdale.
The district formed a traffic safety advisory committee in January, following nearly a year of debate over Quaker Valley's purchase of two homes, and attempts to buy a third, near the high school. Initial plans called for construction of a parking lot and student drop-off area.
But school officials and owners of property at 700 Beaver St., adjacent to the high school, haven't been able to reach an agreement. This is the last property remaining between the high school and the two acquired properties.
The traffic safety committee suggested a variety of options, including scaling back brush along an entrance to the high school campus on Beaver Street and redesigning a hillside roadway to offer pedestrian and vehicle traffic access.
Other ideas included a parking garage and petitioning PennDOT for signage along Route 65 near the school.
Some committee members also questioned whether the school's current location along a hillside above Route 65 is suitable for the campus, committee spokesman Jason Richey said.
No timetable was given on implementing any recommendations.
A traffic consultant's study released last October offered various options, including the parking lot and improvements made to front, rear and side areas of the school.
Bobby Cherry is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-324-1408 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.