Officials say strobe might help to prevent crashes at Route 65 intersection in Sewickley
A Sewickley Council member wants to see a safer intersection at Route 65 and Chestnut Street.
Drivers looking to cross Route 65 at Chestnut Street sometimes encounter motorists heading northbound who don't see the traffic light at Chestnut, but instead are looking at a light at the intersection of Route 65 and the Sewickley Bridge, Councilman Bill Cornman said.
“Neighbors are concerned about moving across the road,” he said. “There are accidents there all of the time.
“They're not seeing the light. They're looking at the light at the bridge.”
He wants to see a strobe light added to the traffic light.
“That really does get people's attention, Cornman said, noting a strobe inside a traffic light near the Airside Business Park along Business 376 in Moon.
Other council members said they, too, have seen crashes stemming from motorists driving through a red light at Route 65 and Chestnut Street.
Borough Manager Kevin Flannery said he would talk with PennDOT officials, who approve such projects.
Flannery said the borough would need to submit an application to have PennDOT leaders consider adding a strobe light.
In addition, a traffic study could be necessary, Flannery said.
In the interim, borough leaders said they would work to make a better line of sight for drivers.
Council President Bob Hague said Chestnut Street near the Sewickley Car Store is limited to one lane for all traffic and does not allow for a turning lane despite drivers using it as such.
Bobby Cherry is an associate editor for Trib Total Media. Reach him at 412-324-1408 or email@example.com.
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.