Sewickley Council OKs parking study
A Chicago-based design and consulting firm will conduct a parking needs analysis for Sewickley Borough that could be a factor in a decision to build a public parking garage.
Council members on Monday night voted 6-2 to approve spending $25,700 for Kimley-Horn and Associates to perform the analysis. Bill Cornman and Robert Glenn voted no.
Some council members say the report is crucial to determine the needs of parking within the business district.
Pittsburgh-based Trans Associates was the only other company to submit a bid, Manager Kevin Flannery said.
The local firm's assessment would have cost the borough $36,700.
“My only concern with the [Trans Associates bid] is that they spent a lot of time looking at current parking and I'm not sure that's our issue,” council member Tom DeFazio said. “Our goal is to spend time looking at future needs.”
Among the projects Kimley-Horn touts on its website are a mixed-use development in Downtown Raleigh, N.C., that included a nearly 1,000-space parking garage, a seven-level office building and about 20,000 square feet of street level retail space.
In addition, the company has been part of several large-scale municipal projects, including the design of an 11-mile light rail transit line connecting Minneapolis to St. Paul, Minn.
Council member Susan Aleshire said the needs assessment is necessary for Sewickley.
“We have to have it done,” she said.
Council members have considered constructing a nearly 300-space garage between Green Street and Walnut Street.
Bobby Cherry is an associate editor for Trib Total Media. He can be reached 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.