Parkway West improvements stifled by money
A study commissioned by PennDOT recommends major changes along the Parkway West to ease congestion, but the agency does not have money to do all the work, an official said on Thursday.
PennDOT plans to spend $40 million to $60 million on improvements between Interstate 79 in Robinson and the Fort Pitt Tunnel, with work starting in 2014 and lasting for two years, said Dan Cessna, chief engineer for the PennDOT district that includes Allegheny, Beaver and Lawrence counties.
Cessna said work will include pavement and bridge repairs, adjustments to acceleration and deceleration lanes in ramp areas, and replacement of median barriers, guardrails and signs.
The study by Moon-based Michael Baker Corp., completed in May for less than $1 million, also recommended major interchange improvements.
“We don't have funds to implement any major changes at any of the interchanges at this time,” Cessna said, adding the agency could improve the Green Tree and Carnegie interchanges in a second phase of work and the Banksville Road interchange in a third phase if money becomes available.
Cessna could not estimate how much that work would cost.
A separate study released last year by the Texas Transportation Institute, traffic data provider INRIX and The Weather Channel rated a three-mile section of the Parkway West between Carnegie and the Fort Pitt Tunnel as the nation's eighth-most-congested road.
Tom Fontaine is a staff writerfor Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-320-7847 or email@example.com.
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.