Proposal for pedestrian flags at dangerous Pittsburgh intersections scaled back
Pittsburgh City Councilman Corey O’Connor wants to put flags at dangerous intersection for pedestrians to use, as they do in Kirkland, Wash.
Pittsburgh Councilman Corey O'Connor is scaling back his proposal to put pedestrian crossing flags at dangerous intersections and cutting his cost estimate by 90 percent to no more than $1,000.
Last week, O'Connor estimated the project would cost no more than $10,000 to install buckets with brightly colored flags at 10 intersections, the locations to be determined. The flags can be installed in much less time and cost less than stop signs, he argued.
“I've been defending myself all week,” O'Connor said of public reaction to his idea the Tribune-Review reported.
O'Connor isn't waving a white flag but decided to limit his proposal to a pilot program at two or three locations to gauge its effectiveness. He estimates it would cost $250 to $300 per location.
O'Connor wants to put flags on Braddock Avenue, through Regent Square. He said residents and officials meet regularly to address the high number of pedestrian accidents in that area.
The flags might make pedestrians more visible in high-traffic areas, O'Connor said. The idea is that pedestrians wave them as they cross the street. Other cities have used them with mixed success.
“It may not work, but that's why it's a pilot,” O'Connor said.
The new price could be financed using his office's discretionary money.
“I don't want to speak for council and how they'll vote, but some members liked using discretionary funds,” O'Connor said.
Council is expected to vote on the pedestrian flag plan at 10 a.m. Wednesday on the fifth floor of the City-County Building, 414 Grant St., Downtown.
Nafari Vanaski is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. She can be reached at 412-856-7400, ext. 8669, firstname.lastname@example.org or on Twitter @NafariTrib.
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.