Clearing snow: A dubious effort
Up to 3 inches of snow is expected in the Pittsburgh region late Friday through Saturday. And if the general response to this snowfall is anything like the response to Wednesday's 4.9-inch snowfall, motorists are in for a very long and frustrating winter, particularly in the City of Pittsburgh.
We've heard all manner of excuses and rationalizations from various agencies:
Some claimed the mid-morning storm hit too fast. But it was predicted well in advance.
Others lamented that heavy traffic made it difficult to clear the roads. But, being the day after Christmas, it was a relatively light travel day, even with folks returning or exchanging gifts and looking for sales deals.
And still others called it a “tricky storm,” what with its freezing rain, then a quick snow dump. But the National Weather Service called it “nothing out of the ordinary, pretty much a standard storm.”
Still, many streets — particularly in Pittsburgh — remained untouched, and not just secondary streets, as those who actually did work began their treks home late in the day. And many streets remained a mess on Thursday.
Yes, it's winter. Yes, it's Pittsburgh. And it often snows in the winter in Pittsburgh. Which is all the more reason that city road crews (and those elsewhere) should be better versed in doing their jobs.
No one expects instantaneous snow removal. But most expect better — much better — than what transpired with the season's first significant snowfall.
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.
- The Thursday wrap
- Another carbon credit scheme
- James Foley, 1973-2014: Fighting on
- School funding canard: Money isn’t the answer
- Tuesday essay: Sophie
- Recasting the EPA: Devolving power to the states