Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
Bland is toast: Allegheny County Chief Executive Rich Fitzgerald supposedly has the votes to oust Port Authority boss Steve Bland when the mass-transit agency's board meets on Friday. The board delayed last Friday's meeting for a week, likely because its chairman, Jack Brooks, disagrees. Nothing like a little (or in this case, a lot of) palace intrigue.
“Independent” authorities?: There's an oxymoron, as the Port Authority situation highlights. Since Mr. Fitzgerald has control over authority board appointments, it's nothing more than his puppet. Running roughshod over authorities has been standard operating procedure for decades. If the state Legislature had any guts, it would act to end the ruse.
Driver danger: In the middle of the power struggle over who really runs the Port Authority comes word that at least one of the agency's standard practices is illegal. By its own admission, the authority says some drivers work marathon shifts of up to 16 hours. But state police say the practice is unsafe and proscribed by law. Do you really want to board a bus or trolley driven by the guy or gal who's already been driving for 15 hours?
The road ahead: Snow snarled traffic on Friday afternoon, ice snarled it on Monday morning and Mother Nature will deliver a two-day mini-spring that will come to an abrupt end on Wednesday. Ah, winter in Western Pennsylvania. Punxsutawney Phil will have his work cut out for him on Saturday.
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.