Those HOV gates
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Sunday, March 3, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
PennDOT says what happened again last Monday morning — the Parkway North's HOV lanes being closed due to a mechanical malfunction in an access gate — is rare, yet it doesn't track the frequency of power-related gate problems that produce the same dismal, congestion-aggravating result.
PennDOT District 11 officials say the HOV closure of Feb. 25, involving electronics gone bad, and another, involving “misalignment,” are the only mechanical problems it's had with the gates in about 18 months. They recall two or three power-related closures in the last couple of years but can't be more precise; they say they don't keep records on those problems.
Yet to motorists who follow local traffic reports, it seems there's always something going wrong with gates that closes the HOV lanes. That impression is supported by WPXI-TV's Trisha Pittman; she's been doing local traffic reports for 13 years and says gate problems close the HOV lanes about once every two months.
Power-related HOV gate problems aren't rocket science, and weather surely can't be blamed for many such instances. So, motorists have every reason to wonder about PennDOT's apparently lackadaisical attitude toward tracking those problems — and about those problems' persistence.
PennDOT needs to get a handle on the extent of the Parkway North HOV gates' power problems, then do what it takes to keep those problems from closing the HOV lanes to the motorists they're supposed to serve.
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.
- ObamaCare ‘rates’ & reality
- A union’s distress
- The Adegbile nomination: Rejecting race-baiting
- The Malaysian jetliner probe: Passport insecurity
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- Market perversions: Chrysler retreats
- The market speaks: Cadillac dealers reject another electric folly
- Fixing Ford City’s water leaks: Time is money
- Corbett’s fortunes: Troubling truths