Transit plight misconstrued
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Wednesday, March 13, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
In their column “Regional transit? Careful what you wish for” (March 6 and TribLIVE.com), Jim Roddey and Jake Haulk display their unbelievably short memories and astonishing lack of comprehension of the current transit situation in our region.
Last year, Amalgamated Transit Union Local 85 averted devastating cutbacks to public transportation in Allegheny County by negotiating and ratifying a new contract. The union accepted decreases in pay, wage freezes and other personal sacrifices to ensure that the Port Authority would continue at the level of service it provides today. There was never any talk of strikes.
The efforts of the union and Allegheny County Chief Executive Rich Fitzgerald should be commended. They have created the path that Gov. Corbett insisted must exist for him to provide a permanent source of funding for mass transit. Unfortunately, to date, the governor has not fulfilled his promise.
I call upon him to do that now. Only then will we have a solid foundation on which to grow the transit system for the commuters of Allegheny County and then, perhaps someday, for our entire region.
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.
- Slots & property taxes
- Medicaid’s future
- Harmar needs better enforcement
- Obama & Reaganomics II
- Obama & Reaganomics I
- Putin’s actions I
- We pay to keep poor warm
- Beneficial, irreplaceable
- Lebo’s coyotes
- Obstacles to hiring
- Conspicuous by absence