Save The Pennsylvanian
Tom Fontaine's news story “Pennsylvania resists financial rescue for Amtrak's Pittsburgh-to-Harrisburg run” (March 10 and TribLIVE.com) outlining Western Pennsylvania's likely loss of Amtrak's Pennsylvanian train service demonstrates the compounded transportation limits that residents of this region face. Currently, we enjoy diminished airline choices, airfare increases, fuel-price and Pennsylvania Turnpike toll hikes, and now we stand to lose a valued travel choice to the east.
Amtrak offers an effective, affordable alternative to car, bus and airline transport when we are encouraged to lessen our dependence on vehicular travel. While it may be slower than the turnpike, Amtrak is convenient, a great work environment with Wi-Fi and food service, no tolls, no stops for gas fill-ups — plus, you arrive rested.
I use this train route routinely for business travel. With consistent airline delays and fare increases for travel to New York City and Philadelphia, Amtrak is preferred. If PennDOT Secretary Barry Schoch cancels this route, we in Western Pennsylvania will be limited further in our business and lifestyle travel choices.
Instead of forcing a greater reliance on vehicles, why not fund Amtrak from Pittsburgh, promote its benefits and gain ridership? Let's challenge PennDOT for Western Pennsylvania rail support over limits forcing us back into our cars and onto already crowded roadways.
Robert Marschik Jr.
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.
- Give thanks for vets
- For their own benefit
- Back to ‘Mad Men’?
- Quarantine quandary
- Voting insanity
- EPA impoverishing seniors
- No new stadium for Kiski
- On right track
- Postal questions
- Revisionism now
- Bible under attack