Better route north
Published: Friday, April 5, 2013, 8:57 p.m.
Better route north
The news story “T expansion could take tracks to the North Hills, cost estimate over $1 billion” (March 24 and TribLIVE.com) discussed following a route that would parallel I-279 and I -79 and cost megadollars. I would like to suggest another route that might make the project feasible.
There is an active train route that crosses the Allegheny River at Washington's Landing, roughly parallels Route 8, goes close to North Park and passes through Mars, which is not far east of Cranberry. This line used to be owned by the B&O, which also had a right-of-way along the Allegheny River and what is now Washington's Landing. There are two ways that this could work:
• Perhaps Allegheny Valley Railroad would be willing to have commuter trains run on its tracks.
• Otherwise, there may be enough space along the right-of-way for another set of tracks.
The point is that following this route would serve the same people and would involve a lot less purchasing of land, moving of dirt and other construction work. The cost should be a lot closer to what federal, state and local governments can spend at this time.
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 Obamination
- Maybe problem is kids
- Failing patients & public
- Menace unaddressed
- Choosing judges I
- Prevailing wage downsides II
- Prevailing wage downsides I
- Choosing judges II
- Lies and disrespect I taught …
- Thanks to our veterans
- Ethanol’s benefits