My wife and I enjoy many of this region's developed recreational trails. Converting abandoned railroad lines to trails makes good use of land assets. However, I disagree with “Greensburg Laurels & Lances” (Sept. 27 and TribLIVE.com) awarding a “Laurel” to “Westmoreland County trailblazers.” In this case, a “Lance” is more appropriate.
The Turtle Creek Industrial Railroad is an economic asset that got away. Following devastating flooding in 2009, the Army Corps of Engineers approved a flood-control project that accommodated the railroad right of way, and repairs were made to the railroad in Export.
Strangely, that same agency prevented the operator, Durabond, from completing needed repairs along other parts of the line. That deserves a “Lance” in its own right; build something good for the railroad, but don't let it fix the rest?
The Westmoreland County Industrial Development Corp. is usually on the right side of commercial and industrial development and has a good record of preserving rail service in the county. This time, having to sell the right of way to have the tracks removed is not serving its namesake or mission.
Yet millions of dollars will be spent to convert this green method of transportation to a dirt-road path. In an age of needed economic expansion, removal of our rail assets should not be awarded a “Laurel.”
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.
- Steel at stake, too
- Not taxpayers’ responsibility
- Reverse red-kettle ban I
- Duty to disclose
- Pedro must go
- Beware this Wolf II
- Leaders unaccountable
- Incomprehensible? That’s Obama
- Reverse red-kettle ban II
- Good riddance
- No ground troops