Letter to the editor: Pittsburgh losing valuable parking to bike lanes | TribLIVE.com
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Pittsburgh losing valuable parking to bike lanes

It is disappointing that the mayor of Pittsburgh has not yet realized how important a vibrant shopping selection of stores is to the growth and vitality of the city. It is a challenge to overcome the loss of the major department stores, and with his continuous adding of more bike lanes, valuable and convenient parking places are eliminated.

The Cultural District in Downtown is one area where this has happened, and it’s especially confusing for out-of-towners. The parking areas around Phipps Conservatory and the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Oakland have been drastically reduced, and many of the bicyclists speed through listening to music and ignoring the rules of the road that apply to them as well as automobile drivers.

An example of “overkill” and useless provision of bike lanes is on Third Avenue near Stanwix Street. Talking to several people over the years, including officials at St. Mary of Mercy Catholic Church, I’ve learned that few bicyclists use this street. Convenient parking spaces, especially for the elderly, have been eliminated

What about the beautiful Christmas display at PPG? Close, convenient parking has been eliminated there as well.

Ken Pintwala

Carnegie


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.