Letter to the editor: Problems with Route 30 | TribLIVE.com
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Problems with Route 30

Since I have been traveling Route 30 for over 20 years to go to the VA hospital in Oakland, I would say that I can speak knowledgeably about the article “Irwin-area drivers are Pennsylvania’s worst, survey finds”. There are a few items that were not considered.

If there was an alternate route, virtually no one would use Route 30. Since the businesses along Route 30 would die, I am surprised that any of the business folks would complain about the drivers.

Let me point out just a few problems:

• Count the traffic lights between Greensburg and the Parkway East. The number will stun you.

• The police in North Huntingdon use traffic fines to raise money for North Huntingdon (which is supposedly illegal). Notice all of the VASCAR lines on the road surface? Therefore the high number of citations.

• The condition of the road surface is terrible. To cite just one problem: Look at the ripples where Route 30 meets Route 48 for motorists traveling toward Pittsburgh.

• Route 30 is narrow for most of the length in question.

• Finally, why would anyone use a company out of Seattle if they wanted an unbiased safety survey?

There is truth in the problem of left turns off Route 30. Hopefully, that will be corrected and would cut down immensely on accidents.

Ron Kowach

Southwest Greensburg

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.