ShareThis Page
Carson Street widening under consideration |

Carson Street widening under consideration

Erik Siemers
| Saturday, August 4, 2001 12:00 p.m

The East Carson Street land that was once LTV’s South Side Works steel plant could someday be home to a movie theater, an amphitheater and a cadre of other residential buildings and retail businesses.

But before that can happen, South Side leaders and developers believe it’s necessary to widen the oft-clogged Carson Street, and they took the first step this week.

‘The section (of Carson Street) between Becks Run Road and the Birmingham Bridge is on the morning rush hour reports every day,’ Carey Harris, executive director of the South Side Local Development Corp., said Friday.

On Thursday, representatives for the development corporation were among about 30 groups that delivered proposals for transportation projects they wanted funded in the Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission’s 2003-2006 Transportation Improvement Plan and the State Transportation Commission’s 12-year Highway Plan.

A county Public Participation Panel will begin sifting through and prioritizing the proposals from municipalities, developers and individuals before presenting them to a joint session of the SPC and the STC on Aug. 23 and 24, said Beverly Pearson, a SPC spokeswoman.

The Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission, which receives and distributes federal transportation money, is responsible for overseeing the Transportation Improvement Plan.

The commission includes Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Greene, Indiana, Washington and Westmoreland counties. Each county has its own Public Participation Panel which will prioritize the individual projects.

Anthony Lapiana, speaking on behalf of the South Side Local Development Corp., was seeking aid for a $14 million project to widen East Carson Street between 25th and 33rd streets.

Lapiana, who works for the Soffer Organization, which owns 26 acres on the South Side Works site, said he was concerned that the state Department of Transportation could halt development on the land if Carson Street wasn’t widened.

Representatives from Economic Development South, a group of Whitehall and Brentwood residents and officials, pitched their proposal to plant trees on Route 51 and turn it into a boulevard. They asked for $18 million for the upgrade.

Italo Mackin, the president of Mackin Engineering, testified to the benefits of an urban magnetic levitation train that he said would send a 90-passenger vehicle 50 mph to various stops in Pittsburgh.

Officials from Mt. Lebanon are seeking funds to upgrade traffic signals on two bustling corridors along Route 19. The estimated cost for a signal upgrade on Cochran Road would be about $700,000 and $500,000 for Washington Road.

Lynn Heckman, senior deputy director of the Allegheny County Department of Economic Development, proposed 43 different projects for the county.

Heckman said vehicular access to former mill sites in Duquesne and McKeesport is needed so developments can arise there. The sites are restricted from railroads, she said.

The amount of funds available to the SPC won’t be known until next fall, Pearson said. A draft of the 2003-2006 Traffic Improvement Plan will be completed either next April or May.

After public hearings and subsequent state approval, the Federal Highway Administration is scheduled to approve the plan in August 2002 for an Oct. 1, 2002 starting date.

Erik Siemers can be reached at or (412) 320-7997.

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.