ShareThis Page
Scrap the connector |

Scrap the connector

| Thursday, December 29, 2005 12:00 a.m

Reality is coming home to roost for the Port Authority of Allegheny County’s misguided North Shore Connector Project.

First, it either low-balled or badly underestimated the cost of a ridiculous plan to tunnel underneath the Allegheny River and connect the light-rail subway’s Gateway Station to the North Shore. The lowest of the bids for twin tunnels came in 24 percent higher than projections.

Now, in an attempt to rein-in escalating costs that always seem to grow and grow and grow with such boondoggles, the Port Authority has pared the scope of the project. It’s scrapping, at least for now, the spur line that would connect Steel Plaza with the David L. Lawrence Convention Center.

That change, which includes a delay in buying four new light-rail vehicles, is projected to “save” about $80 million. Yet the surviving project cost remains at about $393 million. So where’s that “savings” again?

The Port Authority has a troubling history of making grand cost and ridership estimates for projects that never seem to pan out. The “Airport Busway” that falls an easy dozen miles short of Pittsburgh International Airport and the Wabash HOV Tunnel — both with ridership numbers far below what were used to sell the projects — are two more recent examples.

Much money has been wasted on what surely will be another over-hyped, over-budget and underused disappointment. Wasting more should not be an option.

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.