Archive

Trail extension in question | TribLIVE.com
News

Trail extension in question

This is in response to recent articles about the lack of a connection of the GAP (Great Allegheny Passage) Bike Trail to Point State Park. As a frequent rider on the GAP, I take issue with the need for the proposed extension.

My wife and I have ridden the entire trail to Cumberland, Md., in short segments. We have also ridden much of the connecting C&O Towpath from Cumberland to Washington, D.C. This was done over a period of many years, since we lack the time and ability to ride it continuously. So we have some knowledge of the entire trail experience.

One of the stated complaints was that we should be embarrassed that the trail doesn’t go to the point. I believe that spending nearly $3 million to “finish” the trail to Point State Park would be the true embarrassment. To spend that kind of money, either public or private, to extend the trail four city blocks, would be nice, but not a prudent investment in limited resources.

Instead, let’s install a nice sign at Grant Street announcing the terminus of the Great Allegheny Passage. This way the trail would have a proper end, rather than having it just stop.

Edward J. Beck

West Mifflin


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.