community-based, non-corporate, participatory media

About Contact Us Policies Mailing Lists Radio Video Search

View article without comments

Maglev moves forward despite resistance
by Andy Mulkerin Sunday, Sep. 01, 2002 at 6:00 PM

In spite of resistance from local citizens, the Pennsylvania High-Speed Maglev Project is moving forward in its bid for a federal grant to build a magnet-powered train from Greensburg to the Pittsburgh International Airport.

In spite of vocal resistance from citizens and elected officials in several local towns, the Pennsylvania High-Speed Maglev Project is moving forward in its bid to be the recipient of a federal grant to build a magnet-powered train from Greensburg to the Pittsburgh International Airport.

The project is a cooperative venture of the Port Authority, Maglev Inc., and PennDOT. Proponents say that a Maglev train in Pittsburgh would allow greater access to the airport for those in the eastern suburbs and would set the stage for expansion throughout the northeast corridor- providing quick travel from city to city. But some local officials are irked with the way the project is being run and say that the project's officials have some explaining to do.

Penn Township, Westmoreland County has been a hotbed of resistance in the face of the project. The "C" stretch of the track, which would wind its way through the township, is the most intrusive of the three segments, and would displace the greatest number of businesses. According to a preliminary impact study done by the Maglev project, up to 95 residences between Monroeville and Greensburg could be taken out to make way for the train.

Township Manager Bruce Light says that the township hired two firms from Washington, DC- a law firm and an engineering firm- to put together a "white paper" impact study independent of the one that the Port Authority is developing. He said that they felt that the Port Authority did not adequately answer many of the questions the township had about environmental impact.

According to Light, however, the firms hired cannot finish their study without some information that only the Port Authority has- and they're not willing to share.

"It seems like the Port Authority thinks they're above the Sunshine Laws," explained Light. "They say they'll give us the information, but at their time, not ours."

Port Authority spokesman Bob Grove said that the information will be made public eventually, but that PAT has only one deadline, November 30. This is the date by which the Federal Railroad Administration has said the Pennsylvania Project's draft environmental impact study must be completed. "If someone else has a study to do, and they have a different deadline, that's not our problem. They knew going into it that that was when our study would be done," said Grove.

Hoping to negotiate with the Port Authority, the firms hired by Penn Township asked to meet with PAT officials to discuss "a number of issues," according to Light. The only one among these that the Port Authority was willing to discuss was routing, so Light, along with representatives from the engineering firm, R. L. Banks and Associates, met with project officials on August 8 to discuss that matter. Light was frustrated by the Port Authority's unwillingness to discuss other issues, but conceded that the meeting was "better than nothing."

Even so, Light questioned the nature of the meeting. The Port Authority stipulated that no legal counsel would be allowed in, nor would elected officials from the township. Only Light and the engineers were permitted into the closed-door meeting. Members of the press were also barred. Grove said that the meeting was technical in nature, and "I don't see why we would need attorneys there."

Penn Township, while a hotbed of resistance to the project in its current form, has gone out of its way to point out that it is not an enemy of maglev technology. Township commissioners passed a resolution in March stating that they would endorse the project, if and only if the C4 route, which was still being explored at the time, was used. The C4 route was designed to use railroad corridors that are already in existence. This would allow for a minimum of displaced homes and businesses.

The IMC could not obtain an official explanation of why the C4 route is no longer being considered, but Light said that the Port Authority had told Penn Township that Norfolk Southern Railroad would not cooperate with the plan. Rudy Husband of Norfolk Southern responded that "Norfolk Southern has made it clear to all appropriate federal, state and local officials that we will cooperate with any and all passenger rail projects- including maglev- provided there are no adverse impacts to present or future freight rail operations."

Asked if he thought the Port Authority and Maglev officials were concerned about the citizens of Penn Township and their feelings on the project, Light paused then said, "No. I truthfully don't. Until just recently, when the Westmoreland County Planning Department became involved, the entire decision-making process took place outside of the county that is being affected."

The next step in the maglev project's process is the release of the draft environmental impact study in November. In preparation for that, the Port Authority is holding a public meeting on August 21 to hear the concerns of the public. The meeting will take place from 5:00 to 8:00 pm at the lower level lecture hall of the Community College of Allegheny County's Boyce Campus.

add your comments


update
by andy Monday, Sep. 02, 2002 at 4:23 PM
arm58@pitt.edu

at the meeting i mentioned above they unveiled a new plan that mostly travels along the turnpike corridor, appeasing a lot of penn township's concerns . . . but it still doesn't change the fact that the project does little more than encourage urban/suburban sprawl.

the good news is, the project is a lot shakier now that United Airlines reorganized and is doing a lot less business.

add your comments


© 2001-2009 Pittsburgh Independent Media Center. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not endorsed by the Pittsburgh Independent Media Center.
Disclaimer | Privacy