Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Changes at ‘gateway’ intersection of routes in Hughesville studied

June 22, 2013

HUGHESVILLE — The oft-snarled intersection of routes 220 and 405 is receiving attention from the state Department of Transportation....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(10)

wwhickok

Jun-25-13 1:06 PM

Now, addressing "Judge&Jury" that to me is entirely a separate issue, one which I agree with you on.

They don't want to be taxed, but they want to force up rent prices, make tax payers pay for the improved roads for their convenience, etc.

There are very few, if any, Pro's to the Gas Industry and a lot of cons. I've said that before, the Cons heavily outweigh the Pro's. But until the government puts an end to it, and they won't because there is benefit for them imo, it will never change.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wwhickok

Jun-25-13 1:03 PM

-continued-

including those of the Gas Industry, to pass through this intersection.

Rick, they're darned if they do and darned if they don't.

This is one time they SHOULD!

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wwhickok

Jun-25-13 1:02 PM

Gys, I agree with you. Whomever originally designed that road, didn't truly think about all the future complications (but I'm sure at the time, those complications couldn't have been forseeable).

Also, Gas Industry trucks are far from the only trucks passing through here, in fact, many of them go the other direction (Haliburton).

Furthermore...this is one time, I think the Gas Industry becomes irrelevant. Who cares if they're fixing it "because of the gas line" it NEEDS FIXED! IT ALWAYS HAS! It's somewhat pathetic it takes the Gas Industry to make them do it, but if that's what it's going to take, then so be it.

Also, I love how 'accidents' constitute problems. It's sad that someone has to get seriously hurt or killed before an intersection is considered an issue. Wisely, they're finally recognizing that this is a hectic, oddly shaped, and dangerous intersection that could result in many more accidents than it has.

And yes, it's difficult for large trucks,

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Judgeandjury

Jun-25-13 12:40 PM

Erik, you really need to stop throwing rocks from the front porch of your glass house. You call Rick a hypocrite, but you are simply a paid cheerleader for the gas industry. I have said this before, nothing you say can be taken seriously because you have no ability to see clearly through the haze of dirty industry money. This intersection was acceptable ten years ago. It is horrible now thanks to the gas industry, and any improvements should be paid for by them. This is exactly why we need to eliminate this industry, they do whatever it takes to socialize their expenses while they privatize their profits. And they make greedy puppets like you think you are relevant, when in reality you are not.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rick424

Jun-22-13 9:44 AM

They did not fix it because (although a pain)it really was never a problem, the report even states so few accidents. It just went to the bottom of the list so to speak. Hey I am all for fixing it and if it is because of the industry at least that is one good thing the industry has done.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

Jun-22-13 9:14 AM

Rick:

They did not fix it years ago because they did not have the revenue generated by the gas industry.

220 and 118 had increasing amounts of truck traffic before the gas industry. Now, that problem is multiplied.

Industrial growth from any source would create similar problems and require similar fixes.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rick424

Jun-22-13 8:58 AM

Erik, the headline reads Changes at 'gateway'. Sounds to me they want to fix it because of the industry. Yes this intersection has always been a problem and the locals would avoid it like the plague, so why did they not fix it years ago?

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

Jun-22-13 7:16 AM

Rick:

You are full of it.

First, that intersection has always been a problem, long before the increase in traffic from the gas industry.

Second, if a solar panel manufacturer opened operations where Baker Hughes is located, you would be pushing gov't to do something at that intersection so they would not hold up "progress".

You are a hypocrite.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GysgtUSMC

Jun-22-13 5:44 AM

Actually I go thru there quite a bit and this has been a problem long before the industry arrived. I do agree that it has compounded the problem.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rick424

Jun-22-13 12:40 AM

Cool, tax dollars to fix something the marcellus shale boom made worse.

"gateway to the Marcellus Shale" Almost as creative as "the energy capital of Pennsylvania" Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 10 of 10 comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web