(The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review posted the following column by Ruth Ann Dailey on its website on March 26.)
PITTSBURGH, Pa. — Fans of mystery novels recognize the French adage, “Cherchez la femme.” “Look for the woman,” however, is usually poor advice when it comes to solving the mysteries of municipal government. In these, that other time-honored piece of sleuthing advice reigns supreme: Follow the money.
When we want to get to the heart of tangled public conflicts, we simply ask money-related questions: Who stands to gain or to lose? What exactly are the costs involved? Who ought to pay? How much should each party pay?
The answers to those questions in O’Hara’s ever-unfolding railroad drama are both intriguing and instructive.
Some observers have pointed out the need for better municipal planning — a quality mostly noticeable for its absence in our fractured local system.
Better planning might have prevented our current full-length feature — “Showdown at the Fox Chapel Yacht Club” — but I doubt it. Judging from the money at stake and the belligerence of at least one of the participants, this is a drama that was going to end up in court. It has, and the interested parties await a ruling.
Warring parties elsewhere — even those with significantly different circumstances — could profit from a closer look at O’Hara.
Norfolk Southern sends its trains across land acquired many decades ago from the township, which had acquired the land from Mary Delafield. Her deed stipulates that the three existing roads in the area remain available to the public. All three were until November, when Norfolk Southern suddenly removed the crossing at Riverfront Drive.
Who gains from the crossing’s closing? The railroad.
“We are always interested in eliminating crossings,” Norfolk Southern spokesman Rudy Husband said at hearings earlier this month before an administrative law judge. “The safest [crossing] is the one that doesn’t exist.”
Does “safest” here mean “best for the railroad’s insurance costs”? It’s true that drivers can’t have accidents on tracks they can’t access, but the railroad’s peremptory closing of the more direct and more protected route to the waterfront has forced traffic into greater danger.
Those costs are not yet known. Within days of the railroad’s unilateral action, a tractor-trailer tie-up at the single remaining crossing cut the area off from all traffic for hours — and that means the area was cut off from emergency vehicles, too. The railroad’s “safety” assessment is recklessly selfish.
Who loses from the closing? Everyone else.
Local businesses are taking a hit, not only because “foot traffic” from walk-in customers has decreased, but because safety conscious consumers are voting with their pocketbooks. Leasing at The Docks residential development has fallen dramatically, according to representatives of Continental Communities.
What would it cost to reopen the closed crossing? Hundreds of thousands of dollars, at the very least.
Continental Communities reps claim that they’ve tried to negotiate with the railroad for years — from the inception of their development project — to improve the safety of the riverfront crossing. They claim the railroad would not work with them.
Here’s where better government planning might have helped. Elected officials could have tried to distribute the costs of safety improvement among all the interested parties before the crisis arose. In hindsight, though, I’m glad I wasn’t betting on this “what if,” because the railroad’s callous manner and patently false protestations of concern for community safety betray an arrogance that’s not conducive to compromise.
Who ought to pay? Everyone. Everyone who would benefit from the reopening and improvement — and everyone who’s responsible for the current impasse.
At first glance, those who stand to benefit most are the newer developers along the riverfront and the community at large. Potential customers and commuters need more than one safe point of access.
But upon a second look, the railroad stands to benefit more from an improved crossing. It is, after all, the railroad that poses a public hazard.
Are citizens expected to remain eternally north of Norfolk Southern’s right of way? Of course not. Does the fact that the railroad was there before the new development or even before the invention of the automobile mean that the community alone must bear the cost of accommodating the railroad’s unchanging dangers? No.
If any private enterprise wants to keep operating dangerous equipment through our neighborhoods for its own profit, then it should help guarantee the public’s safe passage through its danger zone.
How much of the bill should go to each party for warning lights and crossing gates? Some to each developer, some to the taxpayers, and a double portion to the railroad. Norfolk Southern has acted rashly, without regard for the community and with concern only for itself.
If I were the judge, I’d make sure the railroad paid enough to feel “spanked” but not enough that it would sue, thereby wasting even more of the public’s time and money than it already has.