Long-term paving project getting underway today in Westmoreland County
The project will impact five state roads throughout the county in total.
The resurfacing work will be taking place along Route 30 in North Huntingdon Township and Unity Township, Clopper Street in Greensburg, Pittsburgh Street in East Huntingdon Township, Youghiogheny Street in Adamsburg, and Hancock Avenue in Allegheny Township.
All of the routes will see single-lane, alternating traffic and the work is expected to take place on weekdays from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The work is expected to continue until October.
Flaggers will be in the area to guide people around the work, which PennDOT says is part of an $11.3 million project.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
10 minutes ago
- Forbes
Tesla Doesn't Need Permits For Their CA 'Robotaxi,' It May Come Today
You might see a Tesla robotaxi (with safety driver) next to a Waymo in the San Francisco Bay Area ... More this weekend, according to reports Tesla has been stating, since even before their semi-launch in Austin last month, that they would soon deploy their supervised robotaxi service in many other locations, including California. In this week's Q2 earning's call, Elon Musk predicted they would have robotaxis deployed to half the population of the United States. New reports suggest Tesla may deploy such a service as soon as this weekend in the San Francisco Bay Area. But how? The most common reaction to this plan has been that because many states, in particular California, require that companies get permits before deploying robotaxi services, that Tesla would need to get these permits. They take months to get, and Tesla has not yet applied for them. Tesla can't run an autonomous vehicle taxi service. They can probably run a driver-assist based one. These permits are to operate an actual Robotaxi service, namely one that drives without a human in the car responsible for the safety of the vehicle. Tesla stated it would launch such a service back in June, but was unable to make the deadline, so it put out a test service with a human 'safety driver' employee in the vehicle. In Austin, that person is in the right-hand seat, and Tesla calls them a 'Safety Monitor' when there, but calls them a Safety Driver if they switch into the left seat for any complex operations. 'Safety Driver' has been the term of art in the industry for many years, and is a bit of a misnomer as the person does not actually drive the car, but--whatever you call them--the are the responsible driver for legal purposes, overseeing driving and able to intervene for safety. In the passenger seat, like a driving instructor for a teen with a learner's permit, the safety driver can grab the wheel or trigger the brakes. People debate if the seat matters, but the operation of Tesla's 'FSD' system with a human safety driver behind the wheel is of course very common. Indeed, there are people driving for Uber and Lyft in Teslas who turn on the FSD system while giving rides to customers. The FSD system controls most aspects of the car, and the driver supervises and takes legal driving responsibility. This has already been happening for some time, and apparently nothing stops Tesla from doing the same. A request for comment from the California DMV was sent to them a week ago, but they have been unable to respond, claiming more research is needed on the legality of this. What Permits You Need California regulations (whose drafting I had a minor involvement with) lay out 3 different permits for the operation of self-driving vehicles in the state for testing and taxi service. In addition, the California Public Utilities Commission has a series of permits required for offering taxi-style services to the public, both with human drivers and in self-driving vehicles. Tesla has one self-driving permit, the one required to test such vehicles with a safety driver. It also has the permit from the CPUC to operate a pre-arranged taxi-style service with human drivers. It has not, as of this week according to the CPUC or DMV, applied for any of the other permits. Tesla's self-driving test permit is unusual. Over 50 companies have this permit, and they are required to report every year to the DMV how many vehicles they are testing and how many miles they have been tested. Tesla always reports zero miles, and has for several years. They do this because they declare Tesla Autopilot and Tesla FSD as 'driver assist' systems which simply assist a responsible human driver with the driving task. A bit odd, considering the name 'Full Self Driving" and Tesla is facing lawsuits, including one from the DMV, over the confusion with that name. As long as Tesla can declare its vehicles to be operating only in a driver-assist mode, and not in an autonomous vehicle mode, they can argue the autonomous vehicle related permits do not apply to them. As such, nothing stops Tesla from operating a ride-hail service, like Uber, with human drivers and a driver assist system like FSD. The Blurry Line Uber ATG eventually came to a tragic end after a fatality with one of their vehicles The open question is, when does a system step over the line? In 2016, the DMV reacted very differently when Uber ATG, the now sold-off self-driving unit of Uber, wanted to test their vehicles with safety drivers. They told the DMV they did not need a permit, as they would only test with a safety driver, and thus it would be driver assist. With particular irony, the Uber ATG Chief who declared this was Anthony Levandowski, who had participated in the drafting of the regulations that required the permits. (Later he would be involved in a variety of controversial battles, be ordered jailed, and be pardoned by Donald Trump on his last day of office.) The DMV refused. They said that Uber's vehicles were clearly to be classed as autonomous vehicles being tested, and needed the permits. They told Uber that they would pull the licence plates of the vehicles if they tested them without permits. The DMV has not done this to Tesla. It has allowed Tesla to test Tesla FSD extensively on California roads while having the permit but declaring they are never using it. The DMV has declined to comment on why the two companies were treated differently. Tesla's FSD system is one thing, but their 'robotaxi' version is something more. It still needs a human supervisor for safety reasons, as it is not yet good enough, but it does all the tasks of a taxi service, including remote summoning, pick-up and drop-off and receiving requests from riders. It is indistinguishable from an autonomous vehicle, other than in not yet being safe enough and complete enough to go into commercial operation unsupervised. It is the very archetype of an autonomous vehicle in testing. Some would argue it goes even further when the supervising human is on the right hand side. Since driving school instructors supervise teens safely there, and probably a billion students have been trained in this manner, including myself, one can make the case that there's no big safety difference between the two seats. But going in the right seat does require a system that can do all those other little things a taxi needs to do. However, the reports suggest Tesla will put the responsible safety driver back behind the wheel in California, to avoid pushing things. Supervised vs. Unsupervised That Tesla can do this large deployment tells you what the huge difference between a supervised and unsupervised robotaxi is. You can put a self-driving system on the road with a supervising driver when it is pretty terrible, perhaps 1/1000th of the way to being ready for real deployment. This explains why Tesla could trivially expand their Austin service area, and shape it like a giant upside-down Tesla logo (or whatever shape it intended) while Waymo, which runs a real unsupervised robotaxi, had to take more care in doing an expansion in Austin around the same time. It explains why Tesla could deploy a supervised robotaxi over all of the Bay Area, indeed all of California or the USA, while the companies operating actual robotaxis are growing their services areas at a much slower pace. It has nothing to do with Tesla's approach to driving most streets potentially being more general than the mapped approach other companies use. Tesla can do supervised robotaxi everywhere (as could Waymo and all the other companies) but they can do unsupervised only at the Tesla Factory and on a movie set. At least for now. Tesla's service area in Austin was suddenly enlarged to look like a giant Tesla logo if you rotate ... More it properly. Or some other shape. They could do that because it's a supervised service. The main reason not to have a giant service area is the cost. The cost of the human supervisors. The cost of all the localization infrastructure. (It's a lot.) You're losing money so the reason to expand territory is because you think you can learn. You will learn, but in fact you'll learn more than you can handle with just a modest territory, so there is minimal virtue in big expansion of a supervised service, and that's why nobody has ever let one get very big. Indeed, Tesla said in their earnings call that it has only operated the Austin service a small amount, in the area of 7,000 to 10,000 miles, which is just 20-25 miles, or a handful of rides, per day per car. It's not clear what the goal of a large expansion is. Tesla's CPUC permit does not let them operate an Uber-like service where contractors drive their own cars. The supervising driver has to be a Tesla employee. As such, Tesla is, as employer, vicariously liable for all events. In fact, the permit Tesla applied for said they would only carry other Tesla employees but they may not be bound to that. (The CPUC did not respond to questions about this latter point.) Tesla's goal, like everybody else, is to make a vehicle safe enough to operate without supervision. Musk has said he wants it to be 'much safer than a human driver' which means going at least a million miles between significant crashes. Tesla's very far away from that at present, perhaps only Waymo and Baidu Apollo have reached it. Operating a supervised service helps in learning what problems are out there, but mostly it offers publicity. The California DMV and CPUC may change their views on just what is allowed under their permits. To run an actual unsupervised taxi service, Tesla will need a DMV permit for vehicles to operate with no responsible driver in the car, and a DMV permit for such vehicles to take passengers. It will also need a CPUC permit to offer rides in such vehicles, first without charging money, and later to charge for rides. It hasn't yet done any of that. The DMV might decide to treat Tesla like Uber ATG, and say, 'No, that's an autonomous vehicle, even with a safety driver, so you need all the permits.' Time will tell.
Bloomberg
10 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Must build out infrastructure to achieve AI dominance: Onsemi CEO
Hassane El-Khoury, Onsemi CEO, says the company is still focused on the automotive industry and is making its way into AI. He speaks to Romaine Bostick and Scarlet Fu on "The Close." (Source: Bloomberg)
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Defending champ Kyle Larson returns to Brickyard seeking turnaround
INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — Kyle Larson raced to his third NASCAR Cup victory of the season at Kansas in mid-May then turned his attention to his second and perhaps final attempt at racing's double — completing all 1,100 miles of the Indianapolis 500 and Coca-Cola 600 on the same day. Instead, he was hit with a double whammy. A crash on Lap 92 knocked him out of the 500, relegating him to 24th, and two crashes — the second on Lap 245 — knocked him out in Charlotte, where he finished 37th. Not much has gone right for Lason since then. He posted just one top five finish over the next eight races before finishing fourth at Dover last weekend. Now, the defending Brickyard 400 champion is back at Indianapolis Motor Speedway trying to recharge his season. 'It's great to be back here in Indy and back at the track, hopefully I'll do a much better job than I did in May,' he said Friday. 'It's a privilege to get to run here and I would love nothing more than a good run and hopefully kind of put the bow on the double stuff.' Only three drivers in race history own back-to-back Brickyard wins — Jimmie Johnson in 2008-09, Kyle Busch in 2015-16 and Kevin Harvick in 2019-20. Larson's won last year on Indy's historic 2.5-mile oval instead of the road course used the previous three years. Most if not all drivers including Larson prefer running the oval. 'There's so many people from all over the world here whether it be May or our events or, really for that matter, any events,' Justin Allgaier said. '... It's just there's nothing quite like it;' Larson understands having driven an IndyCar on the oval each of the last two Mays and now back in a Cup car, his fourth start in 14 months at the Brickyard. The difference this year: Larson wants to change directions after some sub-par results. But they haven't dashed his championship hopes. The 2021 Cup champ is tied for second in wins this season, already has accrued 23 playoff points and trails only Hendrick Motorsports teammates Chase Elliott, the 2020 Cup champ, and William Byron in points. Neither Elliott or Byron has won the 400, though. Neither has Denny Hamlin, who sits just behind Larson in points despite winning a series-best four times including last weekend at Dover. He also signed a two-year contract extension with Joe Gibbs Racing on Friday. If he can add a win Sunday to the three he's had in the Daytona 500 and Southern 500 and the one Coca-Cola 600 title, Hamlin would join the short list of drivers who have won all four Cup crown jewel races in their career. 'It certainly would mean a lot to me,' said Hamlin, who has started 16 Brickyards. 'We've come close. We were actually as close on the road course as we were on ovals although I don't know — you could argue whether that (road race) was actually a crown jewel or not. So, yeah, highly motivated.' But things already are off script for Larson, Hamlin and everyone else in Indy. Friday's scheduled practice was rained out, making the second week in a row practice was washed out. Qualifying is scheduled for Saturday when temperatures are forecast to be in the mid to upper 80s with rain in the forecast most of the afternoon. The forecast for Sunday looks almost identical to Saturday. That's not what Larson wanted to hear even though race organizers rescheduled a short practice for Saturday afternoon. 'Hopefully, our car is good again,' he said before the scheduled practice. 'I believe it should be fast, if not better than it was last year. So, you know, hopefully we'll have a good practice, good qualifying (Saturday) and execute a good race on Sunday.' Larson's goal is simple — qualify up front, stay up front and stay out of the trouble he's found far too routinely lately. 'When (Christopher Bell) spun (at Dover), I thought I was going to get collected and be like 'Uh, oh, just continuing our bad luck here,' he said. 'So, hopefully, this is the beginning of us to kind turn things around. We'll see.' ___ AP auto racing:
