As Osborne council moves forward with plans to alleviate safety issues at the railroad crossing at the intersection of Route 65, Beaver and River roads, some council members are wondering if they are on the right track.

Last week, council voted 5-1 in favor of submitting statements of interest by three engineering firms -- Mackin Engineering, Parsons Brinckerhoff Inc. and URS Corporation -- to pass on to PennDOT in order to move on to the next step of a multi-stage process eventually to accept a bid for the feasibility study of moving the crossing.

Richard Klixbull, councilman, said he would not be in favor of a plan most recently discussed to close the crossing at its current location and move it farther north on Route 65 toward Sewickley to a location wide enough to accommodate expansion for turning lanes.

"All of the train noise, traffic and related matters affiliated with the crossing that serves two municipalities will be transferred to the heart of the borough," said Klixbull, adding the alternative also does not further riverfront plans the borough officials have discussed for the future.

Originally, a Mackin Engineering study conducted a few years back highlighted four different alternatives to the railroad crossing, which included a favorite option among council members, going through the Coast Guard Station.

However, the high cost of that alternative forced council to seek other options.

A meeting last summer with representatives from PennDOT, Norfolk Southern, Sen. John Pippy's and Rep. Mark Mustio's offices, and Haysville Borough officials led to the investigation of moving the crossing north.

Before moving the crossing, several studies are required by PennDOT.

"Personally, I think we are wasting a lot of time. I don't see a solution that's going to ultimately succeed," Louis Naugle, councilman, said, instead suggesting looking into buying properties out with the $1.7 million alloted to the borough for the project.

John Hayes, council president, said officials had tried that before and it didn't work.

Hayes also offered they probably could not use the grant money for those purposes.

The main concern was safety at the intersection and, he said, they are not set on moving the crossing north but instead, are looking for the best option overall to take care of the problem.

"The safety of the crossing is the issue of concern. We are responsible for that crossing. We've had fatalities at that crossing," Hayes said.