Transportation
I know that <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/candidates/articles/2006/10/19/pike_board_acts_to_end_tolls_west_of_route_128/"> this</a> probably made MF DU's day, but at in the same month as <a href="http://www.thephoenix.com/article_ektid12060.aspx">this?</a>
Take you your "Take Public Transportation" campaign and shove it up your ass.
Please let me know when they actually do manage to remove the tolls. I won't be holding my breath. I know what Romney will do: they'll be called "Fee Booths".
I've only ever seen two places where toll make sense. First is for "cut through" states. For example, Delaware. I bet most of the people using I-95 in Delaware are just cutting through between Philly/NJ and Baltimore. So, perhaps funding that highway with tolls makes sense since these people aren't paying any gas tax to Delaware. Same could maybe be said for Seacoast NH. This is certainly not the case for the Pike.
Second is when tolls are turned on for only certain hours of the day to discourage rush hour driving. I'm not sure if I agree with this one even, but it does make some sense.
Leaving aside for a minute the tunnel and bridge tolls, think about this from a state-wide perspective... We have quite a few suburban highways. Let's see: two 95s, 93, 128, two 3s, 2, Pike, 24, 495, 195, and 290 in Eastern Mass. If you were arguing for tolls on <b>all</b> of them, then that's one thing (and I'd disagree with you). But <b>one</b> of them? Why just one?
Getting to an airport in a half hour vs. driving an hour in a tunnel that might kill me? What decision would you make?
I at least agree with G lib's tags on the post that the words "Fuckups" and "Masspike" (at least how the Masspike has historically been run - maybe this new piece of news marks a new era - one can only hope) should be intrinsically linked.
From the posted front page Glob article:
"``The cost of manual toll collection has grown unacceptably high," the report concluded, finding that wages and benefits made up <s>91 percent of the cost of collecting tolls</s>. "
Also to clarify that while the fiscal report came from people that work with Romney, the Masspike can remove most of the tools <b>without</b> legislative approval.
Whether or not this news is close to an election might be an added bonus to Healey, but it can happen too even if king Coca Cola is elected...
I just don't see Romney/Healey being able to make good on this pledge and adequately maintain our road and highways without instituting an offsetting tax/fee/whatever-obsfuscation-they're-calling-it-today.
I'm also a big believer in everyone benefiting from sound transportation policies. The eastern half of Massachusetts generates way more tax revenues than the western half. Paltry as our aid to cities and towns is, Springfield needs the businesses of eastern Massachusetts to have access to dependable transportation in order to pay for schools, police, fire, etc.
sorry. A little too elitist for my tastes.
I don't _resent_ that my tax dollars are spent outside my living/working area, just stating the facts.
We're all in this together. I feel that I personally benefit when western cities and towns can provide needed and necessary services for their communites.
I think it does. Everyone talks (at least Healey and Patrick) about having a business friendly environment, one that will lure business to locate in MA rather than NH or NC. Transportation is one consideration that business make when deciding on locating facilities. If Metro-Boston is an attractive location, and attracts businesses, then the whole state benefits.
Only poor people take busses.