Don't kill 'pike commission
State Rep. Donna Oberlander has introduced legislation to abolish the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (“Lawmaker to introduce bill to abolish Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission,” April 13 and TribLIVE.com). The commission's faults in the pay-to-play scandal deserve action, but this bill would do more harm than good, contrary to the viewpoints of the Trib's editorial board, which has long advocated for abolishment of the commission.
To the editorial board: How many of you drive the turnpike daily? I do — it has been a part of my commute since I moved to Pittsburgh in July 2009.
Between 2005 and 2008, I drove the stretch between Westgate and Breezewood twice annually while going between Detroit and Norfolk for Christmas. Overall, the turnpike is a good road, and the commission is usually better at snow removal than PennDOT.
Consider how many times over the past few years a snowstorm has “surprised” PennDOT, bogging down all area roads with snow, while the turnpike has just been wet (I'd say at least twice a year).
A subsequent report claims the bill may pass because of public outrage over rising tolls, commission debt and seemingly non-ending construction. I don't like the debt and I don't like the tolls going up annually, but I blame Act 44 not being repealed after the application to toll I-80 was rejected. In this case, the commission's payments to PennDOT should have been rescinded, but it seems no politician can ever reverse a money grab.
The proper thing to do is to severely punish all of the bums involved in the pay-to-play scandal, ensure the right controls are in place so the chance of all this happening again is minimized, and then hire the right people.
Don't kill the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission as a knee-jerk reaction.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Warming’s evidence clear
- Fighting for Ford City II
- Liberals & illegals
- Control borders
- Fighting for Ford City I
- Challenging cops stupid
- Wrong on immigration I
- Charge, don’t fine
- Appalling advice
- A buck to pass?
- Helping the horses