Fund roads, transit
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Monday, July 29, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
We appreciate the Trib calling attention in the editorial “Funding roads: Dubious equation” (July 23 and TribLIVE.com) to our recent analysis that rural areas have far more miles of state roads per person than urban areas.
As PennDOT Secretary Barry Schoch has said many times, including in testimony to legislators, the urbanized areas around Pittsburgh and Philadelphia subsidize rural roads to a greater degree than those rural areas subsidize urban mass transit.
According to Schoch, any two-lane state road that carries fewer than 10,000 vehicles per day costs more to build and maintain than users pay in gas tax and other fees. And most rural roads carry fewer than 2,000.
Different places have different transportation needs. Rural areas need extensive road networks to stay connected, to get people to jobs and goods to markets. Urban areas need mass transit to accommodate more people in less space.
And Pennsylvania needs a comprehensive, adequate and sustainable transportation funding program to keep the economy moving forward and help both rural and urban areas thrive.
The writer is senior vice president, energy & infrastructure, of the Allegheny Conference on Community Development (alleghenyconference.org).
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.
- Obstacles to hiring
- Putin’s actions I
- Obama & Reaganomics I
- Math in common?
- Our nation’s testing obsession
- Obama & Reaganomics II
- Putin’s actions II
- We pay to keep poor warm
- Conspicuous by absence
- Drought answer?
- Guzzardi for guv