Wrong on transportation
Published: Tuesday, Oct. 1, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
In his latest unfortunate off-the-cuff remark, state House Majority Leader Mike Turzai said, regarding legislation to increase transportation funding by $2.5 billion a year, “nobody's asking for fees, fines and surcharges to be increased.” He is incorrect.
Laypeople and organizations representing both major political parties have pleaded with the General Assembly to do the right thing, to provide for road and bridge maintenance and repair, and for stability for public transit systems that take people to work, grocery shopping, appointments with their health-care providers, and to entertainment and recreation facilities.
As PennDOT imposes weight limits on 1,000 structurally deficient bridges, an action that will serve to thrust inconvenience and increased costs on all of us, a reasonable person would recognize that properly funding transportation needs is not a luxury, that it is not something that can be put off even when the economy is lackluster and people are struggling.
Gov. Corbett was initially reluctant to accept the conclusions and remedies offered by his blue-ribbon commission that studied the matter, but to his great credit, he has signed on to legislation to address this critical issue. Would that Turzai would have such an epiphany as well.
Members of the General Assembly will demonstrate whose side they are on when transportation funding legislation is voted on in the near future. Responsible Pennsylvanians will be watching and will hold them accountable for their votes.
Oren M. Spiegler
Upper St. Clair
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.
- Privatization disastrous
- Leave ‘God’ out
- Christians must vote
- Obits interesting
- CNG fueling sustainability
- Legacy: All lose
- More overreach
- New sewer fee not unreasonable
- Leave economy alone
- Prevailing wage misunderstood
- Regulate e-cigarettes