Pass transportation funding
Pennsylvania's roads and bridges are at a critical intersection. With transportation funding stagnant and labor, material and construction costs rising, the major caretakers of the state's transportation network — PennDOT and townships — have reached the breaking point. They cannot continue to fix and maintain the state's roads and bridges without additional funds.
It may cost all of us a few more dollars per year, but it will cost even more to do nothing. Harrisburg no longer can afford to delay this decision that is vital to the state's economy and public safety. Our General Assembly must provide additional funding to address long-overdue maintenance and safety issues.
Taxpayers can live with deteriorating infrastructure or fight for stable funding. The proposal now before the Legislature lifts the artificial cap on the oil franchise tax.
In many townships, road projects account for most of the annual budget. Municipalities maintain 77,000 of the 117,000 miles of roads in the state. They must find the funds to build and repair roads, maintain bridges, remove snow and ice, maintain traffic signs and signals, and control dust on dirt and gravel roads.
Pennsylvania's Legislature has reached a critical intersection: Pass transportation funding now or watch our infrastructure deteriorate even more as costs continue to mount.
We call on our state legislators to do the right thing. Don't stall out at this intersection.
David M. Sanko
David M. Sanko is executive director of the Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors.
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 â 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.