ShareThis Page

Paying for roads

| Wednesday, Jan. 1, 2014, 9:00 p.m.

The authors of the column “When is it enough? Pennsylvania takes another dive into taxpayers' pockets” don't get it. The fact is that Gov. Corbett and the state legislators who voted for the transportation-funding bill in November get what these authors do not — that the cost of doing nothing was greater than the cost of addressing the problem.

If politicians are always so quick to spend, why has it been more than 16 years since Pennsylvania enacted a meaningful transportation-funding program, seven years since Gov. Rendell's transportation commission report and two years since Corbett's transportation commission report?

Furthermore, when these professors/authors complain about paying more fuel taxes in Pennsylvania than in other states, they are not making a fair comparison, since many states use other funding sources, which are not true user fees, to pay for highways and bridges.

As a civil engineer employed by local construction contractors in highway work for 46 years, I have seen firsthand how the historic lack of funding to do it right the first time has resulted in problems such as in New Stanton, where economic development has made it almost impossible to build an efficient, safe intersection of major roads.

John McCaskie

East Huntingdon

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.