While initial estimates suggest tolling I-80 would bring less money to state coffers each year than leasing the turnpike, Pennsylvania would be giving up a plan whose revenue to the state would grow over time with one that doesn't. In addition, the public interest in retaining the turnpike is bigger than both annual estimates.
It's not just about how much revenue the government can bring in. The tolls put on I-80 under Act 44 would be the highest in the nation. Those costs would be passed along to Pennsylvania consumers in the price they pay for goods at their marketplace as truckers are forced to pay more to deliver them. In addition, more Pennsylvania citizens would be subjected to these user fees.
To an area of the country that's already struggling economically with business, tolling I-80 would also have substantial consequences. Businesses would relocate and behavior would be changed as a result. This makes Pennsylvania all that less competitive in the marketplace.
The editorial's also attempts to pull on the heartstrings:
Governments shouldn't sell their core responsibilities to the highest bidder. Trading away assets has the potential over the long haul to hurt the public. First a turnpike, then maybe a key city road or bridge.
Get a grip. One of the main reasons Pennsylvania should lease the turnpike is to free up revenue and devote more resources to transportation. Such as the 1,100 bridges that need to be addressed.
Leasing the turnpike would actually prove to be beneficial to the public.
No comments:
Post a Comment