Posted on 07/03/2007 11:50:08 AM PDT by Kay Ludlow
BELLEFONTE -- One of up to 10 Interstate 80 toll booths would be put up in Centre County near the Clinton County line and another would be located 40 miles to the west in Clearfield County, according to unofficial plans seen by state Sen. Jake Corman, R-Benner Township.
Corman, majority policy chairman of the Senate Republicans, made the disclosure during a news conference Monday where he assailed Gov. Ed Rendell as "irresponsible" for holding the state budget "hostage until he gets everything he wants done."
The senator said the I-80 map he saw is an early draft and could change as the Senate works on the $720 million transportation funding bill sent to it by the House.
Asked whether I-80 tolls are a done deal, Corman said: "It's getting closer; I'm concerned about it, but clearly that is the momentum of the transportation bill."
I-80 runs 311 miles across Pennsylvania between New Jersey and Ohio, and 100 miles of it lie in Centre County and its neighbors to the east and west, Clinton and Clearfield counties.
Corman said the toll rate would be 8 cents a mile, equal to the Pennsylvania Turnpike rate, and said there would be a maximum of 10 toll gantries, according to the early plan with which he is familiar.
He said I-80 commuters from the Lock Haven area who drive 40 miles to work at Penn State would likely opt for the toll-free but narrow two-lane, state Route 64.
"Three dollars a day twice a day -- they're not going to be going on I-80, they're going to be going on 64," Corman said. "That road's not really ready for that. That would probably prevent me from wanting to support the bill because it would have a really negative impact on commuter traffic."
Corman said he voted against I-80 tolls in the Senate appropriations committee. "My biggest issue is where are these gantries going to be, and how is it going to affect commuter traffic," he said.
Asked why the governor's proposal to lease the Pennsylvania Turnpike got nowhere fast, Corman compared Rendell unfavorably to Indiana's Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels, who undertook a similar transportation funding idea but got bids and set forth a detailed plan.
"Our governor says he wants to lease the turnpike. Did we hear anything after that? Did he go out and get anything specific done?" Corman said. "The governor doesn't really want to do any hard work."
On the state budget, Corman opposed Rendell's call for an electricity tax -- "I think people's energy bills are already significantly high" -- but he harshly criticized the governor for conditioning budget approval on legislation that is not urgent, such as the additional transportation funding.
"We need to focus on the budget -- you cannot hold every other issue hostage for the budget," Corman said. "Let's get it done and continue to address the other issues. ... When the governor wants to focus on the budget, we're ready to talk."
Given that,among other things,Massachusetts is one of the biggest "contributors" (per capita) to the US Treasury I'd say that America can,at the very least,help pay for the maintenance of I-90.
They need to take lessons from Texas on how to rob the taxpayers.
Of all the northeastern states, Pennsylvania was the last to get its highways out of the mud. And that was the work of Gov. Gifford Pinchot, who was elected in 1926. By that time, states like New Jersey were far ahead of their neighbors.
I understand you have a similar problem with medical facilities in rural areas, don't you?
The level of tax revenues isn't relevant in that regard. The only real consideration should be whether the roadway in question functions as an economic asset across a wide, multi-state region. I'd say I-80 in Pennsylvania more closely fits that description than almost any road in Massachusetts. Ironically, I-80 in PA is almost as important to the people of Massachusetts as I-90 in MA is.
But it creates all kinds of problems for services, especially the emergency variety.
Yup,and Massachusetts is just a backwater that means nothing to anybody (economically,that is).Why,if you stand on the shoulder of either I-90 or I-95 in the state you'd be lucky to see 10 cars go by in the typical hour.
You’re right, of course, about the State controlling what would otherwise be considered ‘county’ roads. Shifting those roads to local jurisdictions would however create a new responsibility & higher taxes at that level.
There is no denying that Pennsylvania roads simply don’t last very long. Part of it is the geology; part the climate. But I can’t help thinking that if the roadbeds were properly designed we wouldn’t be replacing nearly as many miles of roads during “construction season.”
If I-80 in Pennsylvania were to disappear tomorrow, the impact would be felt by about 25% of the U.S. population.
One of the points MR. Rendell has made is that local traffic won’t be tolled. If I can, I will run SR36, 322 and 208 to upset the idiot’s greedy plan. After all, WE paid for the damn road many times over. Why should I pay for BARTA, SEPTA and whatever they call Allegheny County’s giveaway?
I completely understand. Unfortunately, frequent travelers will look for alternate routes as well, increasing the traffic on local roads.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.