[TriLUG] [OT] TriLUGger on the news

[Tom Eisenmenger]

David, Steve, Kevin, and others have all made some good points - now  
if I might step in and offer a different perspective:

I live in Roanoke Rapids which is in one of the poorest, least  
economically-developed areas of the state.  It is this way because  
good-paying jobs are scarce due in no small part to the lack of a  
decent transportation infrastructure.  One way to attract relocating  
businesses to this area is to revitalize our local highway system:   
for eastern NC this means to widen US158 into a 4-lane divided  
highway from Henderson to Kitty Hawk, complete the widening of US64  
from Williamston to Manteo, likewise US70 from Smithfield to Morehead  
City, and US258 running north-south from VA to SC.  Many of these are  
proposed DOT projects that have been deferred for years or even  
decades.  They are perpetually on the back burner because projects in  
the state's metropolitan areas, especially the Triangle, routinely  
take precedence over projects in more rural areas.  No wonder - the  
seat of power is, after all, in Raleigh.

So now we come to I-540, the last of several Triangle projects to  
bump the widening of US158 and others from the DOT's priority list.   
This project is not surprisingly over schedule and over budget,  
whether due to a spike in construction costs or to "mismanagement" it  
doesn't really matter.  Now, Wake County is informed that it will be  
2032 (!) before the new beltway will be completed unless additional  
funding is forthcoming.  While I sympathize somewhat with your "free  
roads" movement, I do think it unfair for you to expect the rest of  
the state to continue to subsidize your road construction whilst  
projects needed elsewhere are deferred yet again.

(I would like to think that the DOT has recognized that its  
priorities must shift else the economic divide between urban and  
rural regions will continue to grow but the reality is probably not  
as noble.  I would also suggest that it is largely this economic  
divide funneling economic development into the urban areas that is  
fueling your rapid growth and causing all sorts of other problems -  
can you say "year-round schools"?)

I think the choice before you is reasonable:  wait until the 2030s  
for the project to be completed when time and funding allow as other  
DOT projects are assigned priority or expedite the project by funding  
it with tolls.    You could raise additional revenues through taxes  
but that means a certain increase in the gasoline tax which is a  
regressive tax that hits the poor particularly hard.  You don't have  
to have tolls as long as you're willing to defer your own project for  
a while - imagine that!!

FWIW, while my local Chamber of Commerce is opposed to a toll I-95  
corridor, I have supported the idea as long as its generated revenue  
is applied to the projects noted above.  After all, what is more fair  
than those who most benefit from the building of a thoroughfare -   
those who actually use it - being the ones who pay a little extra for  
it?

If it makes you feel any better, I do object to just a portion of  
I-540 being designated toll - if this plan is to be implemented then  
the entire beltline should be a toll road until the beltline project  
is completed.

Oh, and to further get under your skin - I'm typing this up on a Mac  
Mini running OS X ;-)

Sheesh - guess I'll have to wear a paper bag over my head to the next  
TriLUG meeting...

Cheers,

Tom

On May 18, 2007, at 9:47 AM, Steve Litt wrote:

> On Friday 18 May 2007 07:05, Kevin Otte wrote:
>> Jeremy Portzer wrote:
>>> Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
>>>> How about a compromise?  Tolls for single occupant SUVs on 540?
>>>
>>> I'm sure hybrid vehicles would be excepted though.  :-)
>>>
>>> --Jeremy
>>>
>>> (David drives a hybrid SUV, for those wondering what the heck  
>>> this part
>>> of the thread is about...)
>>
>> While I recognize the humor intended by Andrew's statement, the  
>> problem
>> is the tolls aren't for environmental protection purposes.
>
> As a matter of fact, all the slowing down and speeding up burns  
> more gas and
> pollutes more.
>
> SteveT
>
> Steve Litt
> Author: Universal Troubleshooting Process books and courseware
> http://www.troubleshooters.com/
> -- 
> TriLUG mailing list        : http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/ 
> trilug
> TriLUG Organizational FAQ  : http://trilug.org/faq/
> TriLUG Member Services FAQ : http://members.trilug.org/services_faq/