Submitted by bostexa t3_112b2er in massachusetts
PabloX68 t1_j8jle7r wrote
Reply to comment by MOGicantbewitty in Why is the Masspike the only toll road in Mass? by bostexa
That all may be the case, but it's beside the point because it all happened after the situation I laid out.
MOGicantbewitty t1_j8jnvmm wrote
So changing realities in the world are besides the point because people made a decision 60 years ago? That doesn’t even make sense. Please explain to me how a decision 60 years ago make todays conditions besides the point. When you are complaining about todays conditions. Just saying it’s besides the point doesn’t make it so.
The bonds weren’t even paid off until 2017, AFTER MassDOT was created. That’s pretty damn current and relevant. 6 years of extra tolls for maintenance and improvements… I’d say that just like the precipitation data that’s over 60 years old being irrelevant to today, the reasons for the tolls having been started is what’s actually irrelevant, not the needs of maintaining it today.
And while you are explaining to me why I’m wrong and todays conditions are irrelevant, can you propose a better way to fund the maintenance? If all you are doing is just being mad about a 60 year old decision changing but you don’t have a better solution, then why are you complaining? You don’t have a preferred alternative. But if you do have a better alternative, please share it so it can be implemented
PabloX68 t1_j8ju44z wrote
And btw, submitting a bill "to start a conversation" is shitty. The legislature has enough to do without wasting time on that bs tactic. Lobby for your idea and get others on board, then submit a bill.
MOGicantbewitty t1_j8jxjyn wrote
That’s not how bills work. They get discussed, debated, have modifications made, are analyzed in committee, revised again, and then they get voted on. How do you think you get people on board without having the specifics of the law written down?
PabloX68 t1_j8k2tk3 wrote
I know how bills work. Some are just grandstanding especially when the person sponsoring the bill says just that. Plenty of ridiculous bills are submitted at the state and federal level that the sponsors realize have no chance. They do it for publicity.
An actual bill doesn't need to be submitted to get people onboard with the idea. They're called cosponsors.
MOGicantbewitty t1_j8k3fdk wrote
So which is this? Just for publicity and pointless or an actual problem where they want to make us pay tolls on more roads? Pick one. You are talking out both sides of your mouth. It’s either a problem or it’s not. It’s either a real stupid attempt or it’s fake and for publicity.
And you STILL haven’t given one single idea on how to fund the roadway maintenance better. Come on. Stop moving the goalposts and answer the one and only question asked of you.
What’s your solution?
PabloX68 t1_j8k4kxq wrote
The sponsor of the bill literally said it's to "start a conversation".
It's not incumbent on me to come up with a solution, though I gave you some in another post. As a taxpayer, it's incumbent on me to point out the state already wastes a shitload of money and produces a shitty product. Don't expect anyone to be onboard after looking at those numbers.
MOGicantbewitty t1_j8k4q8u wrote
That’s not true at all. It is not your job to point out that things are shitty and money was wasted when you don’t understand how much things cost and how to fund it. It means that you don’t understand any of the things you’re critiquing.
What is your solution? How are you going to fund the hundreds of millions of dollars worth of maintenance, or hundreds of billions of dollars worth of reconstruction?
PabloX68 t1_j8k4zyt wrote
I understand plenty and you're avoiding the comparisons I've made.
Why is per mile spending so damn high in MA already? Answer that in a cogent way and we can talk. Have you actually driven through NH? They rank mid pack out of all the states and their road quality is far better.
MOGicantbewitty t1_j8k59tn wrote
Comparisons from different data sets are not relevant here. do me a favor, though, if you think they are, feel free to actually show me the numbers. Like I asked!
What is your solution? How are you going to fund the reconstruction or maintenance of many many many more miles of roadway in Massachusetts than in New Hampshire?
PabloX68 t1_j8k5mmm wrote
Here's another example.
https://reason.org/policy-study/26th-annual-highway-report/massachusetts/
And I said PER MILE road spending. Now you're pointing out that MA has "many many more". No shit.
MOGicantbewitty t1_j8k61o1 wrote
Did you read my comment? Many more people. So many more drivers and much more wear & tear. Per mile is not the relevant statistic here. If you actually did this for a living you would know. I do.
PabloX68 t1_j8k8psq wrote
You engineer roads for a living? Do tell.
Sorry but the traffic levels don't change the instant you cross the border. Bring your Prius up to 80mph and drive that stretch I pointed to and tell me the MA part isn't worse.
MOGicantbewitty t1_j8ka5xd wrote
Lmao. I don’t drive a Prius, but you are showing your ass with that comment and your sources. Move to NH if you like it so much. It’s a much better place for libertarians who are so biased against the government that they can’t evaluate evidence appropriately.
And actually, I do plenty of work around roadways design, evaluation, permitting, maintenance, upgrades etc. You don’t have to engineer roads to know how the are funded and constructed. In fact, an engineer knows nothing about funding mechanisms. I do that exact work for a living. Yup. Did you think I would prove it and doxx myself? Lol
You are a walking Dunning Kruger effect.
I hope you get a chance to move to a place where you will be happier. I can’t waste any more time educating you when you don’t want to learn anything. Bye!
[deleted] t1_j8kay3c wrote
[removed]
MOGicantbewitty t1_j8kb554 wrote
Lol, sure thing. Bye!!
PabloX68 t1_j8kcqck wrote
If you can look at roads in MA and the money we spend on them and think it's all good, you've clearly been brainwashed.
Realize you doing a shitty job costs normal people money and puts them in danger. Sleep well.
MOGicantbewitty t1_j8kdbhr wrote
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
MOGicantbewitty t1_j8k6dx1 wrote
Oh! Another biased source! Reason.org is a libertarian think tank. That is not a reputable source. At all.
PabloX68 t1_j8k88wy wrote
I know exactly who they are. That doesn't mean their numbers are wrong here. How about you find a source that says MA isn't among the least efficient, highest spenders here?
MOGicantbewitty t1_j8k9eo5 wrote
That’s exactly what it means. Their analysis is biased.
PabloX68 t1_j8kct4e wrote
Link to another source that counters it. How hard is that?
MOGicantbewitty t1_j8kdemk wrote
Nope. You didn’t do your job first, I’m not obligated to engage with somebody who is calling me brainwashed. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😫 Bye!
MOGicantbewitty t1_j8k5kpx wrote
Oh, and the flaw in your assumption is that spending per mile should be the same in states with VASTLY different populations, therefore roadway users, therefore vastly more wear & tear, and therefore more repair and maintenance costs
So, no. You don’t understand plenty.
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_Effect_01.svg
PabloX68 t1_j8ka2ra wrote
There are plenty of other examples of more comparable states in those links. CT and RI both have similar population densities and similar weather yet spend about 1/3 less.
I never assumed it SHOULD be the same nor did I say that, speaking of Dunning Kruger.
MOGicantbewitty t1_j8kam3z wrote
Hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!! Stockholm syndrome and dunning Kruger? Oh my god.. you have no idea what you are linking to. You think I identify with my kidnappers? Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!!!!!
And that source is not credible no matter how many times you pretend it is.
Bye!
MOGicantbewitty t1_j8k4toh wrote
And what numbers are these by the way? Where exactly is their money being wasted? Point to a specific project and how it could’ve been done equally as well for cheaper.
PabloX68 t1_j8k5766 wrote
I already gave you a link and I already gave you an example of a shitty result (Rt 3).
MOGicantbewitty t1_j8k5wd5 wrote
No, you gave me an attorneys business website as a legitimate source for state spending. That’s not a reliable source.
MOGicantbewitty t1_j8jp5ol wrote
You are also aware that the very reason MassDOT was created and created with that restriction on spending was because of the Big Dig, right? How is it besides the point that the laws have been changed after the Big Dig to prevent it from happening again? Today’s conditions were created as a direct result of prior mistakes. How is it besides the point that 20 years later we still need to maintain the highway even though we got rid of the ways that the state was allowed to take that toll money and pay for other projects? It’s the entire point. The state has done a bunch of things to reverse those bad decisions and we still need to pay for the mass pike. Give me a better way to pay for it and I’ll happily share it with the regional planners that work for the state that I know and work with myself.
PabloX68 t1_j8jtrzd wrote
No, the point was that the tolls on the MA Pike were supposed to be removed once the bonds for BUILDING THE MASS PIKE were paid. That never happened and the Turnpike Authority became forever until the legislature had a moment of clarity.
One way to pay for them is fuel taxes, realizing that may not work in the future but it does now. The other way to pay for them would be figuring out how it is per mile road spending in MA is so damn high even those the roads suck. Somehow there are plenty of other states that have both better roads and much less per mile spending. Do they have less density? Maybe but that doesn't explain all of it.
I'll point to the Rt 3 expansion between 128 and NH as a great example. At about the same time, NH expanded and reworked their section north of the border. Even when both sections were quite new, it was clear NH's was better. It was graded better (no undulations) and over the years, it's remained better. I travel that road all the time and the traffic and weather are similar. It's clear MA built their part to a lower standard and this was confirmed by civil eng I knew on the project.
So forgive me if I'm not just going to go along with spending more on roads in MA without question.
MOGicantbewitty t1_j8jxcv5 wrote
Your solution is to rely on taxes that already don’t cover it and will continue to decline? You are just complaining about the past without anything better to offer. You don’t get it.
The turnpike authority is gone. The ability to shunt funds to other projects is gone. Fuel tax revenues are down. Federal funding is down. Costs are up. Your criticisms of the past and other highways that have nothing to do with the Pike are irrelevant. Provide another way to fund the maintenance or don’t bother complaining. Bitching does nothing to fix anything. If you know how to do it better, tell us. I’ll share it with the planners, DOT staff, and political representatives I work with daily. Give me a better idea and we’ll push it. Otherwise, sit down. You have nothing to offer
PabloX68 t1_j8k42rl wrote
You can share this with the planners and DOT staff.
https://www.yourlawyer.com/library/highway-system-costs-per-state/
Share with them that they're consistently in the top five (if not top 3) per mile road spending and the roads are shit. Come up with a good reason for that and I'll be more supportive of alternative funding methods.
I already gave a better idea. Build the roads to a higher standard in the first place. Put a thicker road bed down and put thicker asphalt down. It'll lead to less potholes and less need to resurface every few years. It'll also lead to less damage to vehicles. Try spending less on public sector unions and you could also go look at what NH does. They have worse weather yet much better roads for a lot less money. Oh yeah, stop paying cops for road details and get rid of that prevailing wage farce.
Yes, bitching does do something. It translates to political support.
MOGicantbewitty t1_j8k47ck wrote
What is your solution to the problem now? How do you plan on funding reconstructing those highways better?
MOGicantbewitty t1_j8k4b0v wrote
By the way, that is not a reputable source for this conversation.
What is your solution? How are you going to achieve funding to reconstruct the roads?
MOGicantbewitty t1_j8k4g3d wrote
Again, what is your solution? You actually think getting rid of row details is going to pay for anything? Do you think there are hundreds of billions of dollars in route details and costs with unions in the state? That’s what it cost to rebuild these roadways
SileAnimus t1_j8m0y15 wrote
> would be figuring out how it is per mile road spending in MA is so damn high even those the roads suck
Because the asphalt is never cleaned and sealed. But to clean and seal the asphalt you need to close down each road for 2-5 days. Do you think we could pass that?
Prestigious_Bobcat29 t1_j8mho9z wrote
Fuel taxes only work if they’re high enough to cover the cost. You’re not paying for the roads you use, you’re being subsidized by the people who don’t drive
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments