whighlander
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Messages
- 7,812
- Reaction score
- 647
Re: T construction news
Mathew -- we are all agreed that local roads should be paid for by the towns and cities where they are located -- and they are -- thus Boston, Concord, etc. build streets which are paid for by the locals not by the people from Worcester
However when there is a regional arterial such a Rt-2 we have accepted that the responsibility for building and maintaining it lies with the Commonwealth -- paid for by Massachusetts residents not the people of Montanna
Similarly -- Interstate Highway System [one of President Eisenhower's greatest legaacies] -- the Federal gov't certainly has a vested interest in insuring quality, standards and the overll effeciency of the integrated IH System as part of the Fed's role in National Defense. That responsibility probably translates into funding IH construction and major rehabbing in-part -- as the current IH system work is funded -- e.g. the Big Dig. You might even include funding for the interchanges betwen the IH and State Highways with some appropriate transition to the State Highway as a logical follow-on. I don't think that Fed $ should be involved in building city or town roads approaching an IH unless the road is qualified by it's inclusion in the above-mentioned State Highwys -- e.g. Interchange between I-95 (Rt-128) and Mass 4/225 (aka Bedford St).
Does that answer your question?
PS: I don't see how the overseas wars in relevant to the discussion of funding US transportantion infrastructure
Are you prepared to agree that Massachusetts should pay for 100% of all highway projects too?
What makes you think "the new Congress" will be any different? Because if republicans take over both houses, they will cut all funding for transit and direct all subsidies towards highways and overseas wars?
Mathew -- we are all agreed that local roads should be paid for by the towns and cities where they are located -- and they are -- thus Boston, Concord, etc. build streets which are paid for by the locals not by the people from Worcester
However when there is a regional arterial such a Rt-2 we have accepted that the responsibility for building and maintaining it lies with the Commonwealth -- paid for by Massachusetts residents not the people of Montanna
Similarly -- Interstate Highway System [one of President Eisenhower's greatest legaacies] -- the Federal gov't certainly has a vested interest in insuring quality, standards and the overll effeciency of the integrated IH System as part of the Fed's role in National Defense. That responsibility probably translates into funding IH construction and major rehabbing in-part -- as the current IH system work is funded -- e.g. the Big Dig. You might even include funding for the interchanges betwen the IH and State Highways with some appropriate transition to the State Highway as a logical follow-on. I don't think that Fed $ should be involved in building city or town roads approaching an IH unless the road is qualified by it's inclusion in the above-mentioned State Highwys -- e.g. Interchange between I-95 (Rt-128) and Mass 4/225 (aka Bedford St).
Does that answer your question?
PS: I don't see how the overseas wars in relevant to the discussion of funding US transportantion infrastructure