Submitted by bostexa t3_112b2er in massachusetts
MOGicantbewitty t1_j8jnvmm wrote
Reply to comment by PabloX68 in Why is the Masspike the only toll road in Mass? by bostexa
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.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments