The daily’s gaseous toll roads sermonizing

Just days ago, with the threat of $5 a gallon gas looming, the newspaper blithely tossed out the idea of toll roads. It was headlined, Study looks at opening HOV lanes to toll payers. The two-pronged hook was easing congestion on Valley freeways and, of course, raising revenues. Following the departure of the liberal newspaper’s beloved and free-spending Governor Janet Napolitano, Arizona was facing an unprecedented fiscal crisis. To be sure, the debt was exacerbated by the national economic downturn, but Napolitano never saw a spending program she was willing to turn down.

The solution to her hemorrhaging trail of debt? Tax the fools who elected her.  The problem is, others who used some sense at the ballot box find themselves caught in that pricey net.

The sucker punch came a day later via the editorial, titled: To ease traffic, try to think outside the box. The editorialist contemptuously reprimands Arizonans to “keep an open mind” regarding paying tolls, since “we don’t know nearly enough to make a decision.” It’s time, we are told, to “put that knee jerk reaction aside and do a reality check.”

We are being force-fed public transportation as we brace for ever increasing gas prices. But it is the liberal Democrats, so attuned they remind us, to the problems of the American’s working families, who have long advocated higher fuel prices to curtail consumption.

These do-as-we-say, not as-we-do hypocrites and their grandiose ecological sermonizing have an agenda. Never be fooled into thinking American taxpayer consumers are the intended beneficiaries.

Last year we posted Looks like the fix is in for toll roads. This is one curve we didn’t want to be ahead of.

9 Responses to The daily’s gaseous toll roads sermonizing

  1. Rambling Rose says:

    Seeing Red AZ has been a consistant and reliably conservative stalwart. Best wishes in the coming year to those of you who work so diligently to keep us informed.

  2. TeaPartyPatriot says:

    Lunatic-left d-crat socialist extremism: If it exists, it MUST be taxed, regulated, controlled and totally and completely subject to the will and whim of BIG GOVERNMENT bureaucrats.

  3. Stanford says:

    TPP, you couldn’t be more correct! This is just more of the same, brought to us by the leftist “bleed ’em dry” AZ Repulsive.

  4. Jon Altmann says:

    The Republic reported a few days ago that ADOT will spend $500,000 for a 2 yr study of this HOV lane idea? First bad idea – the state is short merely $1.4 BILLION and so we spend another $500K on consultants?
    Why? Don’t we have competent state employees and engineers who can do this? It isn’t like we are Montana or American Samoa. Let’s just keep blowing the bucks on high-priced consultants – who most likely will come from out of state and not a dime will go to an Arizonan.

  5. Richfield the plumber says:

    The drive to impose toll lanes is but a further step in weaning folks from their vehicles by making light rail seem marginally more attractive. So don’t think for a moment the idea is to raise revenue.
    Yea, some cash flow will occur. But the “hidden” cost to create these monstrosities will be megabucks, with booths and signage and bureaucracies and regulations and enforcement. Make no mistake, the idea is to make driving so bothersome, you’ll be flagging down one of these 20 century trolley cars real soon.

  6. Stacey says:

    Well, Redflex would love that. All their equipment is still in the roads. What is the purpose of HOV lanes again?

    • Seeing Red AZ says:

      You asked, “Why do all my comments go through moderation?”

      It is our long-standing policy is that most comments go through moderation. We do it as a safeguard against spam, pornography and vicious, libelous attacks. This blog is not a democracy. Additionally, all of us working it have other jobs and pursuits which sometimes delay comment postings. We try our best to get them up in a timely fashion.

  7. @CameraFraudAz says:

    Our thoughts on toll roads if you’d be so kind to take a look.

    Happy New Year from our team to yours!

  8. Richfield the plumber says:

    While on the subject of the HOV lanes, has anyone noticed that all the signage says these lanes are for “2+”, meaning, supposedly, you must have MORE THAN two people in the vehicle? The minimum that two plus can equal, in terms of integers of course, is three! Someone at the department that decided on this changed the traditional interpretation of plus from “more than” to “either more than or equal to if it suits our purpose.” To be technically and mathematically and logically correct the expression should be “1+.”