Dan Rodricks took nearly a half-page in The Sun to express his opinion relative to a "feud" between Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan. It seem more like a shot at the governor's economic direction for the State of Maryland relative to transportation ("Hogan, Rawlings-Blake blow opportunity born in unrest," June 27).
While the words appear to express the Governor Hogan's lack of support for Baltimore City, they identify Mr. Rodricks' lack of knowledge regarding a clear "cost-benefit analysis," a business standard in the use of funds. Mr. Rodricks would have the state spend $3 billion to serve an extremely small portion of the state, not to mention a small segment of the city. OK, there has been $288 million already spent on the project. I can't help but wonder how else that $288 million could have been spent.
Mr. Rodricks challenges the reduction of $68 million in education spending but doesn't mention the $50 million shortfall that the Baltimore school system can't account for. He mentions the word "boondoggles." The Red Line would not intersect with the existing light rail, the subway or any other mode of transportation. But it would parallel some portions. It would dig a tunnel under the city, but we can't seem to enlarge existing train tunnels to carry double-decker freight cars from the harbor for nationwide distribution.
Is there any doubt that the Red Line "boondoggle" would exceed $3 billion? And who would pay for that? Mr. Rodricks, how about a half-page analysis of Boston's "Big Dig?" We might find that equally interesting.
Richard T. Webb, Parkton