Letter of Clarification from Charles Goodwin

I’ve seen several news references to my “being against the toll increases.” Hence, I’d like to clarify my position on the causeway toll increases.
I’m not nearly so concerned about ‘raising the tolls’ (except how it impacts people financially) but more to ‘what the toll increases will be used for.’
If the toll increases were to be used solely, or at least substantially, to pay down the debt, I’m all for it. If the toll increases were to be used to implement the presently planned rail-raising and safety bays, I’m against it. I will remain against it until there is a Cost Benefit Analysis and independent studies that show that these proposals will actually provide a meaningful safety improvement. So far, there are zero studies to justify spending over $150 on mere theories and hopes. Theory is not a plan. Hope is not a plan. These theories and hopes are malfeasance if not outright criminal. I say “criminal” because there is a meaningful chance that these proposals will cost more lives than they save … so I believe it’s criminal to take such unneeded risks based on no studies to prove one way or the other.
If the causeway had to meet the same criteria that apply to Louisiana and USA highways, they would have to have these studies. They don’t have them because those studies would stop these projects in their tracks. The causeway manager and commissioners know that. They would not dare spend their personal money on such flimsy theories, but they do not hesitate to spend yours and others.

As I’ve said before, they are spending money they don’t have on a problem they don’t have. No amount of commissioners’ personal emotions can change that. And it’s because of such highly charged personal emotions that there is the need for “Cost Benefit Analysis” which is to keep keep personal emotions out of the equation when it applies to using other peoples’ money to justify ones personal emotions. Certain commissioners know who I am talking about. Sincerely, Charles Goodwin