The US already has gas and oil pipeline running alongside roads. Usually, these are out-of-the-way areas like the Dalton Highway in Alaska (pictured). But does it make sense to put more pipelines right next to the roads? In the event of a spill (which happen more frequently than you might know), is it better for remote lands be damaged or the very reason that we have many of these pipelines in the first place? Do you want to be reminded of where your fuel comes from (if you're not in a plug-in car) as you drive down down the road?

The reason we bring these questions up is because state representative Scott Petri (R) in Pennsylvania thinks that putting "gas transmission pipelines" right next to the Pennsylvania Turnpike is a good idea. In fact, according to the The Times-Tribune, Petri said locating a pipeline by the highway benefits both the environment and state's balance sheet. He was introducing legislation to allow the turnpike commission authority to charge gas and oil companies a fee to place pipelines alongside the highway 80 and 79. "There's no reason to destroy environmentally sensitive areas when you have the turnpike," he said.

About a half-dozen new pipelines will likely be needed in Pennsylvania to help move the fossil fuel from the Marcellus Shale to ports on the Atlantic seaboard. Some of the land needed for these pipes is private land that is already being cleared, and using land by the turnpike could reduce the need to destroy more maple syrup farms.

Related Video:

I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • Share This Photo X