More tolled highways in the future?

[cpzilliacus]

Washington Post: Chao says U.S. drivers may face more tolls to raise infrastructure funds

L.A. Times (op-ed): There's only one way to fix L.A.'s traffic, and it isn't Elon Musk's tunnels. We need tolls – lots of them

[kalvado]

I, for one, don't mind paying a bit more for better roads. With bunch of  "IFs".
-if money actually spent on  roads
-if construction funded by tolls occurs where it is needed, not where non-elected officials think it would work best for "revitalizing" of stinky rotten downtown
-if (my pet one) no roundabouts get funded by tolls.

As for congestion pricing... It has to couple with some legal way of forcing employers into some flexibility whenever it is possible at all.   some poor souls just have no choice other than coming in at peak of rush hour or waiting for the shift in the lobby due to being too early.

(edit): Oh, and tolls have to be reasonable, not "you will pay anyway!". For cars, 3-5 cents a mile seem like a good number cost-wise. That is 3-6x current federal gas tax. That may vary depending on actual toll coverage, but I suspect things wouldn't work if commuter has to pay more than $200-300 a year

[jeffandnicole]

I, for one, don't mind paying a bit more for better roads. With bunch of  "IFs".
-if money actually spent on  roads
-if construction funded by tolls occurs where it is needed, not where non-elected officials think it would work best for "revitalizing" of stinky rotten downtown
-if (my pet one) no roundabouts get funded by tolls.

As for congestion pricing... It has to couple with some legal way of forcing employers into some flexibility whenever it is possible at all.   some poor souls just have no choice other than coming in at peak of rush hour or waiting for the shift in the lobby due to being too early.

(edit): Oh, and tolls have to be reasonable, not "you will pay anyway!". For cars, 3-5 cents a mile seem like a good number cost-wise. That is 3-6x current federal gas tax. That may vary depending on actual toll coverage, but I suspect things wouldn't work if commuter has to pay more than $200-300 a year

Those numbers are way too low.  $300 a year, divided by a regular 260 days or so one normally works in a year, means tolls would only be $1 a day.  And since tolling is generally done 2 ways, that's 50 cents per trip.  That would be insanely low for modern day tolling.

[Rothman]

Ugh.  Every time I hear "public private partnership" it makes me reach for my revolver.  See Indiana Toll Road...  I guess it is one of those dumb terms that are going to cycle every few years or so.  Might as well call it what it is: Give contractors more money, have them increase the burden on the public for their own profit and then laugh all the way to the bank.

Tolls are regressive taxes.  That is all there is to it.

[kalvado]

I, for one, don't mind paying a bit more for better roads. With bunch of  "IFs".
-if money actually spent on  roads
-if construction funded by tolls occurs where it is needed, not where non-elected officials think it would work best for "revitalizing" of stinky rotten downtown
-if (my pet one) no roundabouts get funded by tolls.

As for congestion pricing... It has to couple with some legal way of forcing employers into some flexibility whenever it is possible at all.   some poor souls just have no choice other than coming in at peak of rush hour or waiting for the shift in the lobby due to being too early.

(edit): Oh, and tolls have to be reasonable, not "you will pay anyway!". For cars, 3-5 cents a mile seem like a good number cost-wise. That is 3-6x current federal gas tax. That may vary depending on actual toll coverage, but I suspect things wouldn't work if commuter has to pay more than $200-300 a year

Those numbers are way too low.  $300 a year, divided by a regular 260 days or so one normally works in a year, means tolls would only be $1 a day.  And since tolling is generally done 2 ways, that's 50 cents per trip.  That would be insanely low for modern day tolling.

And that is exactly what I am talking about. You didn't try to include travel distances, traffic counts - just "$1 is not enough!"
If there is a significant administrative/toll collection overhead which eats up most of $1 toll - then idea is not workable. If $30M/year collected on a stretch with 100k traffic count is not enough, then supplementing tolls with some competitive approaches- like expedited approvals for competing roads, f&ck urbanists and EPA, may be required.

[kalvado]

Ugh.  Every time I hear "public private partnership" it makes me reach for my revolver.  See Indiana Toll Road...  I guess it is one of those dumb terms that are going to cycle every few years or so.  Might as well call it what it is: Give contractors more money, have them increase the burden on the public for their own profit and then laugh all the way to the bank.

Tolls are regressive taxes.  That is all there is to it.

Do you think gas tax is also regressive? After all, difference in fuel burn between S-class Mercedes and Honda Accord is not that great. And someone who has to drive truck for a living may pay through the nose, since they cannot afford a separate commute car...

[Rothman]

Perhaps, but the demand isn't as inelastic as it is with tolls.  If I can't shunpike, I must pay the toll.  I do, however, have a lot of control over elective trips and therefore how much gas I burn (e.g., when I was poor, you bet I didn't go on any trips at all outside of commutes or for necessary shopping).

[The Nature Boy]

The only way to make a road related tax non-regressive is to bake it into the income tax somehow. You could argue for a higher income tax in lieu of things like sales, gas, tolls, or any other consumption based taxes, that's the only way to avoid a regressive tax structure.

The big benefit to tolls is that they capture out of state drivers. There's no way to do this feasibly WITHOUT a regressive tax structure.

[SP Cook]

-if money actually spent on  roads
-if construction funded by tolls occurs where it is needed, not where non-elected officials think it would work best for "revitalizing" of stinky rotten downtown

And those are the to biggest ifs that exist. 

And, IMHO, states simply cannot be trusted.  In my state, and I suspect it is similar in most states, money that flows directly to an agency is not looked at by the legislature.  All the legislature worries about is ballencing the budget, which is appropriating the tax money.  And that is what tolls are.  Off-budget.  The WV Turnpike administration is totally corrupt and totally incompetent.  Yet if you look at the state budget, it is not mentioned.  It takes in and spends millions, with NO oversight at all.  This corruption and incompetence was outlined, more than a decade ago, in a devastating report by the Legislative Auditor.  And not one thing was done about it. 

And it is not just WV.  Pennsylvania's and New York's systems are covered in graft.  And then we have these deals like the Indiana Toll Road. 

You just cannot trust the states to actually build roads where needed and not do boondoggle projects, featherbed the workforce, and waste money.

[Rothman]

The big benefit to tolls is that they capture out of state drivers.

So does the federal gas tax.

[kalvado]

Perhaps, but the demand isn't as inelastic as it is with tolls.  If I can't shunpike, I must pay the toll.  I do, however, have a lot of control over elective trips and therefore how much gas I burn (e.g., when I was poor, you bet I didn't go on any trips at all outside of commutes or for necessary shopping).

I would say that demand is pretty inelastic in both cases. Of course, if you can afford additional trips - you pay extra in both tolls and gas. But then sales tax is also a non-regressive tax, if you can afford something...
But commute is pretty much determined by where you live and where you work, so it is non-elastic short term.  Ideally, tolls should also shape your selection of both to bring commute cost under control. That is the elasticity of toll demand - a long-term one. Same with cost of public transportation, cost of car etc - they shape long-term selections...

[kalvado]

The big benefit to tolls is that they capture out of state drivers.

So does the federal gas tax.

I would put things differently - that is not an out-of-state tax, that is the tax on living in United States, and associated costs of maintaining long haul connectivity.

[The Nature Boy]

The big benefit to tolls is that they capture out of state drivers.

So does the federal gas tax.

That's nice and all but it doesn't go directly to the states.

[jeffandnicole]

I, for one, don't mind paying a bit more for better roads. With bunch of  "IFs".
-if money actually spent on  roads
-if construction funded by tolls occurs where it is needed, not where non-elected officials think it would work best for "revitalizing" of stinky rotten downtown
-if (my pet one) no roundabouts get funded by tolls.

As for congestion pricing... It has to couple with some legal way of forcing employers into some flexibility whenever it is possible at all.   some poor souls just have no choice other than coming in at peak of rush hour or waiting for the shift in the lobby due to being too early.

(edit): Oh, and tolls have to be reasonable, not "you will pay anyway!". For cars, 3-5 cents a mile seem like a good number cost-wise. That is 3-6x current federal gas tax. That may vary depending on actual toll coverage, but I suspect things wouldn't work if commuter has to pay more than $200-300 a year

Those numbers are way too low.  $300 a year, divided by a regular 260 days or so one normally works in a year, means tolls would only be $1 a day.  And since tolling is generally done 2 ways, that's 50 cents per trip.  That would be insanely low for modern day tolling.

And that is exactly what I am talking about. You didn't try to include travel distances, traffic counts - just "$1 is not enough!"
If there is a significant administrative/toll collection overhead which eats up most of $1 toll - then idea is not workable. If $30M/year collected on a stretch with 100k traffic count is not enough, then supplementing tolls with some competitive approaches- like expedited approvals for competing roads, f&ck urbanists and EPA, may be required.

But you also used a blanket "but I suspect things wouldn't work if commuter has to pay more than $200-300 a year" statement.  You didn't try to include travel distances either.

Also, if you're considering congestion pricing, what would your upper and lower limits be?  How would it work?  On the NJ Turnpike, congestion pricing is simply EZ Pass customers getting charged the cash rate for a 2 hour period in the morning and evening rush hours (and on weekends).  In Virginia, congestion pricing is a variable toll.  The VA toll has a lot more back-end expenses to worry about, compared to a fixed-time variable toll like the NJ Turnpike uses.

[Rothman]

The big benefit to tolls is that they capture out of state drivers.

So does the federal gas tax.

That's nice and all but it doesn't go directly to the states.

It still ends up mostly in the states' hands through the federal formula-based fund sources (STP, NHP, CMAQ, HSIP, etc.).

[kalvado]

And that is exactly what I am talking about. You didn't try to include travel distances, traffic counts - just "$1 is not enough!"
If there is a significant administrative/toll collection overhead which eats up most of $1 toll - then idea is not workable. If $30M/year collected on a stretch with 100k traffic count is not enough, then supplementing tolls with some competitive approaches- like expedited approvals for competing roads, f&ck urbanists and EPA, may be required.

But you also used a blanket "but I suspect things wouldn't work if commuter has to pay more than $200-300 a year" statement.  You didn't try to include travel distances either.

Also, if you're considering congestion pricing, what would your upper and lower limits be?  How would it work?  On the NJ Turnpike, congestion pricing is simply EZ Pass customers getting charged the cash rate for a 2 hour period in the morning and evening rush hours (and on weekends).  In Virginia, congestion pricing is a variable toll.  The VA toll has a lot more back-end expenses to worry about, compared to a fixed-time variable toll like the NJ Turnpike uses.

Well, I sort of did - I assumed typical number of 13k miles/year, which corresponds to 50 miles daily if driven only for commute.
Then my statement translates into something like "extra 2 cents/mile". Maybe 3 cents if car is used outside commute on local roads.
This is on a lower side of scale - but  for heavily used roads, if done in addition to gas tax and trying to extract money from those @#*&(^(ers who don't vote here - then probably that is not unreasonable number.
For reference: some semi-random chart of tolls in different locations:

[kalvado]

That's nice and all but it doesn't go directly to the states.

It still ends up mostly in the states' hands through the federal formula-based fund sources (STP, NHP, CMAQ, HSIP, etc.).

Well, last time I checked federal government doesn't do much road construction.
So I would read that as "money go into dedicated state accounts with some oversight, not into bottomless general fund"

[Rothman]

That's nice and all but it doesn't go directly to the states.

It still ends up mostly in the states' hands through the federal formula-based fund sources (STP, NHP, CMAQ, HSIP, etc.).

Well, last time I checked federal government doesn't do much road construction.
So I would read that as "money go into dedicated state accounts with some oversight, not into bottomless general fund"

Uh, no.

Fed funding is a reimbursement program.  States first instance their own funds and feds reimburse as they go up to a state's obligation limitation as set by the Feds.  Money is not just handed down, but is essentially ready to reimburse state expenses.

[epzik8]

I guess it's possible.

[kalvado]

That's nice and all but it doesn't go directly to the states.

It still ends up mostly in the states' hands through the federal formula-based fund sources (STP, NHP, CMAQ, HSIP, etc.).

Well, last time I checked federal government doesn't do much road construction.
So I would read that as "money go into dedicated state accounts with some oversight, not into bottomless general fund"

Uh, no.

Fed funding is a reimbursement program.  States first instance their own funds and feds reimburse as they go up to a state's obligation limitation as set by the Feds.  Money is not just handed down, but is essentially ready to reimburse state expenses.

I would say it doesn't matter. What I am saying, a lot (not all, but a lot) of spending discretion is still in Washington, not in Albany. State cannot ask for reimbursement of funds diverted elsewhere....

[Rothman]

That's nice and all but it doesn't go directly to the states.

It still ends up mostly in the states' hands through the federal formula-based fund sources (STP, NHP, CMAQ, HSIP, etc.).

Well, last time I checked federal government doesn't do much road construction.
So I would read that as "money go into dedicated state accounts with some oversight, not into bottomless general fund"

Uh, no.

Fed funding is a reimbursement program.  States first instance their own funds and feds reimburse as they go up to a state's obligation limitation as set by the Feds.  Money is not just handed down, but is essentially ready to reimburse state expenses.

I would say it doesn't matter. What I am saying, a lot (not all, but a lot) of spending discretion is still in Washington, not in Albany. State cannot ask for reimbursement of funds diverted elsewhere....

No state I know of leaves core federal funds sitting on the table.  That would just be idiotic.

[Brandon]

That's nice and all but it doesn't go directly to the states.

It still ends up mostly in the states' hands through the federal formula-based fund sources (STP, NHP, CMAQ, HSIP, etc.).

Well, last time I checked federal government doesn't do much road construction.
So I would read that as "money go into dedicated state accounts with some oversight, not into bottomless general fund"

Uh, no.

Fed funding is a reimbursement program.  States first instance their own funds and feds reimburse as they go up to a state's obligation limitation as set by the Feds.  Money is not just handed down, but is essentially ready to reimburse state expenses.

I would say it doesn't matter. What I am saying, a lot (not all, but a lot) of spending discretion is still in Washington, not in Albany. State cannot ask for reimbursement of funds diverted elsewhere....

No state I know of leaves core federal funds sitting on the table.  That would just be idiotic.

Wanna bet?  Illinois has done this due to a complete and total lack of matching funds.  Of course, you did say "idiotic".

[Rothman]

That's nice and all but it doesn't go directly to the states.

It still ends up mostly in the states' hands through the federal formula-based fund sources (STP, NHP, CMAQ, HSIP, etc.).

Well, last time I checked federal government doesn't do much road construction.
So I would read that as "money go into dedicated state accounts with some oversight, not into bottomless general fund"

Uh, no.

Fed funding is a reimbursement program.  States first instance their own funds and feds reimburse as they go up to a state's obligation limitation as set by the Feds.  Money is not just handed down, but is essentially ready to reimburse state expenses.

I would say it doesn't matter. What I am saying, a lot (not all, but a lot) of spending discretion is still in Washington, not in Albany. State cannot ask for reimbursement of funds diverted elsewhere....

No state I know of leaves core federal funds sitting on the table.  That would just be idiotic.

Wanna bet?  Illinois has done this due to a complete and total lack of matching funds.  Of course, you did say "idiotic".

On an annual OL basis?  Or were there just projects they didn't want to do?


In short, prove it.

[hbelkins]

No state I know of leaves core federal funds sitting on the table.  That would just be idiotic.

How much is New Hampshire foregoing each year because it doesn't have a seat belt law?

[Duke87]

How much is New Hampshire foregoing each year because it doesn't have a seat belt law?

As far as I can tell, none. But they aren't required to, since there is no federal law withholding funds to any state which does not have a seat belt law. The other 49 states all decided to enact laws to this effect on their own without being given a financial ultimatum.