AARoads Forum

When we think I-80 is out, they keep pulling it back in!

Congress this fall will have to act on renewing the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, and there is talk of modifying it so tolls can be enacted on additional federally funded highways which are currently free routes.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09051/950413-147.stm (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09051/950413-147.stm)

You just can't keep a bad idea down!   :paranoid:

If a law like the one mentioned in the article passes.  "Freeways" may be a thing of the past.   :-o

This is outrageous.  PA will probably become one giant PA Turnpike if this passes.  I can imagine states like NY would not hesitate to toll their roads either.

what idea they might have next? Tolling I-80 with express toll lanes while the current lanes will be "local" lanes :rolleyes: :eyebrow:

Would enough people pay for it to justify building them?

Oy, we do not need another toll road. How are people in the northeast supposed to get to the west? In terms of major routes west:

I-90: Almost completely tolled all the way from Boston, MA to Chicago, IL

I-86/ NY 17: Not tolled. Good southern bypass of the NYS Thruway to get west. Only problem is, it runs into PA, which then runs into OH, which after passing thru Cleveland, turns into the OH Turnpike.

I-84: Not Tolled.

I-80: Not tolled until OH Turnpike. . .for now. This is an essential route from NYC to the west.

I-78: Not tolled, but runs into the Tolled PA Turnpike

I-76: Mostly tolled in PA, then turns into OH Turnpike. Intersects I-80 and you have a chance to go not tolled toward Cincinnati, I think

I-70: Not tolled in MD, turns into PA Turnpike.

Quote from: voyager on February 23, 2009, 07:42:49 PM
Would enough people pay for it to justify building them?

I don't think there's enough traffic on I-80 in PA for "express" and "local" lanes. 

I've been traveling that road for over 40 years (the first dozen as a passenger), and while truck traffic is fairly heavy, auto traffic is very low, except when Penn State has a home football game.

Also, much of the right of way was dug or blasted out of the Pennsylvania mountains and would be very expensive to widen.

So, I'd say no there wouldn't be.  Since congestion is not a problem, everyone would still take the "free" lanes and avoid the tolled ones.

Unlike the urban interstates, the idea to toll I-80 is not to relieve congestion but to generate revenue to pay for I-80's upkeep and other transportation projects in the state.  (Most of the transportation projects are in Philly and Pittsburgh which I-80 goes nowhere near!)

Quote from: yanksfan6129 on February 23, 2009, 08:02:54 PM
I-86/ NY 17: Not tolled. Good southern bypass of the NYS Thruway to get west. Only problem is, it runs into PA, which then runs into OH, which after passing thru Cleveland, turns into the OH Turnpike.

If I-80 is ever tolled, I predict that I-86/NY 17 would get a lot of diversion traffic that currently uses I-80.

On the west side, you'd leave the Ohio turnpike much sooner.  On the east side, future I-86 intersects I-84 which would get the New England traffic and New York traffic could take the last few miles of the NY Thruway from where NY 17 meets it.

I don't think the money would even go to transportation.  If PA would just stop using the road money for parks and beaches they probably wouldn't even need to think about tolling I-80.

Quote from: deanej on February 22, 2009, 06:06:32 PM
This is outrageous.  PA will probably become one giant PA Turnpike if this passes.

It almost became that before Eisenhower enacted the Highway Act of 1956.

I doubt there is anything to worry about considering how long this idea has been discussed and yet it has not come to fruition.

Quote from: PAHighways on February 23, 2009, 09:02:51 PM
It almost became that before Eisenhower enacted the Highway Act of 1956.

I doubt there is anything to worry about considering how long this idea has been discussed and yet it has not come to fruition.

As much as I like to complain about things (see above posts), I think PAHighways may be right.  I-80 was originally proposed as a northern Turnpike and ever since the thing has been completed as a free highway, someone has wanted to turn it into a toll road!

I think the only reason it's failed before is because it's currently unlawful.  Politicians will probably love the idea of putting tolls on currently free roads - what a great way to get more money while seemingly imposing any burden on your constituents (after all, when they talk about stuff like this they NEVER mention their own area).

Quote from: deanej on February 24, 2009, 04:03:05 PM
I think the only reason it's failed before is because it's currently unlawful.  Politicians will probably love the idea of putting tolls on currently free roads - what a great way to get more money while seemingly imposing any burden on your constituents (after all, when they talk about stuff like this they NEVER mention their own area).

I know.  Every time you have a new tolling proposal you hear something about how most of the traffic is from out of state and they should/will actually be paying the highway.  Blah, blah, blah

luckely I never travel I-80 in PA  :-D

The ONLY state that can use the 'out of state' argument is Wyoming with I-80.

Otherwise, it's an equal proposition. Throw in the fact that it's federal money that pays the vast majority of interstate construction, and the argument, honestly, doesn't hold water.

States are afraid to raise the fuel taxes on the whole because it looks bad 'raising taxes'. Because, no matter the reasoning, putting up 'toll booths' to most people doesn't equate 'tax'. It simply becomes an 'expense' that only the people using it will pay.

What people don't realize is, that if you live in Pennsylvania, and you never drive one mile on I-80, you've benefited from its existence. Traffic diversion, transportation of goods and services, etc.

Also, most of the wear and tear of a road is from truck drivers, and they pay for the road many times above and beyond what a car will ever pay. And regardless of where they buy diesel, they pay the fuel tax for the state they use it in.

Sykotyk

I found this on http://www.tollroadsnews.com (http://www.tollroadsnews.com)

Bill to stop tolls on PA/I-80 could hit many interstate toll projects (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/4019)

The fight continues...

If you scroll down to the bottom, you'll see that North Carolina is building part of their outer loop as NC 540 instead of I-540.  That brings up the possibility of "de-designating" I-80 in PA and then tolling it. 

If PA wants to de-designate I-80 fine, but they should still have to repay the federal highway money used over the last 40+ years on the road.

Quote from: froggie on March 04, 2009, 12:48:25 PM
I don't see FHWA allowing de-designation of I-80, not without a specific Act of Congress.

Neither do I, but I won't be surprised if PA tries it.

So PA wants to have I-80 truncated to somewhere in Ohio just so they can toll it?

If they're serious about this, can we try to de-designate Pennsylvania as a state? See how they like it...

QuoteIf they're serious about this, can we try to de-designate Pennsylvania as a state? See how they like it...

Well, it's not a state, anyway.  It's a "commonwealth." (like Virginia, Massachusetts, Kentucky and Puerto Rico Territory)  :sombrero:

Okay, then, can we trade PA for Puerto Rico with regard to representation in Congress? :P

QuoteOkay, then, can we trade PA for Puerto Rico with regard to representation in Congress? :P

ROFL!!!  :spin: :bread:

I don't see what PA even WANTS to toll I-80.  It would cost so much to install the booths and pay collectors that they wouldn't see a single cent of the toll money for a long time.  It certainly wouldn't solve their current issues.

QuoteI don't see what PA even WANTS to toll I-80.  It would cost so much to install the booths and pay collectors that they wouldn't see a single cent of the toll money for a long time.  It certainly wouldn't solve their current issues.

Well, the most recent plan is to only toll at 8 - 10 locations (not all 60+ exits!) and to use electronic tolling. See http://www.paturnpike.com/i80/ (http://www.paturnpike.com/i80/)

I think the idea is that they plan to use the toll money collected above debt service to first pay for I-80's maintenance in the state and any money over that to pay for other transportation projects.

However, like you said, deanej, it is debatable whether there would be any money over debt service.

Well, electronic tolling would make it impossible for some people to use the road.  Namely, people that don't have ez-pass and are don't like the idea of getting mailed a bill for the toll.

The part of the plan that is supposed to calm local residents and to get more using EZ-Pass is that local residents, like my dad, wouldn't be charged for the first toll barrier they pass through, only the second on.

But, I agree that a significant number of people, myself included would try to avoid using the road.  Plus, the amount of traffic on I-80 would decrease.  A lot of I-80's current traffic is using 80 to avoid the tolls on the PA Turnpike and the NYS Thruway.  If I-80 were ever tolled, some traffic would divert to those routes because toll fees would no longer be an issue in deciding the route.  Also, I think that New York's Southern Tier Expressway (I-86, NY 17) would see increased traffic as it would be the only long distance freeway between Ohio and New England that would still be free.

Quote from: deanej on March 31, 2009, 04:03:02 PM
I don't see what PA even WANTS to toll I-80.

Take the money acquired from tolls and use it to supplement PennDOT's budget.  However, as I said before, the idea has been floated basically since the last mile of concrete was poured and it still hasn't happened.  There is no need getting worked up over nothing.

The general idea behind the I-80 tolling is for PennDOT to charge the PTC a stiff rental fee (about $400 million annually, IIRC) for the right to charge tolls on I-80.  The deal was structured this way because PennDOT and the PTC were required by FHWA to show that all of the money collected in tolls on I-80 would go either to improvements on I-80 or to expenses inextricably linked with operating it as a toll road.  FHWA saw through this financial chicanery, so it is not surprising PennDOT and the PTC are trying to get the rules of the game changed.

It has long been argued that the real reason for tolling I-80 is additional subsidy for SEPTA.  In its last submission to FHWA, PennDOT and the PTC noted that Act 44 (which IIRC authorized state-level pursuit of the I-80 tolling idea) specifically prohibited the proceeds of I-80 tolling from being spent on transit, but in reality I think SEPTA would have gotten enlarged subsidy through teeming and lading with other highway monies.

The idea has already been discussed ad nauseam.

It wasn't just SEPTA that supposedly was in line, but also Allegheny County's Port Authority.

PA/I-80 anti-toll application bill rejected in state house (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/4129)

The latest in relatively meaningless gestures on this ongoing soap opera.

It is meaningless because,

1) PENNDOT and the PTC have no advertised plans to resubmit the tolling application.
2) Even if it had passed, who says another bill couldn't have repealed it or the courts struck the bill down?

I think tolling is not a bad thing. Many people spend their loose change on vending machines buying potato chips and beef jerky. You want good roads and more new roads, you have to open the wallet. Many people take for granted the maintenance that is actually needed. Believe me I live in Michigan and drive I-94 everyday. Drivers can not depend on state budgets alone to cover the tab on road repairs. Leif Vanderwall

Quote from: leifvanderwall on May 07, 2009, 11:53:11 PMMany people spend their loose change on vending machines buying potato chips and beef jerky. You want good roads and more new roads, you have to open the wallet.

They'd rather open their wallets for the chips and jerky.

My standard answer to the "Why not pay tolls" argument is, "Why not just raise the gasoline tax?"  Tolls are actually quite an expensive way to fund new infrastructure--the per-mile cost of using even an older toll road maintained by a public authority (typically around 5c-10c) is still about two to five times what you pay in gasoline tax in a car which gets 30 MPG and is driven largely in a state where the gasoline tax is about 50c per gallon.

I don't buy the argument that raising the gas tax is "political suicide" or "the political third rail."  Political decisions require courage, and very few politicians can expect to creep to the top by being cautious and avoiding the difficult decisions.  Bill Clinton was voted out of office (as Arkansas governor) for raising the gasoline tax, and Obama espoused risky positions at a time when he was behind in the polls and they could easily have sunk his campaign.

^ I think raising the vehicle licensing fee would be better.  Since it is only paid once a year or less, people are more likely not to notice/remember it :biggrin:, whereas a gas tax increase will be remembered every time you drive pass a gas station.

If politicians could raise the gas tax without it being announced, they'd probably do it because how many of us know how much our state gas tax is?

IMHO The biggest problem with a gas tax is that it is a flat amount regardless of the price of gas.  Now, if the gas tax was done as a "sales tax" or percentage of the price then the tax would automatically rise as prices rise.

The only state that I knew of that did anything like that IIRC was Indiana, they imposed their state sales tax on top of the gas tax.  I have no idea if that is still true, if it ever was.

There are other states where there is an ad valorem component to motor fuel taxation, generally by assessing a sales tax in addition to the excise tax.  California is one of them and this is one reason why the marginal gas tax was about 50c-60c in the summer of 2008 when gasoline cost about $4 a gallon.

The main argument for basing highway funding on an excise tax on motor fuel, as opposed to an ad valorem tax or licensing fees, is that the amount paid in tax is roughly proportionate to use.  The tax is collected either off the rack or at the terminal in many states, which limits collection costs and opportunities for evasion, and the tax is paid continuously in small amounts at every fillup rather than in an annual lump sum which the paycheck-to-paycheck folk find hard to budget for.  It really is very hard to beat excise taxes on motor fuels as a funding mechanism for highways.  The only improvements I would suggest would be indexation so that the purchasing power of the tax remains consistent with inflation, and an easier method of fuel and mileage proration for interstate trucking.

I have never seen a detailed analysis or defense of the position that raising the gasoline tax is or has to be the third rail of statehouse politics.  My best guess is that the public tends to assume that gasoline tax revenues go into the state general fund and are used for purposes which have nothing to do with highways (or other forms of social investment like education).  Therefore, when a state legislator is reported as having voted to increase the gasoline tax, people think, "Throw the bum out and keep the money."

In actuality, a substantial proportion (if not a majority) of states require that gasoline tax revenues go off-budget and are used only for highway-related purposes, and in those states it is relatively easy to get an increase in the gasoline tax.  But even in these states it is increasingly common to market tax increases by publishing lists of projects which will be funded out of the additional revenues.  The case in point is Washington State's nickel tax.

Rendell:  Congress Should Remove Restrictions on Tolling of Interstates (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09148/973271-147.stm)

http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/4180 (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/4180)  Tollroadsnews article on PA reapplying to get I-80 tolled again.   :-/ :no: :no: :no: :angry: :poke:

Quote from: PAHighways on May 28, 2009, 05:44:23 PM
Rendell:  Congress Should Remove Restrictions on Tolling of Interstates (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09148/973271-147.stm)

Unfortunately this could get passed, as many congressmen don't care about an issue at all unless it affects them and it would raise revenue.

Here is an article detailing why the Feds declined the I-80 tolling proposition last fall and why it won't succeed under the current Act 44 legislation.

Problems for Penn Pike in getting Feds OK to toll I-80 in legal counsel Memo (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/4188)

Turnpike Plans Second Pitch for I-80 Tolls (http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-a11_5tolls.6969181jul25,0,4075853.story)

There's only three direct free accesses for eastbound traffic on interstates to the northeast:

I-81/I-78
I-80
I-86/NY-17/I-88 (which then exits you to the Mass Pike)

Take away I-80, and you'll see more traffic following I-86 to NY-17 or I-88 to get to the northeast.

Just raise the fuel tax if you need to fund rebuilding I-80 and funding transit projects. But, politicians are too chicken to raise taxes 'directly', so instead they end-around a usage tax.

Sykotyk

Quote from: Sykotyk on July 26, 2009, 12:17:03 AM
There's only three direct free accesses for eastbound traffic on interstates to the northeast:

I-81/I-78
I-80
I-86/NY-17/I-88 (which then exits you to the Mass Pike)

Take away I-80, and you'll see more traffic following I-86 to NY-17 or I-88 to get to the northeast.

Just raise the fuel tax if you need to fund rebuilding I-80 and funding transit projects. But, politicians are too chicken to raise taxes 'directly', so instead they end-around a usage tax.

Sykotyk

I've said the same thing about I-86.  And, the politicians try to "justify" this as I-80 in PA carries much more through traffic than local traffic. i.e. The people paying are not the people voting!  :pan:

I wonder if PA will ever realize that the only way to get I-80 tolls approved will be to abandon the reason for wanting them in the first place: to use I-80 as a cash cow.  Other realizations that PA will probably never have is the fact that constructing the booths and paying toll operators will nullify a lot of the revenue they hope to generate; it costs money to raise money, something that government at all levels fail to realize.

Quote from: deanej on July 26, 2009, 02:19:10 PM
Other realizations that PA will probably never have is the fact that constructing the booths and paying toll operators will nullify a lot of the revenue they hope to generate; it costs money to raise money, something that government at all levels fail to realize.

The latest plans on the PA Turnpike website (www.paturnpike.com (http://www.paturnpike.com) - The I-80 Project) have booths and use all-electronic tolling.  However, while the costs of this type of operation is less than manned booths, it is still significant.

So ez-pass would be required if PA were ever to succeed.  It will not be good for people without a transponder; I know on ON 407 there are significant fees if you don't have one to cover the costs of mailing one.

Next year marks the 40th anniversary of the completion of I-80/Keystone Shortway, and the idea of tolling it has been talked about just as long.  My feeling is if it was going to happen, it would have already.  Something tells me when the golden anniversary rolls around, they'll still be talking about tolling.

Quote from: PAHighways on July 26, 2009, 06:43:37 PM
Next year marks the 40th anniversary of the completion of I-80/Keystone Shortway, and the idea of tolling it has been talked about just as long.  My feeling is if it was going to happen, it would have already.  Something tells me when the golden anniversary rolls around, they'll still be talking about tolling.

And, before the Interstate Highway Act was passed, the state officials were thinking of building I-80 or something like it (possibly along US 6) as another part of the PA Turnpike System.  I bet state officials wish they had done that back then!  Because if it had been a toll road from the beginning like the PA Turnpike, then they could siphon off tolls from it just like they are doing with the existing system.

Quote from: mightyace on July 26, 2009, 08:30:38 PMAnd, before the Interstate Highway Act was passed, the state officials were thinking of building I-80 or something like it (possibly along US 6) as another part of the PA Turnpike System.

The PTC wanted their Keystone Shortway, or officially referred to as the Sharon to Stroudsburg Lateral Connection, to follow the path of current 80.  The state wanted to put an Interstate along 6, which would have pushed east-west traffic far to the north and off a tolled shortcut.  Preliminary work had begun on Keystone Shortway, so much so that it was indicated as under construction on one of the late 1950's Turnpike maps.

Quote from: mightyace on July 26, 2009, 08:30:38 PMI bet state officials wish they had done that back then!  Because if it had been a toll road from the beginning like the PA Turnpike, then they could siphon off tolls from it just like they are doing with the existing system.

Or siphon it off one of their other tolled Interstates.

The never ending saga continues:

Pennsylvania to submit new application to Feds to toll I-80 (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/4364)

Notice that the "I-80" shield on the map is in the shape of a U.S. route?  :pan:

I'd love to see how the Pennsylvania Turnpike plans to collect tolls on US 80.  Perhaps someone should tell them that US 80 is quite far away to the south. :-D

Someone needs to smack Ed Rendell on the head with a rolled up newspaper. NO. NO. STOP THAT. QUIT TRYING TO TOLL I-80. BAD RENDELL. BAD. NO.

Quote from: Scott5114 on October 02, 2009, 08:08:44 PM
Someone needs to smack Ed Rendell on the head with a rolled up newspaper. NO. NO. STOP THAT. QUIT TRYING TO TOLL I-80. BAD RENDELL. BAD. NO.

:rofl:

That's interesting comparing Gov. Rendell to a bad dog.  But, I think that it is disrespectful, to dogs that is!  :-D

Pa. resurrects plans to put tolls on I-80 (http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20091012/NEWS/91012004/-1/updates/Pa.-resurrects-plans-to-put-tolls-on-I-80)

Two Sides Rev Their Engines for New I-80 Toll Attempt (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09285/1004864-454.stm)

Even as a vocal opponent of the proposal myself, I find the "study" relating to "increased accidents" on side roads used by travellers to avoid tolls a bit of a stretch.

Remind me to get the torches and pitchforks, and maybe a poster of Ed Rendell with bullet holes

I love Ed Rendell, why do we need the pitchforks!?

They are just excited in Wyoming to toll I-80 over there. Which state do you think will make more money tolling I-80? Wyoming or Pennsylvania?

Quote from: yanksfan6129 on October 12, 2009, 08:12:29 PM
I love Ed Rendell, why do we need the pitchforks!?

Tolling 80 is his fight, so if he wins, we know who to protest

QuoteThey are just excited in Wyoming to toll I-80 over there. Which state do you think will make more money tolling I-80? Wyoming or Pennsylvania?

Give Wyoming at least a little credit.  Unlike Pennsylvania, they're only planning on using I-80 tolls to maintain/improve I-80.

Quote from: froggie on October 13, 2009, 08:37:23 AM

QuoteThey are just excited in Wyoming to toll I-80 over there. Which state do you think will make more money tolling I-80? Wyoming or Pennsylvania?

Give Wyoming at least a little credit.  Unlike Pennsylvania, they're only planning on using I-80 tolls to maintain/improve I-80.

Yes, I would not be so opposed to tolling I-80 in PA if the money would only be used to maintain I-80!

Report Backs I-80 Toll Foes (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09286/1005050-454.stm)

Quote from: mightyace on October 13, 2009, 06:02:50 PM

Quote from: froggie on October 13, 2009, 08:37:23 AM

QuoteThey are just excited in Wyoming to toll I-80 over there. Which state do you think will make more money tolling I-80? Wyoming or Pennsylvania?

Give Wyoming at least a little credit.  Unlike Pennsylvania, they're only planning on using I-80 tolls to maintain/improve I-80.

Yes, I would not be so opposed to tolling I-80 in PA if the money would only be used to maintain I-80!

It would be nice if raising fuel taxes were politically feasible, wouldn't it be?

Quote from: TXtoNJ on October 14, 2009, 07:39:17 PM

Quote from: mightyace on October 13, 2009, 06:02:50 PM

Quote from: froggie on October 13, 2009, 08:37:23 AM

QuoteThey are just excited in Wyoming to toll I-80 over there. Which state do you think will make more money tolling I-80? Wyoming or Pennsylvania?

Give Wyoming at least a little credit.  Unlike Pennsylvania, they're only planning on using I-80 tolls to maintain/improve I-80.

Yes, I would not be so opposed to tolling I-80 in PA if the money would only be used to maintain I-80!

It would be nice if raising fuel taxes were politically feasible, wouldn't it be?

IMHO
Yes, a lot of this could be avoided if fuel taxes were done like a sales tax (a percentage of the gas price) rather than a fixed amount per gallon.  I know some states may do it that way, but they're in the minority.  I also realize that this wouldn't be a cure-all if transportation needs outstripped the growth in revenue or if gas prices dropped substantially, but it would eliminate the element of inflation knocking down the value of gas tax dollars collected.

As much as I'd hate to pay more at the pump, having a gas tax that more accurately reflects inflation is probably something that is needed.

But I completely disagree with doing fuel taxes like a sales tax. If some shit goes down in the Middle East, or some natural disaster that disrupts production and spikes prices, then that "pinch" is compounded by the fact that the tax will be higher too.
I also think that a fixed-per-gallon would create a more stable/predictable budget...  Granted, a state can't know how much gas will be purchased, since there are times when travel is way down, and with an increasing number of more fuel-efficent vehicles; but I think that would still be more stable than the tax depending on gas prices.
With the exception of some sort of true mileage-based tax (And I'm really against the notion of some sort of GPS device tracking where I drive for road-tax purposes), a per-gallon tax that reflects inflation is probably the best way to go. (At least that's, like, my opinion, man)

As for I-80, while I'm not all that gung-ho about tolling it, I can't say that I'm against it either.  If I have to pay over $8 to use "our" E-W interstate (I-76/PA Tpk) to get 100 miles (Monroeville <-> Breezewood), I'm not going to shed any tears if people in the Northern part of the state have to shell out $8 for 100 miles of I-80 either.

Quote from: Mr_Northside on October 15, 2009, 09:39:48 AM
As for I-80, while I'm not all that gung-ho about tolling it, I can't say that I'm against it either.  If I have to pay over $8 to use "our" E-W interstate (I-76/PA Tpk) to get 100 miles (Monroeville <-> Breezewood), I'm not going to shed any tears if people in the Northern part of the state have to shell out $8 for 100 miles of I-80 either.

I understand the logic of tolling a road used primarily by long-distance, out-of-state traffic. The logic is similar to instituting a local lodging tax. That tax is paid by out-of-towners who spend the night and is used to fund local projects and services used by the local populace. I've got no problems with that. If you can extract money from passers-through who are using your facility but not contributing to its upkeep, more power to you.

Since I-80 really connects no major Pennsylvania towns and is mostly a through route for motorists driving between NYC and the midwest, it's a prime candidate for tolls.

Quote from: Mr_Northside on October 15, 2009, 09:39:48 AMIf I have to pay over $8 to use "our" E-W interstate (I-76/PA Tpk) to get 100 miles (Monroeville <-> Breezewood), I'm not going to shed any tears if people in the Northern part of the state have to shell out $8 for 100 miles of I-80 either.

A friend of mine who lives near Clarion was complaining to me about the idea of putting tolls on 80.  I told him "Cry me a river.  I currently have to pay a toll to go east or west."  He has E-ZPass for his and his wife's monthly trek to the "big city," so he is good to go for a tolled 80.

Quote from: PAHighways on October 15, 2009, 09:10:23 PM
A friend of mine who lives near Clarion was complaining to me about the idea of putting tolls on 80.  I told him "Cry me a river.  I currently have to pay a toll to go east or west."  He has E-ZPass for his and his wife's monthly trek to the "big city," so he is good to go for a tolled 80.

Once again, I have only a small problem with paying tolls on I-80 to keep up I-80 but why the %$$##^%#$$#$ should the people of rural northern Pennsylania pay so that the folks in Philly and Pittsburgh can ridge their trolleys and busses?????

But, if PA wants tolls on I-80 they should have built it that way in the first place!  Since they didn't tough <manure>!  :pan:

Quote from: hbelkins on October 15, 2009, 11:16:32 AM
I understand the logic of tolling a road used primarily by long-distance, out-of-state traffic. The logic is similar to instituting a local lodging tax. That tax is paid by out-of-towners who spend the night and is used to fund local projects and services used by the local populace. I've got no problems with that. If you can extract money from passers-through who are using your facility but not contributing to its upkeep, more power to you.

Since I-80 really connects no major Pennsylvania towns and is mostly a through route for motorists driving between NYC and the midwest, it's a prime candidate for tolls.

I have a big problem with soaking travelers simply because they're traveling.  What you say when you do that is "We don't want you!"

And, when I travel I-80, I have to buy gas along the way so how the #(*)#@**#*# am I not helping to pay for it????

EDIT:
And, by the way, if they ever succeed in this tolling project, I'll travel to my Dad's house via I-81 through Virginia and up US 11-15.  The mileage is virtually identical, motels are cheaper and no $20 in tolls.  So, the good people of Virginia will get my money instead of those in Sharon, Clarion, Dubois, Clearfield, etc. or Ohio or Kentucky.  So, I'll have only 120 miles in PA instead of 240 and will spend less in the state when I'm there.  Way to help the economy.  :pan:

Quote from: mightyace on October 15, 2009, 09:45:48 PM

I have a big problem with soaking travelers simply because they're traveling.  What you say when you do that is "We don't want you!"

as opposed to not wanting the locals?  Someone has to end up "unwanted" to pay for road improvements.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 15, 2009, 10:02:20 PM

Quote from: mightyace on October 15, 2009, 09:45:48 PM

I have a big problem with soaking travelers simply because they're traveling.  What you say when you do that is "We don't want you!"

as opposed to not wanting the locals?  Someone has to end up "unwanted" to pay for road improvements.

No, the locals and the travelers should be treated identically.

As Declaration of Independence says, "... that all men are created equal ..."

And, a tax/fee targeting travelers is "taxation without representation."

Why the #*#**# did we bother to break away from England if we're throwing away everything they fought for?

Quote from: mightyace on October 15, 2009, 09:42:22 PMOnce again, I have only a small problem with paying tolls on I-80 to keep up I-80 but why the %$$##^%#$$#$ should the people of rural northern Pennsylania pay so that the folks in Philly and Pittsburgh can ridge their trolleys and busses?????

Why should I pay more in gas than I already do as has been suggested?

Transit was only a part of the reason for implementing tolls.  The main reason was to fund PennDOT's plans to rebuild the 22,300-some structurally deficient bridges across the state so an I-35W doesn't happen here.

Quote from: mightyace on October 15, 2009, 09:42:22 PMBut, if PA wants tolls on I-80 they should have built it that way in the first place!  Since they didn't tough <manure>!  :pan:

They wanted to build it that way originally (Sharon to Stroudsburg Lateral Connection), but the lure of 90% Federal funds was too much.

Quote from: PAHighways on October 15, 2009, 10:14:16 PM

Quote from: mightyace on October 15, 2009, 09:42:22 PMOnce again, I have only a small problem with paying tolls on I-80 to keep up I-80 but why the %$$##^%#$$#$ should the people of rural northern Pennsylania pay so that the folks in Philly and Pittsburgh can ridge their trolleys and busses?????

Why should I pay more in gas than I already do as has been suggested?

I can understand that, but everyone in PA would be doing that.

Quote from: PAHighways on October 15, 2009, 10:14:16 PM
Transit was only a part of the reason for implementing tolls.  The main reason was to fund PennDOT's plans to rebuild the 22,300-some structurally deficient bridges across the state so an I-35W doesn't happen here.

But, still, why should people in Bloomsburg, Sharon, Williamsport, etc. have to pay so that someone in Philadelphia or Pittsburgh can have an easier way to work?

Quote from: PAHighways on October 15, 2009, 10:14:16 PM

Quote from: mightyace on October 15, 2009, 09:42:22 PMBut, if PA wants tolls on I-80 they should have built it that way in the first place!  Since they didn't tough <manure>!  :pan:

They wanted to build it that way originally (Sharon to Stroudsburg Lateral Connection), but the lure of 90% Federal funds was too much.

Well, they made their bed 50+ years ago, and now they don't want to lay in it anymore?

Quote from: mightyace on October 15, 2009, 09:45:48 PM
And, by the way, if they ever succeed in this tolling project, I'll travel to my Dad's house via I-81 through Virginia and up US 11-15.  The mileage is virtually identical, motels are cheaper and no $20 in tolls.  So, the good people of Virginia will get my money instead of those in Sharon, Clarion, Dubois, Clearfield, etc. or Ohio or Kentucky.  So, I'll have only 120 miles in PA instead of 240 and will spend less in the state when I'm there.  Way to help the economy.  :pan:

And you'll get to enjoy truck-choked I-81, Virginia's 65 mph speed limit instead of 70 mph in other states, and have to endure Virginia's ban on radar detectors.

Quote from: mightyace on October 15, 2009, 10:05:41 PM
No, the locals and the travelers should be treated identically.

As Declaration of Independence says, "... that all men are created equal ..."

And, a tax/fee targeting travelers is "taxation without representation."

Why the #*#**# did we bother to break away from England if we're throwing co everything they fought for?

agreed on the principles of the Declaration, but I do believe Thomas Jefferson and friends would have noted the necessity of tolling people from out of state for using the in-state roads.  If a truck is driving from Seattle to New York, then they should pay for the concrete they wear down in all the intervening roads.

Quote from: mightyace on October 15, 2009, 10:25:35 PMBut, still, why should people in Bloomsburg, Sharon, Williamsport, etc. have to pay so that someone in Philadelphia or Pittsburgh can have an easier way to work?

People in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia have to pay for transit companies in rural areas that receive subsidies from PennDOT for operations. 

Quote from: mightyace on October 15, 2009, 09:42:22 PMWell, they made their bed 50+ years ago, and now they don't want to lay in it anymore?

People change their minds all of the time.  However as I have said, the state changed its mind almost as soon as 80 opened.

Quote from: PAHighways on October 15, 2009, 10:50:31 PM

Quote from: mightyace on October 15, 2009, 10:25:35 PMBut, still, why should people in Bloomsburg, Sharon, Williamsport, etc. have to pay so that someone in Philadelphia or Pittsburgh can have an easier way to work?

People in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia have to pay for transit companies in rural areas that receive subsidies from PennDOT for operations. 

What transit companies?

Bloomsburg's transit company closed over 40 years ago.

EDIT:

And the ones in Hazleton, Williamsport, Wilkes-Barre and Scranton are bloody jokes that aren't even good for basic transportation.

Quote from: mightyace on October 15, 2009, 10:53:30 PMWhat transit companies?

Bloomsburg's transit company closed over 40 years ago.

There are others, such as the one that services my mostly rural county.

Well, I guess we've beat this one to death!

I've said all that I've needed to say and I understand where y'all are coming from even though, obviously, I vehemently disagree.

Now we get to see what those who really have a say in it do!

P.S. Please note that I've changed my avatar and slogan.

yep, we shall see how political power wields itself ... as far as I know, the little guy is far, far, far away from being represented!

whoo cynicism!

Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 15, 2009, 11:25:51 PM
yep, we shall see how political power wields itself ... as far as I know, the little guy is far, far, far away from being represented!

whoo cynicism!

Now, THAT, I can agree on!  :ded:

Quote from: PAHighwaysWhy should I pay more in gas than I already do as has been suggested?

Perhaps because existing gas taxes do not cover the cost of maintaining/rebuilding roads?

Your question, Jeff, could be interpreted as boiling down to a fundamental issue:  people want good roads, but don't want to pay for them.

Quote from: PAHighwaysTransit was only a part of the reason for implementing tolls.  The main reason was to fund PennDOT's plans to rebuild the 22,300-some structurally deficient bridges across the state so an I-35W doesn't happen here.

Minnesota wanted the same thing, especially since I-35W happened there.  But they didn't go socking out-of-state travelers with tolls to pay for roads they weren't driving on.  They raised the gas tax.

True, a gas tax increase in PA would hit local PA drivers.  But since its their roads the gas tax would go to, that should be a fair trade.  Furthermore, you'd still collect from the out-of-state I-80 drivers, since its very difficult to cross east-west through PA without having to fill up at least once.

But the main issue, IMO, isn't about tolling I-80 per se.  It's that state officials (the governor and the legislature in particular) want to siphon off I-80 tolls to pay for other projects elsewhere.  Nevermind that such is against the Federal law that tolling I-80 would fall under.  If Rendell and the Legislature would just bone up to this, and concede that any I-80 tolls would ONLY PAY FOR I-80 PROJECTS, I think you'd have a lot more support for the proposal.

If they do so, and I-80 tolls only pay for I-80, I support it.  As long as the plan siphons off I-80 tolls elsewhere, I'm opposed and will probably do something similar to mightyace when I travel north (like divert into Jersey).

Quote from: hbelkinsAnd you'll get to enjoy truck-choked I-81, Virginia's 65 mph speed limit instead of 70 mph in other states, and have to endure Virginia's ban on radar detectors.

While I agree on the 65 MPH limit thing (should mostly be 70 for consistency with TN and WV), it's not like he wouldn't hit 65 MPH limits in other states (Ohio if he goes that way, and PA of course).  And no sympathy from me on the radar detector ban...

It is true that any highway funding mechanism has the potential to result in a division into winners and losers, but even so there are strong drawbacks to allowing PennDOT and the PTC to toll I-80 even if we allowed the precedent thus created to be used by any other state to apply tolls to roads which it believed were of interest primarily or exclusively to out-of-state travellers.

*  Tolls cost more to collect than motor fuel taxes and also raise a hurdle to economic use of the highway on which tolls are charged.  Tolling arrangements also vary widely state-by-state, while motor fuel taxes are collected more or less in the same way nationwide (although the specific amounts and their disposition varies from state to state).  If every state imposed tolls on I-80 on the grounds that it was of interest largely to out-of-state travellers, users of I-80 in general would pay more (not just in money but also in the frictional costs of dealing with multiple charging systems) in order for I-80 to be operated at less than its economic capacity.  This might be beneficial to transit users in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh if the law were changed to allow them to be subsidized by I-80 tolls, but how would it be beneficial to the national economy as a whole?

*  How much does Pennsylvania really lose by operating I-80 for the benefit primarily of out-of-state traffic?  4R work on I-80 attracts 90% federal funding (IM), while capacity expansion--which is only minimally necessary--attracts 80% federal funding (NH).  This leaves PennDOT responsible just for ordinary maintenance, which is arguably fair since I-80 is beneficial to residents in northern Pennsylvania.

Even in the US we do not give a homeowner the option of paying just for the length of road in front of his house while telling the rest of the world to go to hell, so it is hard to see why Pennsylvania should be able to opt out of paying for network utility which is, ultimately, beneficial to Pennsylvanians as to residents of the US at large.

Quote from: froggie on October 16, 2009, 08:41:20 AM

Quote from: hbelkinsAnd you'll get to enjoy truck-choked I-81, Virginia's 65 mph speed limit instead of 70 mph in other states, and have to endure Virginia's ban on radar detectors.

While I agree on the 65 MPH limit thing (should mostly be 70 for consistency with TN and WV), it's not like he wouldn't hit 65 MPH limits in other states (Ohio if he goes that way, and PA of course).  And no sympathy from me on the radar detector ban...

Well, my brother has done a lot of traveling between Bloomsburg and Nashville this year and has used both I-40/I-81/US11-15 routing and the I-65/I-71/I-76/I-80 routing, and in his opinion, the trucks were less of a problem on I-81 than on I-80.  As this is a subjective observation, as always, your mileage may vary.

Quote from: mightyace on October 16, 2009, 04:07:41 PM
Well, my brother has done a lot of traveling between Bloomsburg and Nashville this year and has used both I-40/I-81/US11-15 routing and the I-65/I-71/I-76/I-80 routing, and in his opinion, the trucks were less of a problem on I-81 than on I-80.  As this is a subjective observation, as always, your mileage may vary.

I don't remember there being a lot of truck traffic on I-80 in Pennsylvania, but have been told that my observation may have been atypical.

For a lightly-traveled route, your brother might want to try I-65/Bluegrass Parkway/I-64/I-79/I-68/US 220/I-99/I-80.

QuoteWell, my brother has done a lot of traveling between Bloomsburg and Nashville this year and has used both I-40/I-81/US11-15 routing and the I-65/I-71/I-76/I-80 routing, and in his opinion, the trucks were less of a problem on I-81 than on I-80.  As this is a subjective observation, as always, your mileage may vary.

Based on those routings, you'd have more 70 MPH along the 40/81 routing.

Quote from: froggie on October 16, 2009, 08:41:20 AM

Quote from: PAHighwaysWhy should I pay more in gas than I already do as has been suggested?

Perhaps because existing gas taxes do not cover the cost of maintaining/rebuilding roads?

Your question, Jeff, could be interpreted as boiling down to a fundamental issue:  people want good roads, but don't want to pay for them.

I don't mind paying my share of the tax.  There was an idea floated back in 2006 to halt collecting the tax when prices skyrocketed which I was against (http://www.pahighways.com/blog/archives/4-No-Gas-Taxation,-Thanks-to-Represenation.html).  However, the easiest answer is always to raise taxes which they wanted to do later in 2006 (http://www.pahighways.com/blog/archives/13-Pay-Now-or-Pay-Later.html).

Anyway, as I have said before, next year marks 40 years since I-80 was completed border-to-border and for just as long there has been talk of implementing tolls.  Something tells me we will still be hearing about tolls coming to it 40 years from now.

State Files I-80 Tolling Addendum to Answer Federal Questions (http://www.paturnpike.com/Press/2009/20091030111823.htm)

Quote from: PAHighways on October 17, 2009, 01:09:36 AM
here has been talk of implementing tolls.  Something tells me we will still be hearing about tolls coming to it 40 years from now.

Here we formally go with try #10,001 to toll I-80.  :banghead:

Seriously, is there any timetable to get a response on this?

I hadn't seen the bit that you'd get the first toll booth free of charge. That ought to satisfy the concerns of locals, since I-80 is primarily a through route for out-of-state drivers and doesn't really serve any major Pennsylvania cities.

Quote from: hbelkins on October 30, 2009, 11:15:22 PMI hadn't seen the bit that you'd get the first toll booth free of charge. That ought to satisfy the concerns of locals, since I-80 is primarily a through route for out-of-state drivers and doesn't really serve any major Pennsylvania cities.

The plan is 10 plazas at 30 mile intervals, so if you're traveling between one exit and the next you won't pay a toll...unless of course the next exit is beyond a toll plaza.

Quote from: PAHighways on October 31, 2009, 12:43:57 AM

Quote from: hbelkins on October 30, 2009, 11:15:22 PMI hadn't seen the bit that you'd get the first toll booth free of charge. That ought to satisfy the concerns of locals, since I-80 is primarily a through route for out-of-state drivers and doesn't really serve any major Pennsylvania cities.

The plan is 10 plazas at 30 mile intervals, so if you're traveling between one exit and the next you won't pay a toll...unless of course the next exit is beyond a toll plaza.

Here's where they want to put the gantries, assuming they succeed.

http://www.paturnpike.com/i80/tolling/locations.aspx (http://www.paturnpike.com/i80/tolling/locations.aspx)

Left them feedback on their comment form (http://www.paturnpike.com/I80/community/opinionandfeedback.aspx).  Especially if you're a PA resident, I suggest everyone do the same.

PA/I-80 toll valuation consultant runs jails, does deceptive name change (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/4427)

The PTC is not helping their case by working with a company not experienced in the right field, even if they are competent.

PA House GOP Leader Seeks Rejection of I-80 Toll Plan (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09314/1012345-100.stm)

Funeral For a Commission (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/guests/s_655312.html) - former PA Congressman John Peterson gives his opinion on what should happen instead.

Alliance to Stop I-80 Tolling (http://www.noi80tolls.com/) - operated by several chambers of commerce along I-80.  I find it amusing that they are against tolling 80, but want you to donate via PayPal to help their cause.  However, you can become a fan of the Alliance to Stop I-80 Tolls (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Alliance-to-Stop-I-80-Tolling/139384728759) on Facebook for free.

PCN Call-In (November 23) (http://www.pcntv.com/streaming/pages/callinmon_str.html) - Transportation Secretary Allen Biehler takes calls on all issues including tolling I-80.

Quote from: PAHighways on November 29, 2009, 02:08:05 PM
Alliance to Stop I-80 Tolling (http://www.noi80tolls.com/) - operated by several chambers of commerce along I-80.

I signed up!

Also, I saw from the website that it is run by the Columbia Montour and Williamsport/Lycoming Chambers of Commerce.  (Columbia County, PA is where I grew up.)

I haven't contributed (yet?) directly, but I spent a several hundred dollars this past weekend shopping in the areas those chambers of commerce represent.

Legislators Tell Highway Officials Tolls Spell Doom (http://www.sungazette.com/page/content.detail/id/536820.html)

Quote from: mightyace on December 02, 2009, 07:26:57 PM

Quote from: PAHighways on November 29, 2009, 02:08:05 PM
Alliance to Stop I-80 Tolling (http://www.noi80tolls.com/) - operated by several chambers of commerce along I-80.

I signed up!

Also, I saw from the website that it is run by the Columbia Montour and Williamsport/Lycoming Chambers of Commerce.  (Columbia County, PA is where I grew up.)

I haven't contributed (yet?) directly, but I spent a several hundred dollars this past weekend shopping in the areas those chambers of commerce represent.

Quote from: PAHighways on December 18, 2009, 05:48:18 PM
Legislators Tell Highway Officials Tolls Spell Doom (http://www.sungazette.com/page/content.detail/id/536820.html)

It seems like the only places that people and government representatives feel strongly about this is in the central reaches of the state.  Has there been as much strong opposition to the tolling in areas like Sharon, Mercer, Stroudsburg, and Scranton?

Quote from: njroadhorse on December 19, 2009, 09:30:50 AMIt seems like the only places that people and government representatives feel strongly about this is in the central reaches of the state.  Has there been as much strong opposition to the tolling in areas like Sharon, Mercer, Stroudsburg, and Scranton?

There was opposition from state legislators and trucking firms from Venango and Mercer Counties during Round 1 last year.

I'll let the article speak for itself...

Gov Rendell says all of Pennsylvania's transit agencies will get I-80 toll $s (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/4527)

Thompson Hesitant of Federal Mandate to Stop I-80 Tolling (http://www.sungazette.com/page/content.detail/id/537640.html)

Quote from: mightyace on January 08, 2010, 06:20:52 PM
I'll let the article speak for itself...

Gov Rendell says all of Pennsylvania's transit agencies will get I-80 toll $s (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/4527)

Imagine it the other way round... transit users have to pay higher fares to be spend on highway maintenance. All hell would break loose...

Tolling I-80 a Riddle With No Easy Answers (http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100109/NEWS/1090328/)

Quote from: PAHighways on January 09, 2010, 08:14:42 PM
Tolling I-80 a Riddle With No Easy Answers (http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100109/NEWS/1090328/)

Quote
On the other side of the job coin is John Pocius, vice president of Ceco Associates Inc. Consulting Engineers of Scranton. His company is involved in road construction.

"Act 44 is the only solution to the transportation problems in Pennsylvania," Pocius said. "The impact on the average traveling public will be non-existent on most days. I believe it will be a boon to Pennsylvania in the long run."

What arrogance!!!!  :verymad: :thumbdown:

There is rarely only one solution to a problem.   As those of us who have discussed this issue have said, there are many options, and each has it's pluses and minuses.  But, remember the person who said this is in road construction so he stands to benefit from tolling I-80, so he's hardly an unbiased observer.

Quote from: Chris on January 09, 2010, 06:48:09 AM
Imagine it the other way round... transit users have to pay higher fares to be spend on highway maintenance. All hell would break loose...

The politician's answer: we're taxing what's not green to fund what is. It's good for the environment!

The reality: most roads are "free" in that you just need to pay to put gas in your car to use them, supplemented by the occasional toll. On the other hand, there are precious few situations where you can ride a bus or train without paying a fare, and it's always more than gas to drive an equivalent distance. So, really, the drivers are still ahead of the game most of the time. It's only when you have to go though tolls and/or have to pay to park that driving will ever be more expensive. 
Besides, both highways and transit have O&M costs which are subsidized by tax dollars. Saying "revenue from this source goes to that purpose" is all just a matter of show. Money is moved out of one "account" into another all the time for various reasons.
When money from highway tolls is used to fund transit, other money intended for transit is now freed up to go elsewhere. What's really being accomplished is an increase in the total state budget. It's just another tax hike. Nothing more, nothing less.

Transportation Secretary Says I-80 Decision to Come Soon (http://www.wjactv.com/news/22282457/detail.html)

^^^

Regardless of the outcome, I'd like to see the decision soon.

Plus, I'd like to see the decision be "final."  In other words, if the request is turned down, the Pennsylvania state government can't apply again under the current legislation.  If it is approved, the opponents will accept it (not like it) and move on.

But, what will probably happen is if it is turned down, the state will try to find a way to try again.  If it is approved, I see one or more lawsuits coming.

Congressmen Get No Assurances on Tolling of I-80 (http://www.sungazette.com/page/content.detail/id/538278.html)

^^^

I don't think anyone should be surprised that Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood made no commitment either way.  IMHO It was the Williamsport Sun Gazette that was expecting a preliminary inkling of the decision.

I doubt those Congressmen were surprised.  Disappointed maybe.

Politicians and bureaucrats have a hard time committing to anything!  :pan:

I would find it hard to read any insight into the decision from the report of this meeting.

I took the I-80 discussion from the Turnpike thread and put it in it's own brand new thread regarding the tolling of I-80 in PA.

Anyway where was i , oh yes.  I-80 Tolling is needed for Major Railway and Transit projects across the State.  I don't know why your so against it, PA needs these projects to survive as it gets more populated.  The Toll revenue would be split half would go the highway Mantience costs & the other half to Transit and Railway restoration and expansion costs.  It wouldn't help the Lackawanna Project which is already funded.  But numerous other projects.  I know Septa gives railways a bad name in PA , but there tons of other places that i'm sure that wouldn't. Septa might be sized down or split up soon.

~Corey

Quote from: Nexis4Jersey on January 26, 2010, 05:12:30 PM
Anyway where was i , oh yes.  I-80 Tolling is needed for Major Railway and Transit projects across the State.  I don't know why your so against it, PA needs these projects to survive as it gets more populated.  The Toll revenue would be split half would go the highway Mantience costs & the other half to Transit and Railway restoration and expansion costs.  It wouldn't help the Lackawanna Project which is already funded.  But numerous other projects.  I know Septa gives railways a bad name in PA , but there tons of other places that i'm sure that wouldn't. Septa might be sized down or split up soon.

~Corey

I'm not totally faulting you for your info, but the point is that the money would generally be funnelled into areas miles and miles away from I-80.  While some of the money would probably go to maintainance, it totally defeats the purpose of tolling in the first place.  Light rail is nice and all, but unless there is a corridor pretty close to 80, I see no point in funding the railways with I-80 revenue.

Quote from: Nexis4Jersey on January 26, 2010, 05:12:30 PM
Anyway where was i , oh yes.  I-80 Tolling is needed for Major Railway and Transit projects across the State.  I don't know why your so against it, PA needs these projects to survive as it gets more populated.
~Corey

PA becoming more populated?

The population has been stagnant for decades:
(http://www.census.gov/population/cencounts/pa190090.txt)

   1990           1980           1970          1960
11,881,643  11,863,895  11,793,909  11,319,366 Pennsylvania

2000
Total population
12,281,054

2008 Estimate
12,418,756

We're talking less than a 10% increase in nearly 50 years!

As for why I'm against it, it's simple.  Why should people from the poorer, rural regions of northern PA pay for transit in the richer southern regions of PA.  Or, why should a person in a trailer in Bloomsburg pay for a Septa train to take someone from his million dollar house in Downingtown to Philly?

Or to put it another way?  In New Jersey, would you consider it fair if tolls on the Atlantic City Expressway paid for public transit in Hoboken?

Quote from: mightyace on January 26, 2010, 05:49:51 PMOr, why should a person in a trailer in Bloomsburg pay for a Septa train to take someone from his million dollar house in Downingtown to Philly?

The same could be said of me paying a gasoline tax to maintain roads the Amish use.

When I travel east or west, I have to pay a toll and once I'm on the Turnpike there is no escaping payment.  The I-80 plan sets them at 30 mile intervals, which means locals can drive 20-25 miles and not pay a toll, and if there is a gantry between the two points, they probably know a back way or were using the back way in the first place.  However, as I have said numerous times, I don't believe the plan will pass considering this is the 40th year of the Keystone Shortway and for just as long the idea to toll it has been discussed.

Quote from: PAHighways on January 26, 2010, 06:40:14 PM
The I-80 plan sets them at 30 mile intervals, which means locals can drive 20-25 miles and not pay a toll, and if there is a gantry between the two points, they probably know a back way or were using the back way in the first place.

Despite my loud opinion on whether is should take place, I would have to say that the "tolling points" on the I-80 plan are a poor design.  Generally, open systems with a barrier and no ramp plazas are most effective for short distances.  Longer "open" systems like Illinois tollways have ramp plazas to make sure that most travelers pay a toll.  If I was designing it, I'd put gantries on all ramps like the 407 ETR in Toronto and have it operate like a closed ticket system.

Now this is just a guess, but I wonder if the reason for the loopholes and the proposed "first barrier free" for locals are attempts to make it more palatable to the locals.  IMHO, from what I've read, these loopholes/back road diversions are part of the reason it's been turned down.

Quote from: PAHighways on January 26, 2010, 06:40:14 PM
However, as I have said numerous times, I don't believe the plan will pass considering this is the 40th year of the Keystone Shortway and for just as long the idea to toll it has been discussed.

You're probably right especially since for reasons mentioned here and others, the state of PA has not done a good PR job in making this look like more than a just a money grab.

Quote from: mightyace on January 26, 2010, 07:27:53 PMNow this is just a guess, but I wonder if the reason for the loopholes and the proposed "first barrier free" for locals are attempts to make it more palatable to the locals.

That is the reason they chose this plan rather than something like the mainline has or closer-spaced mainline barriers with ramp barriers like the extensions.

Quote from: mightyace on January 26, 2010, 07:27:53 PM
You're probably right especially since for reasons mentioned here and others, the state of PA has not done a good PR job in making this look like more than a just a money grab.

I don't know if they care about having good PR for it.  On the official site for the idea, you can watch videos about the barrier placement and they are explicitly placing the barriers in such a way so that taking back roads will be infeasible.

Quote from: deanej on January 27, 2010, 04:49:15 PM
I don't know if they care about having good PR for it.  On the official site for the idea, you can watch videos about the barrier placement and they are explicitly placing the barriers in such a way so that taking back roads will be infeasible.

Yes, I've watched a few of those as well on the possible barrier (gantry) locations.  But, if they don't care about positive PR, then they shouldn't be surprised when people complain.

The Rendell's behavior in pushing I-80 tolling is similar to that of former Governor Don Sundquist (Republican) of Tennessee, who in his last term, pushed for a general state income tax with the same fervor and lack of concern for public opinion that Rendell is going after I-80.

(As an aside, Tennessee only has an income tax on certain investment income.)

Both, Sundquist then and Rendell now are lame ducks due to term limits, so personally they have nothing to lose.  Now, granted, Sundquist was risking more for the Republicans in TN than Rendell is for the Democrats in PA as opposition for Rendell's proposal is more regionally based.

But, when the next election came here in TN, pretty much anyone who supported the Income Tax was thrown out.  Now, I doubt that anyone in PA will get thrown out of office on this issue.  However, IMHO, it will heighten regional tensions within the state.

If Rendell, PennDOT and the PTC were more concerned about public opinion, the backlash could be minimized.

I found this searching around.  I have no idea as to the accuracy of the report (or lack thereof)

I-80 Toll Plan Dead say Federal Sources (http://paindependent.com/todays_news/detail/i-80-toll-plan-dead-say-federal-sources)

Of course, the only announcement that really counts is the one from DOT Secretary LaHood.

No they should , as long as the transit project will serve and help revive traffic on key corridors it shouldn't , what do you suppose we do raise the gas tax?  I don't care if you say this project is useless Chris , when's the last time you actually drove any the highways over here?  1990s?

Toll is the only option unless you want raise taxes , which many people don't want , the PA turnpike is already paying for some projects in PA already , just like the NJ TPK & GSP.  Personally , i don't see the problem with restoring key rail corridors in PA that really don't cost much and repay themshevls quickly.  Like the restoration of Septa to Bethlehem , which seems to be gaining traction , it would re leave traffic on the congested PA-309 and the restoration of Septa to West Chester,PA, the Lackawanna Cut-off looks like is about to get federal funding, alot of local support for that project.  Corridor 1 & 2 in Harrisburg i think will be paided by the TPK tolls.  The Restoration of Septa to reading to help releave traffic on US -422 might get some Toll funding.

~Corey

Quoteto help releave traffic

Yeah, for like 4 years. After that, everything is back to normal... Except that you still pay tolls. Due to the growth of urban areas, the short drop in traffic volumes by constructing transit is quickly offset in a few years due to the growth of traffic.

So the sweet for 4 years, but the sour until the end of time.

By the way, it would be better if you improve your spelling, to make the posts easier to read. I know I'm not flawless, as I'm not a native English speaker, but you are.

When there are options between legitimately being able to drive and taking the bus/rail/whatever, most people drive.  Public transit in this country (except in cities like New York and Chicago where there just isn't any way to drive for the most part) is for the more unsavory types.

The only way to get people to take public transit downtown in most cities would be to remove all of the highways and parking facilities.  I know that if I have the option, I'll drive.  And I want good roads to drive on.  Couldn't care less about high-speed rail that I'm still going to have to drive a long ways to get to a depot.

I've split off the roads and rails discussion to here:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=2377.0

Quote from: exit322 on February 10, 2010, 11:00:45 AM
Public transit in this country (except in cities like New York and Chicago where there just isn't any way to drive for the most part) is for the more unsavory types.

I don't think "unsavory" is the word you are looking for.  Bankers and AIG executives and senators and other low-grade scumbags who hosed the economy are definitely not the sorts of people who ride public transit.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 10, 2010, 12:00:31 PM

Quote from: exit322 on February 10, 2010, 11:00:45 AM
Public transit in this country (except in cities like New York and Chicago where there just isn't any way to drive for the most part) is for the more unsavory types.

I don't think "unsavory" is the word you are looking for.  Bankers and AIG executives and senators and other low-grade scumbags who hosed the economy are definitely not the sorts of people who ride public transit.

There are always exceptions.  When Vice President Joe Biden was still Senator Joe Biden, he regularly took Amtrak between Wilmington, DE and Washington, DC.  Whether Joe Biden is a low-grade scumbag or not is a matter of personal opinion, but he definitely was a senator!  :sombrero:

Quote from: mightyace on February 10, 2010, 06:15:41 PM
There are always exceptions.  When Vice President Joe Biden was still Senator Joe Biden, he regularly took Amtrak between Wilmington, DE and Washington, DC.  Whether Joe Biden is a low-grade scumbag or not is a matter of personal opinion, but he definitely was a senator!  :sombrero:

good for him!  (yes, is low-grade scumbag until further notice ;) )

I wonder if really rode Amtrak each day or is did he ride the Cheaper yet fast MARC service?

MARC would not have gotten him to Wilmington.  He rode Amtrak.

Oh thats right hes in Wilmington , they plan on connecting Septa and MARC together and finishing up the World's Longest commuter line.  Form Boston to DC.  instead of expensive Amtrak you could take numerous cheaper services.

Penn Pike hiring firms for I-80 toll conversion (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/4597)

Do they know something we don't know?  Or are they just getting their ducks in a row if things go their way?

yes , its called Govt sneaky ness ........there trying to hide it form the public.

I think they're just being way overconfident.

Tolls For I-80 Still Key to Transit Funding, Rendell Says (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10046/1035945-147.stm)

^^^
I would have been surprised if he said anything different.

IMHO: This is the scary part.

QuoteIs there a Plan B?

"There is no backup plan that I am aware of at this point," said Mr. Kirkpatrick.

Mr. Markosek said Act 44 was Plan B, enacted because the Legislature did not want to raise taxes or fees.

WTH are they thinking?  If this is "Plan B" and it fails, they need a PLAN C.

PA seems to be very ignorant regarding their chances of tolling I-80.  Personally I wouldn't mind if this gamble results in ruing their budget - it would hopefully teach their politicians a lesson they won't forget.

That's the problem....if history is any indication, they'll push/shrug off the lesson and forget it.  Remember, as Jeff has noted, they've been trying to toll this since BEFORE it became an Interstate...

Politicians tend to have a short term memory. Or no memory or common sense at all.

Question:  does Pennsylvania have term limits for members of its legislature?  If it does, then there is a good chance the current incumbents are counting on not having to clean up the I-80 debacle.

No and people love their encumbents here, even after the pay raise debacle of 2005.  There is a term limit on Governors, so Rendell will be gone in November.

People love incumbents everywhere.  The typical congressman has a 90% chance of being re-elected.

Thompson Expects "Good News" on Interstate 80 Tolls (http://www.sungazette.com/page/content.detail/id/539483.html)

It sounds like the "good news" he's expecting is that FHWA shoots it down again...

Quote from: deanej on February 17, 2010, 03:55:44 PM
People love incumbents everywhere.  The typical congressman has a 90% chance of being re-elected.

Yeah, several years ago, I remember hearing of a poll of the type.

Do you approve of the job that congress is doing?  about 60-65% said no

Do you approve of the job that your congressman is doing? about 75-80% said yes

Or, "It's congress' fault, but not my congressman!"

Hence the problem...

Quote from: froggie on February 17, 2010, 06:45:26 PM
It sounds like the "good news" he's expecting is that FHWA shoots it down again...

Yep.  Of course, as I said in the link that I posted as well, it's all just speculation at this point.

State House Speaker Lobbies U.S. for Approval of I-80 Tolls (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10055/1038214-147.stm)

Quote from: PAHighways on February 24, 2010, 09:12:51 PM
State House Speaker Lobbies U.S. for Approval of I-80 Tolls (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10055/1038214-147.stm)

QuoteSpeaker Keith McCall comes from Carbon County, which is just south of I-80 in northeast Pennsylvania.

...

Mr. McCall recently announced he won't seek re-election to the House this year.

<sarcasm>
Way to take a stand Mr. McCall since you aren't going to have to face the voters again!  :pan:
</sarcasm>

Quote from: mightyace on February 24, 2010, 09:21:15 PM

Quote from: PAHighways on February 24, 2010, 09:12:51 PM
State House Speaker Lobbies U.S. for Approval of I-80 Tolls (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10055/1038214-147.stm)

QuoteSpeaker Keith McCall comes from Carbon County, which is just south of I-80 in northeast Pennsylvania.

...

Mr. McCall recently announced he won't seek re-election to the House this year.

<sarcasm>
Way to take a stand Mr. McCall since you aren't going to have to face the voters again!  :pan:
</sarcasm>

Typical politician . . .

Pennsylvania Really Needs Federal Government to Approve Tolls for I-80 (http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-a7_5trans.7191392feb28,0,2046510.story)

No they don't.

Quote from: froggie on February 28, 2010, 09:26:58 PM
No they don't.

What?  hmmmmm, changes his mind on this subject , maybe they should create a Congestion Pricing system in Philly, to fund the Roads and Rails there , and place Electronic Tolls on 422 and and the US 202 Freeway to fund much needed Rail expansion ( yea i know , you guys hate that , but its becoming really bad down there).  Northeastern PA can be spared for  now , but Southeastern PA should get more Tolls.

Pennsylvania Wants I-80 Tolled So Bad, Rendell Will Personally Buy You a Pony If You Support Tolls (https://www.aaroads.com/forum)

Quote from: Scott5114 on March 03, 2010, 12:09:49 PM
Pennsylvania Wants I-80 Tolled So Bad, Rendell Will Personally Buy You a Pony If You Support Tolls (https://www.aaroads.com/forum)

Link doesn't work.

Quote from: Revive 755 on March 03, 2010, 12:22:21 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on March 03, 2010, 12:09:49 PM
Pennsylvania Wants I-80 Tolled So Bad, Rendell Will Personally Buy You a Pony If You Support Tolls (https://www.aaroads.com/forum)

Link doesn't work.

You actually believed Rendell was going to start buying people ponies? :P

Nope, I was hoping the link went to a ridiculous pic of Fast Eddie with a pony.
Actually, Rendell would probably steal someone else's pony and give it to you before he'd buy you one. :spin:

If pro-toll TollRoadsNews thinks this...
Pennsylvania I-80 tollers increasingly desperate - thumbs down from Feds feared (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/4653)

QuoteThe Philadelphia area rail transit agency SEPTA plus labor union bosses "are demanding" - says the [Philadelphi] Inquirer report - that the state's US senator Arlen Specter "push (US) transportation secretary Ray LaHood to approve the tolls."

QuotePasquale Deon chairman of the SEPTA transit agency and a Turnpike commissioner is quoted: "Arlen (Specter) needs to be pushing for it and not dancing around it. He's like a ballerina."

(You can't help noticing the demeaning language these guys use about their US Senator!)

SEPTA chairman AND Turnpike Commissioner - <sarcasm> gee no conflict of interest here </sarcasm>

QuoteThe law states:

"Before the Secretary may permit a State to participate in the pilot program, the State must enter into an agreement  with the Secretary that provides that--
(A) all toll revenues received from operation of the toll facility will be used only for-- 
(i) debt service; 
(ii) reasonable return on investment of any private person financing the project; and 
(iii) any costs necessary for the improvement of and the proper operation and maintenance of the toll facility, including reconstruction, resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation of the toll facility..."

That's all.

The plan to use northern Pennsylvania's I-80 as a money machine for sustaining loss-bleeding transit systems in the metro areas of the southwest and the southeast of the state just doesn't fit US law as it stands.

Even if secretary LaHood were to OK the PA/I-80 deal opponents would seem to have a good chance of getting the courts to overturn it afterward.

Not surprisingly TRN is for tolling but under the confines of the law:

QuoteCOMMENT: PA/I-80 should be tolled. Tolling I-80 would level the competition with the Turnpike to the south (I-76/I-70) and with the New York State Thruway (I-90) to the north, levy proper charges on trucks, and generate a revenue stream for maintenance and rehab of an important interstate trucking route.

Trouble is the plan being advanced by the Pennsylvania government under its Act 44 is designed to divert revenues to undeserving and unrelated facilities quite outside the corridor, and doesn't comply with federal law.

As I've said many times before, I still wouldn't like that tolling I-80 at all, but one that would be used solely to support the road is one I could live with.

Other side note, if I-80 needs to be tolled to level out the competition, shouldn't I-86 in NY be as well?

I don't know what they mean by "level the competition".  Are they trying to drive people off I-80?  The Thruway is congested enough already, we don't need any help from you PA!!!

My guess is about ~ 5,000 AADT may be cross-state traffic on I-80, based on the 17,000 AADT (http://www.dot.state.pa.us/Internet/Bureaus/pdPlanRes.nsf/infoBPRTrafficInfoTrafficVolumeMap) west of I-380.

Given the way the state law (Act 44) is written, I don't see why the Feds are taking so long to shoot down the toll proposal again.

I wouldn't be surprised if the application is sitting unopened on some desk somewhere at the FHWA.  Or they're just dragging out the inevitable as punishment for the earlier decisions being ignored.

If they fail, it's another case of politicians swinging for the fence and striking out.  If the state had put in a proposal to toll I-80 for just its own upkeep, it probably would have been approved already.  Now the amount would only be 1/3 to 1/2 of what they want, but that's better than nothing and they'd be just about ready to start collecting tolls about now, IIRC.  Even if they succeed, it will be a year or two before the tolling systems are in place.

I originally got my timeline from http://www.paturnpike.com/I80/project/project_timeline.aspx, but it has the current timeline and not the original one that I am citing from memory.

Maybe they realize that PA will just resubmit the same application again and again until it's approved, so they're just gonna reject it by never looking at it.

I don't think the application has been left unopened or is just being sat upon.  That is just not how things are done at that level.  First, administrative nonperformance just hands PennDOT and the PTC a stick they can use to beat FHWA with, and exposes pressure points at the political level.  Second, if FHWA is against the tolling proposal because it is not only illegal but also bad public policy, it is in their interest to have it known as clearly and as promptly as possible that this and similar tolling proposals are firmly out of court and will never be approved.  As long as the application is pending, there is ambiguity because there is the theoretical possibility that FHWA could say Yes instead of No.

I would suspect that much of the delay comes from FHWA waiting for legal advice on how to deny the request in such a way that PennDOT and the PTC will give up for good instead of trying again and again.  Part of the problem, from their point of view, is that the legislation PennDOT and the PTC are applying under does not explicitly forbid revolving-door applications, which is essentially what the two Pennsylvania agencies are trying.

Also, most of the wear and tear of a road is from truck drivers, and they pay for the road many times above and beyond what a car will ever pay. And regardless of where they buy diesel, they pay the fuel tax for the state they use it in.

Sorry, I don't believe this.

Bear in mind, 20% or so of the traffic is trucks.  That means 80% is cars.

Furthermore, under IFTA what percentage goes to other states?

Please expand on what you are saying

Rendell To Make One Last Push To Toll I-80 (http://www.wjactv.com/news/22917856/detail.html)

He won't win. We'll put him on the Moon Turnpike and we'll see who has the last laugh.  :-D

Quote from: sammack on March 21, 2010, 10:47:40 PM
Furthermore, under IFTA what percentage goes to other states?

Those that pay fuel tax under IFTA prorate their mileage by state and pay tax (or are refunded) based on where they buy their fuel vs where they "should have bought their fuel."  If a truck gets 5 mpg and drives 100 miles in PA and 50 in Ohio, it should have bought 20 gallons in PA and 10 in Ohio - if they bought it all in PA, they'll get a refund (PA tax > Ohio); if they bought it all in Ohio, they'll have to write a check in the quarter.

Geez what a bureaucratic mess for truckers...

It's quite fun, really.  :-P

Governor Rendell Expects I-80 News Within Two Weeks (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10088/1046532-100.stm)

I got this in my inbox today from the Alliance to Stop I-80 Tolling:

QuoteApril 5, 2010
Dear Friends,

Governor Rendell said last week that he expects the Federal Highway Administration to make an announcement on the I 80 tolling application within the next two weeks. Rendell says he is "optimistic" although not sure which way they feds will go.

Also last week, House Transportation Committee Chair James Oberstar announced during a hearing on Capitol Hill that despite the revenue shortfall for gas funded infrastructure he adamantly opposes tolling of the interstate highway system because "it's already been build and paid for."

We're grateful for Oberstar's position, but it's hard to say how much weight his statements will carry with the Administration.

Regardless, the tolling application is still being reviewed and tolling advocates are pushing hard to make their views heard both in the media and by the FHWA.

We need you to do the same. Please continue to call and submit letters to Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and Administrator Victor Mendez.

Call the Department of Transportation at (202) 366-4000 and ask to be transferred to each Secretary LaHood and Administrator Victor Mendez's assistant (Maria Thomas) to leave your comments.

Also please let us know if you need assistance with draft  responses to pro-tolling letters and editorials featured in your local media.

For daily updates,  you can follow the Alliance on Facebook and encourage your friends, family and colleagues to do the same!

Thank you for your continued efforts in the fight.

The Alliance is made possible through member contributions.  Please consider making a donation at www.noi80tolls.com

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.noi80tolls.com%2Fimages%2Fdonatetoalliance.jpg&hash=f2042f23e4d93584a0d21d3b310abddff53bef45) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=458.0)
P. S. This is not a clickable image.  Now it is - S

Called It (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10096/1048294-100.stm)

Now if I could guess Powerball or Mega Millions numbers with such accuracy.

The Governor has scheduled a press conference for 4 PM which will air on PCN (http://www.pcntv.com/streaming/streaming.html).

Quote from: PAHighways on April 06, 2010, 02:51:07 PM
Called It (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10096/1048294-100.stm)

Now if I could guess Powerball or Mega Millions numbers with such accuracy.

You beat me to it by 4 mins, Jeff!


http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10096/1048294-100.stm

Federal officials again reject tolling I-80


The last statement by Rep. David Levdansky is comical to me...discrimination based on a federal ruling is crazy and I-80 isn't even in northern PA.

I don't know that I agree with Levdansky 100%... For the most part a projects need will factor in to whatever cuts are to be made... Though when it comes time to decide projects to cut, PennDOT should start "north" and work it's way "south".

At any rate, the long-term plan for I-80 itself should be nothing more than maintenance required for safety (repaving if pavement is so deteriorated as to actually be unsafe, and making sure bridges don't fall down.)  Not that PennDOT had any substantial plans to upgrade any of I-80 in any way anyway. (At least that I was aware of)

Quote from: LeftyJR on April 06, 2010, 02:58:24 PM
The last statement by Rep. David Levdansky is comical to me...discrimination based on a federal ruling is crazy and I-80 isn't even in northern PA.

Well, since I-80 is north of the mid-point line of the state north/south wise, then it would be considered Northern.  Current residents can correct me if I'm wrong, but "central PA" is generally only used in an E/W sense.  For example, my home town of Bloomsburg is both considered Northeastern and North Central PA depending on who you talk to.

And, well as far as discrimination on projects, that may be pure partisan politics.  Pennsylvania overall has more Democrats than Republicans.  Pittsburgh and Philadelphia do by a wide margin.  However, most of the counties in the northern half of PA have a Republican majority.  (This is evidenced by most but not all of the elected officials whose districts include I-80 are Republicans.)  So, why should Rendell and company worry about angering people on the I-80 corridor as most of them likely did not vote for him and wouldn't vote for his successor regardless of what happened?


The Harrisburg Patriot-News has a similar story:
Federal government rejects state's application to toll Interstate 80, sources say (http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2010/04/federal_government_rejects_sta.html)  :cheers: :thumbsup: :clap:

Levdansky's comment was spite, pure and simple.

I am going to wait for an actual announcement from FHWA before I believe this (it looks very much like a "Dewey wins, Truman loses" headline at this point), but I can't say a refusal would surprise me because what PennDOT and the PTC were trying to do was outside the terms of the federal legislation authorizing tolls on free Interstates as pilot programs.  I expect that instead Pennsylvania will lobby hard for a new program in the next transportation reauthorization bill which would allow them to do what they have been trying to do with I-80.  The issue will have to be settled in principle one way or another, and it will probably be settled in Congress, where it should have been in the first place.

If you use Levdansky's logic, people who live along every non-PTC interstate in PA should lose funding.

Quote from: Mr_Northside on April 06, 2010, 03:20:29 PM
I don't know that I agree with Levdansky 100%... For the most part a projects need will factor in to whatever cuts are to be made... Though when it comes time to decide projects to cut, PennDOT should start "north" and work it's way "south".

I guess you would, but how is what Levdansky and you propose any different than what's happened for the last 40 years or more?  IMHO Pittsburgh and Philly have always bullied the rest of the state around.  (It may not be the case, but that's how it looks to me.)

Quote from: Mr_Northside on April 06, 2010, 03:20:29 PM
At any rate, the long-term plan for I-80 itself should be nothing more than maintenance required for safety (repaving if pavement is so deteriorated as to actually be unsafe, and making sure bridges don't fall down.)  Not that PennDOT had any substantial plans to upgrade any of I-80 in any way anyway. (At least that I was aware of)

As if anything different was going to happen.  And, I bet if the tolling had succeeded, I-80 would still get no more than that, despite the "plans" that were on the Turnpike website.

Anyway, IMHO, I-80 in PA is in the best shape since the 1970s if ever.  And, my brother who spent significant time on both I-80 and the Turnpike last year said that the Turnpike was in worse shape.  So, you're paying those tolls and still getting a crappy road.

I guess we'll see how it works out in the end....
In the meantime it will be interesting to see what our dysfunctional state government (that can't even pass a damn budget without it being 100 days late) does next.

An unpleasant side effect of this has occurred to me--I think we can probably forget about the South Junction Interchange being advertised this December, for starters.

Quote from: J N Winkler on April 06, 2010, 03:31:42 PM
I am going to wait for an actual announcement from FHWA before I believe this (it looks very much like a "Dewey wins, Truman loses" headline at this point)

I just looked at http://www.paturnpike.com and nothing yet on the PTC's website.

The announcement is set for 4PM.

Quote from: J N Winkler on April 06, 2010, 03:37:47 PM
An unpleasant side effect of this has occurred to me--I think we can probably forget about the South Junction Interchange being advertised this December, for starters.

[self-serving rant]As long as this doesn't screw up the plans for fixing the southern-most 2 miles of Rt. 28.  I think the 40th St. Bridge half will still be good to go, but I don't want to hear about lack of money when it comes time to start the 31st Bridge <-> Heinz Plant section! [/self-serving rant]

Quote from: mightyace on April 06, 2010, 03:38:08 PM

Quote from: J N Winkler on April 06, 2010, 03:31:42 PM
I am going to wait for an actual announcement from FHWA before I believe this (it looks very much like a "Dewey wins, Truman loses" headline at this point)

I just looked at http://www.paturnpike.com and nothing yet on the PTC's website.

The official announcement will be at 4 PM on PCN, which I mentioned in my post.

PennDOT's budget for contract awards (in 2005, which I take as a representative year before Act 44 kicked in) used to be $1.3 billion.  With Act 44 money, let's say a round figure of $1.8 billion annually for construction.  About one-fourth of that is going to go away.

As an aside, PennDOT's construction budget seems kind of small for a state with such a high population (including a high driving population) and high marginal gas tax rate.  From memory, Kansas has a gas tax of 20c/gallon while Pennsylvania's is in the mid-30s.  Kansas has one-quarter the population but KDOT has still managed to carry a $800 million annual construction budget--two-thirds PennDOT's--through the noughties.

This press release, from my hometown, just arrived in my inbox:

Quote
ALLIANCE TO STOP I-80 TOLLING
For Immediate Release                                                         
News                                                             

Contact: Ed Edwards   (570) 594-1999
               Vince Matteo (570) 326-1971
   
April 6, 2010
Alliance Proud to Recognize
Tolling Rejection

Bloomsburg, PA April 6, 2010- The Alliance to Stop I-80 Tolling is delighted to recognize a major victory in the fight to prevent tolls on Interstate 80.

Today the Federal Highway Administration rejected the ill-conceived tolling scheme for the third time, echoing the concerns of thousands of families and businesses along the Interstate 80 corridor and throughout Pennsylvania.

"We commend Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and FHWA Administrator Victor Mendez for once again blocking this ill conceived plan."

"However, as long as Act 44 remains the law in Pennsylvania  we must stay vigilant," stated Ed Edwards Co-Chair of the Alliance to Stop I 80 Tolling and President of the Columbia-Montour Chamber of Commerce.

"I extend my deepest appreciation and gratitude to our nearly 100 members (consisting of local chambers of commerce, state and local elected officials, boroughs, townships, and numerous other organizations and individuals), and our congressional allies, our nearly 1,700 online supporters and the tens of thousands who signed petitions opposing tolling and wrote and called their elected officials. We also thank our strategic partners Quantum Communications for coordinating our strategy, keeping the Alliance unified and ultimately making this victory possible," Edwards continued.

"We are relieved the tolling scheme has been denied.  Now it's time to move forward in discussing alternatives to tolling Interstate 80. We expect the Pennsylvania State Legislature to immediately begin developing alternative funding for our state roads and bridges," continued Vince Matteo, Co-Chair of the Alliance and President of the Williamsport/Lycoming Chamber of Commerce.

Established in early 2008 by the Columbia Montour and Williamsport/Lycoming Chambers of Commerce, the Alliance to Stop I-80 Tolling is the leading force working to keep Interstate 80 toll-free and prevent the implementation of Act 44.


For more information on the Alliance to Stop I-80 Tolling, contact Ed Edwards at 570.784.2522,
or visit the Alliance on the web at www.noi80tolls.com

Governor Rendell Announces He Will Call Special Legislative Session to Address Transportation Funding (http://www.dot.state.pa.us/Internet/pdNews.nsf/8c5bc4e349ab4db6852576c800678468/20a5d0850bcba072852576fd007a8856?OpenDocument)

From The Harrisburg Patriot-News:

Gov. Ed Rendell says Pennsylvania will not reapply for permission to toll Interstate 80 (http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2010/04/gov_ed_rendell_says_the_state.html)

QuoteRendell, in his 2010-11 state budget, said he was banking on the placement of new tolls on Interstate 80 to generate hundreds of millions of dollars for transportation projects. He acknowledged the risk following his budget presentation in February. "Were we to lose the I-80 tolling, we would have to go back to the drawing board" on transportation funding, Rendell said. "No question about it."  

Interesting quote, how can you lose something (I-80 tolling) that you NEVER HAD!

I think it's interesting that they say Act 44 was plan B and plan C was cuts.  What was plan A?  The cuts should have been plan A to begin with!!!

But they can't even get that right.  Instead of cutting things along the I-80 area and northward, how about eliminating the wasteful spending that got PA into this situation?

I am not sure cuts are realistic unless you are willing to take on the mass transit agencies.  This table tells the story:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2008/mf3.cfm

Pennsylvania has about $2.1 billion in state motor fuel tax receipts available for distribution each year.  Of that, about $180 million goes to local roads, while $730 million goes to transit systems, with the remainder going to PennDOT infrastructure.  BTW, Pennsylvania has a tax rate which is allowed to "float" within a narrow band (the gasoline tax rate of 31.2c/gallon, as of 2008, was comprised of 12c/gallon base tax with the remainder being an "Oil Franchise Tax" which is a set number of mills of the nominal wholesale price of gasoline, fixed by the Department of Revenue but for tax purposes not allowed to be under 90c/gallon nor above $1.25/gallon).

The impact of mass transit is still significant if you take federal revenues and disbursements into account.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2008/hdf.cfm

Pennsylvania is actually a net recipient state in terms of federal funds (to the tune of $70 million).  Total revenues and disbursements are on the order of $5.3 billion, of which about $3.8 billion goes to highways while $1.4 billion (of which Pennsylvania contributes about three-quarters from state & local sources) goes to mass transit.

I continue to think that the total amount of PennDOT construction contract awards annually is small compared to total highway spending in Pennsylvania, but I can't see an obvious black hole unless PennDOT is servicing a massive amount of debt.

http://www.altoonamirror.com/page/content.detail/id/528600.html?nav=742
Application to toll I-80 rejected again - story from Altoona Mirror.

QuoteI think it's interesting that they say Act 44 was plan B and plan C was cuts.  What was plan A?  The cuts should have been plan A to begin with!!!

Plan A was the gas tax and vehicle registration increases that PennDOT recommended in 2006.  It, as we all know, was rejected in favor of Plan B (Act 44).

I know I've said this before, but it's worth repeating.

If Rendell and company had completed an application for I-80 tolling that was within the bounds of the law, (i.e. Only for maintenance and upgrades to I-80) they would have been collecting tolls for a year or two already.

Now, it would not be the $450 million that Act 44 promised, but I'll make a WAG and say it could have been as much as $100 million a year and $100 million in PennDOT money could then be used on something else.

Simple logic says:
$100 million is not as good as $450 million.
But, $100 million is a d**n sight better than $0!

But they had no interest in collecting that much money in tolls just to spend it on I-80.  They wanted a new revenue source and for the political capital it was going to take (essentially dividing the state against itself), they didn't want to be fighting for chump change.  Their gamble, which they lost, was that the prohibition against inflated "lease fees" as a mechanism for funneling money to general highway and transit spending (outside the I-80 corridor) could be finessed through interpretation.

^^^

I agree.

But, if they had toll money from I-80 to spend on I-80, the money PennDOT would have spent on I-80 could be spent elsewhere.

For example:
Without Tolls:
PennDOT Budget: $1.5 Billion
I-80 Maint & Repair: $100 Million
All other: $1.4 Billion

With Tolls:
I-80 Tolls: $100 Million
I-80 Maint & Repair: $100 Million
-----------------
PennDOT Budget: $1.5 Billion
I-80 Maint & Repair: $0
All other: $1.5 Billion

Net Change to PennDOT budget +$100million

Even so, you're right in that they swung for the fences to try and hit a home run and struck out when they could have had an easy single.

EDIT: (Sorry to keep editing but, I had another thought.)
Of course, even if my figures are in the ballpark, they still would have had to find $350 million a year from another source and they wanted to do it from one source.

I guess what I don't understand is why $450 million annually is such a "magic" figure, or why PennDOT's annual contract awards budget is so small compared to total highway spending in Pennsylvania (especially given that, because of the secondary route system, a high percentage of road mileage in Pennsylvania is owned by PennDOT).  Where does all the money go?  Is PennDOT really that top-heavy?  Is there that much patronage?  Does it cost that much to clear snow in the winter?  I feel a real urge to do a tear-down of PennDOT's budget but no time to do it . . .

Quote from: dave19 on April 07, 2010, 12:01:16 PM
http://www.altoonamirror.com/page/content.detail/id/528600.html?nav=742
Application to toll I-80 rejected again - story from Altoona Mirror.

I'm not sure I believe this:

QuoteEven with the money from I-80 tolls, the state is $750 million short of what a Rendell-appointed commission recommended be spent annually to maintain Pennsylvania's transportation infrastructure. It also has a backlog of $11 billion in bridge repairs that are awaiting funding, PennDOT said.

The state's largest mass transit system, the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, had been counting on $110 million a year from the tolling plan, or about one-fourth of its capital budget.

Without it, over 20 projects will be put on hold, including a new fare collection system and the reconstruction of the Broad Street subway station beneath City Hall. Rendell also said I-80 will receive $20 million a year in repair money, but would have gotten $50 million a year had tolling been approved.

According to this: PennDOT would be $750 million behind what it supposedly needs even with the tolls.  Therefore, it is now $1.2 billion behind.

Adding up J N Winkler's figures, Pennsylvania gets $7.4 Billion a year for transportation, both highway and transit.  Add it the $450 million from Act 44 that it will still get and we're up to $7.85 Billion.

Rendell's people think that the state needs around $9 billion. (7.85 B + 1.2 B shortfall)  The shortfall is approximately 13.3%.  It is generally said that most organizations can find 10% ($900 million) to cut without much pain.  Therefore, we are down to about $300-350 million gap.  Of course, that is under the amount from the defeated proposal.

I'm sorry Ed, is it THAT hard to come up with $300-350 million in cuts and/or tax/fee increases?

Quote from: mightyace on April 07, 2010, 04:54:06 PMAdding up J N Winkler's figures, Pennsylvania gets $7.4 Billion a year for transportation, both highway and transit.  Add it the $450 million from Act 44 that it will still get and we're up to $7.85 Billion.

Actually, I need to clarify--the total amount is $5.3 billion, from both federal and state sources.  Moreover, the federal data comes from the 2008 edition of Highway Statistics, and (if memory serves) Act 44 kicked in in 2007, so Act 44 monies should be included.

QuoteRendell's people think that the state needs around $9 billion. (7.85 B + 1.2 B shortfall)

I think they are probably underestimating the need, but $9 billion is a reasonable ballpark figure.  I-80 tolling was never going to close that gap--I don't see how it could be closed short of raising motor fuel taxes to cover that higher estimate of need.  The political calculation seems to have been that tolling I-80 was easier than leasing the Turnpike, which in turn was easier than raising motor fuel taxes.

QuoteThe shortfall is approximately 13.3%.  It is generally said that most organizations can find 10% ($900 million) to cut without much pain.  Therefore, we are down to about $300-350 million gap.  Of course, that is under the amount from the defeated proposal.

Considering total disbursements are around $5.3 billion, and the loss of $450 million from not being able to toll I-80 is less than 10% of that, the belt-tightening could be done--if it came to that--by delaying projects.  But I want to know more about why it is apparently not possible for PennDOT to get contract awards above $1.3 billion or so despite having responsibility for pretty much every highway of importance and about $3.7 billion to play with for the whole state.

QuoteI'm sorry Ed, is it THAT hard to come up with $300-350 million in cuts and/or tax/fee increases?

It might be harder to get the legislature to agree on them than to come up with them.

To put all of this in perspective--as a country our total spending on highways is around $100 billion annually.  In comparison, our "base" defense budget (i.e., independent of Iraq and Afghanistan) is something like $680 billion (4.7% of GDP, as opposed to 3% of GDP back in 1999 and 2000).  Iraq and Afghanistan between them cost something like $900 billion in direct costs, and probably another $900 billion in indirect costs (caring for war wounded, paying interest on debt we issued to finance the war, etc.).  It used to be that you had to pay millions in order to save a few pennies in tribute, but inflation's a bitch.

Courtesy of our friends at www.TollRoadsNews.com, here is a link to their copy of the official statement from the USDOT.

http://www.tollroadsnews.com/sites/default/files/LaHood.docx

This came from the story:
"The law" prevented OK to tolling PA/I-80 - LaHood (AT LAST!) (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/4691)

Also on the site:
Feds reject Pennsylvania application to toll I-80 - state to revisit P3 (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/4690)

Just when you thought it was safe to go back on the interstate...

From the PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW:
I-80 toll plan may be revived (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/regional/s_678655.html)

Now, if this goes anywhere, this is one I could live with because, as I've often said, it proposes simply to make I-80 self-supporting. (use I-80 tolls for I-80 only)

P. S. I found this when looking at the article PAHighways found on the proposed PennDOT/PTC merger.

Quote from: mightyace on April 30, 2010, 01:52:47 AM
Just when you thought it was safe to go back on the interstate...

From the PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW:
I-80 toll plan may be revived (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/regional/s_678655.html)

Now, if this goes anywhere, this is one I could live with because, as I've often said, it proposes simply to make I-80 self-supporting. (use I-80 tolls for I-80 only)

P. S. I found this when looking at the article PAHighways found on the proposed PennDOT/PTC merger.

There's a country song (I don't know it's title or who did it) with the refrain, "On and on and on the movie goes."
It just popped into my head when I was reading the previous post.

^^^

And the movie title would be, "The Neverending Story"   :sombrero:

Or, more likely, The Broken Record.  I fail to see how Rendell will be able to pull this one off when he couldn't get it the previous three times.


Anthony

Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 05, 2010, 01:08:57 AM
Or, more likely, The Broken Record.  I fail to see how Rendell will be able to pull this one off when he couldn't get it the previous three times.


Anthony

They've been trying ever since 80 was completed as a free highway. (or around 40 years)  Rendell probably won't try again.  But, I wouldn't bet against his successor.

Quote from: mightyace on May 05, 2010, 01:34:51 AM

Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 05, 2010, 01:08:57 AM
Or, more likely, The Broken Record.  I fail to see how Rendell will be able to pull this one off when he couldn't get it the previous three times.


Anthony

They've been trying ever since 80 was completed as a free highway. (or around 40 years)  Rendell probably won't try again.  But, I wouldn't bet against his successor.

The difference being for the first 30 years, the idea to toll I-80 was to provide funds for maintenance and improvements to I-80 which is acceptable under FHWA rules.

You think it's out, but they keep pulling it back in:

Tolling Interstate 80 is Back on the Table (http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110612/NEWS/106120343/) - Pocono Record

The state representative who opposed the plan under Rendell welcomes it now...if the plan includes tolling all of the Interstates in Pennsylvania, or basically going by the pre-1956 Turnpike Commission expansion plan.

^^^[sputters incoherently]

To paraphrase the late Ronald Reagan, "There they go again!"

As this is the millionth mention of a possible tolling attempt in my lifetime, wake me when something real happens.

Either they don't realize that, under current Federal law, they can only toll ONE of their Interstates...or they're anticipating Congress lifting that restriction when/*IF* they pass a new highway reauthorization bill.

Meanwhile, Rhode Island appears to want to take Pennsylvania's failed third spot under the federal pilot program and get permission to toll I-95:

http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=579787

" ... States can even add new carpool lanes to existing interstates, and charge money to use the faster lanes. But they generally cannot put tolls on previously toll-free interstate stretches built with federal money.

There is, however, one exception to the rule. In 1998, Congress created a pilot program under which up to three states can start collecting tolls on existing interstates to fund improvements on those roads. So far, though, no states have used it.

Virginia and Missouri both have federal permission to move ahead with the idea, but neither has the tolls up and running. Last year, Virginia amended its request and asked the federal government to let it place tolls on Interstate 95 near the North Carolina border. That request is still pending ...

Pennsylvania also applied for the exception, in order to put tolls on Interstate 80 across the northern stretch of the state. The federal government rejected that plan, largely because it would have diverted some of the toll revenue from the highway to support public transit in Philadelphia ...

Rhode Island hopes to qualify for the spot left open when Pennsylvania's application failed. Lewis, the transportation director, says Rhode Island officials learned from Pennsylvania's experience. Under the plan they are now developing, tolls collected on I-95 would go only toward improvements to the interstate itself.

The interstate has plenty of needs. Right now, Rhode Island is wrapping up a decade-long project to reroute traffic through downtown Providence, but the state will be paying for this project, called the Iway, out of its share of federal highway money for another 12 years. Now, the state is starting to fix up the Pawtucket River bridge, near Massachusetts, where the heavy trucks are being diverted. Repairs on that bridge alone will cost the state half of its annual federal apportionment, Lewis says. Next on the list of repairs is the Providence viaduct.

So far, though, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has been skeptical. "If a state or a governor or DOT wants to add capacity or two lanes on each side, we think that's a good use of tolls, and we have supported that kind of approach,"  he told a Rhode Island television station. "We don't support the kind of approach, though, for roads that have already been built with taxpayer dollars then to be tolled."

Lewis hopes LaHood will change his tune once Rhode Island submits its proposal, most likely this summer. In any event, the state is a long way from putting up toll booths. The General Assembly would still have to approve the plan, and engineering work would have to be done. The toll plazas would not open for at least another two years ... "

Which raises the question, will the fools in Harrisburg ever realize they need to submit a plan where the toll dollars stay with I-80 and aren't used for other projects?

^^You know, speaking as a resident of the most populous county in the state to (I assume) a resident of the second-most-populous, I'm tempted to take the I-80 corridor up on their idea of letting each county in the state support its own transportation projects.  If their desire not to have their highway money diverted to SEPTA means Philadelphia and Pittsburgh taxes don't go to Interstates in counties like Clearfield and Susquehanna, I suspect that people upstate will realize pretty fast how that works out for them.

^^^

Well, if the state under such a plan has enough money to divert from northern counties to SEPTA and Pittsburgh transit, then, logically, they have a surplus and they'd come out just fine!  Even if not, most folks in northern PA would love to come out from under the thumb of Philly, Harrisburg and Pittsburgh.  I'm sure up in NY state residents outside of NYC metro feel the same way!

Anyway, why do you city folks think that the rural folks in northern PA have all this extra money lying around to give you?

And remember, folks, under this plan, ALL interstates would be tolled so I-376, I-279, I-79, I-76 (Sure-kill), I-95, I-476 southern part, would be tolled as well.

EDIT:
Since you guys are in the two most populous counties, why don't you just run roughshod over the rest of the state and take what you want?

I propose that Philadelphia County be renamed Nottingham County.

I'm sure some of the gas tax I pay is going to maintain roads in the northern tier and some of the tolls I pay on the already numerous toll roads in the area goes to maintain the Northeast Extension.

^^^

You may well be right.  Especially with PTC money being siphoned off to PennDOT, which I don't agree with either.  When you use the turnpike, the money shouldn't go to US 30 and US 22 as well.

And, as a former "northern tier" resident, if I were still a resident, I would gladly pay more in taxes if that meant that Harrisburg, Pittsburgh and Philly couldn't tell us what the f**k to do!  (And most of you know how much I'm against ANY tax increase.)

Quote from: mightyace on June 15, 2011, 07:00:36 PM
^^^

Well, if the state under such a plan has enough money to divert from northern counties to SEPTA and Pittsburgh transit, then, logically, they have a surplus and they'd come out just fine!  Even if not, most folks in northern PA would love to come out from under the thumb of Philly, Harrisburg and Pittsburgh.  I'm sure up in NY state residents outside of NYC metro feel the same way!

Anyway, why do you city folks think that the rural folks in northern PA have all this extra money lying around to give you?

And remember, folks, under this plan, ALL interstates would be tolled so I-376, I-279, I-79, I-76 (Sure-kill), I-95, I-476 southern part, would be tolled as well.

EDIT:
Since you guys are in the two most populous counties, why don't you just run roughshod over the rest of the state and take what you want?

I propose that Philadelphia County be renamed Nottingham County.

Chill.

I'm just pointing out that IF the keep-our-money-at-home-and-don't-sent-it-to-those-wicked-city-folks argument that has in fact been "riding roughshod" over Philadelphia and Pittsburgh as long as I've lived here (the notion that Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Harrisburg have been telling you all what to do is a joke.  Philadelphia and Pittsburgh can't even pass gun controls appropriate for areas that aren't State Game Lands) is applied in both directions - in other words, if the "why are we funding transit in Philadelphia?" gripe is responded to with "who do you think's helping pay for your roads?", which it rarely is - I'm not sure the northern tier comes out ahead.  There are an awful lot of people in the southeast and southwest corners of the state, you know, and more of them have more money.  And that's just demographics.

The same argument applies to New York, too.  I'm sure it would be very cathartic to people upstate to cut off everything south of Poughkeepsie.  But it would be a mistake economically, and that's putting it mildly.

Actually it wouldn't.  We'd probably actually have an economy that isn't in permanent recession if we could get rid of all the regulations NYC forces on us.  Our laws are structured to facilitate big business in NYC and as a result normal businesses that would otherwise be in upstate NY avoid us like the plague.  I remember when Krispy Kreme abruptly closed all stores in NY outside of NYC and I suspect that they got sick of paying NY taxes and dealing with NY regulations.  Our housing market is doing well now though, but there's a very good reason for that: we never had the housing boom, or any kind of boom for that matter.

About the only thing we get from NYC is theoretical extra influence in the electoral college, which is actually a lie.  NY would be a swing state if NYC weren't here but with NYC we're a gauranteed blue state, so voting for the president or senate is practically worthless.

Just because we have NYC doesn't mean the state has a budget.  They're actually the reason we don't have one.  Just in the past few years, the state spend millions on a sports stadium in NYC, even though we're broke and have been since forever.  Yes, really.

Quote from: Michael in Philly on June 16, 2011, 03:19:37 AM
Chill.

Agreed, that's why I stepped away from this for several hours.

Quote from: Michael in Philly on June 16, 2011, 03:19:37 AM
in other words, if the "why are we funding transit in Philadelphia?" gripe is responded to with "who do you think's helping pay for your roads?", which it rarely is - I'm not sure the northern tier comes out ahead.

It would be nice to see if there are some objective figures on distribution of highway money on say a county by county basis to see the reality of who's paying for what.  That information is available on the federal level, I don't know if PA has that information.

Obviously, the net money flow is only one way and if it is switching from urban -> rural to rural -> urban than rural Pennsylvanians objecting to paying for others but willing to have others pay for itself is hypocritical.  But, for myself, I'm not a fan of cross subsidizing.  I don't think it's right for you in Philly to pay for Bloomsburg's roads any more than it's right for Bloomsburg to pay for SEPTA.

Quote from: Michael in Philly on June 16, 2011, 03:19:37 AM
There are an awful lot of people in the southeast and southwest corners of the state, you know, and more of them have more money.  And that's just demographics.

Which is why I asked, and I'll say it more calmly now.  How much money does urban PA expect to get from rural PA?  Let's say the division of population in PA is 3 to 1 urban to rural.  To transfer $1 to each rural resident requires 33 1/3 cents per urban resident.  To transfer $1 to each urban resident takes $3 per rural resident.  That's just mathematics.  And, I think that's part of why this kind of issue gets rural residents up in arms more than the reverse.  It hits them in the pocket book much harder.  (In my example, 9 times harder.)

Quote from: Michael in Philly on June 16, 2011, 03:19:37 AM
The same argument applies to New York, too.  I'm sure it would be very cathartic to people upstate to cut off everything south of Poughkeepsie.  But it would be a mistake economically, and that's putting it mildly.

That's hard to say for sure without the hard data I mentioned.  But, you may be right in this sense, the center of frustration would move.  If northern PA would become its own state.  Then you'd probably see people in Bloomsburg, Bradford, Dubois, Clearfield, etc. complaining about the "big bad city folks" in Scranton, Wilkes-Barre, Williamsport and Erie.  That's a smaller scale but the same dynamic.  Unfortunately, it may be endemic wherever there are big differences in population density.

Part of the tension, not surprisingly comes from that, generally, urban areas are predominantly center to left politically while rural areas tend to be center to right politically.  There are exceptions, of course, Cincinnnati, OH and Knoxville, TN tend to lean Republican while current and old PA coal country, including Scranton and Wilkes-Barre, votes Democratic.

And, certainly, PA and NY aren't the only ones.  Our Illinois members have noted you get the same thing in IL with Chicagoland vs the rest of the state.  Residents in eastern Washington and Oregon have similar feelings toward the more numerous residents of the coastal cities.

EDIT:

Quote from: deanej on June 16, 2011, 12:32:19 PM
About the only thing we get from NYC is theoretical extra influence in the electoral college, which is actually a lie.  NY would be a swing state if NYC weren't here but with NYC we're a gauranteed blue state, so voting for the president or senate is practically worthless.

Granted, PA is not a guaranteed blue state but it goes that way more often than not.  In 2000, Al Gore carried Philadelphia by a 3 to 1 margin and the votes there offset the whole rest of the state.  I'm not saying it's the only area that voted predominantly for Gore, just that Philadelphia is big enough and the vote lopsided enough that it made the rest of the state irrelevant.

And, if you look at the Republicans who do get elected in PA, they tend to be political moderates.  They have to be as to attract enough of the Democratic vote to win statewide.  But, that means if you're a conservative Pennsylvanian like my Dad is and I was your vote is relatively worthless, but no more so than if you're a liberal in Montana or Wyoming.