More states consider toll roads to raise infrastructure dollars

[Brandon]

More states consider toll roads to raise infrastructure dollars

Cash-strapped states are scouting for ways to pay for critical road work, and increasingly, the result for motorists is the same: You're going to have to pay a toll.

In the past, state and federal gas taxes largely covered the cost of building and maintaining roads. But the federal gas tax, currently 18.4 cents per gallon, has not changed in 20 years. Meanwhile, people are driving less and vehicles are becoming more fuel efficient.

Other states are coming up with alternatives to tolls and gas taxes. Oregon officials are experimenting with charging motorists based on the miles they travel, instead of the gallons of gas they purchase. Under its pilot program, Oregon tracks in-state mileage using GPS or an electronic odometer.

Some question the fairness of charging a gas-guzzling SUV the same as a fuel-efficient hybrid, but "regardless of what propels the car or truck, it still needs the same pavement, the same lights and the same guardrails," said Tom Cooney, communications director for the Oregon Department of Transportation.

[jbnv]

And now the White House wants to let them do it.

[SteveG1988]

First to be tolled if this passes: I-80 in PA

[Zeffy]

First to be tolled if this passes: I-80 in PA

I'm pretty sure we'll be seeing the California Turnpike pop up along I-5 too.

[agentsteel53]

I'm pretty sure we'll be seeing the California Turnpike pop up along I-5 too.

we'd probably end up calling it the Golden State Turnpike.  really, it's 5-99-5 that's the Golden State Highway (and the freeway sections are the Golden State Freeway) but I think any attempt to toll 99 would result in utter chaos since there are so many towns served by it.

[ZLoth]

I have a novel idea.... use the fuel tax money to actually fund road construction and maintenance..... oh wait, the anti-car alliance wants their light rail and high-speed rail.

[PHLBOS]

Excerpt from jbnv's link (Bold emphasis added):

But the Alliance for Toll-Free Interstates, which includes American Trucking Associations, UPS, FedEx, McDonald's and Dunkin' Donuts, said it was disappointed.
"Tolling has proven to be an inefficient mechanism for collecting transportation revenue, consuming up to 20 percent of revenue generated, and those paying the toll may not even see that road improved because the president's plan would allow toll revenue to go to other projects in the state,"  said Miles Morin, spokesman for the alliance.

If what's mentioned above is indeed true, we could be seeing a sterioded version of what's been going on w/DRPA, PANYNJ & PTC (Act 44).  Money being dumped into a pit but little or nothing to show for it on the roads that are tolled.  Automatic deal-breaker RIGHT THERE!  YES, I'M YELLING!  Enough of the Robbing Peter to Pay Paul.

IIRC, a few years ago we were all told that roads would crumble if the Stimulus Bill ($787 Billion price tag) didn't pass.  It passed, but how much of it really got allocated towards roads and the like... roughly $30 Billion (equivalent of 2 Big Digs).  Less than 4%, which is absolutely appalling IMHO.  Where did the rest of the money go?  Yes, I'm aware that all of the money wasn't intended to be earmarked for transportation; but less than 4%, come on.

And for those that think that toll roads are the salvation of maintenance & quality construction; let me remind everyone here that over the last 31 years, most (yes, I'm aware of the I-35W bridge collapse in Minneapolis) of the major road/bridge/tunnel non-earthquake-related collapses occurred on toll facilities. 

3 Examples of such:

1.  1983: Mianus River Bridge collapse along the CT Turnpike (I-95); tolls were still being collected at the time.

2.  1987: Schoharie Creek Bridge collapse along the NYS Thruway (I-90).

3.  2006: Liberty Tunnel (I-90) ceiling collapse; tunnel in question is the link between the Mass Pike Extension and the Ted Williams Tunnel.

Sorry, as much as I believe in and want to see more investment in transportation; I'm not convinced w/the above proposal.

One solution, something that should've been done back in the 70s when gas prices first soared, would have been to make the federal gas tax a percentage rather than a flat rate.  Heck even in 1972, $0.04/gallon (the original tax to fund the Interstate system) didn't go as far as it did in 1959 when it first took effect.

Second, get the feds out of the fuel economy business (aka dump CAFE standards) and let the marketplace decide the average fuel economy of vehicles sold.  In economically lean times, economy cars sell more; in more prosporous times, consumers will splurge and by something more luxurious and consumes more fuel.  If the economy improves (from a real-world perspective, we're still in a recession); more gas is consumed and if more gas is consumed, more tax revenue is collected for road projects.

Third, it wasn't all that long ago (late 2008/early 2009) that the average price on the pump was just under $2/gallon.  Had it stayed near or close to there; raising/changing the tax would've been a lot easier to do.  While the Administration itself doesn't directly control oil & gas prices; they seem to be doing everything they can to hinder domestic production and/or sale of oil in this country and, hence, keep fuel prices high.  They realized early on that if fuel prices remain low & supplies plentiful; very few will gravitate towards so-called "Green Energy" alternatives (that don't seem to have too good of a track record as of late).

Side bar: if the price of gas keeps going up, like it has been as of late; we could see nationwide $4+/gallon for 87 Octane Unleaded by this summer.  The last time such happened, late summer/early fall 2008; the recession that we're still in hit shortly thereafter.   Such could be an economic double-whammy IMHO.

Anyone miss Ray LaHood yet?

I have a novel idea.... use the fuel tax money to actually fund road construction and maintenance..... oh wait, the anti-car alliance wants their light rail and high-speed rail.

Correct.  It's a bit ironic that those politicians scream about lack of money for roads wind up not spending it on such once they get it.

[Alps]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/30/us/white-house-wants-to-lift-ban-on-interstate-tolls.html

Obama is on board, apparently.

[SSOWorld]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/30/us/white-house-wants-to-lift-ban-on-interstate-tolls.html

Obama is on board, apparently.

Can't read it - need a subscription

[SD Mapman]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/30/us/white-house-wants-to-lift-ban-on-interstate-tolls.html

Obama is on board, apparently.

Well, if they decide to toll the long interstate stretches in the Upper Midwest, everybody will just drive the service roads everywhere. I know if SD tolls its interstates, I'm never driving them again.

[J N Winkler]

Excerpt from jbnv's link (Bold emphasis added):

But the Alliance for Toll-Free Interstates, which includes American Trucking Associations, UPS, FedEx, McDonald's and Dunkin' Donuts, said it was disappointed.

"Tolling has proven to be an inefficient mechanism for collecting transportation revenue, consuming up to 20 percent of revenue generated, and those paying the toll may not even see that road improved because the president's plan would allow toll revenue to go to other projects in the state,"  said Miles Morin, spokesman for the alliance.

If what's mentioned above is indeed true, we could be seeing a sterioded version of what's been going on w/DRPA, PANYNJ & PTC (Act 44).  Money being dumped into a pit but little or nothing to show for it on the roads that are tolled.  Automatic deal-breaker RIGHT THERE!  YES, I'M YELLING!  Enough of the Robbing Peter to Pay Paul.

There are two elements here:

*  Elimination of the three-slot limit for Interstate tolling

*  Allowing cross-pledging (by eliminating the requirement that tolls stay with the Interstate on which they are charged)

I think it is worth protesting the proposal to allow cross-pledging, and in fact I encourage such protests, but I also think it is unlikely to pass as-is since for the roadborne logistics sector it is as poisonous as SOPA/PIPA was for the casual Internet user.  I think it is more likely that the three-slot limit will go but Interstate tolling will fail anyway for much the same reason the three slots already assigned haven't resulted in refurbished Interstates on which new tolls are being collected to pay for the refurbishment.  In the absence of interstate coordination, cross-pledging only adds to the problems by inviting round after round of retaliatory welcome-stranger tolling where states soak motorists on their through-through roads to subsidize roads of more local interest.

IIRC, a few years ago we were all told that roads would crumble if the Stimulus Bill ($787 Billion price tag) didn't pass.  It passed, but how much of it really got allocated towards roads and the like... roughly $30 Billion (equivalent of 2 Big Digs).  Less than 4%, which is absolutely appalling IMHO.  Where did the rest of the money go?  Yes, I'm aware that all of the money wasn't intended to be earmarked for transportation; but less than 4%, come on.

If memory serves, quite a lot of the stimulus in fact consisted of tax cuts (granted on top of tax cuts which should never have been granted in the first place).  It would have been nice to see more than 30% of a typical annual roads expenditure budget (which was about $100 billion for the entire US, at all levels of government, at the time) go into the stimulus, but in order for that to happen, there would have had to be much more of a "plans on the shelf" holding pool.  The stimulus paid for a large amount of proposal-only resurfacing work precisely because few states had plans on the shelf for substantial projects.

[SD Mapman]

In the absence of interstate coordination, cross-pledging only adds to the problems by inviting round after round of retaliatory welcome-stranger tolling where states soak motorists on their through-through roads to subsidize roads of more local interest.

I could see our government just tolling out-of-staters.

[SidS1045]

Unfortunately this entire thread is strictly theoretical, because the various critters, beasts, whiners and 3-year-olds in suits inhabiting Washington are completely incapable of having an intelligent, ADULT discussion about taxes.

On second thought, make that: "...incapable of having an intelligent, ADULT discussion about anything."

Seriously.  Forget indexing the gas tax to inflation or the wholesale price of gas.  Forget outlawing set-asides in tax bills.  Forget VMT.  Forget tolls (at least on the federal level).  Nothing will be done because of the childish, stubborn resistance to mature discussion of anything having to do with taxation on the part of those we supposedly elected to govern us.  The gas tax will stay where it is and our roads will just continue to crumble.

Would absolutely love to be proven wrong, but in this hyper-political climate...not gonna happen.

[Pete from Boston]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/30/us/white-house-wants-to-lift-ban-on-interstate-tolls.html

Obama is on board, apparently.

Can't read it - need a subscription

NYT articles will often display for free if accessed by a link from a search engine.  Otherwise, use your mobile and stop it from loading the "pay up" page.

[wxfree]

Here are some interesting portions of the proposal.

Federal participation would be allowed for

reconstruction of a toll-free Federal-aid highway on the Interstate System and conversion of the highway to a toll facility, subject to the approval of the Secretary in accordance with paragraph (12)

and

conversion of 1 or more lanes on a toll-free highway, bridge or tunnel (including highways, bridges or tunnels on the Interstate System) to a toll facility for the purpose of reducing or managing high levels of congestion, subject to the approval of the Secretary in accordance with paragraph (12)

Traffic management tolls would be freely allowed, and other Interstates could be tolled after reconstruction.  As for use of the toll money, it isn't limited to operation of the toll road, or even other toll roads; it's essentially unlimited.

A public authority with jurisdiction over a toll facility shall ensure that all toll revenues received from operation of the toll facility are used only for...
any other purpose for which Federal funds may be obligated by a State under this title.

Another interesting provision

Fees collected from motorists using a toll facility that is tolled pursuant to this section and opened to traffic on or after October 1, 2015, shall be collected only through the use of noncash electronic technology that optimizes the free flow of traffic on the toll facility.

Edit:

I forgot to add this.  In addition to using toll money for "any other purpose" federal funds can be used for, there's also a public transportation element.

A public authority with jurisdiction over a toll facility shall ensure that all toll revenues received from operation of the toll facility are used only for...
any costs necessary for the improvement and operation of public transportation service that--
(I) is provided within the transportation corridor in which the toll facility is located; or
(II) contributes to the improved operation of the toll facility or the highway on which the toll facility is located...

[wxfree]

The "any other purpose" is what really gets me.  I'm not a fan of the financial inefficiency and traffic diversion caused by tolling, but I have less opposition if they limit toll rates to those necessary to pay for the road.

[jbnv]

The "any other purpose" is what really gets me.  I'm not a fan of the financial inefficiency and traffic diversion caused by tolling, but I have less opposition if they limit toll rates to those necessary to pay for the road.

Ditto. I'm tired of the practice of collecting taxes on everything under the sun, putting that money into a giant pot and doling out with little or no connection to what the money is supposed to pay for. Tolls should pay first for routine maintenance on the road tolled; second on projects to extend and improve the road tolled; third to maintain or improve other existing roads; fourth and finally set aside for future needs. Highway tolls should fund nothing other than the transportation infrastructure.

[Mergingtraffic]

And now the White House wants to let them do it.

Is CT listening??????  I would hate to pay tolls but I approve it if it means fixing and EXPANDING our highways.

[Henry]

I'm pretty certain that there'll be more tolled Interstates in the East, as they have US routes running parallel to them, while the Interstates in the West do not.

[Pete from Boston]

And now the White House wants to let them do it.

Is CT listening??????  I would hate to pay tolls but I approve it if it means fixing and EXPANDING our highways.

I wonder if the modern lack of need for booths would get Connecticut over its distaste for tolls following the 1983 Stratford crash. 

My recollection is that they raised the gas tax to make up for the loss of tolls in those days, leading to today's very high gasoline prices in Connecticut.  I don't suppose we'd be seeing those come back down.  Connecticut could become a very expensive state in which to drive.

[hotdogPi]

Left lane travel could cost 10¢ per mile, with a higher speed limit. (Only on roads with 3+ lanes in each direction.)

This would get some money, and nobody would be forced to pay the toll.

[Mergingtraffic]

And now the White House wants to let them do it.

Is CT listening??????  I would hate to pay tolls but I approve it if it means fixing and EXPANDING our highways.

I wonder if the modern lack of need for booths would get Connecticut over its distaste for tolls following the 1983 Stratford crash. 

My recollection is that they raised the gas tax to make up for the loss of tolls in those days, leading to today's very high gasoline prices in Connecticut.  I don't suppose we'd be seeing those come back down.  Connecticut could become a very expensive state in which to drive.

There has been talk or resurrecting tolls in the past decade.  Study after study it seems.  The major cons are:
1)  losing federal funds if tolls are enacted (which would become moot if this bill passes)
2)  making sure ALL $ from tolls goes to transportation (which could also be moot as in 2015 CT will place a lock box on transportation funds)
3)  people are still afraid of another major toll booth accident....even though neighboring states have toll booths as well with no major accidents.
4) Here in the "land of steady habits" people still think of booths even though most studies say there wouldn't be any

So I favor tolls but I think b/c of the above reasons CT will study and study get money and then delay it and delay it, have somebody bring up a lawsuit, delay it again, and then they may do it.  (Wait am I talking about the US-7/Merritt Pkwy interchange too?  mmmm could be?  )

[vdeane]

Plus CT doesn't want to expand its highways period.  Even an unlimited budget wouldn't get I-95 widened, for example.

[Laura]

The "any other purpose" is what really gets me.  I'm not a fan of the financial inefficiency and traffic diversion caused by tolling, but I have less opposition if they limit toll rates to those necessary to pay for the road.

Ditto. I'm tired of the practice of collecting taxes on everything under the sun, putting that money into a giant pot and doling out with little or no connection to what the money is supposed to pay for. Tolls should pay first for routine maintenance on the road tolled; second on projects to extend and improve the road tolled; third to maintain or improve other existing roads; fourth and finally set aside for future needs. Highway tolls should fund nothing other than the transportation infrastructure.

Agreed. We wouldn't have this problem if the money wasn't being used for other purposes.


iPhone

[jp the roadgeek]

Plus CT doesn't want to expand its highways period.  Even an unlimited budget wouldn't get I-95 widened, for example.

Instead, they'll funnel it to build $1000/inch bus only roadways for buses that only 10 people will ride.  Never mind fixing 95 or 84 west of Hartford.