AARoads Forum

http://dot.state.wy.us/wydot/planning_projects/studies_plans/I-80_tolling_study (http://dot.state.wy.us/wydot/planning_projects/studies_plans/I-80_tolling_study)

What did Ed Rendell take a covert trip west?

Another proposed "no cash" tolling facility.  It's one thing to do that for city highways but for through routes?

So, if the politicians can't get us to quit driving via gas prices, then they're going to toll us to death?

Quote from: mightyace on June 11, 2009, 03:02:16 PMSo, if the politicians can't get us to quit driving via gas prices, then they're going to toll us to death?

You should come to the Netherlands, where you can see what happens if you tax motorists to death...

I-80 in Wyoming is somewhat easily bypassed.

The feasibility study determined that I-80 isn't that easy to bypass for a lot of routes

http://www.dot.state.wy.us/webdav/site/wydot/shared/Public%20Affairs/I80%20Phs%201%20Tolling%20Feasibility%20Final%20Report%2010.01.08.pdf (http://www.dot.state.wy.us/webdav/site/wydot/shared/Public%20Affairs/I80%20Phs%201%20Tolling%20Feasibility%20Final%20Report%2010.01.08.pdf)

That said, the state of Wyoming is so anti-tax that I would be fully stunned if this were ever to happen- that it is even being given this much attention is fully shocking. The only way I could see it working is if they only tolled out of state license plates, but that might be unconstitutional (maybe if they tolled trucks only-as is an option-it could work.)

Quote from: Scott5114 on June 12, 2009, 06:19:51 AM
I-80 in Wyoming is somewhat easily bypassed.

Not if you want to stay on an interstate.

Well, if you're not driving a truck, there's always I-70.

Of course I'm probably looking at this at a skew angle, being from OK, so if I wanted to go anywhere west on the I-80 corridor I could go up to 70, take it to its terminus, and then up to 80 from there.

Quote from: Scott5114Well, if you're not driving a truck, there's always I-70.

Until Colorado slaps a toll on I-70 to pay for widening; adding an extra tube for the Eisenhower Tunnel could make it a dandy toll also.

I've heard there could be truck restrictions on I-70 for/near the Eisenhower Tunnel that could drive more trucks up to I-80, but I've never really looked into it to see if it was more than a rumor.

Going up I-70 adds another couple hours or so, and the fastest way to get from East to the Wasatch Front via I-70 is to take US-6 up the Price Canyon- I-70 itself is way out of the way once you get to Utah

Seriously, though, I do wonder why they're trying. FHWA has shot PennDOT down time and time again on this matter...

Quote from: Scott5114 on June 13, 2009, 05:10:14 PM
Seriously, though, I do wonder why they're trying. FHWA has shot PennDOT down time and time again on this matter...

I don't know what their chances are either, but the "experimental" slot that PennDOT was/is gunning for is still up for grabs.

QuoteSeriously, though, I do wonder why they're trying. FHWA has shot PennDOT down time and time again on this matter...

That's because PennDOT (and the Pennsylvania Legislature) was going to siphon/shift I-80 tolls to roads and transit elsewhere, even though Federal law clearly states that new tolls on existing Interstates are to be used for that Interstate highway only.

So if Wyoming intends to use I-80 tolls just for the maintenance of I-80 within Wyoming, they'll have a much better chance of approval than PennDOT.

Does the Wyoming DOT expect to make much money per year with tolling I-80 in the Equality State? How busy is that section of I-80? I think the best reason for a toll road in Wyoming is to put Oasises on it like the Penna Turnpike and the Chicagoland Tollways because there are stretches on the Wyoming I-80 where there is not even a gas station.

QuoteThere's stretches of that road that isn't even civilized.

I take offense to that!  :)

The road is fairly heavily congested by long-haul truck traffic. Pretty much every piece of freight headed from the eastern United States to northern California and WA/OR/ID/UT goes across I-80 in Wyoming. It's a very, very important national shipping artery, so truck tolls would generate a fair amount of revenue.

The main objective, as the people of Wyoming see it, is that a giant chunk (if not most) of the traffic on I-80 is out of state traffic, so it's only fair that they should have to pay to drive on it, since they aren't giving taxes to Wyoming.

If I were the boss, I'd heavily toll the area between Rock Springs and Rawlins- that would minimize impact for residents of Wyoming while forcing out of staters to pay. West of Rock Springs, folks generally head to Salt Lake when they need a city, and east of Rawlins and then up in Lander/Riverton they generally associate with Denver, so except for people needing to go from Evanston/Rock Springs to Laramie/Cheyenne for college or government stuff, nobody in Wyoming would ever need to pay a toll

It's been awhile since I've been to Wyoming , but if they start tolling I-80 then I-25 should be a tollway also. I wonder if it's going to be run like the Indiana Toll Road or like the Ohio Turnpike if I-80 becomes a tollway in Wyoming

I doubt I-25 will ever be tolled. The vast majority of Wyoming's population lives along a loose interpretation of the I-25 corridor (I'd consider Laramie and Gillette to be on the I-25 corridor). For a huge majority of Wyoming's population, intra-Wyoming travel involves I-25. On a national scale, I-25 doesn't have nearly the importance I-80 (except from the Colorado Line to I-80, but US-85 and 287 are both perfectly good roads that could and would be used to circumvent tolls) does, so a toll on I-25 would cost Wyomingites significant money without also pulling in a lot of out of state money. Tolling I-80 in the right places wouldn't cost the vast majority of Wyomingites very often but would bring in tons of out of state money- and that's really the objective here- to bring in out of state money

If such a distance in Europe would be a toll road, the tolls would be around $ 100 for crossing Wyoming. I hope American toll plans make more sense. I do think users should pay something to maintain roads, but mobility needs to be affordable, especially in those regions like Wyoming.

From what I've heard it would be somewhere in the neighborhood of $10 to $20 to cross Wyoming, likely on the lower end of that

Quote from: corco on September 24, 2009, 01:53:24 PM
From what I've heard it would be somewhere in the neighborhood of $10 to $20 to cross Wyoming, likely on the lower end of that

And that's for 402.76 for just under 2.5 to 5 cents per mile.

Meanwhile, PA's I-80 tolling proposal would start at around $25 to cross the 311.07 miles of PA or over 8 cents per mile.

(Mileage numbers are from AAroads www.interstate-guide.com (http://www.interstate-guide.com))

And the mainline Thruway is $15 from Harriman to Buffalo (about 350 miles).

The thing about Western roads is that the Interstates are very lightly traveled, and the surface routes moreso.  This will just drive traffic onto the two-lanes (US 24, 30, 36, etc.) .  That's not going to be a problem from a traffic standpoint, but it means the tolls will have lower traffic than anticipated.

That doesn't apply in the case of I-80 though, it should be noted. US-30 and I-80 run concurrent for most of the state, and between Rock Springs and Rawlins there are NO OTHER ROADS (state highway, dirt, or otherwise) to get between the two towns, short of going all the way up to Lander and back south.

Also, the proposed tolls for trucks along I-80 are in excess of $100

Okay, I hope this doesn't offend anyone but this is a really stupid idea.  The state hardly has any residents to begin with and really not much along I-80 to interest anyone traveling through.  Most of the tourist attractions are in the northern part of the state.  I-70 is a much more scenic drive if you're heading west.  So why on earth would Wyoming officials want to drive potential tourists and passersby out of the state?  They should be paying people to drive on I-80, not tolling them!

The objective is to offset maintenance costs. Read the feasibility study- I-80 has more semi-trucks than cars on it. It's the only significant stretch of freeway in the nation with that issue.

The point here is to make money off interstate trucks, which is a great idea as these interstate trucks cost an absurd amount in maintenance costs, as trucks wear freeway surface down way faster. Since Wyoming has among the lowest gas taxes in the nation, very little of that truck money ends up coming back to Wyoming. Wyoming certainly isn't going to raise the tax on diesel to exorbitant levels, because lets face it, a very high percentage of (relative to other states) locals have diesel trucks, and that impact would be statewide, not just across what looks like Sweetwater and Carbon counties.

The state of Wyoming is rightfully pissed that it's paying for maintenance for California trucks to go to Chicago without the state of Wyoming seeing any benefit. Because nobody lives in Wyoming, all the traffic is heading for other states and Wyoming is paying for these vehicles to do that. That's not fair to Wyoming.

As far as I-70 is concerned- to go to Salt Lake, Boise, San Francisco, or Oregon from Chicago and the northeast, I-70 or I-90 would take between 4 and 10 extra hours. Most people will pay $10 for a 4 hour savings. As far as trucks- if it can scare them all away with a $100 toll it's happy to do so. No trucks would cut maintenance costs way, way down and the state of Wyoming would be better off financially.

I-80 doesn't have the congestion of I-70 west of Denver either.  It's possible I-70 may someday have a tolled section west of Denver in Colorado, very likely for at least a third tube for the Eisenhower Tunnel.

Quote from: corco on September 24, 2009, 09:28:12 PM
That doesn't apply in the case of I-80 though, it should be noted. US-30 and I-80 run concurrent for most of the state, and between Rock Springs and Rawlins there are NO OTHER ROADS (state highway, dirt, or otherwise) to get between the two towns, short of going all the way up to Lander and back south.

Also, the proposed tolls for trucks along I-80 are in excess of $100

But how many trucks are going to/from Wyoming?  Most are passing through and would seek alternate routes that would avoid I-80 in the state entirely.

Quote from: AlpsROADS on September 26, 2009, 11:07:15 AM
any trucks are going to/from Wyoming?  Most are passing through and would seek alternate routes that would avoid I-80 in the state entirely.

an eighteen-wheeler gets about 6 miles per gallon.  100 bucks buys you, at 3 bucks a gallon, 33 gallons of diesel.  33 times 6 is 200 miles.  Trucks will make a detour of 200 miles, but no more.  I-70 and I-90 (your two realistic alternatives for a cross-country trek from, say, San Francisco to New York), are more than 200 miles away.  QED.

yes, a lot of trucks coming out of LA will instead take I-15 to I-70 at Richfield instead of to I-80 at Salt Lake.  Similarly, trucks coming out of Portland may decide to take I-84 to I-86 to I-15 up to I-90 instead of I-84 to I-80.  But, in general, the toll rate chosen by Wyoming is a very, very sensible one.  Excessive, from the our perspective as poor roadgeeks, but when factored into the costs of a long-haul load, and the fact that I-80 is the gentlest Rockies crossing north of I-40, Wyoming is nicely hitting the peak of the supply-demand curve. 

"The state of Wyoming is rightfully pissed that it's paying for maintenance for California trucks to go to Chicago without the state of Wyoming seeing any benefit. Because nobody lives in Wyoming, all the traffic is heading for other states and Wyoming is paying for these vehicles to do that. That's not fair to Wyoming."

If WYDOT can show me where they paid for even 50% of I-80 rebuilding costs (we know Wyoming didn't pay more than their 10% share of initial construction :rolleyes:), I'll take their complaints seriously. And besides, Wyoming gets more revenue from coal, oil, and natural gas than they could use on current operating expenses, so they should be able to front as much of the cost of rebuild as possible without having to do something as egregious as tolling I-80.

But then again, I'm a Colorado resident who'd experience an I-70 at a near-standstill if tolling I-80 ever happened, so of course I'm biased :-P

I think the distance of I-80 through Wyoming is long enough to generate some user fees payed by fuel taxes. Most cars do have to fill up once in 400 miles, and trucks maybe not as often, but they fill up if needed, or where it's the cheapest, and as far as I know, Wyoming is one of the cheapest.

But they could build a mainline toll plaza between Rock Springs and Rawlins, no chance of shunpikers there, because there are no other roads in this area. US 287 is a 140 mile detour, I don't think many people will do that to avoid a few dollars.

Quote from: brad2971 on September 27, 2009, 12:30:28 AM
"The state of Wyoming is rightfully pissed that it's paying for maintenance for California trucks to go to Chicago without the state of Wyoming seeing any benefit. Because nobody lives in Wyoming, all the traffic is heading for other states and Wyoming is paying for these vehicles to do that. That's not fair to Wyoming."

If WYDOT can show me where they paid for even 50% of I-80 rebuilding costs (we know Wyoming didn't pay more than their 10% share of initial construction :rolleyes:), I'll take their complaints seriously. And besides, Wyoming gets more revenue from coal, oil, and natural gas than they could use on current operating expenses, so they should be able to front as much of the cost of rebuild as possible without having to do something as egregious as tolling I-80.

But then again, I'm a Colorado resident who'd experience an I-70 at a near-standstill if tolling I-80 ever happened, so of course I'm biased :-P

Not to mention the fact that Wyoming has very few highways to maintain.  But if they want to toll it that's fine with me because I'll never take I-80 through Wyoming again.  It will be known as the Ghost Tollway.

Quote from: brad2971 on September 27, 2009, 12:30:28 AM
Wyoming gets more revenue from coal, oil, and natural gas than they could use on current operating expenses, so they should be able to front as much of the cost of rebuild as possible without having to do something as egregious as tolling I-80.

that is not a reasonable argument.  that is like saying "oh, they have the money, they can afford to run a deficit in Department A by borrowing from Department B". 

Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 27, 2009, 11:42:36 AM

Quote from: brad2971 on September 27, 2009, 12:30:28 AM
Wyoming gets more revenue from coal, oil, and natural gas than they could use on current operating expenses, so they should be able to front as much of the cost of rebuild as possible without having to do something as egregious as tolling I-80.

that is not a reasonable argument.  that is like saying "oh, they have the money, they can afford to run a deficit in Department A by borrowing from Department B". 

That's how governmental units work.  Surpluses in some areas are used to offset deficits in other areas.  On the national scene, Wyoming gets more revenue coming into the state per capita than any other state I believe.  In other words they receive much more in federal monies than what they pay in while here in Michigan we only get about 85-90% of the tax dollars we pay out back, because we have to subsidize states like Wyoming.  I'm already paying for road projects in Wyoming.  I'm not about to subject myself to double taxation.

"That's how governmental units work.  Surpluses in some areas are used to offset deficits in other areas.  On the national scene, Wyoming gets more revenue coming into the state per capita than any other state I believe.  In other words they receive much more in federal monies than what they pay in while here in Michigan we only get about 85-90% of the tax dollars we pay out back, because we have to subsidize states like Wyoming.  I'm already paying for road projects in Wyoming.  I'm not about to subject myself to double taxation."

Actually, WY is close to break-even on the federal benefits/taxes ratio, except on the gas tax disbursement formula.

But let's forget about that part of the issue. I strongly suspect WY gets a fair amount of sales tax revenue from all those big truckstops that are located on I-80 to serve those truckers who are wearing down I-80. And I reckon that the state and communities along I-80 get a fair amount of motel tax revenue, as well. And have we even mentioned that WY, a relatively non-poverty stricken state, has one of the lowest gas taxes in the nation :-P

Bottom line: The notion that Wyoming is harmed by having to pay out in I-80 maintenance costs to benefits the cross-country traveller is rather illegitimate. :pan:

how much sales and motel tax do they get?  It isn't anywhere near the $100 or so they would toll a truck to get across on I-80.  That's a day's journey for a truck, and 75 gallons of diesel.  So assume maybe 20 dollars of gas tax revenue, and 10% of a $45 hotel bill.  Not nearly the same.

I say Wyoming lower their state gas tax to compensate for this new revenue stream; they still make more money and locals (who drive mainly all the other roads that are not I-80) will see a benefit.

"how much sales and motel tax do they get?  It isn't anywhere near the $100 or so they would toll a truck to get across on I-80."

This presumes that the trucking industry would have no issues with paying $100 to cross Wyoming. This is demonstrably false. The major reason why US287 in Southern Colorado has about 1400 trucks/day (supplying the CO Front Range) on the road is so those trucks can avoid paying the Kansas Turnpike for about 40 miles of their road south of Wichita.

After all, no sane trucking firm would take a much slower US287 through TX, OK, and CO if there weren't fee avoidance involved :happy:

given the scarcity of other roads besides I-80, a lot of the trucks will just bite the bullet and continue using that route.  I-70 and I-90 are the only other reasonable options for a long-haul run.

"The major reason why US287 in Southern Colorado has about 1400 trucks/day (supplying the CO Front Range) on the road is so those trucks can avoid paying the Kansas Turnpike for about 40 miles of their road south of Wichita."

Or could it be that US287 is 100 miles shorter between Denver and Dallas than I-70 to I-35? I think the fuel that saves would be a bigger consideration than the toll savings.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 27, 2009, 12:22:28 PM
how much sales and motel tax do they get?  It isn't anywhere near the $100 or so they would toll a truck to get across on I-80.  That's a day's journey for a truck, and 75 gallons of diesel.  So assume maybe 20 dollars of gas tax revenue, and 10% of a $45 hotel bill.  Not nearly the same.

I say Wyoming lower their state gas tax to compensate for this new revenue stream; they still make more money and locals (who drive mainly all the other roads that are not I-80) will see a benefit.

Twisted logic.  I don't believe truckers stay in hotels very often (if ever).  If you toll I-80 you'll no doubt keep some of the truck traffic but most vacationers passing through will opt to take I-70 since it's more scenic and not much longer.  So the state of Wyoming and the businesses therein will be losing out on gasoline, lodging and food revenue.  Truckers and trucking companies will also avoid it if at all possible.  This is a terrible plan for both businesses and the state.  They may as well put up signs saying "Keep Out-We Don't Want You Here".

that is why vacationers (who, for the most part, are not driving 10-axle vehicles) are tolled a lot less.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 27, 2009, 05:10:01 PM
that is why vacationers (who, for the most part, are not driving 10-axle vehicles) are tolled a lot less.

It's still a toll!  Travelers will avoid I-80 across Wyoming like the plague.  I can't believe businesses along the I-80 are very happy about this prospect.

there is no place to go to affordably avoid the toll road. 

Quote from: brad2971 on September 27, 2009, 12:15:30 PM


Actually, WY is close to break-even on the federal benefits/taxes ratio, except on the gas tax disbursement formula.

Uh, no that's not an accurate statement at all.  In recent years they've received from $1.11 to $1.16 for every tax dollar paid in.  I can only find figures through 2005, but I doubt recent years vary much from these figures:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/ftsbs-timeseries-20071016-.pdf (http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/ftsbs-timeseries-20071016-.pdf)

Quote from: Terry Shea on September 27, 2009, 08:10:48 PM
In recent years they've received from $1.11 to $1.16 for every tax dollar paid in. 

compare that to the states receiving $1.60 or more!

QuoteIt's still a toll!  Travelers will avoid I-80 across Wyoming like the plague.  I can't believe businesses along the I-80 are very happy about this prospect.

Only if those travelers don't place a high value on additional travel time/mileage and fuel costs would they avoid a tolled I-80 across Wyoming.

Using an I-15/US 6/I-70/I-76 route to bypass I-80 in Wyoming adds about 130 miles and, because of some lower speed limits and the 2-lane sections along US 6, about 3 hours of travel time.  Assuming a 30 MPG car and $3/gal gas (certainly plausible given it'll be at least a few years before tolling is implemented), that adds about $13 in additional gas costs.

Even if the I-80 toll is limited to the Rock Springs-Rawlins segment, the additional mileage and travel time (via US 191/WY 28/US 287) remains about the same.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 27, 2009, 08:12:23 PM

Quote from: Terry Shea on September 27, 2009, 08:10:48 PM
In recent years they've received from $1.11 to $1.16 for every tax dollar paid in. 

compare that to the states receiving $1.60 or more!

Except that we're not talking about other states here, we're talking about Wyoming.  That's the state proposing to build a tollway across the entire length of the state, and they already receive much more in federal tax dollars than what they pay in.  The fact that some other states may receive even more per dollar than what they pay in is irrelevant.

whether they do or do not receive more in federal funds than what they pay in isn't actually relevant to whether or not a toll road makes sense for them.  Furthermore, their toll road is not relevant to *you*, a Michigan resident.  Your argument against the toll road  ("they get enough money already!") seems to be more motivated by anger than an actual look at the numbers.

Quote from: froggie on September 27, 2009, 08:20:08 PM

QuoteIt's still a toll!  Travelers will avoid I-80 across Wyoming like the plague.  I can't believe businesses along the I-80 are very happy about this prospect.

Only if those travelers don't place a high value on additional travel time/mileage and fuel costs would they avoid a tolled I-80 across Wyoming.

Using an I-15/US 6/I-70/I-76 route to bypass I-80 in Wyoming adds about 130 miles and, because of some lower speed limits and the 2-lane sections along US 6, about 3 hours of travel time.  Assuming a 30 MPG car and $3/gal gas (certainly plausible given it'll be at least a few years before tolling is implemented), that adds about $13 in additional gas costs.

Even if the I-80 toll is limited to the Rock Springs-Rawlins segment, the additional mileage and travel time (via US 191/WY 28/US 287) remains about the same.

It looks to me to be more like 50 miles rather than 130.  It's virtually the same distance from SLC to Denver going either way, so you just need to determine the difference from the I-80/I-76 interchange to Cheyenne and Denver respectively.  US-50 between I-15 and I-70 is another option.  Although slightly longer it's more freeway and very little 2-lane.  You also seem to be assuming that all the traffic heading east is going to stay in the I-80 corridor when in reality much of it would venture south at some point anyway.

Quote from: Terry Shea on September 27, 2009, 08:38:47 PM
It looks to me to be more like 50 miles rather than 130. 

it's 125.  130 is close enough!

Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 27, 2009, 08:34:19 PM
whether they do or do not receive more in federal funds than what they pay in isn't actually relevant to whether or not a toll road makes sense for them.  Furthermore, their toll road is not relevant to *you*, a Michigan resident.  Your argument against the toll road  ("they get enough money already!") seems to be more motivated by anger than an actual look at the numbers.

It's relevant to anyone living in the area or anyone who plans to travel through the area.  It's relevant to anyone who pays federal taxes, especially those from states who receive less in tax revenue than what they pay out.  I don't like paying taxes.  Period.  I don't like paying tolls.  Period.  If they toll I-80 through Wyoming I will seek an alternative...or at least I would except for the fact that I already always take I-70 to US-6 to go to Salt Lake City and regions to the west.  I took I-80 through Wyoming once and wasn't that impressed.  I-70 is much more scenic and doesn't take much longer.  I'm sure not going to pay a toll for the "privilege" of driving through Wyoming and I don't know why anyone else would.   

Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 27, 2009, 08:44:10 PM

Quote from: Terry Shea on September 27, 2009, 08:38:47 PM
It looks to me to be more like 50 miles rather than 130. 

it's 125.  130 is close enough!

Hmmm.  I think you're right.  I miscalculated somewhere.  At any rate vacationers would be more apt to take in the scenery along I-70.  The fact that they're driving rather than flying means they aren't likely to be in such a hurry to get where they're going.  And as I stated previously, a lot of the traffic along I-80 will divert south to I-70 at some point anyway, so if Wyoming goes forth with tolling I-80 people will simply divert south sooner.

I don't like paying taxes either, but roads don't come for free.  Wyoming has discovered an inequity in who is using the roads vs who is paying for them, and they seek to rectify that inequity, and increase the balance in favor of their own residents.  Seems fair to me. 

if you don't want your federal taxes going to another state, take it up with the feds, not the state of Wyoming.  Wyoming is looking out for their own interest.  Good for them.

"how much sales and motel tax do they get?  It isn't anywhere near the $100 or so they would toll a truck to get across on I-80."

It should be noted that food has no sales tax in Wyoming

Another note to make is that in the wintertime, I-70 is closed a heck of a lot more often than I-80, further limiting options.

I would also argue that with the exception of Colorado and Utah's interstates, Wyoming benefits a lot less from the rest of the nation's interstate system as so few people live here. Certainly more non-Wyomingite miles are driven within Wyoming than Wyomingite miles driven outside of Wyoming, so Wyoming is at an imbalance there, and to me the argument that Wyoming shouldn't get at least $2 for every $1 spent boosting the rest of the nation's infrastructure is absurd, as due to our low population we give away far more miles to other states than we take up.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 27, 2009, 09:45:46 PM
I don't like paying taxes either, but roads don't come for free.  Wyoming has discovered an inequity in who is using the roads vs who is paying for them, and they seek to rectify that inequity, and increase the balance in favor of their own residents.  Seems fair to me. 

if you don't want your federal taxes going to another state, take it up with the feds, not the state of Wyoming.  Wyoming is looking out for their own interest.  Good for them.

They're getting more than their fair share of federal tax revenues, meaning that the brunt of the funding they receive is from outside the state of Wyoming.  I don't see how they can complain about it being unfair.  But hey, go ahead with the toll plan and when traffic dwindles to 1000 vehicles a day or so they'll know they made a big mistake.  I'm sure the businesses along the route won't mind a drastic decrease in traffic, not to mention the fact that service plazas will no doubt be built along the route bankrupting most of the small businesses along the exits.  Yeah, they're looking out for #1 alright!

Quote
They're getting more than their fair share of federal tax revenues, meaning that the brunt of the funding they receive is from outside the state of Wyoming.  I don't see how they can complain about it being unfair.  But hey, go ahead with the toll plan and when traffic dwindles to 1000 vehicles a day or so they'll know they made a big mistake.  I'm sure the businesses along the route won't mind a drastic decrease in traffic, not to mention the fact that service plazas will no doubt be built along the route bankrupting most of the small businesses along the exits.  Yeah, they're looking out for #1 alright!

Before continuing to make inaccurate statements, I beg you to read the feasibility study linked to in the first post that indicates that there will be no service plazas, as the toll zone WILL BE a single tollbooth between Rock Springs and Rawlins (where I-80 is literally the only possibly reasonable route and evasion is unreasonable). Everywhere else will be free entry/exit which means...oh hey...no service plazas!

Also, what insane businessman would build a service plaza along a highway with 1000 vehicles per day, as you speculate?

edit by AgentSteel53: quote tags were misplaced slightly

wait wait wait, two different arguments here.  The constant noting of the imbalance in federal revenues is just grousing!  Take it up with the state of Michigan to get more money from the feds, as Wyoming has seemingly successfully done.

As for the possibility of traffic diminishing ... the key is to find the right toll amount, so that traffic does not appreciably dwindle.  That is a nonzero amount, especially if combined with a lower gas tax.  In that case, truckers will make it a point to tank up in Wyoming, which will help local businesses.

Quote from: corco on September 27, 2009, 10:52:08 PM
"how much sales and motel tax do they get?  It isn't anywhere near the $100 or so they would toll a truck to get across on I-80."

It should be noted that food has no sales tax in Wyoming

Another note to make is that in the wintertime, I-70 is closed a heck of a lot more often than I-80, further limiting options.

I would also argue that with the exception of Colorado and Utah's interstates, Wyoming benefits a lot less from the rest of the nation's interstate system as so few people live here. Certainly more non-Wyomingite miles are driven within Wyoming than Wyomingite miles driven outside of Wyoming, so Wyoming is at an imbalance there, and to me the argument that Wyoming shouldn't get at least $2 for every $1 spent boosting the rest of the nation's infrastructure is absurd, as due to our low population we give away far more miles to other states than we take up.

Their may be no sales tax on food, but restaurants along the route rely on people exiting the freeway to eat.  Say goodbye to small business owners.

I doubt I-70 is closed more than I-80.  The elevation may be higher but it's still very high along I-80 and runs further north.  Do you have a reference for this?

I think your last argument is absurd.  For such a large state there are only 3 interstates to maintain, and you are indeed receiving federal money to do just that.  If trucks are indeed tearing up the pavement why not restrict load limits?

But make any argument you want.  The fact is that there will be a lot less people visiting the state of Wyoming if they toll I-80 and it will no doubt cripple the economy.  Very bad move economically.

Quote from: corco on September 27, 2009, 11:21:30 PM
the toll zone WILL BE a single tollbooth between Rock Springs and Rawlins (where I-80 is literally the only possibly reasonable route and evasion is unreasonable).

going up 191, to 28, to 287 is about a 150 mile detour, at a cost of 3-4 hours.

some people may try to run that, especially if it avoids a $100 toll assessed at a single point.  Maybe put another tollbooth, trucks only, at Green River or so?

Quote from: Terry Shea on September 27, 2009, 11:28:43 PM
I doubt I-70 is closed more than I-80.  The elevation may be higher but it's still very high along I-80 and runs further north.  Do you have a reference for this?

80 has been long-known as the most sensible Rockies crossing north of 40.  The Lincoln Highway went through that corridor! 

QuoteI think your last argument is absurd.  For such a large state there are only 3 interstates to maintain, and you are indeed receiving federal money to do just that.  If trucks are indeed tearing up the pavement why not restrict load limits?

because that would kill traffic through Wyoming far worse than a toll ever would.

QuoteI think your last argument is absurd.  For such a large state there are only 3 interstates to maintain, and you are indeed receiving federal money to do just that.  If trucks are indeed tearing up the pavement why not restrict load limits?

My source for I-70 vs I-80 is living in the area and watching this happen. It snows more on I-70 than I-80, plain and simple. You don't hear about the incredible skiing in Wyoming because it just doesn't snow that much in Wyoming. It does in Colorado.

Rhode Island also only has 3 interstates! Check our total mileage and you'll see we have 914 miles of interstate, more than most states, all of which have a higher population.

Also, if you think the towns along the I-80 corridor are dependent on I-80 for their existence, you'd be badly incorrect. Evanston is popular as a Salt Lake City fireworks/gambling/liquor destination, Green River/Rock Springs/Rawlins are dependent on natural resources (oil, wind, coal), Laramie is university, and Cheyenne is government. Out of state I-80 travel has very little impact on local economies. Evanston's proximity to Utah wouldn't immediately disappear, Green River/Rock Springs/Rawlins critical oil reserves wouldn't disappear, UW wouldn't disappear, and government and Warren AFB would still be in Cheyenne. There'd be a slight hit, for sure, but it wouldn't be crippling.

Quote from: corco on September 27, 2009, 11:21:30 PM

Quote
They're getting more than their fair share of federal tax revenues, meaning that the brunt of the funding they receive is from outside the state of Wyoming.  I don't see how they can complain about it being unfair.  But hey, go ahead with the toll plan and when traffic dwindles to 1000 vehicles a day or so they'll know they made a big mistake.  I'm sure the businesses along the route won't mind a drastic decrease in traffic, not to mention the fact that service plazas will no doubt be built along the route bankrupting most of the small businesses along the exits.  Yeah, they're looking out for #1 alright!

Before continuing to make inaccurate statements, I beg you to read the feasibility study linked to in the first post that indicates that there will be no service plazas, as the toll zone WILL BE a single tollbooth between Rock Springs and Rawlins (where I-80 is literally the only possibly reasonable route and evasion is unreasonable). Everywhere else will be free entry/exit which means...oh hey...no service plazas!

Also, what insane businessman would build a service plaza along a highway with 1000 vehicles per day, as you speculate?

edit by AgentSteel53: quote tags were misplaced slightly

What insane politician would seek to build a tollway in an economically depressed state that relies greatly on tourism?  And just because the feasibility study may indicate no service plazas, you'd have to be pretty naive to believe they wouldn't crop up before plans are finalized.  I thought service plazas were usually controlled (and more or less run) by the state.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 27, 2009, 11:34:26 PM

Quote from: Terry Shea on September 27, 2009, 11:28:43 PM
I doubt I-70 is closed more than I-80.  The elevation may be higher but it's still very high along I-80 and runs further north.  Do you have a reference for this?

80 has been long-known as the most sensible Rockies crossing north of 40.  The Lincoln Highway went through that corridor! 

QuoteI think your last argument is absurd.  For such a large state there are only 3 interstates to maintain, and you are indeed receiving federal money to do just that.  If trucks are indeed tearing up the pavement why not restrict load limits?

because that would kill traffic through Wyoming far worse than a toll ever would.

I wouldn't bet on that!

Quote from: Terry Shea on September 27, 2009, 11:37:41 PM
What insane politician would seek to build a tollway in an economically depressed state that relies greatly on tourism?  And just because the feasibility study may indicate no service plazas, you'd have to be pretty naive to believe they wouldn't crop up before plans are finalized.  I thought service plazas were usually controlled (and more or less run) by the state.

Wyoming, tourist trap? 

specifically, I-80, tourist trap??

QuoteWhat insane politician would seek to build a tollway in an economically depressed state that relies greatly on tourism?  And just because the feasibility study may indicate no service plazas, you'd have to be pretty naive to believe they wouldn't crop up before plans are finalized.  I thought service plazas were usually controlled (and more or less run) by the state.

I'm begging you- don't keep stating things without checking facts. You're clearly talking about a state you are fairly unfamiliar with like you know exactly what's going on. Outside of Jackson/Yellowstone/northern Wyoming, which is I-80 independent, Wyoming and tourism have little to do with each other. Wyoming is not economically depressed, it is currently second richest in the nation behind Alaska. We are the 2nd most natural resource rich state, and THAT'S our economy. Tourism is a tiny, tiny part of it comparatively. The reason I came to the University of Wyoming is because it HAS MONEY because the state is in fantastic economic shape. Nobody here even realizes there's a recession.

And if traffic counts drop to 1000, like you said, who would want to put their business in a service plaza?

Quote from: corco on September 27, 2009, 11:35:28 PM

QuoteI think your last argument is absurd.  For such a large state there are only 3 interstates to maintain, and you are indeed receiving federal money to do just that.  If trucks are indeed tearing up the pavement why not restrict load limits?

My source for I-70 vs I-80 is living in the area and watching this happen. It snows more on I-70 than I-80, plain and simple. You don't hear about the incredible skiing in Wyoming because it just doesn't snow that much in Wyoming. It does in Colorado.

Rhode Island also only has 3 interstates! Check our total mileage and you'll see we have 914 miles of interstate, more than most states, all of which have a higher population.

Also, if you think the towns along the I-80 corridor are dependent on I-80 for their existence, you'd be badly incorrect. Evanston is popular as a Salt Lake City fireworks/gambling/liquor destination, Green River/Rock Springs/Rawlins are dependent on natural resources (oil, wind, coal), Laramie is university, and Cheyenne is government. Out of state I-80 travel has very little impact on local economies. Evanston's proximity to Utah wouldn't immediately disappear, Green River/Rock Springs/Rawlins critical oil reserves wouldn't disappear, UW wouldn't disappear, and government and Warren AFB would still be in Cheyenne. There'd be a slight hit, for sure, but it wouldn't be crippling.

I was talking about small businesses such as gas stations, restaurants, etc., which employ something like 99% of the people in this country.

Like I said, go ahead and toll it...but I think you'll all be sorry later on.

QuoteI was talking about small businesses such as gas stations, restaurants, etc., which employ something like 99% of the people in this country.

Like I said, go ahead and toll it...but I think you'll all be sorry later on.

Right, and the people who live in these economic hubs in Wyoming would continue to support these small businesses, and besides hotels I can guarantee you they make up the majority of these businesses. As far as hotels, many people visit these cities in Wyoming for business, and would continue to support the majority of those. Beyond that, yes, there are a couple isolated truck stops but no other real towns. Those may hurt, but on a large scale that's worth it.

Quote from: Terry Shea on September 27, 2009, 11:43:39 PM
small businesses such as gas stations, restaurants, etc. ... employ something like 99% of the people in this country.

the manufacturing sector may be going through a rough time, but to say that the service sector employs 99% of Americans is ridiculous.

I'm going to beg you all, as moderator, to please stop arguing on this thread.  No good will come of this to any of you.

EDIT to clarify: Debate - reasoned debate - is fine.  If it degenerates into political and personal attacks, it is not.  It is on the edge...

Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 27, 2009, 11:40:28 PM

Quote from: Terry Shea on September 27, 2009, 11:37:41 PM
What insane politician would seek to build a tollway in an economically depressed state that relies greatly on tourism?  And just because the feasibility study may indicate no service plazas, you'd have to be pretty naive to believe they wouldn't crop up before plans are finalized.  I thought service plazas were usually controlled (and more or less run) by the state.

Wyoming, tourist trap? 

specifically, I-80, tourist trap??

Not right along I-80, but a lot of tourist traffic has to use I-80 to connect to wherever they're going to.

I strongly doubt that anybody planning to take a trip to Yellowstone would cancel it due to the thought of paying a $9 toll, never mind the $25 entry fee into Yellowstone

Quote from: corco on September 27, 2009, 11:41:12 PM

QuoteWhat insane politician would seek to build a tollway in an economically depressed state that relies greatly on tourism?  And just because the feasibility study may indicate no service plazas, you'd have to be pretty naive to believe they wouldn't crop up before plans are finalized.  I thought service plazas were usually controlled (and more or less run) by the state.

I'm begging you- don't keep stating things without checking facts. You're clearly talking about a state you are fairly unfamiliar with like you know exactly what's going on. Outside of Jackson/Yellowstone/northern Wyoming, which is I-80 independent, Wyoming and tourism have little to do with each other. Wyoming is not economically depressed, it is currently second richest in the nation behind Alaska. We are the 2nd most natural resource rich state, and THAT'S our economy. Tourism is a tiny, tiny part of it comparatively. The reason I came to the University of Wyoming is because it HAS MONEY because the state is in fantastic economic shape. Nobody here even realizes there's a recession.

And if traffic counts drop to 1000, like you said, who would want to put their business in a service plaza?

Wyoming is better economically than I thought.  However...
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS251174+23-Jan-2009+BW20090123 (http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS251174+23-Jan-2009+BW20090123)

Quote from: AlpsROADS on September 27, 2009, 11:47:24 PM
I'm going to beg you all, as moderator, to please stop arguing on this thread.  No good will come of this to any of you.

EDIT to clarify: Debate - reasoned debate - is fine.  If it degenerates into political and personal attacks, it is not.  It is on the edge...

We're just having a fun and interesting debate.

Quote from: Terry Shea on September 27, 2009, 11:57:32 PM

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS251174+23-Jan-2009+BW20090123 (http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS251174+23-Jan-2009+BW20090123)

the article says:

QuoteWyoming's economic recovery will depend on small business. That message is
driven home in the newly updated Wyoming Small Business Profile released today
by the Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration.

not exactly the most unbiased source.  These days, everyone seems to have a different idea what will be most important towards economic recovery, and a lot of it tends to correlate strongly with their already established political beliefs, or formally declared agenda.

That's quite interesting- but a few things I should note is that this doesn't distinguish between small businesses and small SERVICE businesses. I know a few people who have an oil well on the property and hire a few people to run it- technically that's a small business. The other is that I'd bet money that a look at I-80 itself would reveal that that corridor is significantly less small service business dependent than most of the rest of the state as it is not a tourist area.

I'd be wrong to deny that the small businesses would take a hit in your doomsday scenario, but I just don't think it would be a particularly significant one.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 27, 2009, 11:45:58 PM

Quote from: Terry Shea on September 27, 2009, 11:43:39 PM
small businesses such as gas stations, restaurants, etc. ... employ something like 99% of the people in this country.

the manufacturing sector may be going through a rough time, but to say that the service sector employs 99% of Americans is ridiculous.

Actually I was referring to small businesses, not necessarily just the service industry.  And that was an error on my part.  It's actually about 50% are employed by small businesses.  The 99% figure was referring to the ratio of small businesses to all businesses.  My bad!     ;-)

Quote from: corco on September 28, 2009, 12:03:37 AM
that that corridor is significantly less small service business dependent than most of the rest of the state as it is not a tourist area.

there are indeed hardly any services along that section of I-80.  Note how far out Little America (a tourist-oriented service center - gas, hotel, etc) is advertised; the reason those ads are effective is because there is next to nothing along the way, so drivers are indeed compelled, without distraction, to drive further to get to Little America.

I will stay out of the main debate, as those who frequent this board know my feeling on tolling "free" highways.  (See the Re: Tolling I-80 Not Dead Yet (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=458.0) on the plan to toll I-80 in PA)

I am going to address one simple point: Service Plazas.

As I learned researching the I-80 in PA issue and elsewhere on this board, service plazas are not allowed on either new toll roads or free highways converted to toll roads.  Those tollways that have them are "grandfathered" in.

I am curious, though, as to what they'd do with US-30 should they decide to toll I-80

^^ I say: "Cimarron Turnpike".

Quote from: mightyace on September 28, 2009, 12:20:04 AM
As I learned researching the I-80 in PA issue and elsewhere on this board, service plazas are not allowed on either new toll roads or free highways converted to toll roads.  Those tollways that have them are "grandfathered" in.

I was thinking service plazas weren't allowed on federal-aid highways, not necessarily on all new roads, i.e. if entities were to build new roads without federal aid, they could build service plazas if they wanted. I'm not so sure what would happen should federal aid to a highway be removed, which I highly doubt would be the case should one of the existing untolled Interstates somehow get tolled.

Quote from: corco on September 28, 2009, 12:59:12 AM
I am curious, though, as to what they'd do with US-30 should they decide to toll I-80

probably they'd have to route it up US-287, across Wyoming 28, and down US-191.

Quote from: rawmustard on September 28, 2009, 09:24:42 AM

Quote from: mightyace on September 28, 2009, 12:20:04 AM
As I learned researching the I-80 in PA issue and elsewhere on this board, service plazas are not allowed on either new toll roads or free highways converted to toll roads.  Those tollways that have them are "grandfathered" in.

I was thinking service plazas weren't allowed on federal-aid highways, not necessarily on all new roads, i.e. if entities were to build new roads without federal aid, they could build service plazas if they wanted.

That makes sense.  It shows how pervasive federal funding has become when you don't consider a highway being built that way.  (Even though I live 3 miles from future TN 840 which is strictly state funded.  :banghead:)

I think if Wyoming does any tolling of I-80, it will be designed just like the modern-day West Virginia Turnpike portion of I-77 -- 3 to 4 barriers at advantageous areas of I-80 across the state with no pro-rated ramp booths in between.

In West Virginia, you can dodge the 3 barriers (the northernmost is the easiest and shortest, the middle, near Pax(?), involves traversing a long, windy 1-1/2 lane road, and the 3rd involves going through Beckley with lots of stop & go) and not have to pay a dime.  The parallel "bypasses" are not really trucker friendly as far as time goes.  For most non-locals, they just man up and pay the tolls.  Granted, the truck traffic is nowhere near the levels found on I-80, but the premise is the same -- the tolling is designed for the non-locals, and like I-80 in Wyoming, most of those that use I-77 are either truck drivers or travelers (especially Canadians) heading South.

Quote from: corco on September 23, 2009, 09:45:52 PM

QuoteThere's stretches of that road that isn't even civilized.

I take offense to that!  :)

The road is fairly heavily congested by long-haul truck traffic. Pretty much every piece of freight headed from the eastern United States to northern California and WA/OR/ID/UT goes across I-80 in Wyoming. It's a very, very important national shipping artery, so truck tolls would generate a fair amount of revenue.

The main objective, as the people of Wyoming see it, is that a giant chunk (if not most) of the traffic on I-80 is out of state traffic, so it's only fair that they should have to pay to drive on it, since they aren't giving taxes to Wyoming.

If I were the boss, I'd heavily toll the area between Rock Springs and Rawlins- that would minimize impact for residents of Wyoming while forcing out of staters to pay. West of Rock Springs, folks generally head to Salt Lake when they need a city, and east of Rawlins and then up in Lander/Riverton they generally associate with Denver, so except for people needing to go from Evanston/Rock Springs to Laramie/Cheyenne for college or government stuff, nobody in Wyoming would ever need to pay a toll

Um, truckers already pay for the road in Wyoming. Commercial fuel tax operates differently than non-commercial. Non-commercial pays at the pump and that state gets the revenue. In commercial fueling, your fuel tax paid at the pump gets lumped together by IFTA, and then redistributed to the states based on where you used the diesel (i.e., which state you drove in and for how many miles). Wyoming's problem is they have one of the cheapest state fuel taxes for diesel in the country at only $0.10 or so a gallon. California is the highest at around $0.47 a gallon. That's also failing to mention the added FHUT paid and the federal diesel tax that finds its way to Wyoming.

If Wyoming would raise their commercial diesel tax they'd have enough to pay for I-80 without tolling it. For instance, 400 miles at 5mpg is $0.02 per mile for the Wyoming fuel tax ($8 to cross the state). At 6mpg, it'd be $6.67. At 7mpg it'd be $5.71. (this isn't including federal fuel tax or FHUT--Federal Highway Usage Tax).


So, raise the diesel tax $0.28 a gallon. Which is right around the national average. And even at 7mpg, the state would be making at least $16 for every truck that crosses the state.

Other problem that Wyoming faces for destroying their roads is they allow higher than the 34,000 pounds per dual axle which is the standard interstate highway weight limit. By allowing an extra 3000+ pounds per dual axle means more weight wearing out the pavement faster. Idaho has the same problem if you've ever driven I-84. The grooves from trucks in state are immense.

The problem with toll is not only are you making people pay for the road via the toll, you have to pay for the equipment and facilities, employees, compliance requirements (i.e., sending bills, letters, fines, paying for officer enforcement, etc), etc.

Raising the diesel and even the gasoline tax will pay for the roads without paying for the 'extra' expenses of tolls. But, unfortunately raising taxes is the last thing any state wants to do. Especially a blood red state like Wyoming.

Sykotyk

Quote from: froggie on September 27, 2009, 08:20:08 PM

QuoteIt's still a toll!  Travelers will avoid I-80 across Wyoming like the plague.  I can't believe businesses along the I-80 are very happy about this prospect.

Only if those travelers don't place a high value on additional travel time/mileage and fuel costs would they avoid a tolled I-80 across Wyoming.

Using an I-15/US 6/I-70/I-76 route to bypass I-80 in Wyoming adds about 130 miles and, because of some lower speed limits and the 2-lane sections along US 6, about 3 hours of travel time.  Assuming a 30 MPG car and $3/gal gas (certainly plausible given it'll be at least a few years before tolling is implemented), that adds about $13 in additional gas costs.

Even if the I-80 toll is limited to the Rock Springs-Rawlins segment, the additional mileage and travel time (via US 191/WY 28/US 287) remains about the same.

Not to mention traffic between Salt Lake and Provo on I-15. That can add a chunk of time to the travel.

Resurrecting an ancient thread ... tolling I-80 in Wyoming was again discussed at a legislative committee, but further studies are not yet authorized:

Wyoming lawmakers explore possible I-80 expansion
http://www.wyomingnews.com/news/wyoming-lawmakers-explore-possible-i--expansion/article_13b0df68-c5b9-11e6-9bc3-27ec5e078981.html

Quote(During the week of December 19, 2016), Wyoming Department of Transportation's chief engineer Gregg Fredrick told the (legislature's transportation) committee the main option being considered at the moment is building two new lanes — meaning three lanes running in each direction — and tolling commercial trucks that use those lanes.

"What we are not going to do is toll existing interstate facilities,"  Fredrick said.

But before moving ahead with any new construction or tolls, a 2008 feasibility study would need to be updated.

That study explored charging trucks $20 and cars $2 at a toll station between Rawlins and Wamsutter, as well as the possibility of building new truck-only toll lanes.

QuoteThe levels of traffic, including the number of trucks passing across I-80 each day, has also increased. Construction costs have changed, and inflation has adjusted the actual cost of building new lanes or improving the existing freeway.

Fredrick said that in 2008 the study estimated that $6 billion would be needed to increase lanes across 400 miles of I-80. But Joint Transportation Committee co-chairman Sen. Curt Meier, R-La Grange, speculated the new cost could be more than $10 billion.

The goal of implementing tolls would be to help cover the estimated $6.4 billion cost of maintaining the I-80 corridor through 2038, a total that federal funding does not entirely cover.

WYDOT director Bill Panos told the committee there was a good chance that President-elect Donald Trump's administration would be willing to provide significant funding for an I-80 expansion.

QuotePanos said WYDOT was ready to update the 2008 study but requested that the transportation committee direct it to do so either by allocating additional funding or instructing the department to use its existing funds for an update.

Meier said he believed the Trump administration would be a good partner for the state if it goes ahead with an I-80 expansion and urged the committee to support an update to the study.

"We've got four years, maybe eight years, of somebody who is going to work with Congress and both sides of the aisle and is really ready to do infrastructure redevelopment,"  Meier said. "There's a possibility you're going to spend $300,000 and possibly get $10 (billion) to $15 billion back."

"I want to strike while the iron is hot,"  he said.

But the committee was noncommittal and declined to instruct WYDOT to update the study.

Meier said he would present the question to the committee again in January, by which point it will include several new members.

Appears from the article that Wyoming lawmakers are eyeing potential Trump Administration hypothetical transportation spending, which may very well never materialize.   Outside of six-laning a few miles in the Cheyenne metro, does interstate 80 in Wyoming need any other widening?  Traffic (AADT) counts there?  Sounds unnecessary and excessive.   Maybe a few climbing lanes added in gradient areas, instead.   

Quote from: DJStephens on December 22, 2016, 09:15:55 AM
Appears from the article that Wyoming lawmakers are eyeing potential Trump Administration hypothetical transportation spending, which may very well never materialize.   

Egads, talk about jumping the gun.  At NYSDOT, the Policy and Planning Division usually keeps tabs on potential additional funding and comes up with hypothetical capital programs accordingly, but that's only after the rumors become confirmed by...people in actual authority rather than people that do not have it quite yet...

Suppose we're talking about legislators rather than executive agencies, but I haven't heard that the NY State Legislature has already started salivating over Trump's "promise."

(personal opinion emphasized)

Interstate 80 tolling advances in the state senate...

https://www.kpvi.com/news/national_news/wyoming-could-start-charging-i-80-drivers-a-toll-under-senate-backed-bill/article_6b9eb260-3031-5cc8-bf21-5e610fb89e36.html

QuoteWyoming's Senate approved a bill on Friday morning that would allow the state to charge drivers a toll when trekking across Interstate 80.

The Wyoming Department of Transportation faces a multi-million budget deficit. But legislators have been largely adverse to backing any revenue-generating bills.
Senate File 73 has become one of very few tax bills advanced this session to help the cash-strapped state.

The lead sponsor of the bill, Sen. Cale Case, R-Lander, said the proceeds generated from a toll on the state's main east-west thoroughfare would go toward much-needed road and bridge maintenance, traffic safety improvements or wildlife management. ...

The debate over tolls is a familiar one to many in the Legislature. Similar bills have been pitched multiple times, but failed, in years past. But some lawmakers have said this could be the year the Legislature bites at the proposal, given the state's revenue shortfall and ongoing decline in taxes collected from coal, oil and natural gas.

The Wyoming Department of Transportation's shortfall runs upward of $350 million, according to a reported shared with lawmakers in November. The department has experienced recent cuts, including the closure of rest stops and delayed construction projects.

The bill will now move to the House for consideration.

SM-G975U

If Interstate 80 is tolled within Wyoming, could they convert the existing rest areas into service areas, with food and fuel options? That would be a practical option if you ask me.

Yuck on the tolls.  If Wyoming needs more money, then they should have raised the gas tax.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 25, 2021, 09:17:03 PM
If Interstate 80 is tolled within Wyoming, could they convert the existing rest areas into service areas, with food and fuel options? That would be a practical option if you ask me.

No.  The grandfathering in of the toll road service areas is because they were there prior to the rule prohibiting them, not because of the toll.  In fact, not only are there service areas along former toll roads (I-95 and CT 15), but there are ones on roads that, to the best of my knowledge, were never tolled (I-95/MA 128 and the Major Deegan Expressway/I-87).

What sticks in my craw with this proposal is that in many areas, there is no reasonable free parallel alternative to an I-80 tollway -- especially between Rock Springs and Rawlins, aside from a few non-connecting frontage roads that were once former US-30 alignments.  I hope the feds put the kibosh on this idea because of that reason alone.

My job takes me along that I-80 stretch and is one of the only timely ways of getting from Rock Springs to Grand Junction, CO (via WY-789/CO-13/I-70).  The other way is the winding US-191/US-40/CO-139/I-70.  Thank goodness that I only have to do it maybe once a month.

Don't they have to get federal approval?

Quote from: 3467 on March 26, 2021, 10:17:53 AM
Don't they have to get federal approval?

Yes, but unless they do something stupid like PA tried with I-80, I don't see why it wouldn't get approval.

I hope Utah is ready to four-lane US 6 to deal with the inevitable increase in traffic that will occur down there.

I hate that "prohibition" rule vdeane mentioned, which I was aware of. I think that rule should have either been scrapped long ago, or should not been implemented in the first place.

Quote from: vdeane on March 25, 2021, 10:15:50 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 25, 2021, 09:17:03 PM
If Interstate 80 is tolled within Wyoming, could they convert the existing rest areas into service areas, with food and fuel options? That would be a practical option if you ask me.

No.  The grandfathering in of the toll road service areas is because they were there prior to the rule prohibiting them, not because of the toll.  In fact, not only are there service areas along former toll roads (I-95 and CT 15), but there are ones on roads that, to the best of my knowledge, were never tolled (I-95/MA 128 and the Major Deegan Expressway/I-87).

What was the reason behind banning roadside service areas? Was it considered "anti-competitive"?

Also, as an outsider, tolling a rural Interstate out west with no reasonable alternative is absolutely ridiculous.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 26, 2021, 02:10:24 PM
I hate that "prohibition" rule vdeane mentioned, which I was aware of. I think that rule should have either been scrapped long ago, or should not been implemented in the first place.

As a taxpayer, I prefer not to be triple whammied.

Quote from: US 89 on March 26, 2021, 01:06:22 PM
I hope Utah is ready to four-lane US 6 to deal with the inevitable increase in traffic that will occur down there.

If anything, they'll most likely use I-70 across CO to shunpike the whole thing. A little bit far south, but it's very well-traveled and will be worth it. Conversely, there's I-90 to the north, which does pass through WY, if only in the northeastern corner of the state.

Quote from: vdeane on March 25, 2021, 10:15:50 PM
Yuck on the tolls.  If Wyoming needs more money, then they should have raised the gas tax.

I feel like tolls are only slightly easier to sell in this part of the country than tax increases. Out here, if someone wants to kill a project, no matter how good it could be, they just have to say it would raise taxes and it's as dead as a doornail.

Quote from: US 89I hope Utah is ready to four-lane US 6 to deal with the inevitable increase in traffic that will occur down there.

I think US-6 between Provo/I-15 and Green River/I-70 needs to be upgraded to an Interstate. There is a decent amount of development growth happening on that corridor, but the bigger reason is that's the main gateway between Salt Lake and Denver.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 27, 2021, 11:27:35 AM
US-6 between Provo/I-15 and Green River/I-70[...]that's the main gateway between Salt Lake and Denver.

Bullshit.

Quote from: NE2 on March 27, 2021, 02:39:22 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 27, 2021, 11:27:35 AM
US-6 between Provo/I-15 and Green River/I-70[...]that's the main gateway between Salt Lake and Denver.

Bullshit.

Then what is the main gateway?

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on March 29, 2021, 10:35:47 PM

Quote from: NE2 on March 27, 2021, 02:39:22 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 27, 2021, 11:27:35 AM
US-6 between Provo/I-15 and Green River/I-70[...]that's the main gateway between Salt Lake and Denver.

Bullshit.

Then what is the main gateway?

I have posted about this in probably three other threads: I-80. From city center to city center, I-25 to US 287 to I-80 is 15 minutes and 7 miles shorter than I-70 to US 6 to I-15. Obviously these numbers will vary a bit depending on exactly where in either metro your origin and destination are, but the point stands.

I-80, while not particularly scenic, is a much flatter route and is far better suited for truck traffic under normal conditions. I-70 has two values as a SLC-Denver route: 1) as a slightly longer, far more scenic route for recreational travelers and 2) as an alternate for when it's blizzarding in Wyoming and I-80 is closed. Believe it or not, despite its ski traffic and high mountain passes 70 is probably a more reliable route over the continental divide than 80 for precisely this reason.

Quote from: US 89 on March 29, 2021, 10:47:01 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on March 29, 2021, 10:35:47 PM

Quote from: NE2 on March 27, 2021, 02:39:22 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 27, 2021, 11:27:35 AM
US-6 between Provo/I-15 and Green River/I-70[...]that's the main gateway between Salt Lake and Denver.

Bullshit.

Then what is the main gateway?

I have posted about this in probably three other threads: I-80. From city center to city center, I-25 to US 287 to I-80 is 15 minutes and 7 miles shorter than I-70 to US 6 to I-15. Obviously these numbers will vary a bit depending on exactly where in either metro your origin and destination are, but the point stands.

I-80, while not particularly scenic, is a much flatter route and is far better suited for truck traffic under normal conditions. I-70 has two values as a SLC-Denver route: 1) as a slightly longer, far more scenic route for recreational travelers and 2) as an alternate for when it's blizzarding in Wyoming and I-80 is closed. Believe it or not, despite its ski traffic and high mountain passes 70 is probably a more reliable route over the continental divide than 80 for precisely this reason.

Why is I-80 more prone to blizzards?

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on March 29, 2021, 10:49:53 PM

Quote from: US 89 on March 29, 2021, 10:47:01 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on March 29, 2021, 10:35:47 PM

Quote from: NE2 on March 27, 2021, 02:39:22 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 27, 2021, 11:27:35 AM
US-6 between Provo/I-15 and Green River/I-70[...]that's the main gateway between Salt Lake and Denver.

Bullshit.

Then what is the main gateway?

I have posted about this in probably three other threads: I-80. From city center to city center, I-25 to US 287 to I-80 is 15 minutes and 7 miles shorter than I-70 to US 6 to I-15. Obviously these numbers will vary a bit depending on exactly where in either metro your origin and destination are, but the point stands.

I-80, while not particularly scenic, is a much flatter route and is far better suited for truck traffic under normal conditions. I-70 has two values as a SLC-Denver route: 1) as a slightly longer, far more scenic route for recreational travelers and 2) as an alternate for when it's blizzarding in Wyoming and I-80 is closed. Believe it or not, despite its ski traffic and high mountain passes 70 is probably a more reliable route over the continental divide than 80 for precisely this reason.

Why is I-80 more prone to blizzards?

While I cannot speak of the meteorological reasons why it gets so damn windy in Wyoming,, much of South-Central Wyoming (including I-80) is either flat or very-gently rolling hills with not much in the form of trees, buildings, etc... that will block or slow the winds.

And the reason why WyDOT tends to close large swaths of roadway during inclement weather is likely because:

A) The traffic counts per mile vs. Snow maintenance costs per mile is very costly.

B) There is not enough manpower to keep the roads passable when there are near-blizzard conditions.  Instead, they close down the roads and wait until the weather tones down.

There are advance warning signs on US-191 in Utah that will flash when the road is closed in Wyoming at the border.  At least there, the alternate route is UT-44/UT-43/WY-530 which will get you to I-80 Green River, and is less than a 30-minute difference if you take that route to Rock Springs.

However, if you want to get into Wyoming from CO-13 in Colorado, and they close WY-789 at Baggs, you're pretty much screwed if you want to go further north into the state.

Quote from: thenetwork on March 29, 2021, 11:50:37 PM
While I cannot speak of the meteorological reasons why it gets so damn windy in Wyoming,, much of South-Central Wyoming (including I-80) is either flat or very-gently rolling hills with not much in the form of trees, buildings, etc... that will block or slow the winds.

That is in fact the meteorological reason why - central Colorado has mountains that help block wind. Most of Wyoming does not.

Quote from: US 89 on March 29, 2021, 10:47:01 PM
I have posted about this in probably three other threads: I-80. From city center to city center, I-25 to US 287 to I-80 is 15 minutes and 7 miles shorter than I-70 to US 6 to I-15. Obviously these numbers will vary a bit depending on exactly where in either metro your origin and destination are, but the point stands.

While US-287 is a "cutoff", how much of an advantage is following that connection rather than simply I-25 to I-80?

Google Maps shows the route saves a mere 9 minutes, and traverses city streets in Fort Collins and many rural 2 lane segments.

For a long distance trucker or even average motorist, I'd see more advantage of simply sticking with the interstate.

Quote from: sprjus4 on March 30, 2021, 12:32:00 AM

Quote from: US 89 on March 29, 2021, 10:47:01 PM
I have posted about this in probably three other threads: I-80. From city center to city center, I-25 to US 287 to I-80 is 15 minutes and 7 miles shorter than I-70 to US 6 to I-15. Obviously these numbers will vary a bit depending on exactly where in either metro your origin and destination are, but the point stands.

While US-287 is a "cutoff", how much of an advantage is following that connection rather than simply I-25 to I-80?

Google Maps shows the route saves a mere 9 minutes, and traverses city streets in Fort Collins and many rural 2 lane segments.

For a long distance trucker or even average motorist, I'd see more advantage of simply sticking with the interstate.

If a traveler is sticking to only Interstates, then they're not taking US-6 to begin with.

Limon (CO) → Salt Lake City (UT)

612 miles = I-70 / I-270 / I-25 / I-80
595 miles = I-70 / I-270 / I-25 / US-287 / I-80

766 miles = I-70 / I-15
684 miles = I-70 / US-50 / I-15
610 miles = I-70 / US-6 / I-15

Going through Wyoming on the all-Interstate route is only two miles longer than using even the shortest of the routes through the Colorado Rockies (using E-740 instead of I-270 would shave off one mile), and its highest elevation is less than 9000 feet.

Quote from: sprjus4 on March 30, 2021, 12:32:00 AM

Quote from: US 89 on March 29, 2021, 10:47:01 PM
I have posted about this in probably three other threads: I-80. From city center to city center, I-25 to US 287 to I-80 is 15 minutes and 7 miles shorter than I-70 to US 6 to I-15. Obviously these numbers will vary a bit depending on exactly where in either metro your origin and destination are, but the point stands.

While US-287 is a "cutoff", how much of an advantage is following that connection rather than simply I-25 to I-80?

Google Maps shows the route saves a mere 9 minutes, and traverses city streets in Fort Collins and many rural 2 lane segments.

For a long distance trucker or even average motorist, I'd see more advantage of simply sticking with the interstate.

The city streets in Fort Collins aren't all that bad for a trucker.  It bypasses the heaviest traffic areas (Old Town, College Ave.).  The rural 2-lane section (US287) is probably 50% truck traffic.  It might only save 9 minutes, but it also saves on gas which is obviously a consideration.

More or less, in the summer, going I-80 in Wyoming is faster.  In the winter, despite the mountains seemingly risky for trucks, at least the road doesn't shut down nearly as often (and for as long) in Colorado, so I would think more trucks would go the southern route.

Chris

Another reason I-80 can be helpful along with being flatter with little to no steep grades, is that west of Rawlins the speed limit raises up to 80mph, except in bad weather.

As for the bad weather, I-80 between Laramie & Rawlins was placed close to the Medicine Bow Mountains. The winds come off these mountains and when mixed with even light snow can cause road conditions that cause the road to have to be closed. Long ago, from what has been said, local Wyoming residents advised them to use the US 30 footprint for I-80 as it is far enough away from the mountains to not have to be closed as much due to bad road conditions. However, the engineers thought they knew better.

Quote from: ski-man on March 30, 2021, 04:36:18 PM
As for the bad weather, I-80 between Laramie & Rawlins was placed close to the Medicine Bow Mountains. The winds come off these mountains and when mixed with even light snow can cause road conditions that cause the road to have to be closed. Long ago, from what has been said, local Wyoming residents advised them to use the US 30 footprint for I-80 as it is far enough away from the mountains to not have to be closed as much due to bad road conditions. However, the engineers thought they knew better.

Maybe they should have also done something with I-25 between Fort Collins and Cheyenne.  I've had bluebird days down here in Denver and then when you get up right near the border, it is howling.  Ain't no wind like a Wyoming wind.

Chris

Quote from: jayhawkco on March 30, 2021, 04:39:21 PM

Quote from: ski-man on March 30, 2021, 04:36:18 PM
As for the bad weather, I-80 between Laramie & Rawlins was placed close to the Medicine Bow Mountains. The winds come off these mountains and when mixed with even light snow can cause road conditions that cause the road to have to be closed. Long ago, from what has been said, local Wyoming residents advised them to use the US 30 footprint for I-80 as it is far enough away from the mountains to not have to be closed as much due to bad road conditions. However, the engineers thought they knew better.

Maybe they should have also done something with I-25 between Fort Collins and Cheyenne.  I've had bluebird days down here in Denver and then when you get up right near the border, it is howling.  Ain't no wind like a Wyoming wind.

Chris

Agreed. Wyoming wind can reach gusts above 75 mph even during periods of otherwise fair weather. When these winds are sustained at 30 or 40 mph and there is enough loose snow around, it will create "ground blizzards" that can obscure driver visibility even on clear days. The blowing snow can even fly off ridges and hills to produce areas of reduced visibility.

I've seen this effect in Thanksgiving Weekend 2019, where a storm blew through that left quite a bit of loose snow on the ground. The winds picked up after the storm moved out, and there were ground blizzards all along Interstate 25, US 287, and WYO 220. Visibility was often terrible, especially on WYO 220 in the high plains near Independence Rock. These winds combined with fresh blowing snow made for treacherous travel conditions.

And then there's the ice...

SM-G975U

Quote from: andy3175 on March 30, 2021, 04:56:06 PM

Quote from: jayhawkco on March 30, 2021, 04:39:21 PM

Quote from: ski-man on March 30, 2021, 04:36:18 PM
As for the bad weather, I-80 between Laramie & Rawlins was placed close to the Medicine Bow Mountains. The winds come off these mountains and when mixed with even light snow can cause road conditions that cause the road to have to be closed. Long ago, from what has been said, local Wyoming residents advised them to use the US 30 footprint for I-80 as it is far enough away from the mountains to not have to be closed as much due to bad road conditions. However, the engineers thought they knew better.

Maybe they should have also done something with I-25 between Fort Collins and Cheyenne.  I've had bluebird days down here in Denver and then when you get up right near the border, it is howling.  Ain't no wind like a Wyoming wind.

Chris

Agreed. Wyoming wind can reach gusts above 75 mph even during periods of otherwise fair weather. When these winds are sustained at 30 or 40 mph and there is enough loose snow around, it will create "ground blizzards" that can obscure driver visibility even on clear days. The blowing snow can even fly off ridges and hills to produce areas of reduced visibility.

I've seen this effect in Thanksgiving Weekend 2019, where a storm blew through that left quite a bit of loose snow on the ground. The winds picked up after the storm moved out, and there were ground blizzards all along Interstate 25, US 287, and WYO 220. Visibility was often terrible, especially on WYO 220 in the high plains near Independence Rock. These winds combined with fresh blowing snow made for treacherous travel conditions.

And then there's the ice...

SM-G975U

I hear you on those icy patches where the snow drifts over the highway.  I was on WY-789 south with a 60+ MPH wind.  I came upon a lone patch of snowdrift on the road, slowed down, and it felt like the wind itself was pushing my Ford Transit van into the opposing lane.

Good news, thankfully this plan has been shelved- for now.

https://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/i-80-tolling-bill-tabled-by-wyoming-house-committee/article_4c3105b9-ff59-51dc-994b-32824da8a0f8.html

Good info, Plutonic Panda. The doorway to tolling remains open even if the bill to create tolls on Interstate 80 did not advance in this legislative session. The excerpt below contains good info on toll rates and whether Wyoming residents could be exempt from the tolls.

https://k2radio.com/wyoming-i-80-toll-road-authority-bill-tabled-for-now/

QuoteA bill that could eventually lead to Interstate 80 in Wyoming becoming a toll road has been tabled for now by a Wyoming legislative committee.

But it doesn't sound like the idea behind the bill is dead, judging from comments made by the committee chair at the end of the hearing. In fact, it could be revisited during a special session of the legislature that is widely expected to be called later this year. ...

In his testimony, the bill's primary sponsor, Rep. Cale Case [R-Fremont County] told the committee ''From a revenue standpoint, we don't have much to hang our hats on." Case said that while he has been voting for budget cuts in the Wyoming Senate "I'm also voting for revenue measures. I haven't seen any yet." He went on to say ''This tolling bill is a tool in that." He said the bill could "potentially solve our revenue problems with Interstate 80, and free up a lot of money that could be spent elsewhere."

He urged committee members to 'think big," adding "it's a mountain of money, depending on how the tolls are set." Case told the committee that using a 'very modest' tolling rate of $10.00 per passenger car and $100.00 for commercial trucks, toll road could raise $170 million per year.

Federal rules would require that money be spent on Interstate 80. The federal guidelines also would prohibit only imposing the fees on out-of-state motorists, so Wyoming vehicles could not be exempt from the tolls. ...

The committee ended up tabling the bill on a voice vote. But (Committee Chair Rep. Don) Burkhart told Case to "hang with this committee. We are going to look at this in the interim, and potentially before the special session." He added, "I think it's something we need to look at."