News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

I-40 Toll Feasibility Study

Started by AHTD, August 27, 2014, 02:29:34 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

AHTD

See this link for the FINAL REPORT on this feasibility study:

http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/I-40-Toll-Study.pdf

In short, we hired JACOBS to determine if it was feasible to construct a third lane on I-40 between North Little Rock and West Memphis and if we tolled ONLY that third lane, would we collect enough revenue to pay for the construction. The answer is NO.

The study did, however, indicate it would be feasible if we tolled ALL THREE lanes. Not only would it pay for construction of the third lane, but regular maintenance and upkeep of the entire stretch.

We all know the feds won't let us toll existing Interstates, but you're probably familiar with the pilot program in progress to examine that feasibility. By completing this study, AHTD has placed itself in a better position to decide whether or not we want to participate in that program should a slot open up. And that is looking to be more of a possibility (slot opening).

Enjoy!

Travel and construction information available at www.idrivearkansas.com


rte66man

Quote from: AHTD on August 27, 2014, 02:29:34 PM
See this link for the FINAL REPORT on this feasibility study:

http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/I-40-Toll-Study.pdf

In short, we hired JACOBS to determine if it was feasible to construct a third lane on I-40 between North Little Rock and West Memphis and if we tolled ONLY that third lane, would we collect enough revenue to pay for the construction. The answer is NO.

The study did, however, indicate it would be feasible if we tolled ALL THREE lanes. Not only would it pay for construction of the third lane, but regular maintenance and upkeep of the entire stretch.

We all know the feds won't let us toll existing Interstates, but you're probably familiar with the pilot program in progress to examine that feasibility. By completing this study, AHTD has placed itself in a better position to decide whether or not we want to participate in that program should a slot open up. And that is looking to be more of a possibility (slot opening).

Enjoy!


If Arkansas wants to toll between North Little Rock and West Memphis, then they should build an all new terrain toll road.  While I realize that's not feasible as I40 would remain as the free alternative, the idea of having to PAY for something that was free for so long.... well, there is no realistic alternative to 40 in that area.  Yes, I've tried them all.  US70? Get real.  US64? Not much better.
When you come to a fork in the road... TAKE IT.

                                                               -Yogi Berra

codyg1985

^ Even though those routes are two or three lanes, I could see many people using US 64 or US 70 to bypass the tolls. Also, whenever I-69 is completed, that route (along with I-20) would also become a free alternative to I-40 for motorists and semis headed to Dallas, assuming that I-69 wasn't built with any tolls.

Cody Goodman
Huntsville, AL, United States

US 41

Quote from: codyg1985 on August 28, 2014, 06:37:31 AM
^ Even though those routes are two or three lanes, I could see many people using US 64 or US 70 to bypass the tolls. Also, whenever I-69 is completed, that route (along with I-20) would also become a free alternative to I-40 for motorists and semis headed to Dallas, assuming that I-69 wasn't built with any tolls.

Is the new Mississippi River Bridge going to be a toll bridge or a free bridge, or have they not decided yet?
Visited States and Provinces:
USA (48)= All of Lower 48
Canada (5)= NB, NS, ON, PEI, QC
Mexico (9)= BCN, BCS, CHIH, COAH, DGO, NL, SON, SIN, TAM

froggie

QuoteWhile I realize that's not feasible as I40 would remain as the free alternative, the idea of having to PAY for something that was free for so long....

What's also not feasible is continuing to rely on our current, broken system of paying for transportation.  Something's gotta give, whether it be (much) higher gas taxes, tolls, or some other sort of fee.  And let's face it.  Freeways are expensive.  Very expensive.

American drivers have been in denial for too long.  And it's going to bite us all in the tail soon.  Likely within the next 5-10 years unless something changes.

QuoteAlso, whenever I-69 is completed, that route (along with I-20) would also become a free alternative to I-40 for motorists and semis headed to Dallas, assuming that I-69 wasn't built with any tolls.

Given that AHTD can't find funding to widen I-40, I highly doubt they'll be able to find funding for I-69 without tolls.

Bobby5280

I agree the current funding system is very broken. The math simply doesn't work.

Actual revenue from gasoline taxes is pretty freaking low. The federal gas tax hasn't increased in over 20 years if I recall correctly. Gasoline prices have shot up drastically over the past 15 years. Taxes used to make up more than 1/3 the price of a gallon of gasoline. Now that percentage is down to between 10% and 15%, depending on the state. I suppose if gasoline taxes were levied in terms of percentages of price rather than a fixed cents per gallon figure the federal government and states would be doing better in terms of street & highway funding.

New vehicle technology, particularly increased fuel efficiency, has added to the gasoline tax problem. More fuel efficient vehicles equals less gallons of fuel bought and less tax revenue for the federal government and states.

The problem has been dramatically compounded by the business interests in this country of embracing globalization and heating up the economies in other countries ("emerging economies"). The strategy has helped those companies radically cut labor and manufacturing costs by sending as many jobs overseas as possible. But what it also did was radically increase the demand for building materials. Concrete, steel, aluminum, plastics and just about anything else that can be used to build things has all gone way up in price.

This is one of the key reasons why something like a football stadium that cost $250 million to build in the 1990s costs well over $1 billion to build now. Here in Lawton it's been a pipe dream of various business leaders for many years to build a new 10,000 seat sports & entertainment arena in downtown Lawton. Wichita Falls built the Kay Yeager Coliseum at the end of the 1990's for something like $60-$70 million. If the same kind of arena was built in Lawton today it would easily cost 4 times as much.

The extreme inflation in construction materials costs has impacted road building very badly. If the Interstate highway system didn't exist today and someone wanted to start building one now it would simply be impossible to build. The nation wouldn't be able to afford it.

Something has to be done about the problem and the general public isn't going to like it one bit. After all they think the roads are all free and drive on them with a sense of entitlement.

I see at least one of two things happening in the coming years, and maybe a combination of both (as well as some things none of us could have predicted). I think the government will be forced to change the gas tax formula and perhaps force some politicians to "fall on their swords" for raising taxes. Or we could see toll tag readers pop up in a LOT more places than just on turnpikes. They could wind up on every street corner. I think a lot of states could even be forced to decommission some of their least used highways, even tearing them out to recycle materials for roads elsewhere. Some of those things are going to come to pass because the current situation is just plain unsustainable.

Chris

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 28, 2014, 10:50:59 AM
I suppose if gasoline taxes were levied in terms of percentages of price rather than a fixed cents per gallon figure the federal government and states would be doing better in terms of street & highway funding.

The downside of a percentage is that tax revenue would fluctuate similar to the gas prices, which makes it more difficult to plan future transportation funding.

Most European countries have an 'excise duty' similar to the gas tax (a fixed tax per unit sold), albeit much higher than in the U.S. For example in the Netherlands, the excise duty / gas tax is currently exactly $ 1 per liter, or $ 3.785 per gallon (yes that's the gas tax alone!)

European countries also typically have an alternate source of transportation funding; an annual road tax, that usually depends on vehicle weight or engine size. It could range from $ 150 to over $ 1,000 per year for a passenger car, depending on the country. This is a reliable source of funding, because it would only fluctuate if the amount of vehicles would decrease or increase.

codyg1985

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 28, 2014, 10:50:59 AM
I think a lot of states could even be forced to decommission some of their least used highways, even tearing them out to recycle materials for roads elsewhere.

Indiana has been doing the former for a few years now to finance new capacity projects across the state.
Cody Goodman
Huntsville, AL, United States

kkt

Quote from: Chris on August 28, 2014, 02:01:57 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 28, 2014, 10:50:59 AM
I suppose if gasoline taxes were levied in terms of percentages of price rather than a fixed cents per gallon figure the federal government and states would be doing better in terms of street & highway funding.
The downside of a percentage is that tax revenue would fluctuate similar to the gas prices, which makes it more difficult to plan future transportation funding.

Yes, and it would also accentuate the swings of gas prices.  If gas prices go up $1 due to market forces, the motorist not only has to pay the extra $1 but the additional tax on the dollar as well.  And, as you said, if gas prices go down, revenue for projects may be short.

Of course if the legislature wanted, they could pass a law that the gas tax be adjusted every six months to a percentage of the average of the gas price over the past two years.  Automatic adjustment in small steps, no hard votes to increase a tax.

Brandon

Quote from: kkt on August 28, 2014, 05:10:43 PM
Quote from: Chris on August 28, 2014, 02:01:57 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 28, 2014, 10:50:59 AM
I suppose if gasoline taxes were levied in terms of percentages of price rather than a fixed cents per gallon figure the federal government and states would be doing better in terms of street & highway funding.
The downside of a percentage is that tax revenue would fluctuate similar to the gas prices, which makes it more difficult to plan future transportation funding.

Yes, and it would also accentuate the swings of gas prices.  If gas prices go up $1 due to market forces, the motorist not only has to pay the extra $1 but the additional tax on the dollar as well.  And, as you said, if gas prices go down, revenue for projects may be short.

Welcome to Illinois where we have sales tax added to the fuel tax.  We pay the federal gas tax, the state gas tax (fixed), and the state and local sales taxes (8.5% where I live) on fuel.
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg

hbelkins

Quote from: froggie on August 28, 2014, 08:43:27 AM
QuoteWhile I realize that's not feasible as I40 would remain as the free alternative, the idea of having to PAY for something that was free for so long....

What's also not feasible is continuing to rely on our current, broken system of paying for transportation.  Something's gotta give, whether it be (much) higher gas taxes, tolls, or some other sort of fee.  And let's face it.  Freeways are expensive.  Very expensive.

American drivers have been in denial for too long.  And it's going to bite us all in the tail soon.  Likely within the next 5-10 years unless something changes.

I wonder how much money could be saved by getting rid of some of the bureaucratic and administrative hoops that have to be jumped for projects.

There are people falling all over each other in Frankfort and for the life of me, I can't figure out what purpose they serve. I wonder how many of them are there solely to fill out forms and compile reports to send to the feds?

Requiring states to try to get old worn-out truss bridges relocated?

And don't get me started on the state having design engineers and lawyers on the payroll, but using outside consultants and attorneys for much of the work. Either outsource it all and shed some employees, or let the people you're paying to show up every day do the work.

Kentucky's paying a communications firm to do the PR on the upcoming Mountain Parkway project, when they have people on the payroll who'd be glad to do the work and would do an excellent job. Plus they just gave a $1.5 million contract to a PR/ad agency to market the toll plan on the Louisville bridges.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

froggie

QuoteI wonder how much money could be saved by getting rid of some of the bureaucratic and administrative hoops that have to be jumped for projects.

Some, perhaps, but not much as you might like.  MnDOT has studied/documented project costs out in the recent past and what they found is that preliminary engineering (including environmental/location studies), and project management costs combined average about 20% of the total cost (cradle-to-grave) of a given project.

Regarding percentage-based taxes on gasoline versus a flat rate....yes, the volatile nature of gas prices does make planning difficult.  But at the same time, it helps counter the issues caused by inflation.  That's been the biggest issue with the gas tax for both the Feds and almost all states over the past 20 years is that the gas tax has remained flat, with inflation eroding the value of it.

Henry

Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

rte66man

Being from OK, I believe in and frequently use turnpikes.  My objection to tolling 40 from Little Rock to Memphis is the (assumed) lack of material improvements to the road.  If it was to be tolled, I would want at least 6 lanes (3 in each direction), a vastly improved road surface, on-road service areas instead of rest stops, etc.  What I suspect will happen is some cosmetic changes would be made (just like 10 years ago with the bond issue) but the underlying structure (substandard bridges, too much asphalt) would remain the same.
When you come to a fork in the road... TAKE IT.

                                                               -Yogi Berra

Brandon

Quote from: rte66man on August 29, 2014, 01:44:42 PM
Being from OK, I believe in and frequently use turnpikes.  My objection to tolling 40 from Little Rock to Memphis is the (assumed) lack of material improvements to the road.  If it was to be tolled, I would want at least 6 lanes (3 in each direction), a vastly improved road surface, on-road service areas instead of rest stops, etc.  What I suspect will happen is some cosmetic changes would be made (just like 10 years ago with the bond issue) but the underlying structure (substandard bridges, too much asphalt) would remain the same.

For comparison, ISTHA has taken over the Elgin-O'Hare Expressway (now IL-390) from IDOT.  IDOT built the original road in the 1990s using gas tax revenue.  They passed it on to ISTHA recently.  ISTHA is responsible for adding lanes to the original road, improving the road surface of the original road, and building an extension east toward O'Hare.  ISTHA is not going to add tolls to the road until they are finished.

Were AHTD to do similar to I-40, I could see tolling it.
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg

bjrush

Quote from: rte66man on August 29, 2014, 01:44:42 PM
Being from OK, I believe in and frequently use turnpikes.  My objection to tolling 40 from Little Rock to Memphis is the (assumed) lack of material improvements to the road.  If it was to be tolled, I would want at least 6 lanes (3 in each direction), a vastly improved road surface, on-road service areas instead of rest stops, etc.  What I suspect will happen is some cosmetic changes would be made (just like 10 years ago with the bond issue) but the underlying structure (substandard bridges, too much asphalt) would remain the same.

What do you mean by too much asphalt?
Woo Pig Sooie

rte66man

Quote from: bjrush on August 29, 2014, 06:44:45 PM
Quote from: rte66man on August 29, 2014, 01:44:42 PM
Being from OK, I believe in and frequently use turnpikes.  My objection to tolling 40 from Little Rock to Memphis is the (assumed) lack of material improvements to the road.  If it was to be tolled, I would want at least 6 lanes (3 in each direction), a vastly improved road surface, on-road service areas instead of rest stops, etc.  What I suspect will happen is some cosmetic changes would be made (just like 10 years ago with the bond issue) but the underlying structure (substandard bridges, too much asphalt) would remain the same.

What do you mean by too much asphalt?

IMO, asphalt is not the ideal surface for an interstate with so much semi traffic.  A properly laid concrete will outlast the asphalt and be cheaper in the long run. Asphalt works fine in many areas, just not there.
When you come to a fork in the road... TAKE IT.

                                                               -Yogi Berra

Wayward Memphian

#17
Quote from: codyg1985 on August 28, 2014, 06:37:31 AM
^ Even though those routes are two or three lanes, I could see many people using US 64 or US 70 to bypass the tolls. Also, whenever I-69 is completed, that route (along with I-20) would also become a free alternative to I-40 for motorists and semis headed to Dallas, assuming that I-69 wasn't built with any tolls.


Horse Manure, they would still drive it, 70 is too dangerous and the small muni's would have field day with blue lights. 64 is a bit out of the way and would also be a muni paradise. ui'd only toll from a bit east of Lonoke to Forrest City. I see it as no different than everyone using the Cherokee Turnpike to Tulsa, it's a no brainer. Get I-49 and I-69 built the same, folks will use it, time and ease of use make it so. With ever higher fuel mileage and it's effect on how we fund roads, we must look to more of a usage fee. With the modern tech making toll plazas obsolete, lets have at it. I want roads, not talk of roads. Anything to get more trucks off the road and back onto rails is a win win as well.

Wayward Memphian

Quote from: rte66man on August 30, 2014, 08:18:13 PM
Quote from: bjrush on August 29, 2014, 06:44:45 PM
Quote from: rte66man on August 29, 2014, 01:44:42 PM
Being from OK, I believe in and frequently use turnpikes.  My objection to tolling 40 from Little Rock to Memphis is the (assumed) lack of material improvements to the road.  If it was to be tolled, I would want at least 6 lanes (3 in each direction), a vastly improved road surface, on-road service areas instead of rest stops, etc.  What I suspect will happen is some cosmetic changes would be made (just like 10 years ago with the bond issue) but the underlying structure (substandard bridges, too much asphalt) would remain the same.

What do you mean by too much asphalt?

IMO, asphalt is not the ideal surface for an interstate with so much semi traffic.  A properly laid concrete will outlast the asphalt and be cheaper in the long run. Asphalt works fine in many areas, just not there.

Isn't the issue with concrete is that on some soil types, like those in the Eastern Arkansas area, it buckles to easily?

cjk374

Quote from: Wayward Memphian on August 30, 2014, 09:55:45 PM
Quote from: rte66man on August 30, 2014, 08:18:13 PM
Quote from: bjrush on August 29, 2014, 06:44:45 PM
Quote from: rte66man on August 29, 2014, 01:44:42 PM
Being from OK, I believe in and frequently use turnpikes.  My objection to tolling 40 from Little Rock to Memphis is the (assumed) lack of material improvements to the road.  If it was to be tolled, I would want at least 6 lanes (3 in each direction), a vastly improved road surface, on-road service areas instead of rest stops, etc.  What I suspect will happen is some cosmetic changes would be made (just like 10 years ago with the bond issue) but the underlying structure (substandard bridges, too much asphalt) would remain the same.

What do you mean by too much asphalt?

IMO, asphalt is not the ideal surface for an interstate with so much semi traffic.  A properly laid concrete will outlast the asphalt and be cheaper in the long run. Asphalt works fine in many areas, just not there.

Isn't the issue with concrete is that on some soil types, like those in the Eastern Arkansas area, it buckles to easily?

On I-20 in Louisiana, the stretch between Ruston and Choudrant was repaved with new concrete in the mid-80s, and it still looks brand new after almost 30 years.  IMHO, asphalt should NEVER be used on an interstate!
Runnin' roads and polishin' rails.

US 41

Quote from: cjk374 on August 31, 2014, 03:03:28 PM
Quote from: Wayward Memphian on August 30, 2014, 09:55:45 PM
Quote from: rte66man on August 30, 2014, 08:18:13 PM
Quote from: bjrush on August 29, 2014, 06:44:45 PM
Quote from: rte66man on August 29, 2014, 01:44:42 PM
Being from OK, I believe in and frequently use turnpikes.  My objection to tolling 40 from Little Rock to Memphis is the (assumed) lack of material improvements to the road.  If it was to be tolled, I would want at least 6 lanes (3 in each direction), a vastly improved road surface, on-road service areas instead of rest stops, etc.  What I suspect will happen is some cosmetic changes would be made (just like 10 years ago with the bond issue) but the underlying structure (substandard bridges, too much asphalt) would remain the same.

What do you mean by too much asphalt?

IMO, asphalt is not the ideal surface for an interstate with so much semi traffic.  A properly laid concrete will outlast the asphalt and be cheaper in the long run. Asphalt works fine in many areas, just not there.

Isn't the issue with concrete is that on some soil types, like those in the Eastern Arkansas area, it buckles to easily?

On I-20 in Louisiana, the stretch between Ruston and Choudrant was repaved with new concrete in the mid-80s, and it still looks brand new after almost 30 years.  IMHO, asphalt should NEVER be used on an interstate!

I-70 from Terre Haute to Indy is always receiving new black top. Concrete is definitely better for interstates and it lasts way longer.

The engineer for the city of Terre Haute said that concrete streets in the city need redone about every 80 years, while blacktop streets need resurfaced every 15 years. Black top is used more often though since it's easier to tear out the old black top. Concrete is harder to remove and if they pour more concrete on the road then it affects the sewer system as the water won't go into the sewer or it will become clogged very easily. Then it creates lakes in people's yards.

However interstates are not city streets and need to be paved with concrete.
Visited States and Provinces:
USA (48)= All of Lower 48
Canada (5)= NB, NS, ON, PEI, QC
Mexico (9)= BCN, BCS, CHIH, COAH, DGO, NL, SON, SIN, TAM

bjrush

I don't know everyone's backgrounds, but the decision between asphalt and concrete is made on cost by engineers

In Arkansas, rock is cheap and available, so it is cheaper to lay down Class 7 aggregate base course, HMA base, HMA binder and HMA surface layer. Concrete is cheaper in areas where all those rock layers don't cost out due to lack of availability. Like in Dallas or Houston, everything is concrete

Clearly PCC lasts longer than HMA, it is designed to. Overlays every five years are anticipated with HMA. PCC has a longer service life because it is more expensive

A LCCA in Arkansas using AHTD average prices will show material costs of ~$1.25M/lane-mile for PCC. It is usually ~$800k for HMA
Woo Pig Sooie

Arkansastravelguy

I remember living in Greensboro them having to pull up concrete on US 29 and what a huge pain in the ass. It's cheaper in the long run for concrete, but I wonder if it still would be if you include the cost of pulling it up and replacing it? Plus asphalt is so much easier to fix than cracked concrete


iPhone

codyg1985

Quote from: Wayward Memphian on August 30, 2014, 09:55:45 PM
Quote from: rte66man on August 30, 2014, 08:18:13 PM
Quote from: bjrush on August 29, 2014, 06:44:45 PM
Quote from: rte66man on August 29, 2014, 01:44:42 PM
Being from OK, I believe in and frequently use turnpikes.  My objection to tolling 40 from Little Rock to Memphis is the (assumed) lack of material improvements to the road.  If it was to be tolled, I would want at least 6 lanes (3 in each direction), a vastly improved road surface, on-road service areas instead of rest stops, etc.  What I suspect will happen is some cosmetic changes would be made (just like 10 years ago with the bond issue) but the underlying structure (substandard bridges, too much asphalt) would remain the same.

What do you mean by too much asphalt?

IMO, asphalt is not the ideal surface for an interstate with so much semi traffic.  A properly laid concrete will outlast the asphalt and be cheaper in the long run. Asphalt works fine in many areas, just not there.

Isn't the issue with concrete is that on some soil types, like those in the Eastern Arkansas area, it buckles to easily?

That is correct. Soil type is also a driver as to whether concrete pavement (rigid pavement) is used over asphalt pavement (flexible pavement). The new sections of I-69 in southern Indiana alternate between concrete and asphalt, and I think part of the reason is because of differing soil conditions.

I also wished concrete was used in more areas, but unfortunately the soil conditions won't allow it in all areas, and in most areas, asphalt is cheaper so that's what usually gets built due to contracts being awarded on the sole basis of a low bid. Plus, contractors usually aren't on the hook for maintenance for several decades after the pavement is put in place.
Cody Goodman
Huntsville, AL, United States

RBBrittain

Tolling additional lanes on I-40, or even a new Conway-West Memphis route similar to US 64?  Maybe.  Tolling the existing I-40 lanes?  NO WAY!!!



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.