Conversion of I-70 to toll road should freak Americans out

[corco]

Comparing the "damage" caused by a Ford Ranger to that caused by a Toyota Prius is not really meaningful.  Roads are generally designed to accommodate 18-wheelers and the fourth-power law means that, compared to an 18-wheeler, the damage caused by either a Ford Ranger or a Toyota Prius (or indeed any other type of four-wheeled private passenger vehicle) is negligible.  It is more meaningful to speak about the needs for improvement created by different types of vehicle.  Cars are a major driver of congestion in cities, which leads to pressure for expensive capacity increases, while trucks are a big driver of rehabilitation costs on trunk haulage routes like the rural Interstates.

Of course it's meaningful. A Prius pays considerably less user fee than a Ford Ranger to cause the same amount of damage. Even if the damage caused is negligible, the point still stands that one car is paying significantly more user fee than the other while causing just as much road wear. I chose vehicles with similar curb weights just so nobody would try to undercut the argument because of that difference. I'm not arguing that these vehicles cause anything like the damage trucks cause, just that one pays more than the other for what is supposed to be the same purpose.

(In regard to the specific example of Washington potatoes eaten in Idaho, would you say that this is a nonsensical trade relationship, involving wasteful use of transport services, if Idaho potatoes were considered a premium product while Washington potatoes were intended for everyday eating?  Remember Akerlof's rule--"Export the best because it is more likely to pay the freight.")

For the most part, yes. There are certainly premium potato products grown in Idaho and Washington, maybe more in Idaho than Washington, but the overall distribution of potato breed is very similar.

[vdeane]

Americans should be border-line freaking out, and not just those living in Missouri. Right now, Missouri lawmakers are figuring out how much to fleece motorists that use I-70 in the years ahead. The United States Department of Transportation has given Missouri the authority to convert I-70, an existing road that was toll-free, to one that costs as much as 10-15 cents per mile. The U.S. DOT has also given such authority to two other states- indeed the trend continues to grow.

What's so alarming? Existing free-to-use interstates and roads are becoming toll-roads. The craziest thing is that in some cases (such as in North Carolina) the roads are being built or rebuilt using taxpayer money AND the conversion to toll road is happening, so not only are motorists paying to built it, but they're paying to use it. Not only that, but in North Carolina's case, gasoline taxes also just got jacked up to start the new year.

In Missouri's plan, the conversion could cost passenger vehicles $20-$30 for the entire stretch from just east of Kansas City to Wentzville. In the case of truckers, it could be $60-$90!

What's next, folks? Are we going to see my current city, Chicago start to toll the hundreds of miles of local toll-free roads? Where do we draw the line? Can you imagine driving to work and paying $7 in gas and $15 in tolls? This is getting ridiculous! How about politicians across the country stop putting off tough decisions and trim budgets so that instead of our taxpayer dollars funding pork and wasteful spending we spend our money on roads!

http://blog.gasbuddy.com/posts/Conversion-of-I-70-to-toll-road-should-freak-Americans-out/1715-480024-746.aspx

You must be new here.  We've been discussing stuff like this for years now.

Gasoline is not going away and should not go away,  electric cars are not going to be viable until or unless the battery problem is solved, despite the government trying to ram them down our throats.  And IMHO, VMT taxation will not be accepted by the bulk of the public.  BTW, if they want to stick a surcharge on the electric bills for electric car users that are out there, that works fine for me.

Are you in denial about oil being a non-renewable resource or something.  It's going to go away, it's just a question of when and if we're prepared for it.  Also, we have the technology today to make electric cars (and computers, phones, and everything else) work: capacitors.  A capacitor stores more charge than a battery, chargers MUCH faster than a battery (minutes instead of hours), and never needs to be replaced (unlike batteries, which cease to effectively hold much of any charge after a couple of years).  We just need to refine them for commercial use.  But nobody does that because we are in love with oil.

[J N Winkler]

Of course it's meaningful. A Prius pays considerably less user fee than a Ford Ranger to cause the same amount of damage.

Actually, no.  The Prius subsidizes the Ford Ranger, in fact.

*  Curb weight of 2011 Ford Ranger = 3302 lb

*  Curb weight of 2011 Toyota Prius = 3042 lb

Per the AASHO fourth-power law, the Ford Ranger racks up 38% more ESALs than the Prius.

*  EPA highway MPG for 2011 Ford Ranger = 40 MPG

*  EPA highway MPG for 2011 Toyota Prius = 48 MPG

So for one mile of operation, the Ford Ranger pays tax on 0.025 gallons of fuel, while the Toyota Prius pays tax on 0.0208 gallons of fuel; in other words, the Ford Ranger pays 20.19% more despite racking up 38% more ESALs.  In other words, where damage to pavement caused by axle loading is the sole factor under consideration, the Toyota Prius is subsidizing the Ford Ranger.  QED.  Of course, the damage caused by both is far less than that caused by an eighteen-wheeler, where the permissible axle loads are several times the curb weights of a Ranger or Prius.

(This said, I don't actually agree that car drivers as a group are cross-subsidizing trucks on a large scale.  It is certainly true that the fees truckers pay are nothing like the ESAL ratios between trucks and cars, but the added cost of designing and building pavements to accommodate trucks is far less than the ESAL ratios while cars tend to drive demand for capacity increases.  FHWA actually commissioned a study into this issue several years ago, with the report still available somewhere on the FHWA website, and was not able to find any evidence of massive cross-subsidization in either direction.)

Even if the damage caused is negligible, the point still stands that one car is paying significantly more user fee than the other while causing just as much road wear. I chose vehicles with similar curb weights just so nobody would try to undercut the argument because of that difference. I'm not arguing that these vehicles cause anything like the damage trucks cause, just that one pays more than the other for what is supposed to be the same purpose.

Your argument definitely doesn't work in the limited case of the Ranger and Prius on the highway.  It might work better in cities because the mileage disparity is more sharply in the Prius' favor (51 city MPG for a Prius versus 29 city MPG for a Ranger).  But roads in cities tend to be specialized more for access and there are more sources of funding, e.g. property and sales taxes.

In any case, I think it is a mistake to focus on comparisons between one extremely fuel-efficient model and one gas hog, since that ignores what people actually own and drive.  From the state DOT funding perspective, what really matters is what happens with the vehicle fleet in aggregate.  Fleet fuel efficiency has stayed flat at around 20 MPG since 1980, as the graph here shows:

http://earlywarn.blogspot.com/2009/12/us-new-car-fuel-economy-trends.html

For state DOTs the primary impacts are at the margin, i.e. in capital construction, since other costs like maintenance and administration are largely fixed and difficult to cut.  I would say that the largest impacts on what state DOTs are able to do financially in terms of capital construction come from, in descending order, (1) price fluctuations in input materials like asphalt and concrete, (2) changes in VMT (the economic crisis, combined with high gas prices beginning in 2008, have led to noticeable drops in driving), and (3) changes in fleet fuel efficiency.

This is not to say that trends in fleet fuel efficiency should be ignored.  Small changes in state DOT revenue can have large changes in the capital construction budget--if the entirety of a 10% revenue drop is applied to capital construction rather than state DOT activities across the board, that could mean a 30% cut in construction, equivalent to cancelling four monthly lettings.  But it is emphatically not true that hybrids are a short- or even medium-term threat to the fuel tax funding model.  That will come much later when fully electric vehicles become commercially viable.  In the meantime, the policy option of increasing the gas tax remains open (if unpopular) as a way to accommodate changes at the margin, with little risk of stimulating a "flight away from gas."  A 10c/gallon gas tax increase applied to (e.g.) an existing 20c/gallon take at the state level is still a 25% increase in revenue, which is far larger than any recorded post-2008 changes in VMT or post-1980 changes in fleet fuel efficiency.

Put simply, if people tell you that the Prius and its ilk are a threat to the gas tax because they are so popular and so fuel-efficient, you should be challenging them to supply arithmetic proof.  They won't be able to do it.

(In regard to the specific example of Washington potatoes eaten in Idaho, would you say that this is a nonsensical trade relationship, involving wasteful use of transport services, if Idaho potatoes were considered a premium product while Washington potatoes were intended for everyday eating?  Remember Akerlof's rule--"Export the best because it is more likely to pay the freight.")

For the most part, yes. There are certainly premium potato products grown in Idaho and Washington, maybe more in Idaho than Washington, but the overall distribution of potato breed is very similar.

But this still isn't proof that it is wasteful to eat Washington potatoes in Idaho.  The north-south corridor now known as US 95, which was built as a wagon road in the nineteenth century as a condition of unification between northern and southern Idaho, is still pretty rough and uneven.  If you live in Moscow it may make more sense to eat Washington potatoes brought in from across the Snake River rather than Idaho potatoes trucked in over White Bird Hill (my Idaho geography is a bit rusty since I haven't visited since 2001, but you get the idea).

[agentsteel53]

*  EPA highway MPG for 2011 Ford Ranger = 40 MPG

29 city MPG for a Ranger

not bad at all.  29/40 for a light truck is pretty good.

gas hog

wow, that's about the last way I'd have described the Ranger.

try my shitty 2001 Taurus - 20/28 in my experience, curb weight of about 3346.

[agentsteel53]

btw, for everyone's reference...

http://www.pavementinteractive.org/index.php?title=ESAL#Generalized_Fourth_Power_Law

I raised an eyebrow at the "fourth power" which JNW cited, so I looked it up.  it's a pretty good estimate based on research as detailed in the link above.

[corco]

Actually, no.  The Prius subsidizes the Ford Ranger, in fact.

*  Curb weight of 2011 Ford Ranger = 3302 lb

*  Curb weight of 2011 Toyota Prius = 3042 lb

Per the AASHO fourth-power law, the Ford Ranger racks up 38% more ESALs than the Prius.

*  EPA highway MPG for 2011 Ford Ranger = 40 MPG

*  EPA highway MPG for 2011 Toyota Prius = 48 MPG

So for one mile of operation, the Ford Ranger pays tax on 0.025 gallons of fuel, while the Toyota Prius pays tax on 0.0208 gallons of fuel; in other words, the Ford Ranger pays 20.19% more despite racking up 38% more ESALs.  In other words, where damage to pavement caused by axle loading is the sole factor under consideration, the Toyota Prius is subsidizing the Ford Ranger.  QED.  Of course, the damage caused by both is far less than that caused by an eighteen-wheeler, where the permissible axle loads are several times the curb weights of a Ranger or Prius.

All right, you can argue pedantics but you get the point that I'm trying to make, right? I'm not interested in the aggregate- I'm interested in whether or not an individual driving a fuel-inefficient car is paying a larger user fee than an individual driving a fuel-efficient car relative to the damage they cause. I evidently gave a bad example based on two cars I thought of off the top of my head.

But this still isn't proof that it is wasteful to eat Washington potatoes in Idaho.  The north-south corridor now known as US 95, which was built as a wagon road in the nineteenth century as a condition of unification between northern and southern Idaho, is still pretty rough and uneven.  If you live in Moscow it may make more sense to eat Washington potatoes brought in from across the Snake River rather than Idaho potatoes trucked in over White Bird Hill (my Idaho geography is a bit rusty since I haven't visited since 2001, but you get the idea).

Once again, you can argue pedantics but you get my general point, right? An Idaho Fallsian eating a Washington potato doesn't make very much sense, just as a Spokaneite eating an Idaho Falls potato doesn't make very much sense, both potatoes being equal. For simplicity's sake I used state lines, but obviously other factors are in play. You know I know what US-95 is and the geographic disparity within Idaho.  Look at the big picture- not the pedantics.

[J N Winkler]

All right, you can argue pedantics but you get the point that I'm trying to make, right? I'm not interested in the aggregate- I'm interested in whether or not an individual driving a fuel-inefficient car is paying a larger user fee than an individual driving a fuel-efficient car relative to the damage they cause.

I do get your point, but my point--which I hope you also get--is that policy needs to take into consideration what happens in aggregate.  I can certainly see how a person driving a Prius (especially in the city) could be seen as free-riding off someone driving a Ford Ranger, but I question the value of looking for economic justice at such a low level, especially when considering gas tax alone.  A Prius currently costs about twice as much as a Ranger, so the Prius driver is paying a heavy price to save at the pump.  Assuming gas prices of around $3/gallon over the life cycles of both vehicles, the Prius driver saves only 12.6c/mile over the Ranger driver in fuel, and has to drive nearly 200,000 miles in order to offset the increased cost of the Prius.  Is the Prius driver expected to accept additional punishment purely because he or she seems to pay an inequitably small share of the total fuel tax burden?

And because of the way the fourth-power law works and the way fuel consumption relates to curb weight, you almost have to scrape the barrel in terms of low-MPG vehicles in order to sustain an argument that drivers of high-efficiency vehicles get a free ride at the expense of pickup truck drivers and so on.  The kinds of vehicles that you have to find to make that argument work raise questions of aggressivity in crashes, and allow the counterargument that the higher-paying drivers of low-MPG vehicles "buy" improved prospects of crash survival at the expense of other drivers.  Can you imagine why it would be advantageous to steer clear of such comparisons when all you want to do is to figure out how to get enough funding to match needs?

Once again, you can argue pedantics but you get my general point, right? An Idaho Fallsian eating a Washington potato doesn't make very much sense, just as a Spokaneite eating an Idaho Falls potato doesn't make very much sense, both potatoes being equal. For simplicity's sake I used state lines, but obviously other factors are in play. You know I know what US-95 is and the geographic disparity within Idaho.  Look at the big picture- not the pedantics.

The big picture, as I see it, is that there is a tradeoff between localization of production and scale economies.  It may be advantageous for the economy as a whole for a person in Idaho to eat potatoes made in Idaho rather than shipped in from Washington by road.  I don't know if it is or not; I am prepared to accept the specifics of that question as a useless exercise in pedantry, or rather, something for the producers and consumers of potatoes to work out among themselves through the price discovery mechanism.  What I am trying to say, and what you cannot plausibly deny, is that the tradeoff exists.

[route56]

As I mentioned in the South Lawrence Trafficway thread - KDOT studied the possibility of putting tolls on the SLT. That study noted that there would be a enough of a shift in traffic that it would require the EIS process to be reopened. KDOT did not like the idea of doing that again (having been sent through the ringer three times already) so the toll idea was nixed.

The concept of tolling I-70 in Missouri was brought up on a local talk show here in Kansas City, which the host noted would result in a passenger car toll of ~ $24 for the entire length of the proposed toll. By contrast, the cash toll for the entire length of the Kansas Tunpike is $10.75 (with the length of the KTA and MO I-70 being comparatively similar)

[Scott5114]

With regards to VMT, why couldn't it be conducted by just having the state check your odometer when they issue you a plate renewal sticker? You go in to get your sticker, the guy behind the counter goes out, looks at your odometer, puts it in the computer, and it tells you how many miles you've driven over the past year and you pay the appropriate tax then. (Of course further readings would need to be taken when selling/buying a car.)

As to the gas tax, why is it a flat amount rather than a percentage like nearly every other tax? Perhaps if we just converted it to a percentage so that it would track inflation...

Part of the problem is the lack of political will to actually do anything to taxes. Over the past 10 years or so everyone's gotten so used to the cries of "let's cut taxes! let's cut taxes!" that it's almost political suicide to support any sort of increase in any tax, let alone one like the gas tax that will affect so many people. Lower taxes are a nice idea that most people like, but lawmakers have to have the ability to raise taxes when there's no other way to fund necessary programs. This notion of "Congressman X wants to RAISE YOUR TAXES HE IS THE DEVIL INCARNATE" is a bit silly.

[J N Winkler]

With regards to VMT, why couldn't it be conducted by just having the state check your odometer when they issue you a plate renewal sticker? You go in to get your sticker, the guy behind the counter goes out, looks at your odometer, puts it in the computer, and it tells you how many miles you've driven over the past year and you pay the appropriate tax then. (Of course further readings would need to be taken when selling/buying a car.)

That is a rough-and-ready way of doing it, but there are a few problems with it:

*  It creates a massive incentive for odometer fraud.

*  It does not allow the possibility of charging according to congestion level.

*  It would make it politically difficult to resist mileage-based insurance, which has been suggested as a way of discouraging people from driving.

The system piloted in Oregon is, AIUI, based on transponders in vehicles communicating with roadside receivers.  There is no need for a given transponder to be uniquely identified with a given vehicle and there is no continuous real-time tracking, as is called for in the satellite-based VMT charging systems being considered elsewhere.  This limits the potential for abuse as a surveillance tool.  Because the charges are associated with individual receivers, it is technically possible to impose higher charges in more congested areas (e.g., a vehicle mile travelled in Portland and the surrounding area would be more expensive than elsewhere in Oregon).

As to the gas tax, why is it a flat amount rather than a percentage like nearly every other tax? Perhaps if we just converted it to a percentage so that it would track inflation...

Fuel taxes are excise rather than ad valorem because their intent, in broad terms, is to charge for use.  The resource commitment attaching to each increment of use (which is what the fuel tax pays for in fiscal systems where highway expenditures are supposed to be covered exactly by highway revenues so that the road system is "off budget") does not, by and large, vary with the price of fuel.  (The cost of doing business does tend to increase for state DOTs when fuel prices are high, but the relationship between the two is not direct, and the fuel tax as traditionally conceived is not really designed to account for effects like this.)

There is no need to convert the fuel tax to an ad valorem tax to take account of inflation.  All that is needed is to index the excise tax to a suitable measure of inflation, ideally one using a "basket of goods" that corresponds reasonably closely to the goods and services that state DOTs typically buy.  Wisconsin used to have such a system, but I understand it was abandoned a few years ago as part of a populist tax-cutting package, and I don't know if any other state has taken up the idea.  Mary Peters' blue-ribbon commission on transportation funding (convened in the dying days of the Bush II administration) did recommend indexation in addition to a tripling of the fuel tax.

Part of the problem is the lack of political will to actually do anything to taxes. Over the past 10 years or so everyone's gotten so used to the cries of "let's cut taxes! let's cut taxes!" that it's almost political suicide to support any sort of increase in any tax, let alone one like the gas tax that will affect so many people. Lower taxes are a nice idea that most people like, but lawmakers have to have the ability to raise taxes when there's no other way to fund necessary programs. This notion of "Congressman X wants to RAISE YOUR TAXES HE IS THE DEVIL INCARNATE" is a bit silly.

There is more localism to this issue than meets the eye.  No-one wants to raise the fuel tax at the federal level, not least because this endless parade of shutdowns and budget face-offs keeps the issue from getting to the table in the first place, but increases in the state fuel tax have gone through in many states and continue to do so.  The real problem is that the motivation behind such increases tends to be to postpone the date infrastructure dilapidation reaches crisis stage (ideally until after the next election), not to tackle it once and for all.

[bugo]

No one has pointed out that Missouri Voters have voted down andy kind of tax for the roads and under Missouri law they can again  so dont jump to a national conclusion ,there are local issues here.Please dont freak out America

It absolutely is a national issue- Missouri, for the reasons you stated, is probably a worst case example- but the highway trust fund is broke. General fund monies are paying for highway dollars. The state of highway funding is very much an under-talked about national crisis.

Missouri's biggest problem is that it has too many miles in the system.  Every dollar that goes to patch a pothole on a lettered highway that gets 80 cars a day is a dollar less that a major highway gets.
Post Merge: January 21, 2012, 10:00:19 AM

*  EPA highway MPG for 2011 Ford Ranger = 40 MPG

*  EPA highway MPG for 2011 Toyota Prius = 48 MPG

40 MPG in a Ranger?  Maybe if it's rolling down a hill with a tailwind.  The V6 Rangers get about 20 MPG on the highway, and the 4s don't get a lot better.

[vdeane]

I'm not sure how you could have a transponder system without tracking.  Also, the reading of the odometer at registration wouldn't work in all states; NY, for example, does renewals by mail.  Inspection would be better.

There is one plus to a transponder system: toll roads would be a thing of the past.  They would simply be roads that have a higher per-mile charge.

[Chris]

The problem with VMT or other nationwide electronic tolling systems is that the operational system costs are huge. So before there's any increase in revenue for highway projects, there has to be an increase of tolls to pay the higher system costs in the first place. For instance the German truck toll operational costs are 20% of the revenue. So, to get 20% more revenue the tolls must go up 40% or more. That's a significant additional burden to the tax payer and also one of the reasons why the Dutch VMT tax was canceled.

Odometer registration doesn't seem like a workable solution, unless you want to go to the DMV every month you will get a huge bill at the end of each year. It's like paying your mortgage all at once. Or your boss paying your salary once a year. Highly impractical and susceptible to fraud.

If you want to replace the gas tax, an annual vehicle ownership fee may be the most practical solution that doesn't come with a very high system cost or a bureaucratic mess. Most European countries have one of their mobility-related taxes like this.

[nds76]

MODOT could ignore voters voice in toll talks

ST. LOUIS (AP) - The head of the Missouri Department of Transportation says it wouldn't take a public vote to rebuild Interstate 70 using tolls.

Director Kevin Keith says private sector companies would fund the project and collect tolls to recoup their investment.

Keith has outlined a proposal to rebuild the rural stretch of I-70 between Highway 40-61 near Wentzville and Interstate 470 near Kansas City. The project could cost $2 billion to $4 billion.

Keith says that with highway funding in scarce supply, an I-70 toll road appears to be the most viable option.

But the Missouri Trucking Association says the I-70 toll question should go to voters. Previous efforts to pass constitutional amendments to permit state toll roads and bridges have failed.

http://www.ksdk.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=298875

[KEVIN_224]

Meanwhile, there's been talk about tolling I-80 through Pennsylvania.

Here in Connecticut, we haven't had a toll road since 1989. That's when the toll on the Charter Oak Bridge over the Connecticut River between Hartford and East Hartford (carries US Route 5 and CT Route 15) was removed.

The Connecticut Turnpike (I-95 from Greenwich to Waterford and I-395 from there north to Thompson) last had tolls around 1983. Governor Dannell P. Malloy (D), and M. Jodi Rell (R) before him, have brought up the idea of placing toll barriers at the state lines with I-95 at the NY and RI borders, possibly with I-395, I-84 and I-91 as well. That would really go over "well", considering we have the fourth highest gas tax in the nation. What makes the Connecticut Turnpike different from Missouri though? This road was previously tolled until 1983. Also, the nearby Merritt Parkway (Fairfield County) and Wilbur Cross Parkway (New Haven County) [both parts of CT Route 15] were tolled in the past.

As for an alternate route to I-95 if it were re-tolled? The Merritt and Wilbur Cross Parkways (CT Route 15) parallel I-95 to the immediate north. Obviously, trucks can not use that road. The only other major option is US Route 1, which is heavily congested at most times already.

[kphoger]

With regards to VMT, why couldn't it be conducted by just having the state check your odometer when they issue you a plate renewal sticker? You go in to get your sticker, the guy behind the counter goes out, looks at your odometer, puts it in the computer, and it tells you how many miles you've driven over the past year and you pay the appropriate tax then. (Of course further readings would need to be taken when selling/buying a car.)

That is a rough-and-ready way of doing it, but there are a few problems with it:

*  It creates a massive incentive for odometer fraud.

*  It does not allow the possibility of charging according to congestion level.

*  It would make it politically difficult to resist mileage-based insurance, which has been suggested as a way of discouraging people from driving.

Ummm, another big flaw that I see.... I drive my vehicle to México every year, which means my yearly odometer reading would include foreign highway miles, and I sure as heck wouldn't want to pay my fee based on those miles.  Imagine if you actually lived in México on a visa but had a car plated in the U.S.!

======


I'm not totally opposed to toll roads.  Whether you want to drive on them or not is your decision.  The Kansas Turnpike has already been mentioned; some days I pay the $8 or whatever it is from Wichita to K.C., and sometimes I don't; I've actually calculated that taking I-135 and US-50 from Wichita to Emporia costs more in gas than it saves in tolls.  In México, between Nuevo Laredo and Monterrey, there is a choice between free and toll highways; the toll portion is only 75 miles long, only saves eight miles or maybe 30 minutes of driving, yet costs about US$14; it's worth it to me, just to save those 30 minutes of driving and not have to worry about passing trucks; to others it's not worth it, and to me it's not worth it on other toll road portions.  $15 from K.C. to STL?  I'd probably pay it.  Especially if US-50 is just going to be more congested.

[J N Winkler]

Ummm, another big flaw [with odometer-based mileage charging] that I see.... I drive my vehicle to México every year, which means my yearly odometer reading would include foreign highway miles, and I sure as heck wouldn't want to pay my fee based on those miles.  Imagine if you actually lived in México on a visa but had a car plated in the U.S.!

Yup, this is a problem.  But it is also a problem with toll roads in the US--you are double-charged through the tolls and the tax paid on fuel you burn on the turnpike.  In principle the double-charging can be eased somewhat by remitting the tax paid on fuel sold at turnpike service areas to the turnpike authority rather than the state DOT, but in Kansas KDOT gets it all.

I'm not totally opposed to toll roads.  Whether you want to drive on them or not is your decision.  The Kansas Turnpike has already been mentioned; some days I pay the $8 or whatever it is from Wichita to K.C., and sometimes I don't; I've actually calculated that taking I-135 and US-50 from Wichita to Emporia costs more in gas than it saves in tolls.

The mileage penalty is approximately 10 miles (88.2 miles via Turnpike, 98.7 miles via I-135/US 50).  The time penalty is somewhat larger than 10 minutes since US 50 is a conventional highway with a lower speed limit.  The Turnpike toll is $3.50 (Exit 50 to Exit 127), so ignoring the value of driving time and at gas prices around $3/gallon, MPG has to be fairly low (in the ~10 MPG range) in order to come out ahead financially on the Turnpike route.  (This doesn't mean, of course, that I take US 50--I usually take the Turnpike anyway:  convenience has value.)

$15 from K.C. to STL?  I'd probably pay it.  Especially if US-50 is just going to be more congested.

The amount proposed is actually $24 for passenger cars on that itinerary.  To be fair, that is probably what they have to charge in order to cover construction cost and financing.  I would not object to tolls on this route if it were the only one needing major improvement in Missouri, but the transportation needs in that state permeate the entire system.

[kphoger]

I'm not totally opposed to toll roads.  Whether you want to drive on them or not is your decision.  The Kansas Turnpike has already been mentioned; some days I pay the $8 or whatever it is from Wichita to K.C., and sometimes I don't; I've actually calculated that taking I-135 and US-50 from Wichita to Emporia costs more in gas than it saves in tolls.

The mileage penalty is approximately 10 miles (88.2 miles via Turnpike, 98.7 miles via I-135/US 50).  The time penalty is somewhat larger than 10 minutes since US 50 is a conventional highway with a lower speed limit.  The Turnpike toll is $3.50 (Exit 50 to Exit 127), so ignoring the value of driving time and at gas prices around $3/gallon, MPG has to be fairly low (in the ~10 MPG range) in order to come out ahead financially on the Turnpike route.  (This doesn't mean, of course, that I take US 50--I usually take the Turnpike anyway:  convenience has value.)

From my house, it's a difference of 17.6 miles.  All things being equal, I would come out slightly ahead on US-50.  However, I typically drive faster than the flow of traffic.  As you know, there is heavy truck traffic on US-50, which means I end up overtaking a lot; this usually has me going from perhaps 60 mph to 78 mph in a very short stretch in order to complete the maneuver ahead of oncoming traffic.  The way I figure it, that high revving costs more in gas than the difference, or at least makes them even.  I could be wrong.  We're also usually nearing the end or beginning of a 700-mile drive, so are looking for any excuse to save fifteen minutes of driving.

$15 from K.C. to STL?  I'd probably pay it.  Especially if US-50 is just going to be more congested.

The amount proposed is actually $24 for passenger cars on that itinerary.  To be fair, that is probably what they have to charge in order to cover construction cost and financing.  I would not object to tolls on this route if it were the only one needing major improvement in Missouri, but the transportation needs in that state permeate the entire system.

I've been pleased with recent development in Missouri.  US-60 across the southern part of the state, especially, including the James River Freeway in Springfield.  OTOH, I wish they would add lanes to I-35 north of K.C.

[rte66man]

I've been pleased with recent development in Missouri.  US-60 across the southern part of the state, especially, including the James River Freeway in Springfield.  OTOH, I wish they would add lanes to I-35 north of K.C.

Are there any plans to do this in the near future?  Coming fro OKC to Minneapolis, I've started taking 435 west to 152 so I don't have to deal with 35 north of KC.

rte66man

[Henry]

This is hardly a surprise to me. My only question is, will they stretch it border-to-border, a la the Pennsylvania/Ohio Turnpike/Indiana Toll Road, or end it somewhere within its boundaries? The way I see it, if Jefferson City gets its way, a St. Louis-to-Kansas City drive may soon resemble one from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh, albeit without the mountains or tunnels to contend with.

[kphoger]

Are there any plans to do this in the near future?  Coming fro OKC to Minneapolis, I've started taking 435 west to 152 so I don't have to deal with 35 north of KC.

I often take 435 to 152 as well.  But I was referring to I-35 specifically between, say, Liberty and Cameron.

[Darkchylde]

Don't look now, but rumblings about this are starting up again, as heard on the news in KC tonight.

Apparently Governor Nixon is wanting a commission to study tolling I-70 from KC to STL to pay for improvements, since the tax to pay for road improvements failed. Both public and public/private plans are on the table, and if tolls end up being enacted, existing money earmarked for I-70 will be diverted to other road projects.

The locals are miffed about the possibility, to say the least.

[Anthony_JK]

The privatization of the Interstate Highway System is now underway, I guess.

I suppose the next move will be to privatize all the other freeways in MO in order to pay for completing, say, the Belle Vista Bypass segment of I-49? Or...the Bruce Watkins Drive segment of US 71 (pending resolution of that consent decree, that is)?? Or...completing the US 67 freeway to Popular Bluff/Festus? Or, freewayizing US 61 from STL northward as part of the Avenue of the Saints upgrade??

Given the new attitude against public spending for infrastructure, I can see no other feasible alternative, other than just letting things rot.

[SteveG1988]

If MO does go through with this, would they be stupid enough to go to their own electronic system, or adopt some other states? I could see them going with PikePass/K-Tag compatible, but that would kind of screw IL drivers due to them using EzPass compatible.

[vdeane]

Maybe it would be like NC and work with both the PikePass group and E-ZPass.