Tolling I-80 Not Dead Yet

[hm insulators]

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

From the PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW:
I-80 toll plan may be revived

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

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

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

[mightyace]

^^^

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

[Anthony_JK]

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


Anthony

[mightyace]

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


Anthony

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

[PAHighways]

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


Anthony

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

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

[PAHighways]

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

Tolling Interstate 80 is Back on the Table - Pocono Record

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

[Michael in Philly]

^^^[sputters incoherently]

[mightyace]

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

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

[froggie]

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

[Grzrd]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr_Northside]

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

[Michael in Philly]

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

[mightyace]

^^^

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

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

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

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

I propose that Philadelphia County be renamed Nottingham County.

[PAHighways]

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

[mightyace]

^^^

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

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

[Michael in Philly]

^^^

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

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

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

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

I propose that Philadelphia County be renamed Nottingham County.

Chill.

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

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

[vdeane]

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

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

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

[mightyace]

Chill.

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

in other words, if the "why are we funding transit in Philadelphia?" gripe is responded to with "who do you think's helping pay for your roads?", which it rarely is - I'm not sure the northern tier comes out ahead.

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

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

There are an awful lot of people in the southeast and southwest corners of the state, you know, and more of them have more money.  And that's just demographics.

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

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

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

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

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

EDIT:

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

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

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