Proposal to toll I-15 in AZ

[roadfro]

Arizona DOT is proposing to toll it's section of Interstate 15 in the sparsely-populated northwestern corner of the state. ADOT argues that they initially didn't want to build the interstate through the Virgin River Gorge, and now is looking at the high cost of rehabbing the bridges along that stretch--a stretch that benefits relatively few Arizonans but is an important piece of the CANAMEX corridor.

Arizona plans to gouge I-15 drivers with toll - Las Vegas Review Journal, Sunday 10/23/11

[Bickendan]

What a shoddy piece of journalism. I like my news to be objective, not editorialized.

[xonhulu]

"They could give a hoot about the feelings of non-Arizona residents who frequently travel between St. George, Utah, and Mesquite. And because it is part of the trade route dubbed CANAMEX, truckers would have no choice but to pass through their cash-collecting web.

You can almost picture the transportation types rubbing their evil little hands together. Mua-ha-ha-ha."

Now that's some objective journalism!

[Brandon]

They could always hand over the area to Utah or Nevada (or both) if they feel that way.

[NE2]

Who the hell deleted my post?

[Alps]

Post fairy. What were you saying?

(edited to note that I haven't checked the forum in a few days, so clearly was not me)

[J N Winkler]

NE2 pointed to an article about "100-pound scrotum" to impeach the newspaper's credibility; in my reply, also deleted, I pointed out that elephantiasis is a serious problem in tropical countries (though admittedly not in the US and other wealthy countries), so the article couldn't be immediately dismissed as fictitious or made-up.

These two posts were only marginally on topic but personally I think they should have been moved instead of being sent to join los desaparecidos.

[agentsteel53]

fuck!  I go have a life for several hours and I miss a serious post on giant ballsacks?

I am never leaving the computer again.

[NE2]

I never said it was fictitious, just written like a tabloid. It's one of the top Google results for "las vegas review journal".

[agentsteel53]

people that whine about tolls have always amused me. 

it's three dollars - given the current costs of gasoline and typical fuel efficiency, you're gonna be paying three dollars to go about 20 miles anyway.  since the Virgin River section of I-15 is so far away from most civilization, it is quite likely that all it is doing is raising your travel budget from $15 to $18.

yawn.

[Bickendan]

I'd gladly pay $3 to travel that segment of I-15 if traveling that way. It's not one of the $53 tolls to cross the bridge between Denmark and Sweden.

[corco]

All you people want to drive your Prii and Volts and  Leaves and other non-gas guzzlers and don't want to pay for road maintenance. Shipping companies put things on trucks because the government subsidizes that infrastructure a lot more than rails/whatever else, so they don't pay their fair share either.

If you're not paying fuel tax, you've got to pay somehow. A $3 toll is nothing compared to what we'll likely be seeing in the future.

[Quillz]

I'm probably completely wrong, but I thought interstates that were specifically built as part of the network (and not grandfathered in) were not allowed to be tolled?

I'm assuming that US-91 was not built up to interstate standards by 1957, so how would the state be able to toll this portion? Or have tolled interstates always been allowed?

[corco]

I'm probably completely wrong, but I thought interstates that were specifically built as part of the network (and not grandfathered in) were not allowed to be tolled?

They're allowed, but you'd lose federal funding for that stretch of interstate unless a waiver is granted (waivers are sometimes granted). Given that the infrastructure is already built and just needs to be maintained, AZ could probably make more on tolls than the money they get from the feds. I'd assume that once they determine whether or not toll revenue is greater than federal funding they'd pull the trigger.

Either way, that's going to need to be re-visited. With increased trucking (and truckers do not pay anything close to their fair share- and I don't know that we want them to because that just drives up the cost of goods- but maybe we want goods to become more expensive in an effort to increase the efficiency of the supply chain- I don't know what the answer is there) and more fuel efficient cars, highway funding is in crisis and states need the ability to raise money to maintain their own roads.

[NE2]

There's a pilot program: http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/tolling_pricing/interstate_rr.htm

[J N Winkler]

Either way, that's going to need to be re-visited. With increased trucking (and truckers do not pay anything close to their fair share- and I don't know that we want them to because that just drives up the cost of goods- but maybe we want goods to become more expensive in an effort to increase the efficiency of the supply chain- I don't know what the answer is there) and more fuel efficient cars, highway funding is in crisis and states need the ability to raise money to maintain their own roads.

Highway funding is not in crisis just because CAFE is going up and people are buying Volts, Priuses, or whatever.  That development is in any case driven more by the fact that gas prices are permanently higher as a result of enhanced demand from China, India, and other industrializing countries.

What needs to happen is that the public, state legislatures, and Congress need to face up to the fact that the fuel tax has to go up.  Because demand for motor fuel is inelastic, the tax can be hiked to more than triple current levels before the increases have a perceptible effect on consumption.  Take-up of different propulsion technologies will eventually force abandonment of taxation of liquid fuels as a major revenue source, but we are several decades from that point.  The problem we face right now is that the marginal fuel tax is just too low to finance upkeep and a reasonable level of capital improvement.

Tolls are not the totality of the answer or even a major part of it.  Tolls are corridor-specific and at this point the funding needs are felt throughout the entire system.  The present fad for slapping tolls on through-through routes is not a solution to the funding problem; it is only a symptom.

These generalities disposed of, I don't like this particular I-15 tolling plan.

*  Because I-15 handles mainly transit traffic, the toll is effectively a form of welcome-stranger taxation.  This will invite retaliation from states neighboring Arizona.

*  I-15 is hundreds of miles from the nearest ETC-capable toll road, so operating it as an ETC-only toll road is not a practical proposition.  This means Arizona DOT will have to build additional infrastructure for toll booths, collection lanes, etc. and staff them, all of which is costly and will exacerbate public resentment since the users will in effect be paying someone to take their money for using what was previously a free road.  (Ever get tired of waiting in a department store, with clothes in your arms, for a salesclerk to show up and take your money?  That's what this feels like.)

*  As a free Interstate originally built with Interstate Construction funds, Arizona DOT currently gets up to 80% from the federal government for major work under IM.  With tolls this match won't be available, so tolls will have to cover the whole cost plus collection expenses.  The tolls themselves will suppress demand.

I see this plan as another own goal in the making from the same people who gave us SB 1070.  I don't see it going very far.

[CL]

Let's be real, folks. There are no good alternate routes between Salt Lake and Las Vegas. No one will be willing to take US-93 all the way from Wendover to Las Vegas. Even if one is in St. George, I don't think old US-91 is maintained well enough for that to be a viable alternative. Arizona has the wherewithal to get away with any toll they might impose.

Why was I-15 built through the Virgin River Gorge in the first place? It's mighty scenic, but it's proved expensive in the long run.

[Rover_0]

Let's be real, folks. There are no good alternate routes between Salt Lake and Las Vegas. No one will be willing to take US-93 all the way from Wendover to Las Vegas. Even if one is in St. George, I don't think old US-91 is maintained well enough for that to be a viable alternative. Arizona has the wherewithal to get away with any toll they might impose.

Why was I-15 built through the Virgin River Gorge in the first place? It's mighty scenic, but it's proved expensive in the long run.

I've wondered if, in some kind of reaction, Utah extends UT-8 along Old US-91 southwest down to the Arizona line, as Mohave County Route 91 is in pretty good shape. I've also whipped up an idea stemming from my US Route in Southern Utah/Northern Arizona should this happen--US-160 to Littlefield, AZ*. I'm not counting on it, but at the risk of venturing into Fictional Highway territory, it's interesting:



*Here it goes all the way to Mesquite in the case that the entire Arizona section is tolled, notwithstanding the steps needed to actually make it happen.

[agentsteel53]

that would be interesting, since Utah US 160 was, once upon a time, on the books. 

[corco]

as Mohave County Route 91 is in pretty good shape.

I wonder if they'd do the same as was proposed with the I-80 in Wyoming tollbooth that's proposed between Wamsutter and Rawlins, where they have said they'd ban through trucks from exiting onto the frontage roads and then put a cop on the side road to enforce

[agentsteel53]

I wonder if they'd do the same as was proposed with the I-80 in Wyoming tollbooth that's proposed between Wamsutter and Rawlins, where they have said they'd ban through trucks from exiting onto the frontage roads and then put a cop on the side road to enforce

what about making the frontage road physically impassable?  how badly would that affect ranch/local business traffic? 

[Rover_0]

as Mohave County Route 91 is in pretty good shape.

I wonder if they'd do the same as was proposed with the I-80 in Wyoming tollbooth that's proposed between Wamsutter and Rawlins, where they have said they'd ban through trucks from exiting onto the frontage roads and then put a cop on the side road to enforce

I-80 between Wamsutter and Rawlins in Wyoming is nowhere near crossing into another state, whereas I-15 in Arizona is so isolated from the rest of the state that the ratio of Arizona drivers to Utah/Nevada drivers is almost nonexistent. I would think that Utah and Nevada will have more say in this as it goes along, as they'll have to deal with the consequences far more than Arizona ever will. This reeks of Arizona trying to, in the words of the Dire Straits song, get their money for nothing (but no chicks for free).

[corco]

I-80 between Wamsutter and Rawlins in Wyoming is nowhere near crossing into another state, whereas I-15 in Arizona is so isolated from the rest of the state that the ratio of Arizona drivers to Utah/Nevada drivers is almost nonexistent. I would think that Utah and Nevada will have more say in this as it goes along, as they'll have to deal with the consequences far more than Arizona ever will. This reeks of Arizona trying to, in the words of the Dire Straits song, get their money for nothing (but no chicks for free).

The intent is the same though- Wyoming sees that the majority of its traffic is A) truck, which is unique for an interstate and B) isn't beginning or ending in Wyoming, just passing through. Because of that, Wyoming wants to nick truck traffic for a few more bucks, since they're wearing down the freeway and Wyoming isn't really seeing a lot of gain- here's the feasibility study (PDF)

Arizona wants to do it for exactly the same reason, although the distance is shorter and out of state traffic less. Since it's Arizona's road, if they don't want federal funding to maintain the road they are free to do whatever they want. NV/UT can't stop them.

Both states would be doing it basically to suck captive out of state drivers with no voting power in that jurisdiction, especially truckers, for a bunch of extra money

[J N Winkler]

Arizona wants to do it for exactly the same reason, although the distance is shorter and out of state traffic less. Since it's Arizona's road, if they don't want federal funding to maintain the road they are free to do whatever they want. NV/UT can't stop them.

Certainly there seems to be no procedural mechanism by which they can do so.  However, they can retaliate, e.g. by charging tolls at locations where their road systems interface with Arizona's.  They might also be able to get around nondiscrimination by charging higher apportionment rates for cargos originating from states which have recently imposed tolls on through-through traffic.  To make the point especially clear to Arizona, each state could set the enhanced rates so that the total take exactly matches Arizona's total take from drivers in that state from I-15 tolls.

I just don't see the point in embarking down this road of tit-for-tat when I-15 is just a special local problem that has been exposed by a general decline in federal funding levels.

[vdeane]

Maybe they should just transfer that section of the state to Utah.