Elephant in the Room - Tolls in Wisconsin?

[peterj920]

With Scott Walker bonding for projects, that is the result of voters not wanting to raise the fuel tax.

Voters get to decide whether or not to raise gas taxes in Wisconsin? In Washington State, gas tax increases are usually bundled together with the road projects that they'll be funding. The package is then passed by the House and Senate, and signed off by the governor. This way, there's no one person to blame for a tax increase (and the whole concept of political suicide is avoided).

If you watch the video above, nationally voters don't want the gas tax increases. Even President Obama wants to avoid the issue.  In Wisconsin, Governor Walker can pass almost anything because Republicans currently control the Assembly and Senate.  Right now they're seen as all in one so if it passes through both chambers and the governor, the Assembly Persons and State Senators would be committing political suicide.

From what I understand, Washington is a Democratic state and people are going to vote Democrat no matter what.  If it were a swing state, it would be a different story. 

[johndoe780]

With Scott Walker bonding for projects, that is the result of voters not wanting to raise the fuel tax.

Voters get to decide whether or not to raise gas taxes in Wisconsin? In Washington State, gas tax increases are usually bundled together with the road projects that they'll be funding. The package is then passed by the House and Senate, and signed off by the governor. This way, there's no one person to blame for a tax increase (and the whole concept of political suicide is avoided).

If you watch the video above, nationally voters don't want the gas tax increases. Even President Obama wants to avoid the issue.  In Wisconsin, Governor Walker can pass almost anything because Republicans currently control the Assembly and Senate.  Right now they're seen as all in one so if it passes through both chambers and the governor, the Assembly Persons and State Senators would be committing political suicide.

From what I understand, Washington is a Democratic state and people are going to vote Democrat no matter what.  If it were a swing state, it would be a different story.

And therein lies the problem. I'm not against a gas tax increase so long as it's a modest one- such as 5 cents. But some of these gas tax proposals are extreme-20-30 cents a gallon.

It also doesn't help that states and the feds sweep money from the gas tax and distribute it to other funds.

However as electric cars pick up, there's got to be some sort of new revenue to tap. Gas tax aint' gonna last forever, but toll roads are a very fair way to tax electric cars and it avoids the issue of double taxation- gas tax and tolls.

At my current village board meeting, they received 22% more funding from IDOT than budgetted via the gas tax (IDOT distributes the gas tax to towns via population-something like $24 per capita) Guess people are driving more now that gas prices are low now.

[mgk920]

Mike I'm glad you joined in the thread, I always appreciate your insight

Could you see any other roads as being viable tolls in WI?

Not politically.   There are 'choke points' that would likely be tolled if they were in many other states (ie, the I-39/90/94 Wisconsin River bridge or the I-41 causeway in Oshkosh), but nothing that will pass the legislature and governor.

Right now I'm very much leaning towards abolishing the segregated transportation fund and the special fuel tax, replacing the fuel tax with the regular state sales tax, adjusting its rate to be revenue neutral with the abolished fuel tax, then rounded up to the next even percent, and putting roads and other transport on the general fund.

Mike

[froggie]

nationally voters don't want the gas tax increases.

And this, people, is why highway infrastructure will continue to deteriorate in this country.  Because roads are expensive, and people don't want to pay the tolls or higher gas tax or other tax necessary to fix it.

[jakeroot]

nationally voters don't want the gas tax increases.

And this, people, is why highway infrastructure will continue to deteriorate in this country.  Because roads are expensive, and people don't want to pay the tolls or higher gas tax or other tax necessary to fix it.

I don't think people mind paying to fix the roads, there's just this general thought that current tax income is misused. Of course, this isn't an opinion shared by everyone.

[US 41]

I don't think people mind paying to fix the roads, there's just this general thought that current tax income is misused. Of course, this isn't an opinion shared by everyone.

That's because it is misused. I'm pretty sure that we would have plenty of money for roads if every cent of the gas tax actually went towards maintaining the roads rather than in some general fund that goes to who knows what.

The same is true with toll roads. If every single cent collected on a toll road went back to the toll road there would be no issues. This is why I am strongly opposed to privatizing toll roads. Toll roads should not be a money maker for someone. A toll road should just be a road that uses collected money to maintain / improve the road. 

[Henry]

Seeing that there are tollways stretching across the northern half of IL, I think it's surprising that their neighbors to the north are even discussing tolls. I always thought they (IL and WI) had different views on everything.

[kkt]

From what I understand, Washington is a Democratic state and people are going to vote Democrat no matter what.  If it were a swing state, it would be a different story. 

Not really.  Yes, the governorship of Washington has been held by a Democrat since the early 1980s, but both houses of the legislature are pretty evenly divided.  Currently the Senate is controlled by Republicans and a couple of independents who caucus with them, while the Democrats have a 50-48 majority in the House.  With control so evenly divided, the Legislature is not about to take any courageous actions.

[peterj920]

From what I understand, Washington is a Democratic state and people are going to vote Democrat no matter what.  If it were a swing state, it would be a different story. 

Not really.  Yes, the governorship of Washington has been held by a Democrat since the early 1980s, but both houses of the legislature are pretty evenly divided.  Currently the Senate is controlled by Republicans and a couple of independents who caucus with them, while the Democrats have a 50-48 majority in the House.  With control so evenly divided, the Legislature is not about to take any courageous actions.

I'm surprised it's that close politically.  Republicans in Texas don't have to worry about losing power so it's easy for them to build new toll roads.  I did see an article looking at possibly scaling back or eliminating some tolls because new roads especially TX 130, isn't doing anything to ease traffic in Austin because people don't want to pay to use it.  They interviewed a Democrat saying how bad the tolls are and for him it's probably an easy way to score political points. 

I apologize if I'm talking too much about politics but when it comes to roads and new projects, that determines the fate of new projects, revenues, and tolls.  My main point is that with one party rule, it's easier to raise the gas tax or implement new toll roads.  If a state is a swing state, then it's a lot harder because the party that is in power caves more to public opinion and can be out of power on the next election cycle. 

[The Ghostbuster]

I don't blame any of you for bringing politics into the discussion. In my view, you can't divorce politics from anything.

[peterj920]

I don't blame any of you for bringing politics into the discussion. In my view, you can't divorce politics from anything.

I feel I'm making fair unbiased observations politically, but road funding and major projects come down to politics most of the time.  A huge problem is building when it comes to funding.  Project costs are increasing while revenue isn't, yet public opinion doesn't want any increases in fuel taxes or tolls.  Increases have been done in states where politicians don't face backlash, but the volatile states and the federal level won't.  At the federal level, there is a huge battle for power and if one party increases gas prices, the other party will use it against the other.  The only solution I can think of is to start using the general fund for roads.  At the federal level, it's already being used to make up for highway trust fund deficits.

[froggie]

That's because it is misused. I'm pretty sure that we would have plenty of money for roads if every cent of the gas tax actually went towards maintaining the roads rather than in some general fund that goes to who knows what.

That may be the case in some states, but not all.  Furthermore, even in states where it isn't "misused", there isn't enough as you claim.  For example:  in Minnesota, gas tax revenue is Constitutionally dedicated to roads and highways (Article 14 of the state Constitution).  Yet, even though vehicle registration fees and 60% of the motor vehicle sales tax are ALSO Constitutionally dedicated, it isn't enough.

[johndoe780]

That's because it is misused. I'm pretty sure that we would have plenty of money for roads if every cent of the gas tax actually went towards maintaining the roads rather than in some general fund that goes to who knows what.

That may be the case in some states, but not all.  Furthermore, even in states where it isn't "misused", there isn't enough as you claim.  For example:  in Minnesota, gas tax revenue is Constitutionally dedicated to roads and highways (Article 14 of the state Constitution).  Yet, even though vehicle registration fees and 60% of the motor vehicle sales tax are ALSO Constitutionally dedicated, it isn't enough.

and what percentage of that gas tax goes towards bike lanes, beautification, landscaping, etc? Items that you and I wouldn't consider to be part of our road infrastructure but some idiot politician would.

[jakeroot]

That's because it is misused. I'm pretty sure that we would have plenty of money for roads if every cent of the gas tax actually went towards maintaining the roads rather than in some general fund that goes to who knows what.

That may be the case in some states, but not all.  Furthermore, even in states where it isn't "misused", there isn't enough as you claim.  For example:  in Minnesota, gas tax revenue is Constitutionally dedicated to roads and highways (Article 14 of the state Constitution).  Yet, even though vehicle registration fees and 60% of the motor vehicle sales tax are ALSO Constitutionally dedicated, it isn't enough.

and what percentage of that gas tax goes towards bike lanes, beautification, landscaping, etc? Items that you and I wouldn't consider to be part of our road infrastructure but some idiot politician would.

Bike lines are a safety measure, and landscaping ensures rain has somewhere to go, other than drains.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

That's because it is misused. I'm pretty sure that we would have plenty of money for roads if every cent of the gas tax actually went towards maintaining the roads rather than in some general fund that goes to who knows what.

That may be the case in some states, but not all.  Furthermore, even in states where it isn't "misused", there isn't enough as you claim.  For example:  in Minnesota, gas tax revenue is Constitutionally dedicated to roads and highways (Article 14 of the state Constitution).  Yet, even though vehicle registration fees and 60% of the motor vehicle sales tax are ALSO Constitutionally dedicated, it isn't enough.

It's frustrating how many people in Minnesota do not know this. As a result they think the state is swimming in road money that's being used on buses and "choo choos" instead. They don't understand that there are multiple sources of funding for transportation, not just one big pot for everything that's "not being used properly" and as a result it's most likely going to derail any transportation bills as long as there is divided government.

[froggie]

and what percentage of that gas tax goes towards bike lanes, beautification, landscaping, etc? Items that you and I wouldn't consider to be part of our road infrastructure but some idiot politician would.

You may not consider them part of the infrastructure, but I do.  Landscaping, especially, is necessary to prevent erosion in locations where grading/regrading was done.  That said, to answer your question, the percentage is pretty low...basically decimals of a percent for bike lanes.  Especially where the roadway was being paved/repaved to begin with, the "cost" of bike lanes is basically the cost of the paint.  In other words, a rounding error.

Landscaping isn't that high either...maybe 5% or so for heavy landscaping, but landscaping is typically only required when you have either a new roadway, a major reconfiguration of an existing roadway or interchange, or a lot of digging up.  For replacement-in-kind (i.e. no alignment changes), basically all one needs is to restore the turf where the construction vehicles were.

Regarding "beautification", MnDOT's policy is that they will pay for basic ground restoration and turf renewal, and perhaps the occasional tree or bush for soil erosion control, but will require cost-sharing with the local jurisdiction if the locals desire something beyond that.

[jeffandnicole]

For many people, the only part of road building that's required is the blacktop. They don't see the extensive other work that's necessary.

[peterj920]

and what percentage of that gas tax goes towards bike lanes, beautification, landscaping, etc? Items that you and I wouldn't consider to be part of our road infrastructure but some idiot politician would.

You may not consider them part of the infrastructure, but I do.  Landscaping, especially, is necessary to prevent erosion in locations where grading/regrading was done.  That said, to answer your question, the percentage is pretty low...basically decimals of a percent for bike lanes.  Especially where the roadway was being paved/repaved to begin with, the "cost" of bike lanes is basically the cost of the paint.  In other words, a rounding error.

Landscaping isn't that high either...maybe 5% or so for heavy landscaping, but landscaping is typically only required when you have either a new roadway, a major reconfiguration of an existing roadway or interchange, or a lot of digging up.  For replacement-in-kind (i.e. no alignment changes), basically all one needs is to restore the turf where the construction vehicles were.

Regarding "beautification", MnDOT's policy is that they will pay for basic ground restoration and turf renewal, and perhaps the occasional tree or bush for soil erosion control, but will require cost-sharing with the local jurisdiction if the locals desire something beyond that.

On the I-41 project in Green Bay, quite a bit of money is being spent on landscaping.  Over 0.5 million at the Wis 29 interchange alone and another $210,000 at the Wis 172 interchange was just listed on the new Northeast Region Construction Report.  The MNDOT policy will soon be the WISDOT policy, as state lawmakers passed a law scrapping the CSD program, which will require municipalities to pick up any beautification costs.  It will still take a few years to take effect because projects that are already under construction will not be affected by the changes and will get the CSD designs and the extra landscaping.   

[SEWIGuy]

and what percentage of that gas tax goes towards bike lanes, beautification, landscaping, etc? Items that you and I wouldn't consider to be part of our road infrastructure but some idiot politician would.

You may not consider them part of the infrastructure, but I do.  Landscaping, especially, is necessary to prevent erosion in locations where grading/regrading was done.  That said, to answer your question, the percentage is pretty low...basically decimals of a percent for bike lanes.  Especially where the roadway was being paved/repaved to begin with, the "cost" of bike lanes is basically the cost of the paint.  In other words, a rounding error.

Landscaping isn't that high either...maybe 5% or so for heavy landscaping, but landscaping is typically only required when you have either a new roadway, a major reconfiguration of an existing roadway or interchange, or a lot of digging up.  For replacement-in-kind (i.e. no alignment changes), basically all one needs is to restore the turf where the construction vehicles were.

Regarding "beautification", MnDOT's policy is that they will pay for basic ground restoration and turf renewal, and perhaps the occasional tree or bush for soil erosion control, but will require cost-sharing with the local jurisdiction if the locals desire something beyond that.

On the I-41 project in Green Bay, quite a bit of money is being spent on landscaping.  Over 0.5 million at the Wis 29 interchange alone and another $210,000 at the Wis 172 interchange was just listed on the new Northeast Region Construction Report.  The MNDOT policy will soon be the WISDOT policy, as state lawmakers passed a law scrapping the CSD program, which will require municipalities to pick up any beautification costs.  It will still take a few years to take effect because projects that are already under construction will not be affected by the changes and will get the CSD designs and the extra landscaping.   

The I-41 project cost just over $1B in Brown County.  And people are bitching about $710,000 in landscaping.

Oy...

[Stephane Dumas]

I wonder, could WisDOT test the concept of Express toll lanes or HOT lanes for some freeways as some sort of compromise?

[JREwing78]

As for potential tollways in Wisconsin, IMHO, if Illinois would ever get their act together and build the planned US 12 tollway to the state line at Richmond, IL/Genoa City, WI, I could easily see the Wisconsin part of the project having tolled sections - the existing freeway sections of US 12 would remain freeways, but the new parts, specifically the Elkhorn-Whitewater 'corner cut' and the part between Fort Atkinson and Cambridge, would function very well as tollways, with the revenue easily being able to fund six-laning the whole thing between Genoa City and Madison, including re-engineering the I-39/90 'Beltline' interchange.

Mike

Exactly. I think folks would be receptive to paying tolls to fund new highway projects, such as a freeway along the US-12 corridor. A tollway connecting I-94 in Kenosha to US-12 in Lake Geneva, then along the US-12 corridor to Madison, would probably have no issue funding itself. It would be more likely to do so with a suitable connection through McHenry and Lake Counties to I-90.

Another such connection that would probably fund itself is a connection along the Hwy 16 corridor linking Portage to Waukesha.

[Joe The Dragon]

As for potential tollways in Wisconsin, IMHO, if Illinois would ever get their act together and build the planned US 12 tollway to the state line at Richmond, IL/Genoa City, WI, I could easily see the Wisconsin part of the project having tolled sections - the existing freeway sections of US 12 would remain freeways, but the new parts, specifically the Elkhorn-Whitewater 'corner cut' and the part between Fort Atkinson and Cambridge, would function very well as tollways, with the revenue easily being able to fund six-laning the whole thing between Genoa City and Madison, including re-engineering the I-39/90 'Beltline' interchange.

Mike

Exactly. I think folks would be receptive to paying tolls to fund new highway projects, such as a freeway along the US-12 corridor. A tollway connecting I-94 in Kenosha to US-12 in Lake Geneva, then along the US-12 corridor to Madison, would probably have no issue funding itself. It would be more likely to do so with a suitable connection through McHenry and Lake Counties to I-90.

Another such connection that would probably fund itself is a connection along the Hwy 16 corridor linking Portage to Waukesha.

St, Salem WI by pass for wi-50? 

[SEWIGuy]

As for potential tollways in Wisconsin, IMHO, if Illinois would ever get their act together and build the planned US 12 tollway to the state line at Richmond, IL/Genoa City, WI, I could easily see the Wisconsin part of the project having tolled sections - the existing freeway sections of US 12 would remain freeways, but the new parts, specifically the Elkhorn-Whitewater 'corner cut' and the part between Fort Atkinson and Cambridge, would function very well as tollways, with the revenue easily being able to fund six-laning the whole thing between Genoa City and Madison, including re-engineering the I-39/90 'Beltline' interchange.

Mike

Exactly. I think folks would be receptive to paying tolls to fund new highway projects, such as a freeway along the US-12 corridor. A tollway connecting I-94 in Kenosha to US-12 in Lake Geneva, then along the US-12 corridor to Madison, would probably have no issue funding itself. It would be more likely to do so with a suitable connection through McHenry and Lake Counties to I-90.

Another such connection that would probably fund itself is a connection along the Hwy 16 corridor linking Portage to Waukesha.

St, Salem WI by pass for wi-50? 

Paddock Lake. 

Neither such a bypass, or a US-12 freeway is even close to happening. 

[triplemultiplex]

Toll the highways and hold them to the same standard some demand from public transportation?  Whaaaaaaaattt?

[peterj920]

and what percentage of that gas tax goes towards bike lanes, beautification, landscaping, etc? Items that you and I wouldn't consider to be part of our road infrastructure but some idiot politician would.

You may not consider them part of the infrastructure, but I do.  Landscaping, especially, is necessary to prevent erosion in locations where grading/regrading was done.  That said, to answer your question, the percentage is pretty low...basically decimals of a percent for bike lanes.  Especially where the roadway was being paved/repaved to begin with, the "cost" of bike lanes is basically the cost of the paint.  In other words, a rounding error.

Landscaping isn't that high either...maybe 5% or so for heavy landscaping, but landscaping is typically only required when you have either a new roadway, a major reconfiguration of an existing roadway or interchange, or a lot of digging up.  For replacement-in-kind (i.e. no alignment changes), basically all one needs is to restore the turf where the construction vehicles were.

Regarding "beautification", MnDOT's policy is that they will pay for basic ground restoration and turf renewal, and perhaps the occasional tree or bush for soil erosion control, but will require cost-sharing with the local jurisdiction if the locals desire something beyond that.

On the I-41 project in Green Bay, quite a bit of money is being spent on landscaping.  Over 0.5 million at the Wis 29 interchange alone and another $210,000 at the Wis 172 interchange was just listed on the new Northeast Region Construction Report.  The MNDOT policy will soon be the WISDOT policy, as state lawmakers passed a law scrapping the CSD program, which will require municipalities to pick up any beautification costs.  It will still take a few years to take effect because projects that are already under construction will not be affected by the changes and will get the CSD designs and the extra landscaping.   

The I-41 project cost just over $1B in Brown County.  And people are bitching about $710,000 in landscaping.

Oy...

The $710,000 is for 2 out of 9 interchanges along the project.  The cost adds up with them all included.  Just because it's a small fraction of the total cost doesn't mean that it's a lot of money.  Every dollar saved can go towards other projects.