More tolled highways in the future?

[Rothman]

In terms of seat belt law non-compliance, states are probably paying the penalty with the portion of apportionment that is in excess of the obligation limitation, so the ability to use federal funds is unaffected.

[Joe The Dragon]

change the rules.

as for Chicago area old roads to toll???

IL-53 / I-290 (I-90 to I-355) / I-355 ??

palatine road with upgrades?

IL-83 I-290 to 63rd street with upgrades??

I-290 I-355 to I-294?

US-41 WI to lake cook rd with upgrades?


I-55 I-294 to I-355??

I-55 I-355 to I-80?

I-80 I-355 to I-294??

----------------

City of Chicago

LSD with upgrades?

I-90?

I-94?

I-55?

I-57?

-------


New roads

I-X55? / I-X90? / I-X43? / I-X94? / toll IL-53? / toll us-12? / toll IL-120?

[hbelkins]

How much is New Hampshire foregoing each year because it doesn't have a seat belt law?

As far as I can tell, none. But they aren't required to, since there is no federal law withholding funds to any state which does not have a seat belt law. The other 49 states all decided to enact laws to this effect on their own without being given a financial ultimatum.

What? When the push to pass a seat belt law was on in Kentucky, the public was told that unless such a law was passed, the state would forfeit x number of federal dollars. I can't imagine that the Kentucky legislature, even though it was controlled by Democrats at the time, would have passed such a nanny state law without such pressure. The same thing was also said when the state changed its seat belt law from a secondary offense to a primary offense.

(Of course, I was surprised that West Virginia passed a nanny state hands-free phone use law; I don't foresee that being passed in Kentucky anytime soon unless the feds demand it.)

[Rothman]

Took a deeper look into this.  The penalties are for not having compliant open container and repeat intoxication laws, not seat belts.

See:  https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/notices/n4510812/n4510812_t6.cfm

This is the only penalty-related supplemental table I'm aware of at this point.

[Duke87]

What? When the push to pass a seat belt law was on in Kentucky, the public was told that unless such a law was passed, the state would forfeit x number of federal dollars.

And that may have been true, albeit not for a reason as simple as "you must pass a seat belt law or lost money". There have been various plays with federal funding on this matter over the years.

For example, TEA-21 offered incentive money each year from 1999 through 2003 for states that increased their seat belt use rate above the national average. But this was
1) structured as a carrot, not a stick
2) tied to measurable results, not merely the existence of a law
3) temporary

New Hampshire is therefore not losing money on account of its seat belt law. And Kentucky probably would not lose any money if theirs were to be repealed, however they may well have gained some money back in the 90s as a result of passing and enforcing it.

It's also worth noting that New Hampshire does have a seat belt law for minors. Only people 18 or older are legally permitted to not wear their seat belt if they so choose.

[1995hoo]

....

(edit): Oh, and tolls have to be reasonable, not "you will pay anyway!". For cars, 3-5 cents a mile seem like a good number cost-wise. That is 3-6x current federal gas tax. That may vary depending on actual toll coverage, but I suspect things wouldn't work if commuter has to pay more than $200-300 a year

Heh. We paid about $2.41 a mile tonight–the toll for the Beltway HO/T lanes from I-66 to Springfield (about eight miles) was $19.30. We were going 70 mph the whole way while the "free" lanes were at a standstill, though, which says to me the variable tolling is working as intended. It makes me ponder what "reasonable" necessarily means in different situations. I think it's fair to accept that express lanes of the sort we were using are a different animal from a fully-tolled road that doesn't offer an immediate alternative relatively adjacent to the tolled route (by that I mean, for example, Florida's Turnpike doesn't really have any good alternative route between Orlando and Fort Pierce unless you go well out of your way, and most people would wind up paying the toll on the Bee Line anyway if they took I-95). Keeping the toll more manageable is more important when the toll road is to be the "primary" artery. Even then, there's bound to be some tension between figuring out how to help the daily user versus the guy who comes through once a year on vacation and who therefore doesn't much care what the toll is. I recall reading some discussion of that tension in regard to North Carolina's proposal to toll I-95.

(Regarding our commute tonight, it was raining, which always messes up traffic, and because of that I never seriously considered using the "free" lanes. The subway isn't a viable option this month due to track work at our end of the line. Even with the huge toll, we still spent some $4.00 less than we would have taking commuter rail and got home in about half the time.)