Wisconsin notes

[TheHighwayMan3561]

I don't get why the solution to everything always has to be raise taxes. I keep hearing all the time we got to help the middle class. I don't see how raising the gas tax helps the middle class becasue it means everyone is going to have to pay more at the pump. That means the middle class not just the wealthy. I do think there were other areas they could have saved money like don't build so many roundabouts stop replacing signs that don't need to be replaced and stop doing projects that nobody wants but I guess we can't do any of that.

Because you need money to pay for things. It's that simple.

[dvferyance]

As for Wisconsin funding issues, as I've said many times before, part of the problem there is WisDOT overbuilt it's highway system. Now they have to spend tons of $$$ on maintenance. A lot of corridors that were upgraded (such as US 10 and WIS 26) could have been scaled back or not built at all (especially the US 10 Marshfield spur).

WisDOT wasted tons of money on overbuilding corridors while neglecting its main routes. Now they will suffer the consequences..............

I agree with this too.  I mean I live just off WI-26, and the four lane divided highway is nice, but really unnecessary. 

Wis 26 is debatable on the importance now certainly. But I would argue that in the "big picture", upgrading Wis 26 to 4 lanes makes sense getting from Oshkosh, Appleton and Green Bay (all of which are growing areas) to Janesville/Beloit and St Louis while avoiding Milwaukee and Madison.

Couple thoughts though:

**How much travel is there between the Fox Valley and the Janesville/Beloit area?

**According to Google Maps, taking WI-26 between the two areas is 108 miles v. 119 via US-151 and I-39/90.  Is it really a good use of $$ so travelers can save 11 miles?

I think the reasons WIDOT did this were as much political as anything else.  They did a real good job of spreading the wealth across the state geographically instead of focusing resources where they belonged - on the Milwaukee freeway system and existing corridors that serve mostly urban areas.

But the cities (Ft Atkinson, Watertown, Johnson Creek) along 26 have been growing a lot. So yes in the Big Picture, Oshkosh to Janesville can be done reasonably via 151 and 39/90. But, the corridor serves a ton of local traffic.

I don't necessarily dispute the need for some upgrades in the corridor, what I have a problem with is the fact they built it as a full blown freeway/near-freeway when lesser upgrades would have been sufficient. Freeways are expensive to build and maintain, and yet, Wisconsin seems to think every major corridor (that they think needs to be four lanes) should include high quality upgradable expressway and freeway bypasses around towns. That simply isn't true for every situation. Only the backbone routes should be freeways (or high-quality upgradeable expressway, like WIS 29 and US 151), the rest should be lesser expressways. Also, some of the corridors that have been upgraded are somewhat redundant (such as WIS 29 and US 10, WIS 26 and US 151, etc).

In part, because of overbuilding certain projects, WisDOT now has less money for much needed reconstruction of its roads.

I would also put the Baraboo bypass on that list. Was it really necessary to build it as a full freeway? Not to mention they roundabouted every intersection at every interchange. Can anyone give me just one good reason why stop signs could not have worked there just fine? Was the Burlington bypass even necessary at all? How much traffic even goes through Burlington to the other side on Hwy 36? Not to mention from what I understood the people of Burlington didn't even want it. Another example of over doing where money could have been saved.

[Mrt90]

As for Wisconsin funding issues, as I've said many times before, part of the problem there is WisDOT overbuilt it's highway system. Now they have to spend tons of $$$ on maintenance. A lot of corridors that were upgraded (such as US 10 and WIS 26) could have been scaled back or not built at all (especially the US 10 Marshfield spur).

WisDOT wasted tons of money on overbuilding corridors while neglecting its main routes. Now they will suffer the consequences..............

I agree with this too.  I mean I live just off WI-26, and the four lane divided highway is nice, but really unnecessary. 

Wis 26 is debatable on the importance now certainly. But I would argue that in the "big picture", upgrading Wis 26 to 4 lanes makes sense getting from Oshkosh, Appleton and Green Bay (all of which are growing areas) to Janesville/Beloit and St Louis while avoiding Milwaukee and Madison.

Couple thoughts though:

**How much travel is there between the Fox Valley and the Janesville/Beloit area?

**According to Google Maps, taking WI-26 between the two areas is 108 miles v. 119 via US-151 and I-39/90.  Is it really a good use of $$ so travelers can save 11 miles?

I think the reasons WIDOT did this were as much political as anything else.  They did a real good job of spreading the wealth across the state geographically instead of focusing resources where they belonged - on the Milwaukee freeway system and existing corridors that serve mostly urban areas.

But the cities (Ft Atkinson, Watertown, Johnson Creek) along 26 have been growing a lot. So yes in the Big Picture, Oshkosh to Janesville can be done reasonably via 151 and 39/90. But, the corridor serves a ton of local traffic.

I don't necessarily dispute the need for some upgrades in the corridor, what I have a problem with is the fact they built it as a full blown freeway/near-freeway when lesser upgrades would have been sufficient. Freeways are expensive to build and maintain, and yet, Wisconsin seems to think every major corridor (that they think needs to be four lanes) should include high quality upgradable expressway and freeway bypasses around towns. That simply isn't true for every situation. Only the backbone routes should be freeways (or high-quality upgradeable expressway, like WIS 29 and US 151), the rest should be lesser expressways. Also, some of the corridors that have been upgraded are somewhat redundant (such as WIS 29 and US 10, WIS 26 and US 151, etc).

In part, because of overbuilding certain projects, WisDOT now has less money for much needed reconstruction of its roads.

I would also put the Baraboo bypass on that list. Was it really necessary to build it as a full freeway? Not to mention they roundabouted every intersection at every interchange. Can anyone give me just one good reason why stop signs could not have worked there just fine? Was the Burlington bypass even necessary at all? How much traffic even goes through Burlington to the other side on Hwy 36? Not to mention from what I understood the people of Burlington didn't even want it. Another example of over doing where money could have been saved.

In my opinion Burlington needed a bypass, but they didn't need a 4 lane divided highway bypass.  Prior to the bypass, they had a ridiculous traffic pattern where 83, 36, and 11 all intersected downtown and followed different paths down different one-way streets, I assume this was because they don't have a street that was capable of handling the potential traffic that could have resulted from putting all of them on the same street through downtown.  It will be interesting to see how the city develops over the next 5, 10, 25 years along the bypass.

[The Ghostbuster]

Perhaps, some projects around the state were overbuilt, but we can't do anything about that now. In any event, Wisconsin needs to come up with a new road funding mechanism so future projects don't have to be delayed or canceled. Perhaps tolls or even a mileage-based fee would work. I don't have much hope for a gas tax increase due to it being a political nonstarter, as well as the construction of more fuel-efficient vehicles over the last few decades. As for raising registration fees, I feel it might get to a point where the fees get too high for ordinary people to afford paying them. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[SEWIGuy]

Hopefully something will be done to improve the state's transporation finances. And GeekJedi and Dzlsabe, can the personal insults. They are counterproductive to this discussion board website.

Nope.

Thanks for asking nicely though! 

As for the state's transportation finances, I'm not sure what can be done if there continues to be a refusal to increase taxes. You can only cut so much spending. Those savings don't magically increase funding.

I don't get why the solution to everything always has to be raise taxes. I keep hearing all the time we got to help the middle class. I don't see how raising the gas tax helps the middle class becasue it means everyone is going to have to pay more at the pump. That means the middle class not just the wealthy. I do think there were other areas they could have saved money like don't build so many roundabouts stop replacing signs that don't need to be replaced and stop doing projects that nobody wants but I guess we can't do any of that.

You do realize that oftentimes that roundabouts are *cheaper* than other alternatives right?

But even so, let's say we eliminated funding roundabouts RIGHT NOW where other, less expensive options exist.  Do you honestly think that would save enough money to take care of the infrastructure needs of the state?  Why do you think that even Republican law-makers are pushing a gas tax increase?

[DaBigE]

Hopefully something will be done to improve the state's transporation finances. And GeekJedi and Dzlsabe, can the personal insults. They are counterproductive to this discussion board website.

Nope.

Thanks for asking nicely though! 

As for the state's transportation finances, I'm not sure what can be done if there continues to be a refusal to increase taxes. You can only cut so much spending. Those savings don't magically increase funding.

I don't get why the solution to everything always has to be raise taxes. I keep hearing all the time we got to help the middle class. I don't see how raising the gas tax helps the middle class becasue it means everyone is going to have to pay more at the pump. That means the middle class not just the wealthy. I do think there were other areas they could have saved money like don't build so many roundabouts stop replacing signs that don't need to be replaced and stop doing projects that nobody wants but I guess we can't do any of that.

How many times do we have to beat the sign horse to death?!? The cost of replacing signs is a drop in the bucket...barely a blip on the budget radar screen compared to the other cost overruns.

...
You do realize that oftentimes that roundabouts are *cheaper* than other alternatives right?

But even so, let's say we eliminated funding roundabouts RIGHT NOW where other, less expensive options exist.  Do you honestly think that would save enough money to take care of the infrastructure needs of the state?  Why do you think that even Republican law-makers are pushing a gas tax increase?

Agreed. Sure, stop signs are cheaper in the short-run, but the roundabout will satisfy capacity needs for a much longer time. Further, roundabouts, especially single-lane roundabouts are about the best way to prevent wrong-way freeway driving, a problem which has grown significantly lately.

[GeekJedi]

I don't get why the solution to everything always has to be raise taxes. I keep hearing all the time we got to help the middle class. I don't see how raising the gas tax helps the middle class becasue it means everyone is going to have to pay more at the pump. That means the middle class not just the wealthy. I do think there were other areas they could have saved money like don't build so many roundabouts stop replacing signs that don't need to be replaced and stop doing projects that nobody wants but I guess we can't do any of that.

Because that is the only way to raise funding. Period. You can't continue to cut your way into growing revenue. Road maintenance and construction isn't a static number that can be made to be the same every year. Even at that, you can't hold the line on revenue and expect to meet the needs of the future. Especially now, since the current state government has continued to kick the can down the road so many times that we now can't catch up. Eliminating a few roundabouts won't help - and as many others have pointed out, they don't cost significantly more, and they are much more safe than the alternatives...no matter what Belling says.

[hobsini2]

As for Wisconsin funding issues, as I've said many times before, part of the problem there is WisDOT overbuilt it's highway system. Now they have to spend tons of $$$ on maintenance. A lot of corridors that were upgraded (such as US 10 and WIS 26) could have been scaled back or not built at all (especially the US 10 Marshfield spur).

WisDOT wasted tons of money on overbuilding corridors while neglecting its main routes. Now they will suffer the consequences..............

I agree with this too.  I mean I live just off WI-26, and the four lane divided highway is nice, but really unnecessary. 

Wis 26 is debatable on the importance now certainly. But I would argue that in the "big picture", upgrading Wis 26 to 4 lanes makes sense getting from Oshkosh, Appleton and Green Bay (all of which are growing areas) to Janesville/Beloit and St Louis while avoiding Milwaukee and Madison.

Couple thoughts though:

**How much travel is there between the Fox Valley and the Janesville/Beloit area?

**According to Google Maps, taking WI-26 between the two areas is 108 miles v. 119 via US-151 and I-39/90.  Is it really a good use of $$ so travelers can save 11 miles?

I think the reasons WIDOT did this were as much political as anything else.  They did a real good job of spreading the wealth across the state geographically instead of focusing resources where they belonged - on the Milwaukee freeway system and existing corridors that serve mostly urban areas.

But the cities (Ft Atkinson, Watertown, Johnson Creek) along 26 have been growing a lot. So yes in the Big Picture, Oshkosh to Janesville can be done reasonably via 151 and 39/90. But, the corridor serves a ton of local traffic.

I don't necessarily dispute the need for some upgrades in the corridor, what I have a problem with is the fact they built it as a full blown freeway/near-freeway when lesser upgrades would have been sufficient. Freeways are expensive to build and maintain, and yet, Wisconsin seems to think every major corridor (that they think needs to be four lanes) should include high quality upgradable expressway and freeway bypasses around towns. That simply isn't true for every situation. Only the backbone routes should be freeways (or high-quality upgradeable expressway, like WIS 29 and US 151), the rest should be lesser expressways. Also, some of the corridors that have been upgraded are somewhat redundant (such as WIS 29 and US 10, WIS 26 and US 151, etc).

In part, because of overbuilding certain projects, WisDOT now has less money for much needed reconstruction of its roads.

I would also put the Baraboo bypass on that list. Was it really necessary to build it as a full freeway? Not to mention they roundabouted every intersection at every interchange. Can anyone give me just one good reason why stop signs could not have worked there just fine? Was the Burlington bypass even necessary at all? How much traffic even goes through Burlington to the other side on Hwy 36? Not to mention from what I understood the people of Burlington didn't even want it. Another example of over doing where money could have been saved.

In my personal experience, Yes the Burlington Bypass was needed as much as the Oconomowoc Bypass. The traffic in Downtown Burlington at times could get bad and it was only a 2 lane street if you were on 11 or 83.

[I-39]

As for Wisconsin funding issues, as I've said many times before, part of the problem there is WisDOT overbuilt it's highway system. Now they have to spend tons of $$$ on maintenance. A lot of corridors that were upgraded (such as US 10 and WIS 26) could have been scaled back or not built at all (especially the US 10 Marshfield spur).

WisDOT wasted tons of money on overbuilding corridors while neglecting its main routes. Now they will suffer the consequences..............

I agree with this too.  I mean I live just off WI-26, and the four lane divided highway is nice, but really unnecessary. 

Wis 26 is debatable on the importance now certainly. But I would argue that in the "big picture", upgrading Wis 26 to 4 lanes makes sense getting from Oshkosh, Appleton and Green Bay (all of which are growing areas) to Janesville/Beloit and St Louis while avoiding Milwaukee and Madison.

Couple thoughts though:

**How much travel is there between the Fox Valley and the Janesville/Beloit area?

**According to Google Maps, taking WI-26 between the two areas is 108 miles v. 119 via US-151 and I-39/90.  Is it really a good use of $$ so travelers can save 11 miles?

I think the reasons WIDOT did this were as much political as anything else.  They did a real good job of spreading the wealth across the state geographically instead of focusing resources where they belonged - on the Milwaukee freeway system and existing corridors that serve mostly urban areas.

But the cities (Ft Atkinson, Watertown, Johnson Creek) along 26 have been growing a lot. So yes in the Big Picture, Oshkosh to Janesville can be done reasonably via 151 and 39/90. But, the corridor serves a ton of local traffic.

I don't necessarily dispute the need for some upgrades in the corridor, what I have a problem with is the fact they built it as a full blown freeway/near-freeway when lesser upgrades would have been sufficient. Freeways are expensive to build and maintain, and yet, Wisconsin seems to think every major corridor (that they think needs to be four lanes) should include high quality upgradable expressway and freeway bypasses around towns. That simply isn't true for every situation. Only the backbone routes should be freeways (or high-quality upgradeable expressway, like WIS 29 and US 151), the rest should be lesser expressways. Also, some of the corridors that have been upgraded are somewhat redundant (such as WIS 29 and US 10, WIS 26 and US 151, etc).

In part, because of overbuilding certain projects, WisDOT now has less money for much needed reconstruction of its roads.

I would also put the Baraboo bypass on that list. Was it really necessary to build it as a full freeway? Not to mention they roundabouted every intersection at every interchange. Can anyone give me just one good reason why stop signs could not have worked there just fine? Was the Burlington bypass even necessary at all? How much traffic even goes through Burlington to the other side on Hwy 36? Not to mention from what I understood the people of Burlington didn't even want it. Another example of over doing where money could have been saved.

In my opinion Burlington needed a bypass, but they didn't need a 4 lane divided highway bypass.  Prior to the bypass, they had a ridiculous traffic pattern where 83, 36, and 11 all intersected downtown and followed different paths down different one-way streets, I assume this was because they don't have a street that was capable of handling the potential traffic that could have resulted from putting all of them on the same street through downtown.  It will be interesting to see how the city develops over the next 5, 10, 25 years along the bypass.

Yes, a lesser at-grade 4 lane undivided (or eve two lane) bypass would have been fine in Burlington. It's just another example of WisDOT's bypass building spree.

And I agree about the Baraboo bypass, it really was not needed (for now). I would have waited until they figure out what to do with the rest of the corridor (particularly in the Sauk City area).

[I-39]

If I were Wisconsin, I would put a moratorium on all new freeway-building projects (excluding the conversion of existing expressways to freeways, but only if there is a legit traffic need) for the next 15-20 years, until they deal with their funding issue as well as the reconstruction and modernization of their existing Interstates/freeways.

[GeekJedi]

In my personal experience, Yes the Burlington Bypass was needed as much as the Oconomowoc Bypass. The traffic in Downtown Burlington at times could get bad and it was only a 2 lane street if you were on 11 or 83.

Amen. Especially when there's a train rolling through downtown.

[SEWIGuy]

As for Wisconsin funding issues, as I've said many times before, part of the problem there is WisDOT overbuilt it's highway system. Now they have to spend tons of $$$ on maintenance. A lot of corridors that were upgraded (such as US 10 and WIS 26) could have been scaled back or not built at all (especially the US 10 Marshfield spur).

WisDOT wasted tons of money on overbuilding corridors while neglecting its main routes. Now they will suffer the consequences..............

I agree with this too.  I mean I live just off WI-26, and the four lane divided highway is nice, but really unnecessary. 

Wis 26 is debatable on the importance now certainly. But I would argue that in the "big picture", upgrading Wis 26 to 4 lanes makes sense getting from Oshkosh, Appleton and Green Bay (all of which are growing areas) to Janesville/Beloit and St Louis while avoiding Milwaukee and Madison.

Couple thoughts though:

**How much travel is there between the Fox Valley and the Janesville/Beloit area?

**According to Google Maps, taking WI-26 between the two areas is 108 miles v. 119 via US-151 and I-39/90.  Is it really a good use of $$ so travelers can save 11 miles?

I think the reasons WIDOT did this were as much political as anything else.  They did a real good job of spreading the wealth across the state geographically instead of focusing resources where they belonged - on the Milwaukee freeway system and existing corridors that serve mostly urban areas.

But the cities (Ft Atkinson, Watertown, Johnson Creek) along 26 have been growing a lot. So yes in the Big Picture, Oshkosh to Janesville can be done reasonably via 151 and 39/90. But, the corridor serves a ton of local traffic.

I live in Fort Atkinson.  I have for 20 years.  This area is growing steadily but not dramatically.

Traffic flowed through Jefferson and Watertown just fine prior to the bypasses.  It got a little sticky in Milton down through Janesville but hardly intolerable. 

The four lane, limited access bypasses are very much overkill.  There are times when I am on the Fort Atkinson bypass and I am the only car I see in either direction and it is rare that I have to change lanes to pass.  I really doubt traffic will reach WIDOT's projections in the near future.

[I-39]

As for Wisconsin funding issues, as I've said many times before, part of the problem there is WisDOT overbuilt it's highway system. Now they have to spend tons of $$$ on maintenance. A lot of corridors that were upgraded (such as US 10 and WIS 26) could have been scaled back or not built at all (especially the US 10 Marshfield spur).

WisDOT wasted tons of money on overbuilding corridors while neglecting its main routes. Now they will suffer the consequences..............

I agree with this too.  I mean I live just off WI-26, and the four lane divided highway is nice, but really unnecessary. 

Wis 26 is debatable on the importance now certainly. But I would argue that in the "big picture", upgrading Wis 26 to 4 lanes makes sense getting from Oshkosh, Appleton and Green Bay (all of which are growing areas) to Janesville/Beloit and St Louis while avoiding Milwaukee and Madison.

Couple thoughts though:

**How much travel is there between the Fox Valley and the Janesville/Beloit area?

**According to Google Maps, taking WI-26 between the two areas is 108 miles v. 119 via US-151 and I-39/90.  Is it really a good use of $$ so travelers can save 11 miles?

I think the reasons WIDOT did this were as much political as anything else.  They did a real good job of spreading the wealth across the state geographically instead of focusing resources where they belonged - on the Milwaukee freeway system and existing corridors that serve mostly urban areas.

But the cities (Ft Atkinson, Watertown, Johnson Creek) along 26 have been growing a lot. So yes in the Big Picture, Oshkosh to Janesville can be done reasonably via 151 and 39/90. But, the corridor serves a ton of local traffic.

I live in Fort Atkinson.  I have for 20 years.  This area is growing steadily but not dramatically.

Traffic flowed through Jefferson and Watertown just fine prior to the bypasses.  It got a little sticky in Milton down through Janesville but hardly intolerable. 

The four lane, limited access bypasses are very much overkill.  There are times when I am on the Fort Atkinson bypass and I am the only car I see in either direction and it is rare that I have to change lanes to pass.  I really doubt traffic will reach WIDOT's projections in the near future.

So what was the stated purpose of building it then? Is WisDOT using "alternative facts" when deciding to construct these freeways/bypasses.

[mgk920]

Hopefully something will be done to improve the state's transporation finances. And GeekJedi and Dzlsabe, can the personal insults. They are counterproductive to this discussion board website.

Nope.

Thanks for asking nicely though! 

As for the state's transportation finances, I'm not sure what can be done if there continues to be a refusal to increase taxes. You can only cut so much spending. Those savings don't magically increase funding.

I don't get why the solution to everything always has to be raise taxes. I keep hearing all the time we got to help the middle class. I don't see how raising the gas tax helps the middle class becasue it means everyone is going to have to pay more at the pump. That means the middle class not just the wealthy. I do think there were other areas they could have saved money like don't build so many roundabouts stop replacing signs that don't need to be replaced and stop doing projects that nobody wants but I guess we can't do any of that.

You do realize that oftentimes that roundabouts are *cheaper* than other alternatives right?

But even so, let's say we eliminated funding roundabouts RIGHT NOW where other, less expensive options exist.  Do you honestly think that would save enough money to take care of the infrastructure needs of the state?  Why do you think that even Republican law-makers are pushing a gas tax increase?

Case in point - The College Ave Fox River bridge (2009) here in Appleton - the engineers' report on the proposal compared building a conventional intersection at its east end (College Ave/John St/Walter Ave - infamously known among the locals for major drive-time backups and congestion) v. a two-lane roundabout.  In order to adequately handle the new bridge's four lanes of traffic (the old bridge was a two-lane span), the roundabout was found to require the acquisition of SIX fewer houses and cost at least a half-million dollars less to build than the signalized intersection.

The wisdom of going with the roundabout was driven home within minutes of the new bridge's opening.  That afternoon's commuter rush went through it with virtually no delays, not even for having to stop to enter it.  It has been operating trouble-free ever since.



Mike

[The Ghostbuster]

The state has already canceled the Interstate 39/90/94 study (Madison-Portage) and the Interstate 90/94 study (Portage-Wis. Dells). I wonder how many more studies and projects will be axed. They better not ax the Stoughton Road corridor study, I have a special interest in that one (my mother and stepfather live not too far away from that road).

[I-39]

The state has already canceled the Interstate 39/90/94 study (Madison-Portage) and the Interstate 90/94 study (Portage-Wis. Dells). I wonder how many more studies and projects will be axed. They better not ax the Stoughton Road corridor study, I have a special interest in that one (my mother and stepfather live not too far away from that road).

And it's those projects that they should NOT be axing, because those corridors need upgrades. 

[JREwing78]

If paying an extra 10-20 cents per gallon at the pump would genuinely cause you a hardship, you're not in the middle class.

People don't have to LIKE paying it. That's perfectly acceptable. But the amount of drama over a gas tax hike of 10-20 cents is blown way out of proportion to the actual harm to your wallet.

WisDOT isn't helping make this case, however, when the storyline is that it couldn't stick to a budget if its existence depended on it.

[dzlsabe]

The state has already canceled the Interstate 39/90/94 study (Madison-Portage) and the Interstate 90/94 study (Portage-Wis. Dells). I wonder how many more studies and projects will be axed. They better not ax the Stoughton Road corridor study, I have a special interest in that one (my mother and stepfather live not too far away from that road).

No doubt central/west WI needs something. Madison, Portage, WI Dells, Camp Douglas, Wyeville, Eau Claire are all on a lot of maps.

[SEWIGuy]

If paying an extra 10-20 cents per gallon at the pump would genuinely cause you a hardship, you're not in the middle class.

People don't have to LIKE paying it. That's perfectly acceptable. But the amount of drama over a gas tax hike of 10-20 cents is blown way out of proportion to the actual harm to your wallet.

Amen.  Here is what I said two months ago.

"I drive about 25,000 miles a year in two cars that average at minimum 25 mpg.  That's 1,000 gallons of gas a year.  If the gas tax would have remained indexed to inflation, it would be about 6 cents higher than it is now.  I would have paid about $60 more a year than I would have otherwise.  $60.  $5 a month."

[DaBigE]

If paying an extra 10-20 cents per gallon at the pump would genuinely cause you a hardship, you're not in the middle class.

People don't have to LIKE paying it. That's perfectly acceptable. But the amount of drama over a gas tax hike of 10-20 cents is blown way out of proportion to the actual harm to your wallet.

Amen.  Here is what I said two months ago.

"I drive about 25,000 miles a year in two cars that average at minimum 25 mpg.  That's 1,000 gallons of gas a year.  If the gas tax would have remained indexed to inflation, it would be about 6 cents higher than it is now.  I would have paid about $60 more a year than I would have otherwise.  $60.  $5 a month."

But...but...at that increase, you'll have to skip one 12-syllable coffee a month. How will you ever survive? How will the barista finish school? It'll send the economy into a tailspin and we'll all be living in refrigerator boxes remembering the good ole days.

[The Ghostbuster]

We need to find alternatives to gas taxes for transportation funding. There are ideas out there, but it's hard to say how much support they might get.

[colinstu]

We need to find alternatives to gas taxes for transportation funding. There are ideas out there, but it's hard to say how much support they might get.

Increase car registration fees, maybe.

Looking at what other states do, http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/registration-and-title-fees-by-state.aspx might give some alternate ideas.

I think basing the fee based off the value or age of the car is a bad idea. That can deter people from buying newer, more efficient / safer / automated cars, and basically legitimizes people to keep their old clunkers on the roads.

Basing it on vehicle weight is the smartest IMO. Heavier the car, the more damage they do to the roads... that's how the figure out registration on large trucks, trailers, etc.

Basing it on vehicle efficiency sounds like it could be a good idea, but there are downsides too. If you increase fees for those with less efficient cars, great you can persuade people to get more efficient cars. The problem is, if/when everyone uses something more efficient, less money is being pulled in again and you're back at square one.

Making the gax tax indexed on inflation would be a great positive step, but like I heard earlier... this still includes a loophole of sorts. Those with completely electric or partially electric cars can skirt the gas tax. (since they're not paying gas tax on their electric bill...). Several states mentioned in that list have extra registration fees, or higher registration costs for those types of vehicles---that would equalize things.

Tollways, nope.

[mgk920]

Howabout putting transport on the general fund?  Eliminate the fuel tax, instead make it subject to the sales tax, adjust the rate to be revenue neutral.

Rationale?  The overall level of one's taxable economic activity is very directly proportionate to the utility that one receives, both directly and indirectly, from the transport system.

Mike

[SEWIGuy]

What is the fundamental difference between a sales tax and a fuel tax?

A sales tax is based on the amount you pay.  If the amount you pay is based on the amount of fuel you buy, and a fuel tax is based on the amount you buy, it is essentially the same thing.

[tchafe1978]

Maybe what mgk920 is getting at is making the gas tax a percentage tax like sales tax, instead of a flat per gallon tax?

LGL56VL