Rural Freeways That Need Six Lanes

[sprjus4]

What I'm against is the price gouging techniques used during peak hours (usually at least $20, a lot of times $30 one-way tolls for the entire trip, only about ~30 miles.) the time I mostly used I-95 (I used to use I-95 multiple times per month, though as of lately I haven't been traveling up that way regularly). For me, I'd rather sit in traffic than pay that amount, as I'm not really in a hurry to get anywhere.

The price seems ridiculous, but if the tolls were lower, the toll lanes would be just as congested as the main lanes.

I understand that, but I'm just saying, in my head, $30 for ~30 miles is not worth it for me.

[Rothman]

What I'm against is the price gouging techniques used during peak hours (usually at least $20, a lot of times $30 one-way tolls for the entire trip, only about ~30 miles.) the time I mostly used I-95 (I used to use I-95 multiple times per month, though as of lately I haven't been traveling up that way regularly). For me, I'd rather sit in traffic than pay that amount, as I'm not really in a hurry to get anywhere.

The price seems ridiculous, but if the tolls were lower, the toll lanes would be just as congested as the main lanes.

The horror of not having enough capacity and just charging people for some of it...

[Beltway]

Just out of curiosity, how much of that has been general purpose expansion, and how much has been HO/T capacity?

I could add a flag to the table to track that.  However keep in mind that the 28 miles of I-95 between VA-234 and D.C. is in a third category as where the original reversible roadway widening addition was funded toll-free with 90% FHWA funding and 10% state funding (completions 1975 and 1997).

It's not the same as a general purpose widening, and doesn't add the full amount of capacity as a general purpose widening would to the overall highway.

Nonsense.  It adds exactly the same approx.  2,200 vehicles per hour per lane.

As far as current traffic problems on VA I-95, stop blaming Virginia for that and start blaming Maryland, who has refused so far to participate in any of the 4 general Washington bypass proposals that have been studied in the past, which would provide relief to I-95 and alternates to I-95.  Even one of these would be a major help, and I most favor a VA-207/US-301 freeway or I-97 extension.

A general purpose expansion on the other hand doesn't offer the toll incentive to fly at highway speeds, but overall the traffic flow is moving faster.

There is no way that you can quantitatively demonstrate that.

The added toll lane means the whole highway has more lanes and more capacity and means relief from the GP lanes.

What I'm against is the price gauging techniques used during peak hours (usually at least $20, a lot of times $30 one-way tolls for the entire trip, only about ~30 miles.)

I have disproved that figure multiple times, I just did so above.  My trips in and near peak hours average nowhere near those figures.

My data comes from the E-ZPass website transaction records, so I can assure you that it is accurate.

Saturdays are still often busy and notice that on August 31st that traffic conditions were good enough that I stayed on the GP lanes and paid no toll.  I would average that zero toll day in with all the other toll trips to get an average figure.

[hotdogPi]

What I'm against is the price gauging techniques used during peak hours (usually at least $20, a lot of times $30 one-way tolls for the entire trip, only about ~30 miles.)

I have disproved that figure multiple times, I just did so above.  My trips in and near peak hours average nowhere near those figures.

What about 5 PM?

[Beltway]

I have disproved that figure multiple times, I just did so above.  My trips in and near peak hours average nowhere near those figures.

What about 5 PM?

What about it?  Does everybody travel at 5 pm?  If you are an out-of-town intermittent user like myself your times will be varied like I listed above.

As has been pointed out many times, when a variable toll gets that high it is because the lanes are so close to capacity that additional users are "priced off" of the lanes.  When the use is that high you have full usage of the lanes which is a sign of success (not failure).

[sprjus4]

I have disproved that figure multiple times, I just did so above.  My trips in and near peak hours average nowhere near those figures.

What about 5 PM?

What about it?  Does everybody travel at 5 pm?  If you are an out-of-town intermittent user like myself your times will be varied like I listed above.

As has been pointed out many times, when a variable toll gets that high it is because the lanes are so close to capacity that additional users are "priced off" of the lanes.  When the use is that high you have full usage of the lanes which is a sign of success (not failure).

I already said my travels take me on I-95 during peak hours. The tolls then are in the $30 range. I'm not paying that just to bypass some congestion.

What I'm against is the price gauging techniques used during peak hours, the time I mostly used I-95. For me, I'd rather sit in traffic than pay that amount, as I'm not really in a hurry to get anywhere.

And what you describe is called price gauging. Exactly what I'm not a fan of, and exactly why I'm not going to buy into it.

Maybe VDOT should study general purpose widening instead of constantly announcing all these new HO/T lane extensions.

And don't bring back this whole DC bypass stuff. It's a great concept, but is it really going to relieve all of the traffic problems on I-95? Will it render it to the point where it won't need anymore widening? How much traffic is really thru traffic and how much is local? If a lot of traffic is local, then you're not doing too much building a bypass asides from letting thru traffic get around.

Look at TX-130 for example. 90 mile toll road around Austin. I used it on my recent trip in Texas to bypass Austin. Worth the $19 toll-by-plate toll, avoided the city completely, and didn't have much traffic issues. But the southern segment of the toll road only has ~5,000 AADT.  Meanwhile I-35 through Austin has 200,000+ AADT and is still massively choked to death crawling during peak hours. That bypass is nice to have, but improvements are also needed on I-35 as well. The exact reason TXDOT is studying a multi-billion dollar expansion which would add general purpose lanes along with "managed lanes" that would 2-3 lanes each direction with limited-access points designed for thru-traffic, similar to the HO/T lanes. But here's the catch - no tolls.

[jeffandnicole]

I have disproved that figure multiple times, I just did so above.  My trips in and near peak hours average nowhere near those figures.

What about 5 PM?

What about it?  Does everybody travel at 5 pm?  If you are an out-of-town intermittent user like myself your times will be varied like I listed above.

As has been pointed out many times, when a variable toll gets that high it is because the lanes are so close to capacity that additional users are "priced off" of the lanes.  When the use is that high you have full usage of the lanes which is a sign of success (not failure).

I already said my travels take me on I-95 during peak hours. The tolls then are in the $30 range. I'm not paying that just to bypass some congestion.

What I'm against is the price gauging techniques used during peak hours, the time I mostly used I-95. For me, I'd rather sit in traffic than pay that amount, as I'm not really in a hurry to get anywhere.

And what you describe is called price gauging. Exactly what I'm not a fan of, and exactly why I'm not going to buy into it.

Maybe VDOT should study general purpose widening instead of constantly announcing all these new HO/T lane extensions.

And don't bring back this whole DC bypass stuff. It's a great concept, but is it really going to relieve all of the traffic problems on I-95? Will it render it to the point where it won't need anymore widening? How much traffic is really thru traffic and how much is local? If a lot of traffic is local, then you're not doing too much building a bypass asides from letting thru traffic get around.

Look at TX-130 for example. 90 mile toll road around Austin. I used it on my recent trip in Texas to bypass Austin. Worth the $19 toll-by-plate toll, avoided the city completely, and didn't have much traffic issues. But the southern segment of the toll road only has ~5,000 AADT.  Meanwhile I-35 through Austin has 200,000+ AADT and is still massively choked to death crawling during peak hours. That bypass is nice to have, but improvements are also needed on I-35 as well. The exact reason TXDOT is studying a multi-billion dollar expansion which would add general purpose lanes along with "managed lanes" that would 2-3 lanes each direction with limited-access points designed for thru-traffic, similar to the HO/T lanes. But here's the catch - no tolls.

You are clearly not understanding how variable pricing works. The goal is to keep traffic moving at 45 mph and above. The toll is simply priced to limit demand. There's nothing wrong with not wanting to pay that price. 

As for a previous comment about paying $15 or whatever to drive a new outer ring of the DC beltway...now you're not understanding economics. If it costs $10 to make a widget, I can't sell it for $5. Likewise, I can't build a toll road that won't allow me too recoup my costs.

[Rothman]

Public-private partnerships are not about recouping costs, but recouping costs PLUS making a profit for the private partner.  Therefore, they inherently cause the public to pay more than an organization that would be restricted to not making a profit.

I also like how you said it is a simple matter to limit demand.  Yep, we only want those who can line the toll operator's pockets with cash on the road, no matter what percentage of that person's income may be represented, rather than serving the entire public.

[sprjus4]

You are clearly not understanding how variable pricing works. The goal is to keep traffic moving at 45 mph and above. The toll is simply priced to limit demand.

That's called price gauging. I understand that fully.

"Price gouging is a term referring to when a seller spikes the prices of goods, services or commodities to a level much higher than is considered reasonable or fair, and is considered exploitative, potentially to an unethical extent. Usually this event occurs after a demand or supply shock." - AKA it's too "full"

[sprjus4]

Public-private partnerships are not about recouping costs, but recouping costs PLUS making a profit for the private partner.  Therefore, they inherently cause the public to pay more than an organization that would be restricted to not making a profit.

Funny how toll lanes operated publicly by VDOT here in Hampton Roads rarely spike past $1.50 for 7 miles. By that standard, the I-95 HO/T lanes should be ~$6-8 for all 30 miles.

But for Transurban's toll road, it's $30 during peak hours.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC most HO/T lane facilities are nowhere near the price of I-95's.

[Beltway]

I already said my travels take me on I-95 during peak hours. The tolls then are in the $30 range. I'm not paying that just to bypass some congestion.

I find that hard to believe, you live about 200 miles from there and you claim that your travels are always (or near always) in the center of rush hours?

And what you describe is called price gauging. Exactly what I'm not a fan of, and exactly why I'm not going to buy into it.

Gauging (as in gauge) or gouging (as in gouge)?

The former is true and the latter is false.  The pricing gets high only when it is needed to keep the lanes from getting over-congested.

And don't bring back this whole DC bypass stuff. It's a great concept, but is it really going to relieve all of the traffic problems on I-95?

Strawman.  It won't relieve "all the traffic problems" but it would help a lot.

You keep attacking Virginia over the traffic problems on I-95 when that is the only north-south freeway south of I-495 (at least to I-295).

And I am going to hammer Maryland over this issue whenever it comes up.

[Beltway]

Public-private partnerships are not about recouping costs, but recouping costs PLUS making a profit for the private partner.  Therefore, they inherently cause the public to pay more than an organization that would be restricted to not making a profit.

Public-private partnerships obtain capital from private sources which have vast resources far above what road use taxes could provide, the latter are rather limited, and public-private partnerships enable massive capacity increases on highways.  It's that simple.

Funny how toll lanes operated publicly by VDOT here in Hampton Roads rarely spike past $1.50 for 7 miles. By that standard, the I-95 HO/T lanes should be ~$6-8 for all 30 miles.

Come on, you can't be this obtuse after all these past discussions. 

The H.R. HOT lanes are far below capacity, that is why the tolls are low.

[sprjus4]

I find that hard to believe, you live about 200 miles from there and you claim that your travels are always (or near always) in the center of rush hours?

Leaving southbound on a Friday afternoon was the norm for me for quite awhile actually. I rarely make the DC trip anymore, so it's no longer an issue for me. But my point is when I did, it was frequently that price and frequently during peak hours, at least southbound. Northbound was never an issue, mostly at night and off-peak. Never have had the need to use the HO/T lanes then.

Gauging (as in gauge) or gouging (as in gouge)?

Sorry, gouging is the correct term, not gauging.

$30 for 30 miles is absurd. Any way you slice it.

Strawman. It won't relieve "all the traffic problems" but it would help a lot.

You keep attacking Virginia over the traffic problems on I-95 when that is the only north-south freeway south of I-495 (at least to I-295).

And I am going to hammer Maryland over this issue whenever it comes up.

We see how well TX-130 relieved the traffic issues of I-35. Somewhat, but not enough that it still doesn't need improvements. Yet you seem to always ignore that example...?

What if majority of traffic on I-95 is DC bound? How is Maryland going to make that better?

[Beltway]

Leaving southbound on a Friday afternoon was the norm for me for quite awhile actually. I rarely make the DC trip anymore, so it's no longer an issue for me. But my point is when I did, it was frequently that price and frequently during peak hours, at least southbound. Northbound was never an issue, mostly at night and off-peak. Never have had the need to use the HO/T lanes then.

OK then, then take the average, as I did.  Yours was high SB and zero NB.  So a round trip would average 1/2 of the SB peak toll per leg.

Gauging (as in gauge) or gouging (as in gouge)?

Sorry, gouging is the correct term, not gauging.
$30 for 30 miles is absurd. Any way you slice it.

The demand is so high that it takes that price to keep it from getting over-congested. 

If that many people want to use it then they don't think it unreasonable (and I sure don't).

We see how well TX-130 relieved the traffic issues of I-35. Yet you seem to always ignore that example...?

What about it?  It is only an indirect bypass of I-35.

[webny99]

^ Please define "above/below average".

-Above average means most or all of the needed six laning is being done promptly.
-Average means some of the needed six laning is being done, maybe slowly, but it is happening.
-Below average means very little to none of the needed six laning is being done.

I would generally expect six laning to be "needed" when volumes exceed 40K per day (to be a bit more generous than the 30K in the OP...) although I did not analyze AADT data for every state. If the 40K threshold has been met/exceeded in various locations for many years and no widening has been planned or executed, that tips the scales towards "below average" for that state.
That's also why some states are noted "sufficient"; they don't have enough highways carrying 40K or even 30K to require a plan/strategy for long-distance widenings.

[sprjus4]

Below Average:
Virginia

-Below average means very little to none of the needed six laning is being done.

I mean, I can't really argue with that.

[Rothman]

Public-private partnerships are not about recouping costs, but recouping costs PLUS making a profit for the private partner.  Therefore, they inherently cause the public to pay more than an organization that would be restricted to not making a profit.

Public-private partnerships obtain capital from private sources which have vast resources far above what road use taxes could provide, the latter are rather limited, and public-private partnerships enable massive capacity increases on highways.  It's that simple.

The private sources only provide capital so they can generate a profit.  That is the core premise of our entire economy -- profit-driven private businesses. 

I don't think your description is true -- that massive amounts of private capital is just sitting around to be easily obtained, but private sources are definitely an alternative means of funding -- but for a terrible price.

Transportation infrastructure should serve the travelling public first and foremost.  What PPPs do is place profit above the desires of the travelling public.  They are more about ensuring private businesses making money by extracting such from the public than making sure someone can make it from point A to point B at the lowest cost possible to the individual.

[jeffandnicole]

Leaving southbound on a Friday afternoon was the norm for me for quite awhile actually. I rarely make the DC trip anymore, so it's no longer an issue for me. But my point is when I did, it was frequently that price and frequently during peak hours, at least southbound. Northbound was never an issue, mostly at night and off-peak. Never have had the need to use the HO/T lanes then.

And there we go.  It's not about the high cost.  It's about the cost, period. 

Why aren't you using the toll lanes when the price is low?  Because there's no need as the free lanes are moving fine.

Why aren't you using the toll lanes when the price is high?  Because you don't want to pay the high toll.

But what if the price was low and the lanes congested?  Most likely you would see no benefit in using toll lanes that are congested, so you'll drive in the free lanes then too.

[Beltway]

Public-private partnerships obtain capital from private sources which have vast resources far above what road use taxes could provide, the latter are rather limited, and public-private partnerships enable massive capacity increases on highways.  It's that simple.

The private sources only provide capital so they can generate a profit.  That is the core premise of our entire economy -- profit-driven private businesses. 
I don't think your description is true -- that massive amounts of private capital is just sitting around to be easily obtained, but private sources are definitely an alternative means of funding -- but for a terrible price.
Transportation infrastructure should serve the travelling public first and foremost.  What PPPs do is place profit above the desires of the travelling public.  They are more about ensuring private businesses making money by extracting such from the public than making sure someone can make it from point A to point B at the lowest cost possible to the individual.

You just keep repeating the same tripe.  If the public was so opposed as you imply, they would be making it known, instead they use these facilities to capacity in nearly all cases, and all indications are that they are very much in support.   You exaggerate the "private capital is just sitting around" when I just made the comment that in effect an order of magnitude more is available than tax funding which is inherently limited. 

These PPTA projects build facilities and massive capacity expansions that would not otherwise be fundable from taxpayer largesse, they usually come in on-time and on-budget because of the profit incentive that you demagogue, to get it open and generating revenue as soon as possible, and to control the costs so that the return on investment is not lowered.  This is the 21st Century.  Governments have a way of massive delays and overruns on their projects.

This is not to say that tax funded toll-free projects should be deemphasized, indeed they should be funded as much as possible, but to get projects built above that level of funding, tolls and PPTA and other forms of innovative financing are a valuable part of the highway funding toolkit.

[Rothman]

I suspect the public is opposed, but feels powerless to do anything about it.  A lot of people gripe about toll roads and oppose them, but feel like their opinions really don't matter in the long run.

And, they would be right.  Studies have shown that government is more responsive to corporate interests than the interests of private individuals.

The Interstate Highway System was mostly built with taxes.  That model worked well and can again.  Toll-free facilities that do not cause economic inequality on our transportation system are better at serving the public at large than tolled facilities that cause only those that can afford them to be able to use them (or putting an unnecessary extra economic burden on those on the cusp of affording them).

Finally, this idea that all government does is delay projects for a higher cost is false.  The traditional design-bid-build process is actually quite efficient.  It is with alterations to the bidding process where, at least in NY, we have seen inefficiencies (e.g., Kosciuszko Bridge design-build, where it was delivered on a great schedule, but for a concerning higher cost that caused a lot of wrist-wringing).

Since you called my argument tripe, all I can say is that you've drunk the Kool-Aid and are foolish to just hand over your money to private companies at a higher price than if things were publicly funded, precisely because private companies have to charge for profit above cost.

(personal opinion emphasized)

[Beltway]

I suspect the public is opposed [PPP] , but feels powerless to do anything about it.

Proof?  Polls?  Articles?  I suspect that you are talking thru your hat.

The Interstate Highway System was mostly built with taxes.  That model worked well and can again.  Toll-free facilities that do not cause economic inequality on our transportation system are better at serving the public at large than tolled facilities that cause only those that can afford them to be able to use them (or putting an unnecessary extra economic burden on those on the cusp of affording them).

Then why so many perpetual toll roads in your state (NY)?  Including the longest end-to-end turnpike, built in the 1950s, the vast majority of which has never been expanded (and a number of AARoads posters have cited congestion problems between Buffalo and Albany that warrant 6-lane widening), and the number of NYC bridges and tunnels that have not been expanded in over 50 years yet they have tolls as high as the peak period tolls on the HOT lanes that you complain about, and all for one or two miles of highway.

Finally, this idea that all government does is delay projects for a higher cost is false.  The traditional design-bid-build process is actually quite efficient.  It is with alterations to the bidding process where, at least in NY, we have seen inefficiencies (e.g., Kosciuszko Bridge design-build, where it was delivered on a great schedule, but for a concerning higher cost that caused a lot of wrist-wringing).

Well there you go.  I will grant they have gotten better (WWB and ICC for example came in close to schedule and budget and were not PPP) but before about 2005, it was a widely reported joke as to how poorly that government infrastructure "mega projects" did with regard to cost and schedule overruns.  The Big Dig may have been the worst, but most of the others did almost as poorly.

Since you called my argument tripe, all I can say is that you've drunk the Kool-Aid and are foolish to just hand over your money to private companies at a higher price than if things were publicly funded, precisely because private companies have to charge for profit above cost.

Didn't you say that you are a member of a public sector union?  I was a member of AFSCME when I worked for PennDOT in the 1970s, and as a young person I heard the word "profit" attacked enough times in union meetings and in conversations with union members, that I got a bad taste in my mouth about that word.  Unions, especially those in the public sector, have a hatred of "profits". 

When I started my business/IT education in my late 20s, it took awhile for me to get over that distaste and to realize how important it is that businesses make a profit so that they can grow and reinvest in their business.  (And Virginia does not allow local and state public employees to unionize).

Now if CA/THT (Big Dig) had been a well-designed PPP, it might have been built for 1/3 the cost and delivered 5 years earlier and thus with less tax funding and with lower tolls on the tunnel and the turnpike.  Same with other such "mega projects" of that era.

Now I don't think that PPP are "the cat's meow", just that they are one of the various tools in the road funding toolkit.  Some projects they should be utilized and some others should not.

[Rothman]

I suspect the public is opposed [PPP] , but feels powerless to do anything about it.

Proof?  Polls?  Articles?  I suspect that you are talking thru your hat.

The Interstate Highway System was mostly built with taxes.  That model worked well and can again.  Toll-free facilities that do not cause economic inequality on our transportation system are better at serving the public at large than tolled facilities that cause only those that can afford them to be able to use them (or putting an unnecessary extra economic burden on those on the cusp of affording them).

Then why so many perpetual toll roads in your state (NY)?  Including the longest end-to-end turnpike, built in the 1950s, the vast majority of which has never been expanded (and a number of AARoads posters have cited congestion problems between Buffalo and Albany that warrant 6-lane widening), and the number of NYC bridges and tunnels that have not been expanded in over 50 years yet they have tolls as high as the peak period tolls on the HOT lanes that you complain about, and all for one or two miles of highway.

Finally, this idea that all government does is delay projects for a higher cost is false.  The traditional design-bid-build process is actually quite efficient.  It is with alterations to the bidding process where, at least in NY, we have seen inefficiencies (e.g., Kosciuszko Bridge design-build, where it was delivered on a great schedule, but for a concerning higher cost that caused a lot of wrist-wringing).

Well there you go.  I will grant they have gotten better (WWB and ICC for example came in close to schedule and budget and were not PPP) but before about 2005, it was a widely reported joke as to how poorly that government infrastructure "mega projects" did with regard to cost and schedule overruns.  The Big Dig may have been the worst, but most of the others did almost as poorly.

Since you called my argument tripe, all I can say is that you've drunk the Kool-Aid and are foolish to just hand over your money to private companies at a higher price than if things were publicly funded, precisely because private companies have to charge for profit above cost.

Didn't you say that you are a member of a public sector union?  I was a member of AFSCME when I worked for PennDOT in the 1970s, and as a young person I heard the word "profit" attacked enough times in union meetings and in conversations with union members, that I got a bad taste in my mouth about that word.  Unions, especially those in the public sector, have a hatred of "profits". 

When I started my business/IT education in my late 20s, it took awhile for me to get over that distaste and to realize how important it is that businesses make a profit so that they can grow and reinvest in their business.  (And Virginia does not allow local and state public employees to unionize).

Now if CA/THT (Big Dig) had been a well-designed PPP, it might have been built for 1/3 the cost and delivered 5 years earlier and thus with less tax funding and with lower tolls on the tunnel and the turnpike.  Same with other such "mega projects" of that era.

Now I don't think that PPP are "the cat's meow", just that they are one of the various tools in the road funding toolkit.  Some projects they should be utilized and some others should not.

Something tells me we're both talking out our hats.

[sprjus4]

Public-private partnerships obtain capital from private sources which have vast resources far above what road use taxes could provide, the latter are rather limited, and public-private partnerships enable massive capacity increases on highways.  It's that simple.

The private sources only provide capital so they can generate a profit.  That is the core premise of our entire economy -- profit-driven private businesses. 
I don't think your description is true -- that massive amounts of private capital is just sitting around to be easily obtained, but private sources are definitely an alternative means of funding -- but for a terrible price.
Transportation infrastructure should serve the travelling public first and foremost.  What PPPs do is place profit above the desires of the travelling public.  They are more about ensuring private businesses making money by extracting such from the public than making sure someone can make it from point A to point B at the lowest cost possible to the individual.

You just keep repeating the same tripe.  If the public was so opposed as you imply, they would be making it known, instead they use these facilities to capacity in nearly all cases, and all indications are that they are very much in support.   You exaggerate the "private capital is just sitting around" when I just made the comment that in effect an order of magnitude more is available than tax funding which is inherently limited. 

These PPTA projects build facilities and massive capacity expansions that would not otherwise be fundable from taxpayer largesse, they usually come in on-time and on-budget because of the profit incentive that you demagogue, to get it open and generating revenue as soon as possible, and to control the costs so that the return on investment is not lowered.  This is the 21st Century.  Governments have a way of massive delays and overruns on their projects.

This is not to say that tax funded toll-free projects should be deemphasized, indeed they should be funded as much as possible, but to get projects built above that level of funding, tolls and PPTA and other forms of innovative financing are a valuable part of the highway funding toolkit.

I suspect the public is opposed [PPP] , but feels powerless to do anything about it.

Proof?  Polls?  Articles?  I suspect that you are talking thru your hat.

The Interstate Highway System was mostly built with taxes.  That model worked well and can again.  Toll-free facilities that do not cause economic inequality on our transportation system are better at serving the public at large than tolled facilities that cause only those that can afford them to be able to use them (or putting an unnecessary extra economic burden on those on the cusp of affording them).

Then why so many perpetual toll roads in your state (NY)?  Including the longest end-to-end turnpike, built in the 1950s, the vast majority of which has never been expanded (and a number of AARoads posters have cited congestion problems between Buffalo and Albany that warrant 6-lane widening), and the number of NYC bridges and tunnels that have not been expanded in over 50 years yet they have tolls as high as the peak period tolls on the HOT lanes that you complain about, and all for one or two miles of highway.

Finally, this idea that all government does is delay projects for a higher cost is false.  The traditional design-bid-build process is actually quite efficient.  It is with alterations to the bidding process where, at least in NY, we have seen inefficiencies (e.g., Kosciuszko Bridge design-build, where it was delivered on a great schedule, but for a concerning higher cost that caused a lot of wrist-wringing).

Well there you go.  I will grant they have gotten better (WWB and ICC for example came in close to schedule and budget and were not PPP) but before about 2005, it was a widely reported joke as to how poorly that government infrastructure "mega projects" did with regard to cost and schedule overruns.  The Big Dig may have been the worst, but most of the others did almost as poorly.

Since you called my argument tripe, all I can say is that you've drunk the Kool-Aid and are foolish to just hand over your money to private companies at a higher price than if things were publicly funded, precisely because private companies have to charge for profit above cost.

Didn't you say that you are a member of a public sector union?  I was a member of AFSCME when I worked for PennDOT in the 1970s, and as a young person I heard the word "profit" attacked enough times in union meetings and in conversations with union members, that I got a bad taste in my mouth about that word.  Unions, especially those in the public sector, have a hatred of "profits". 

When I started my business/IT education in my late 20s, it took awhile for me to get over that distaste and to realize how important it is that businesses make a profit so that they can grow and reinvest in their business.  (And Virginia does not allow local and state public employees to unionize).

Now if CA/THT (Big Dig) had been a well-designed PPP, it might have been built for 1/3 the cost and delivered 5 years earlier and thus with less tax funding and with lower tolls on the tunnel and the turnpike.  Same with other such "mega projects" of that era.

Now I don't think that PPP are "the cat's meow", just that they are one of the various tools in the road funding toolkit.  Some projects they should be utilized and some others should not.

Can you just accept the fact not everyone agrees with P3's? I agree with the majority of the things Rothman have said, just because you can get on here and spew these factoids doesn't change my opinions, and probably doesn't anyone else.

I think we all need to agree to disagree - on pretty much every issue we disagree on. Pages of arguments spilling the same back and forth gets nowhere. We've been through this before, and nothing got accomplished. I'm not changing my opinion, you're not changing yours, and Rothman isn't changing his. And I'm not blaming you specifically, it's all of us. But it takes one to say something and that's what I'm doing.

[Beltway]

Now I don't think that PPP are "the cat's meow", just that they are one of the various tools in the road funding toolkit.  Some projects they should be utilized and some others should not.

Can you just accept the fact not everyone agrees with P3's? I agree with the majority of the things Rothman have said, just because you can get on here and spew these factoids doesn't change my opinions, and probably doesn't anyone else.
I think we all need to agree to disagree - on pretty much every issue we disagree on. Pages of arguments spilling the same back and forth gets nowhere. We've been through this before, and nothing got accomplished. I'm not changing my opinion, you're not changing yours, and Rothman isn't changing his. And I'm not blaming you specifically, it's all of us. But it takes one to say something and that's what I'm doing.

I think you have an attitudinal problem, just reread what you wrote above.  I am the one who is taking a middle ground position on this issue, and acknowledging that PPP is just one tool, and not meant to replace tax funding.  Some projects are appropriate for PPP, some are not.

You are taking the outlier position, that almost nothing is good about PPP.  You could stop raising the issue ad nauseum.  You have control over what you post or don't post.  My replies are almost always prompted by your postings of your position.

[sprjus4]

My replies are almost always prompted by your postings of your position.

To elaborate, when I post my position on any said matter and you encounter it & disagree, you respond with an opposing view because you seem to have this rhetoric that my views are incorrect and yours are correct.

For example, I made a posting this morning regarding waiting as opposed entering the intersection and going when clear, and all of a sudden you're the next post telling me why I'm wrong.

I am the one who is taking a middle ground position on this issue, and acknowledging that PPP is just one tool, and not meant to replace tax funding.  Some projects are appropriate for PPP, some are not.

You seem to have major support and some connection to the I-95, I-495, and I-395 HO/T lane system as anytime someone disagrees with its operation, the P3 aspect, the HO/T concept, the fact I-95 needs more lanes, etc. you come across with that same rhetoric that you're right, they're wrong. For instance, Rothman posted the negative aspects of P3's and you questioned it, defended them (the HO/T lanes) heavily, and almost seem to use that same rhetoric in the process. I don't think I've made one post about anything negative relating to the HO/T lanes that hasn't prompted you to come in and spam the same stuff, essentially attempting to drown out my opinions as wrong, and you're the one right. Just look at the Northern Virginia HOT Lanes thread, and now it seems a page of this thread. Same goes for a variety of other subjects, including North Carolina in particular.