AARoads Forum

More states consider toll roads to raise infrastructure dollars (http://www.freep.com/usatoday/article/3494935)

QuoteCash-strapped states are scouting for ways to pay for critical road work, and increasingly, the result for motorists is the same: You're going to have to pay a toll.

In the past, state and federal gas taxes largely covered the cost of building and maintaining roads. But the federal gas tax, currently 18.4 cents per gallon, has not changed in 20 years. Meanwhile, people are driving less and vehicles are becoming more fuel efficient.

QuoteOther states are coming up with alternatives to tolls and gas taxes. Oregon officials are experimenting with charging motorists based on the miles they travel, instead of the gallons of gas they purchase. Under its pilot program, Oregon tracks in-state mileage using GPS or an electronic odometer.

Some question the fairness of charging a gas-guzzling SUV the same as a fuel-efficient hybrid, but "regardless of what propels the car or truck, it still needs the same pavement, the same lights and the same guardrails," said Tom Cooney, communications director for the Oregon Department of Transportation.

And now the White House wants to let them do it (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/30/us/white-house-wants-to-lift-ban-on-interstate-tolls.html?_r=0).

First to be tolled if this passes: I-80 in PA

Quote from: SteveG1988 on April 30, 2014, 05:19:39 PM
First to be tolled if this passes: I-80 in PA

I'm pretty sure we'll be seeing the California Turnpike pop up along I-5 too.

Quote from: Zeffy on April 30, 2014, 05:22:56 PM

I'm pretty sure we'll be seeing the California Turnpike pop up along I-5 too.

we'd probably end up calling it the Golden State Turnpike.  really, it's 5-99-5 that's the Golden State Highway (and the freeway sections are the Golden State Freeway) but I think any attempt to toll 99 would result in utter chaos since there are so many towns served by it.

I have a novel idea.... use the fuel tax money to actually fund road construction and maintenance..... oh wait, the anti-car alliance wants their light rail and high-speed rail.

Excerpt from jbnv's link (Bold emphasis added):

QuoteBut the Alliance for Toll-Free Interstates, which includes American Trucking Associations, UPS, FedEx, McDonald's and Dunkin' Donuts, said it was disappointed.
"Tolling has proven to be an inefficient mechanism for collecting transportation revenue, consuming up to 20 percent of revenue generated, and those paying the toll may not even see that road improved because the president's plan would allow toll revenue to go to other projects in the state,"  said Miles Morin, spokesman for the alliance.

If what's mentioned above is indeed true, we could be seeing a sterioded version of what's been going on w/DRPA, PANYNJ & PTC (Act 44).  Money being dumped into a pit but little or nothing to show for it on the roads that are tolled.  Automatic deal-breaker RIGHT THERE!  YES, I'M YELLING!  Enough of the Robbing Peter to Pay Paul.

IIRC, a few years ago we were all told that roads would crumble if the Stimulus Bill ($787 Billion price tag) didn't pass.  It passed, but how much of it really got allocated towards roads and the like... roughly $30 Billion (equivalent of 2 Big Digs).  Less than 4%, which is absolutely appalling IMHO.  Where did the rest of the money go?  Yes, I'm aware that all of the money wasn't intended to be earmarked for transportation; but less than 4%, come on.

And for those that think that toll roads are the salvation of maintenance & quality construction; let me remind everyone here that over the last 31 years, most (yes, I'm aware of the I-35W bridge collapse in Minneapolis) of the major road/bridge/tunnel non-earthquake-related collapses occurred on toll facilities. 

3 Examples of such:

1.  1983: Mianus River Bridge collapse along the CT Turnpike (I-95); tolls were still being collected at the time.

2.  1987: Schoharie Creek Bridge collapse along the NYS Thruway (I-90).

3.  2006: Liberty Tunnel (I-90) ceiling collapse; tunnel in question is the link between the Mass Pike Extension and the Ted Williams Tunnel.

Sorry, as much as I believe in and want to see more investment in transportation; I'm not convinced w/the above proposal.

One solution, something that should've been done back in the 70s when gas prices first soared, would have been to make the federal gas tax a percentage rather than a flat rate.  Heck even in 1972, $0.04/gallon (the original tax to fund the Interstate system) didn't go as far as it did in 1959 when it first took effect.

Second, get the feds out of the fuel economy business (aka dump CAFE standards) and let the marketplace decide the average fuel economy of vehicles sold.  In economically lean times, economy cars sell more; in more prosporous times, consumers will splurge and by something more luxurious and consumes more fuel.  If the economy improves (from a real-world perspective, we're still in a recession); more gas is consumed and if more gas is consumed, more tax revenue is collected for road projects.

Third, it wasn't all that long ago (late 2008/early 2009) that the average price on the pump was just under $2/gallon.  Had it stayed near or close to there; raising/changing the tax would've been a lot easier to do.  While the Administration itself doesn't directly control oil & gas prices; they seem to be doing everything they can to hinder domestic production and/or sale of oil in this country and, hence, keep fuel prices high.  They realized early on that if fuel prices remain low & supplies plentiful; very few will gravitate towards so-called "Green Energy" alternatives (that don't seem to have too good of a track record as of late).

Side bar: if the price of gas keeps going up, like it has been as of late; we could see nationwide $4+/gallon for 87 Octane Unleaded by this summer.  The last time such happened, late summer/early fall 2008; the recession that we're still in hit shortly thereafter.   Such could be an economic double-whammy IMHO.

Anyone miss Ray LaHood yet?

Quote from: ZLoth on April 30, 2014, 05:53:51 PM
I have a novel idea.... use the fuel tax money to actually fund road construction and maintenance..... oh wait, the anti-car alliance wants their light rail and high-speed rail.

Correct.  It's a bit ironic that those politicians scream about lack of money for roads wind up not spending it on such once they get it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/30/us/white-house-wants-to-lift-ban-on-interstate-tolls.html

Obama is on board, apparently.

Quote from: Alps on April 30, 2014, 06:24:33 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/30/us/white-house-wants-to-lift-ban-on-interstate-tolls.html

Obama is on board, apparently.

Can't read it - need a subscription :ded: :pan:

Quote from: Alps on April 30, 2014, 06:24:33 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/30/us/white-house-wants-to-lift-ban-on-interstate-tolls.html

Obama is on board, apparently.

Well, if they decide to toll the long interstate stretches in the Upper Midwest, everybody will just drive the service roads everywhere. I know if SD tolls its interstates, I'm never driving them again.

Quote from: PHLBOS on April 30, 2014, 06:18:44 PMExcerpt from jbnv's link (Bold emphasis added):

QuoteBut the Alliance for Toll-Free Interstates, which includes American Trucking Associations, UPS, FedEx, McDonald's and Dunkin' Donuts, said it was disappointed.

"Tolling has proven to be an inefficient mechanism for collecting transportation revenue, consuming up to 20 percent of revenue generated, and those paying the toll may not even see that road improved because the president's plan would allow toll revenue to go to other projects in the state,"  said Miles Morin, spokesman for the alliance.

If what's mentioned above is indeed true, we could be seeing a sterioded version of what's been going on w/DRPA, PANYNJ & PTC (Act 44).  Money being dumped into a pit but little or nothing to show for it on the roads that are tolled.  Automatic deal-breaker RIGHT THERE!  YES, I'M YELLING!  Enough of the Robbing Peter to Pay Paul.

There are two elements here:

*  Elimination of the three-slot limit for Interstate tolling

*  Allowing cross-pledging (by eliminating the requirement that tolls stay with the Interstate on which they are charged)

I think it is worth protesting the proposal to allow cross-pledging, and in fact I encourage such protests, but I also think it is unlikely to pass as-is since for the roadborne logistics sector it is as poisonous as SOPA/PIPA was for the casual Internet user.  I think it is more likely that the three-slot limit will go but Interstate tolling will fail anyway for much the same reason the three slots already assigned haven't resulted in refurbished Interstates on which new tolls are being collected to pay for the refurbishment.  In the absence of interstate coordination, cross-pledging only adds to the problems by inviting round after round of retaliatory welcome-stranger tolling where states soak motorists on their through-through roads to subsidize roads of more local interest.

QuoteIIRC, a few years ago we were all told that roads would crumble if the Stimulus Bill ($787 Billion price tag) didn't pass.  It passed, but how much of it really got allocated towards roads and the like... roughly $30 Billion (equivalent of 2 Big Digs).  Less than 4%, which is absolutely appalling IMHO.  Where did the rest of the money go?  Yes, I'm aware that all of the money wasn't intended to be earmarked for transportation; but less than 4%, come on.

If memory serves, quite a lot of the stimulus in fact consisted of tax cuts (granted on top of tax cuts which should never have been granted in the first place).  It would have been nice to see more than 30% of a typical annual roads expenditure budget (which was about $100 billion for the entire US, at all levels of government, at the time) go into the stimulus, but in order for that to happen, there would have had to be much more of a "plans on the shelf" holding pool.  The stimulus paid for a large amount of proposal-only resurfacing work precisely because few states had plans on the shelf for substantial projects.

Quote from: J N Winkler on May 01, 2014, 01:58:50 AM
In the absence of interstate coordination, cross-pledging only adds to the problems by inviting round after round of retaliatory welcome-stranger tolling where states soak motorists on their through-through roads to subsidize roads of more local interest.

I could see our government just tolling out-of-staters.

Unfortunately this entire thread is strictly theoretical, because the various critters, beasts, whiners and 3-year-olds in suits inhabiting Washington are completely incapable of having an intelligent, ADULT discussion about taxes.

On second thought, make that: "...incapable of having an intelligent, ADULT discussion about anything."

Seriously.  Forget indexing the gas tax to inflation or the wholesale price of gas.  Forget outlawing set-asides in tax bills.  Forget VMT.  Forget tolls (at least on the federal level).  Nothing will be done because of the childish, stubborn resistance to mature discussion of anything having to do with taxation on the part of those we supposedly elected to govern us.  The gas tax will stay where it is and our roads will just continue to crumble.

Would absolutely love to be proven wrong, but in this hyper-political climate...not gonna happen.

Quote from: SSOWorld on April 30, 2014, 06:34:39 PM

Quote from: Alps on April 30, 2014, 06:24:33 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/30/us/white-house-wants-to-lift-ban-on-interstate-tolls.html

Obama is on board, apparently.

Can't read it - need a subscription :ded: :pan:

NYT articles will often display for free if accessed by a link from a search engine.  Otherwise, use your mobile and stop it from loading the "pay up" page.

Here are some interesting portions of the proposal.

Federal participation would be allowed for

Quotereconstruction of a toll-free Federal-aid highway on the Interstate System and conversion of the highway to a toll facility, subject to the approval of the Secretary in accordance with paragraph (12)

and

Quoteconversion of 1 or more lanes on a toll-free highway, bridge or tunnel (including highways, bridges or tunnels on the Interstate System) to a toll facility for the purpose of reducing or managing high levels of congestion, subject to the approval of the Secretary in accordance with paragraph (12)

Traffic management tolls would be freely allowed, and other Interstates could be tolled after reconstruction.  As for use of the toll money, it isn't limited to operation of the toll road, or even other toll roads; it's essentially unlimited.

QuoteA public authority with jurisdiction over a toll facility shall ensure that all toll revenues received from operation of the toll facility are used only for...
any other purpose for which Federal funds may be obligated by a State under this title.

Another interesting provision

QuoteFees collected from motorists using a toll facility that is tolled pursuant to this section and opened to traffic on or after October 1, 2015, shall be collected only through the use of noncash electronic technology that optimizes the free flow of traffic on the toll facility.

Edit:

I forgot to add this.  In addition to using toll money for "any other purpose" federal funds can be used for, there's also a public transportation element.

QuoteA public authority with jurisdiction over a toll facility shall ensure that all toll revenues received from operation of the toll facility are used only for...
any costs necessary for the improvement and operation of public transportation service that--
(I) is provided within the transportation corridor in which the toll facility is located; or
(II) contributes to the improved operation of the toll facility or the highway on which the toll facility is located...

The "any other purpose" is what really gets me.  I'm not a fan of the financial inefficiency and traffic diversion caused by tolling, but I have less opposition if they limit toll rates to those necessary to pay for the road.

Quote from: wxfree on May 01, 2014, 11:13:00 AM
The "any other purpose" is what really gets me.  I'm not a fan of the financial inefficiency and traffic diversion caused by tolling, but I have less opposition if they limit toll rates to those necessary to pay for the road.

Ditto. I'm tired of the practice of collecting taxes on everything under the sun, putting that money into a giant pot and doling out with little or no connection to what the money is supposed to pay for. Tolls should pay first for routine maintenance on the road tolled; second on projects to extend and improve the road tolled; third to maintain or improve other existing roads; fourth and finally set aside for future needs. Highway tolls should fund nothing other than the transportation infrastructure.

Quote from: jbnv on April 30, 2014, 05:15:23 PM
And now the White House wants to let them do it (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/30/us/white-house-wants-to-lift-ban-on-interstate-tolls.html?_r=0).

Is CT listening??????  I would hate to pay tolls but I approve it if it means fixing and EXPANDING our highways.

I'm pretty certain that there'll be more tolled Interstates in the East, as they have US routes running parallel to them, while the Interstates in the West do not.

Quote from: doofy103 on May 01, 2014, 02:33:23 PM

Quote from: jbnv on April 30, 2014, 05:15:23 PM
And now the White House wants to let them do it (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/30/us/white-house-wants-to-lift-ban-on-interstate-tolls.html?_r=0).

Is CT listening??????  I would hate to pay tolls but I approve it if it means fixing and EXPANDING our highways.

I wonder if the modern lack of need for booths would get Connecticut over its distaste for tolls following the 1983 Stratford crash. 

My recollection is that they raised the gas tax to make up for the loss of tolls in those days, leading to today's very high gasoline prices in Connecticut.  I don't suppose we'd be seeing those come back down.  Connecticut could become a very expensive state in which to drive.

Left lane travel could cost 10¢ per mile, with a higher speed limit. (Only on roads with 3+ lanes in each direction.)

This would get some money, and nobody would be forced to pay the toll.

Quote from: Pete from Boston on May 01, 2014, 04:14:14 PM

Quote from: doofy103 on May 01, 2014, 02:33:23 PM

Quote from: jbnv on April 30, 2014, 05:15:23 PM
And now the White House wants to let them do it (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/30/us/white-house-wants-to-lift-ban-on-interstate-tolls.html?_r=0).

Is CT listening??????  I would hate to pay tolls but I approve it if it means fixing and EXPANDING our highways.

I wonder if the modern lack of need for booths would get Connecticut over its distaste for tolls following the 1983 Stratford crash. 

My recollection is that they raised the gas tax to make up for the loss of tolls in those days, leading to today's very high gasoline prices in Connecticut.  I don't suppose we'd be seeing those come back down.  Connecticut could become a very expensive state in which to drive.

There has been talk or resurrecting tolls in the past decade.  Study after study it seems.  The major cons are:
1)  losing federal funds if tolls are enacted (which would become moot if this bill passes)
2)  making sure ALL $ from tolls goes to transportation (which could also be moot as in 2015 CT will place a lock box on transportation funds)
3)  people are still afraid of another major toll booth accident....even though neighboring states have toll booths as well with no major accidents.
4) Here in the "land of steady habits" people still think of booths even though most studies say there wouldn't be any

So I favor tolls but I think b/c of the above reasons CT will study and study get money and then delay it and delay it, have somebody bring up a lawsuit, delay it again, and then they may do it.  (Wait am I talking about the US-7/Merritt Pkwy interchange too?  mmmm could be?  :bigass:)

Plus CT doesn't want to expand its highways period.  Even an unlimited budget wouldn't get I-95 widened, for example.

Quote from: jbnv on May 01, 2014, 01:55:37 PM

Quote from: wxfree on May 01, 2014, 11:13:00 AM
The "any other purpose" is what really gets me.  I'm not a fan of the financial inefficiency and traffic diversion caused by tolling, but I have less opposition if they limit toll rates to those necessary to pay for the road.

Ditto. I'm tired of the practice of collecting taxes on everything under the sun, putting that money into a giant pot and doling out with little or no connection to what the money is supposed to pay for. Tolls should pay first for routine maintenance on the road tolled; second on projects to extend and improve the road tolled; third to maintain or improve other existing roads; fourth and finally set aside for future needs. Highway tolls should fund nothing other than the transportation infrastructure.

Agreed. We wouldn't have this problem if the money wasn't being used for other purposes.


iPhone

Quote from: vdeane on May 01, 2014, 06:08:40 PM
Plus CT doesn't want to expand its highways period.  Even an unlimited budget wouldn't get I-95 widened, for example.

Instead, they'll funnel it to build $1000/inch bus only roadways for buses that only 10 people will ride.  Never mind fixing 95 or 84 west of Hartford.

Quote from: vdeane on May 01, 2014, 06:08:40 PM
Plus CT doesn't want to expand its highways period.  Even an unlimited budget wouldn't get I-95 widened, for example.

Here's a question: does Connecticut have the leeway under the Clean Air Act to get through the environmental review to add any lane miles?  Northeast states tend to either be out of compliance or near their threshold. They each are required to have a detailed state implementation plan for compliance, and my understanding some years ago was that the lack of leeway under those plans made new highway construction difficult to impossible without considerable and expensive mitigation procedures.

Quote from: Pete from Boston on May 02, 2014, 12:38:04 PM
Here's a question: does Connecticut have the leeway under the Clean Air Act to get through the environmental review to add any lane miles?  Northeast states tend to either be out of compliance or near their threshold. They each are required to have a detailed state implementation plan for compliance, and my understanding some years ago was that the lack of leeway under those plans made new highway construction difficult to impossible without considerable and expensive mitigation procedures.

So the federal government has essentially banned some states from building roads? Yay "progressive" government.

Quote from: jbnv on May 02, 2014, 12:46:17 PM

Quote from: Pete from Boston on May 02, 2014, 12:38:04 PM
Here's a question: does Connecticut have the leeway under the Clean Air Act to get through the environmental review to add any lane miles?  Northeast states tend to either be out of compliance or near their threshold. They each are required to have a detailed state implementation plan for compliance, and my understanding some years ago was that the lack of leeway under those plans made new highway construction difficult to impossible without considerable and expensive mitigation procedures.

So the federal government has essentially banned some states from building roads? Yay "progressive" government.

Well, the Clean Air Act has been around since 1963, so it's not like this is some new surprise.  The most recent version was pushed through by the progressive administration, as you put it, of George H.W. Bush in 1990, so for 24 years this has been the regime.

It does not ban any state from building highways. It requires each state to come up with a plan to ensure that safe levels of air quality are maintained.  There are a lot of components that go into this mix, including reducing sources and increasing mitigation.  As it happens, automobiles of today tend to burn fuel very inefficiently and thus spew out a lot of exhaust.  Projects whose modeling shows will likely lead to increased automobile use will count negatively towards the state's compliance. The Northeast happens to have a lot of cars — that doesn't mean that it is exempt from air quality standards. 

So Connecticut or any other state is free to build all the highways it wants. It just has to do so in a way that's not going to contribute to net worsening of our collective air quality.  It's not really the federal government's fault that Connecticut is not in compliance.

Quote from: Pete from Boston on May 02, 2014, 12:38:04 PM

Quote from: vdeane on May 01, 2014, 06:08:40 PM
Plus CT doesn't want to expand its highways period.  Even an unlimited budget wouldn't get I-95 widened, for example.

Here's a question: does Connecticut have the leeway under the Clean Air Act to get through the environmental review to add any lane miles?  Northeast states tend to either be out of compliance or near their threshold. They each are required to have a detailed state implementation plan for compliance, and my understanding some years ago was that the lack of leeway under those plans made new highway construction difficult to impossible without considerable and expensive mitigation procedures.

The Clean Air Act Amendments require a so-called "conformity determination" by the relevant metropolitan planning organization (MPO).

Most MPOs are not having any trouble making those determinations (usually the pollutants of concern are nitrous oxides, or NOX, which are ground-level ozone precursors, as well as PM2.5 (particulate matter particles less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter).

Back when the requirement to do conformity determinations was imposed by Congress in the early 1990's, the anti-highway industry was gleeful, since they were thinking that billions of federal dollars that would normally have been spent on highway projects would instead go to building the rail transit systems of their dreams.

Of course, it did not work out that way, for several  reasons: (1) the declining real value of federal motor fuel tax revenues (transit systems that run on rails are extremely expensive); (2) the dramatically improved vehicle emission systems in gasoline-powered cars resulting in lowered NOX emissions; and (3) the requirement that all Diesel-powered highway-use vehicles convert to ultra-low-sulfur-Diesel (ULSD), which had previously only been mandated in California (also resulted in lower NOX and PM2.5 emissions).

So, to answer your question, I don't think air quality conformity would prevent Connecticut from widening their section of I-95.  I took a look at the Web site of the South Western Regional Planning Agency (SWRPA) (http://www.swrpa.org/), which is the southwest corner of Connecticut (presumably the section of I-95 where there would be an air quality problem), and their conformity determination was updated and approved by FHWA and FTA (http://www.swrpa.org/Files/Transfer.aspx?pid=2716) just earlier this year. 

More angle on this story.

McClatchy Washington Bureau: Feds plan to let states toll interstate highways to pay for reconstruction (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/04/29/225979/feds-plan-to-let-states-toll-interstate.html)

In 2007 I had some time to use south of Pittsburgh, and in doing so passed by and stopped into the fairly idle Mon-Fayette Expwy project office (a disused Pizza Hut).  They told me the project's completion into Pittsburgh was on hold pending Penna's gaining the ability to toll 80 as a qualifying pilot project.  As it turned out, they never got chosen as a pilot retrotoll.  I have no idea if they found other funding or if this will change things.  All I know is toll booths would break up the monotony of 80.  Too bad it'd just be ORT now. 

Quote from: Pete from Boston on May 03, 2014, 11:55:03 PM
In 2007 I had some time to use south of Pittsburgh, and in doing so passed by and stopped into the fairly idle Mon-Fayette Expwy project office (a disused Pizza Hut).  They told me the project's completion into Pittsburgh was on hold pending Penna's gaining the ability to toll 80 as a qualifying pilot project.  As it turned out, they never got chosen as a pilot retrotoll.  I have no idea if they found other funding or if this will change things.  All I know is toll booths would break up the monotony of 80.  Too bad it'd just be ORT now.

As I understand it, even if Pennsylvania had been able to impose tolls on its section of I-80, the PTC was not going to be able to divert those dollars to completing the Mon-Fayette Expressway, nor would is have been legally allowed to divert the revenues to subsidizing the wage and benefit packages of SEPTA and Port Authority of Allegheny County hourly transit workers. 

What would have been legal for PennDOT to do was to take all of that tax money that was being spent to operate, maintain (and in a few cases improve) I-80 and spend it on other things around the state, including transit subsidies and the Mon-Fayette. 

With regards to tolls on I-80 in PA, let's not forget that
1) the horrible human being who originally proposed that idea no longer has a job in Harrisburg.
2) Pennsylvania recently raised its gas tax to boost funding for transportation projects.

Quote from: Duke87 on May 04, 2014, 12:39:11 AM
With regards to tolls on I-80 in PA, let's not forget that
1) the horrible human being who originally proposed that idea no longer has a job in Harrisburg.
2) Pennsylvania recently raised its gas tax to boost funding for transportation projects.

That horrible human being having the name Vincent Fumo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vince_Fumo)?

I recall reading that Pennsylvania has increased taxes on motor fuels, but such revenues may not (as I understand it, according to state law) be used to fund transit operating or capital subsidies. 

But money from the Pennsylvania Turnpike can be diverted to transit as much as the government of the state wishes. 

Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 04, 2014, 10:13:48 AMThat horrible human being having the name Vincent Fumo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vince_Fumo)?

I was going to ask Duke87 whether he meant Fumo or Ed Rendell--the latter being not nearly as bad as the former, but the two are not nice people.

Quote from: J N Winkler on May 04, 2014, 10:18:47 AM

Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 04, 2014, 10:13:48 AMThat horrible human being having the name Vincent Fumo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vince_Fumo)?

I was going to ask Duke87 whether he meant Fumo or Ed Rendell--the latter being not nearly as bad as the former, but the two are not nice people.

Fumo is (or was) serving time in federal prison. 

Rendell has never (as far as I know) been accused, much less convicted, of federal criminal activity. 

Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 04, 2014, 11:21:26 AMFumo is (or was) serving time in federal prison.

Yes, he received 55 months after he was successfully prosecuted on a 137-count federal indictment for wire fraud and various other things.

QuoteRendell has never (as far as I know) been accused, much less convicted, of federal criminal activity.

Indeed not, but he was responsible for persuading Fumo to serve out his term in the Pennsylvania Senate instead of resigning immediately after he was indicted.  Plus there are various other things that give me a sour opinion of him, such as his reaction to Janet Napolitano (then Arizona governor) being appointed Homeland Security secretary:

Quote from: Ed Rendell. . . for that job, you have to have no life. Janet has no family. Perfect. She can devote, literally, 19, 20 hours a day to it.

I was talking about Ed Rendell. I'm not familiar with this Fumo guy, but apparently he has a bit of a rap sheet!

So may I presume, from it having been brought up, that Vince Fumo while state senator was the one who first put the idea to toll I-80 forward? I always associated that fiasco with the Rendell administration - obviously wasn't the governor who came up with idea, but it was the governor who allowed it to go from an idea to a serious proposal.

So, fine, backspace "originally proposed that idea", insert "thought that was a good idea".

Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 04, 2014, 10:13:48 AM
I recall reading that Pennsylvania has increased taxes on motor fuels, but such revenues may not (as I understand it, according to state law) be used to fund transit operating or capital subsidies. 

I'm not sure that's quite true.  I think I've read that the new transportation plan should help "stabilize" (curtail more service cuts/fare hikes) transit systems.  I'm not sure how the new revenue gets split up, but I think transit gets some.
It's also not a traditional "gas tax increase" either, it's a lifting of a cap on the "Oil Company Franchise Tax"... but since they can just pass their increased tax burden on down to the customer, it feels like one just the same.

Quote from: Duke87 on May 04, 2014, 01:46:50 PMI was talking about Ed Rendell. I'm not familiar with this Fumo guy, but apparently he has a bit of a rap sheet!

He was a crook and anyone could have seen that from the 1970's onward.  He has enjoyed a political career that isn't really possible in, say, a frontier-tier state like Kansas or Nebraska, where you are finished politically as soon as you are seen to do something underhand, even if you are not necessarily convicted for it.

QuoteSo may I presume, from it having been brought up, that Vince Fumo while state senator was the one who first put the idea to toll I-80 forward? I always associated that fiasco with the Rendell administration - obviously wasn't the governor who came up with idea, but it was the governor who allowed it to go from an idea to a serious proposal.

As I understand it, Fumo was the Pennsylvania legislature's leading advocate of Act 44, which called for using the Pennsylvania Turnpike as a piggy bank to fund PennDOT and urban transit.  Rendell actually favored a Turnpike lease deal (similar to that developed for the Indiana Toll Road) at one point, but climbed on the Act 44 wagon soon enough.  Nobody seemed to have a straight answer for what would happen if FHWA refused to allow I-80 tolls to be added to the Act 44 subsidy pot, which was a foregone conclusion since the law authorizing the Interstate tolling pilot program specifically said that toll revenues were to be spent only on the Interstate where they were collected.  This misbehavior was pretty typical of state legislatures following bad policy ideas--round up the votes and shut out the doubters.

Fumo represented an urban district in Philadelphia while Rendell was a former prosecutor in the same city, so there wasn't much to choose between the two in terms of their constituencies and client groups (urban, transit-dependent).

Quote from: J N Winkler on May 04, 2014, 04:07:09 PMFumo represented an urban district in Philadelphia while Rendell was a former prosecutor in the same city, so there wasn't much to choose between the two in terms of their constituencies and client groups (urban, transit-dependent).

Rendell was also Mayor of Philadelphia 1992-2000 after being a prosecutor and before being governor 2003-2011.

BTW, Fumo has since been released from prison but is now under a house-arrest; meaning he has an ankle monitor/braclet on him.  He's also barred from running for the political office for the rest of his life.  However, that does not mean he still can't serve in a political capacity of sorts; just one that isn't an elected position.

Quote from: Mr_Northside on May 04, 2014, 02:54:45 PM

Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 04, 2014, 10:13:48 AM
I recall reading that Pennsylvania has increased taxes on motor fuels, but such revenues may not (as I understand it, according to state law) be used to fund transit operating or capital subsidies. 

I'm not sure that's quite true.

Section 11, paragraph A of the Pennsylvania state constitution is pretty clear:

QuoteAll proceeds from gasoline and other motor fuel excise taxes, motor vehicle registration fees and license taxes, operators' license fees and other excise taxes imposed on products used in motor transportation after providing therefrom for (a) cost of administration and collection, (b) payment of obligations incurred in the construction and reconstruction of public highways and bridges shall be appropriated by the General Assembly to agencies of the State or political subdivisions thereof; and used solely for construction, reconstruction, maintenance and repair of and safety on public highways and bridges and costs and expenses incident thereto, and for the payment of obligations incurred for such purposes, and shall not be diverted by transfer or otherwise to any other purpose, except that loans may be made by the State from the proceeds of such taxes and fees for a single period not exceeding eight months, but no such loan shall be made within the period of one year from any preceding loan, and every loan made in any fiscal year shall be repayable within one month after the beginning of the next fiscal year.

Quote from: Mr_Northside on May 04, 2014, 02:54:45 PM
I think I've read that the new transportation plan should help "stabilize" (curtail more service cuts/fare hikes) transit systems.  I'm not sure how the new revenue gets split up, but I think transit gets some.

If transit gets something, it is pretty clear to me (based on revealed behavior) that the unions representing transit workers will demand even more.

Quote from: Mr_Northside on May 04, 2014, 02:54:45 PM
It's also not a traditional "gas tax increase" either, it's a lifting of a cap on the "Oil Company Franchise Tax"... but since they can just pass their increased tax burden on down to the customer, it feels like one just the same.

Agreed.

Quote from: J N Winkler on May 04, 2014, 04:07:09 PM
As I understand it, Fumo was the Pennsylvania legislature's leading advocate of Act 44, which called for using the Pennsylvania Turnpike as a piggy bank to fund PennDOT and urban transit.  Rendell actually favored a Turnpike lease deal (similar to that developed for the Indiana Toll Road) at one point, but climbed on the Act 44 wagon soon enough.  Nobody seemed to have a straight answer for what would happen if FHWA refused to allow I-80 tolls to be added to the Act 44 subsidy pot, which was a foregone conclusion since the law authorizing the Interstate tolling pilot program specifically said that toll revenues were to be spent only on the Interstate where they were collected.  This misbehavior was pretty typical of state legislatures following bad policy ideas--round up the votes and shut out the doubters.

I would revise your first sentence above to read like this:

As I understand it, Fumo was the Pennsylvania legislature's leading advocate of Act 44, which called for (ab)using the patrons of the Pennsylvania Turnpike as a nearly unlimited source of cash to fund generous wage and benefit union contracts  at urban transit authorities like the Port Authority of Allegheny County and SEPTA; and to pay for PennDOT projects having little or nothing to do with the Turnpike.

Quote from: J N Winkler on May 04, 2014, 04:07:09 PM
Fumo represented an urban district in Philadelphia while Rendell was a former prosecutor in the same city, so there wasn't much to choose between the two in terms of their constituencies and client groups (urban, transit-dependent).

And using customers of the Pennsylvania Turnpike to fund things that nobody wanted to burden Pennsylvania taxpayer with.