Simple idea for an IDOT capital program: 6 year temporary 20 cent gas tax and raise registration fee by $20 temporarily for 6 years. Too easy?
If there are 8 million passenger vehicles registered in Illinois, if each passenger vehicle fills up with 25 gallons of gas a month, so 300 gallons a year, if a 10 cent gas tax were added, then that would be $30 x 8 million per year = $240 million per year.
Not that much, so let's double that to 20 cents a gallon, which would bring in $480 million per year.
Raise the registration fee $10:
$10 x 8 million per year = $80 million per year.
Not that much, so let's double that to $20 higher registration fee per year, which would bring in $160 million per year.
So total new IDOT revenue would be $640 million per year.
What if we only used 5 years instead of 6 years?
$640 million x 5 years = $3.2 billion
That's not enough, so lets extend it to 6 years.
$640 million x 6 years = $3.84 billion
I propose that $3.2 billion be earmarked towards these IDOT priorites:
$1 billion: rebuilding the IL-53 / I-290 / I-90 cloverleaf interchange with flyovers
$1 billion: rebuild and 8 lane the existing IL-53 without tolling, similar to the style of the I-94 8 laning, except a 4th auxillary lane instead of a 4th thru lane, in the same ROW.
Replace grassy drainage ditches with a 4th lane as an auxillary lane and outer shoulder and replace wood noise fences with concrete noise walls. Have minimal shoulders at bridges to
rebuild bridges in the same ROW footprint. Northbound: local lanes merge to exit only at Kirchoff, 4th lane comes back, 4th lane exit only at east Palatine Rd, WB Palatine Rd merges into 4th lane to exit only at Dundee Rd, WB Dundee Rd merges into 4th lane to 2 right lanes exit only at Lake Cook Rd. Exit for East Lake Cook Rd that 2 exit only lanes pass by for exit only for West Lake Cook Rd. Rebuilt Lake Cook Rd interchange to have a flyover for NB IL-53 to exit to West Lake Cook Rd and have 2 thru lanes in each direction graded to pass under the flyover, with the grading of those 2 thru lanes passing under the flyover built to interstate standards for 75 mph rural travel regardless of what the posted speed limit will be (45 mph unfortunately, at least temporarily we can only hope).
$300 million: Upgrade the IL-120 divided highway section from I-94 to US-41 to freeway standards. The Illinois Tollway is likely very uninterested in connecting one of its tollways to a road that is used to avoid using its tollways, as with the I-294 / I-57 interchange that did not exist until now. Extend the collector - distributor lanes on IL-120 from Greenleaf Ave to west of Oplaine Rd. Half "standard" diamond interchange with Oplaine Rd in the two west quadrants. Ramp from Oplaine Rd to EB IL-120 merges onto the exit ramp from EB IL-120 to Greenleaf Ave; this ramp has an extra lane added for traffic going straight onto the onramp from Greenleaf Ave to EB IL-120, in the style of the I-355 / 143rd St / Archer Ave interchange. WB IL-120 local lanes have an exit for Greenleaf Ave signed as also being for Oplaine Rd; this ramp has an extra lane added for traffic going straight onto the onramp from Greenleaf Ave to WB IL-120, then traffic exits onto a ramp for Oplaine Rd off of the onramp. River Rd is cul-de-sacked. The Desplaines River Trail can no longer be accessed from IL-120. Still only 2 thru lanes in each direction from Oplaine Rd to I- 94 using the existing pavement due to no funding, but 2 thru lanes in each direction will move traffic much better with the stop light removed at Oplaine Rd.
$300 million: remaining ROW purchase for the IL 53 - IL 120 tollway project
$300 million: construction of the IL 53 - IL 120 tollway project
$150 million: ROW purchase for the Elgin - O'hare Tollway to be extended west of Lake St.
$150 million: construction of the Elgin - O'hare Tollway extended west of Lake St.
$150 million: ROW purchase to extend the IL-394 to the Illiana coridoor.
$150 million: ROW purchase to convert the existing IL-394 to freeway standards.
$150 million: construction of upgrading the existing IL-394 to freeway standards.
$150 million: construction of extending the IL -394 to the Illiana coridoor and converting to a tollway.
$300 million: construction of the Illiana Tollway from IL-394 tollway to I-65.
Total expenses: $3.95 billion
Net loss: $195 million. To be paid by raising state income taxes for 6 years temporarily as well.
I'd gladly pay an extra $50 a year (and higher state income tax) for 6 years to pay for IDOT priorities. That's less than I pay in tolls to ISTHA a year.
Edit: Actually the IL-53 bridges wouldn't need to have minimal shoulder's if the 4th lane was an auxillary lane. The 4th lane on I-94 is a thru lane, so that's why the mainline has minimal shoulders under the bridges.
Quote from: dietermoreno on November 28, 2015, 07:59:23 PM
Simple idea for an IDOT capital program: 6 year temporary 20 cent gas tax and raise registration fee by $20 temporarily for 6 years. Too easy?
If there are 8 million passenger vehicles registered in Illinois, if each passenger vehicle fills up with 25 gallons of gas a month, so 300 gallons a year, if a 10 cent gas tax were added, then that would be $30 x 8 million per year = $240 million per year.
Not that much, so let's double that to 20 cents a gallon, which would bring in $480 million per year.
Raise the registration fee $10:
$10 x 8 million per year = $80 million per year.
Not that much, so let's double that to $20 higher registration fee per year, which would bring in $160 million per year.
So total new IDOT revenue would be $640 million per year.
What if we only used 5 years instead of 6 years?
$640 million x 5 years = $3.2 billion
That's not enough, so lets extend it to 6 years.
$640 million x 6 years = $3.84 billion
I propose that $3.2 billion be earmarked towards these IDOT priorites:
$1 billion: rebuilding the IL-53 / I-290 / I-90 cloverleaf interchange with flyovers
The tollway pinch with that.
Quote from: dietermoreno on November 28, 2015, 07:59:23 PM
$1 billion: rebuild and 8 lane the existing IL-53 without tolling, similar to the style of the I-94 8 laning, except a 4th auxillary lane instead of a 4th thru lane, in the same ROW.
Replace grassy drainage ditches with a 4th lane as an auxillary lane and outer shoulder and replace wood noise fences with concrete noise walls. Have minimal shoulders at bridges to
rebuild bridges in the same ROW footprint. Northbound: local lanes merge to exit only at Kirchoff, 4th lane comes back, 4th lane exit only at east Palatine Rd, WB Palatine Rd merges into 4th lane to exit only at Dundee Rd, WB Dundee Rd merges into 4th lane to 2 right lanes exit only at Lake Cook Rd. Exit for East Lake Cook Rd that 2 exit only lanes pass by for exit only for West Lake Cook Rd. Rebuilt Lake Cook Rd interchange to have a flyover for NB IL-53 to exit to West Lake Cook Rd and have 2 thru lanes in each direction graded to pass under the flyover, with the grading of those 2 thru lanes passing under the flyover built to interstate standards for 75 mph rural travel regardless of what the posted speed limit will be (45 mph unfortunately, at least temporarily we can only hope).
Palatine Rd can use some flyovers with it getting an upgrade.
Lake Cook does not need flyovers unless US-12 get upgraded.
Quote from: dietermoreno on November 28, 2015, 07:59:23 PM
$300 million: Upgrade the IL-120 divided highway section from I-94 to US-41 to freeway standards. The Illinois Tollway is likely very uninterested in connecting one of its tollways to a road that is used to avoid using its tollways, as with the I-294 / I-57 interchange that did not exist until now. Extend the collector - distributor lanes on IL-120 from Greenleaf Ave to west of Oplaine Rd. Half "standard" diamond interchange with Oplaine Rd in the two west quadrants. Ramp from Oplaine Rd to EB IL-120 merges onto the exit ramp from EB IL-120 to Greenleaf Ave; this ramp has an extra lane added for traffic going straight onto the onramp from Greenleaf Ave to EB IL-120, in the style of the I-355 / 143rd St / Archer Ave interchange. WB IL-120 local lanes have an exit for Greenleaf Ave signed as also being for Oplaine Rd; this ramp has an extra lane added for traffic going straight onto the onramp from Greenleaf Ave to WB IL-120, then traffic exits onto a ramp for Oplaine Rd off of the onramp. River Rd is cul-de-sacked. The Desplaines River Trail can no longer be accessed from IL-120. Still only 2 thru lanes in each direction from Oplaine Rd to I- 94 using the existing pavement due to no funding, but 2 thru lanes in each direction will move traffic much better with the stop light removed at Oplaine Rd.
Illinois Tollway likely will give IL-120 a full interchange when upgraded to toll till US-12 / US-12 WI state line. I have a few ideas for IL-120 / IL with Oplaine Rd.
Quote from: dietermoreno on November 28, 2015, 07:59:23 PM
$300 million: remaining ROW purchase for the IL 53 - IL 120 tollway project
$300 million: construction of the IL 53 - IL 120 tollway project
$150 million: ROW purchase for the Elgin - O'hare Tollway to be extended west of Lake St.
$150 million: construction of the Elgin - O'hare Tollway extended west of Lake St.
$150 million: ROW purchase to extend the IL-394 to the Illiana coridoor.
$150 million: ROW purchase to convert the existing IL-394 to freeway standards.
$150 million: construction of upgrading the existing IL-394 to freeway standards.
$150 million: construction of extending the IL -394 to the Illiana coridoor and converting to a tollway.
$300 million: construction of the Illiana Tollway from IL-394 tollway to I-65.
The tollway can pay for a big part of that and move the funds to say a Palatine Rd upgrade, IL 31 Richmond il to crystal lake IL 4 laneing. I-90 I-190 till Il-43 upgrade. AUX lanes where they fit all the way till the merge, jefferson park tunnel limits widening. I-90 / I-94 merge till Ohio aux lanes.
I-94 AUX lanes where they fit merge till I-94 / US-41 split + maybe reworking interchanges.
Quote from: dietermoreno on November 28, 2015, 07:59:23 PM
Total expenses: $3.95 billion
Net loss: $195 million. To be paid by raising state income taxes for 6 years temporarily as well.
I'd gladly pay an extra $50 a year (and higher state income tax) for 6 years to pay for IDOT priorities. That's less than I pay in tolls to ISTHA a year.
Edit: Actually the IL-53 bridges wouldn't need to have minimal shoulder's if the 4th lane was an auxillary lane. The 4th lane on I-94 is a thru lane, so that's why the mainline has minimal shoulders under the bridges.
Quote from: dietermoreno on November 28, 2015, 07:59:23 PM
Simple idea for an IDOT capital program: 6 year temporary 20 cent gas tax and raise registration fee by $20 temporarily for 6 years.
The vehicle registration in Illinois is much higher than all of the surrounding states, by at least $40, at least as I guestimate it. It's high enough already. I don't think you can make a good case for raising it.
As for the gas tax, Illinois sold about 5 billion gallons of gasoline (and not diesel) in 2009, the last year that I could find data for. An increase of 20 cents a gallon would net an extra billion dollars every year. That might be too much. There was a proposal before the legislature to increase the gas tax by 13 cents a gallon earlier this year. That would probably be a good amount.
To ever get this to fly you would need to figure out at least 1 project on every district's want list. This list would get squashed by mid and downstate politicians.
Quote from: dirtroad66 on November 29, 2015, 09:52:56 AM
To ever get this to fly you would need to figure out at least 1 project on every district's want list. This list would get squashed by mid and downstate politicians.
My thoughts exactly, this proposal is to tax the whole state for Chicagoland projects.
As what typically happens when suggestions like this are made, downstate complains that they are neglected on projects they need to get done and upstate complains that a majority of the population is up here why aren't more projects addressed up here.
Will. Never. Fly.
Illinois gas prices are already higher than most of the other surrounding states, at least from what I've seen.
^ Depends. Lately gas has been about the same or cheaper on the Illinois side of the Illinois-Wisconsin Border. And for some reason gas seems to get cheaper after a couple counties after crossing in on an interstate from the St. Louis area - as of this weekend gas is the same price in Springfield, IL, as it is on the Missouri side of the St. Louis area.
That said, I would be hesitant to support any gas tax increase for Illinois unless there is also language limiting the increase (or preferably all of the gas tax revenue) to transportation related uses. There's too big of risk of the increase getting redirected to fill some other budget hole - which is one of the reasons I suspect Illinois is already having issues with transportation funding.
First time I ever got gas in Illinois was back in the late 90s or around 2000, and I about had a heart attack when I saw how much it was in Mt. Vernon. It was a whole lot higher than Kentucky or Indiana at that time.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 29, 2015, 07:29:11 PM
Illinois gas prices are already higher than most of the other surrounding states, at least from what I've seen.
All depends on where you are standing. Today, gas dropped to $1.569 in Warrenville, Dupage County.
The further south you go in IL the cheaper gas is per gallon. Yes, IL had (emphasis on had) more expensive per gallon rate than WI, Iowa or MN, but that's quite the opposite now especially in comparison with WI. The exception is Chicago proper but that is mainly due to the excessive taxation levied by the city itself on top of the that which the state levies.
Quote from: SSOWorld on November 30, 2015, 10:12:55 AM
The further south you go in IL the cheaper gas is per gallon. Yes, IL had (emphasis on had) more expensive per gallon rate than WI, Iowa or MN, but that's quite the opposite now especially in comparison with WI. The exception is Chicago proper but that is mainly due to the excessive taxation levied by the city itself on top of the that which the state levies.
Part of the reason gas is more expensive (excluding taxes) in the Chicago metro area (including parts of Indiana and Wisconsin-including Milwaukee) is the special summer fuel blend (called Chicago/Milwaukee RFG with Ethanol) that the region must use. This is purely dictated by the EPA and only special refineries (like the one that got knocked out in Indiana a few months ago) make it. Gas used to be so expensive historically back in the day was because we used to stuff it with ethanol, but everywhere in America we now use E10 fuel.
Gas prices in Louisville are typically higher than in the rest of the state because of the requirement that RFG be used there. Go beyond a certain point on I-64, 65 or 71, and the price drops dramatically.
Plus, Kentucky doesn't allow cities to levy additional taxes on top of the state tax.
Quote from: Revive 755 on November 29, 2015, 08:15:59 PM
^ Depends. Lately gas has been about the same or cheaper on the Illinois side of the Illinois-Wisconsin Border. And for some reason gas seems to get cheaper after a couple counties after crossing in on an interstate from the St. Louis area - as of this weekend gas is the same price in Springfield, IL, as it is on the Missouri side of the St. Louis area.
That said, I would be hesitant to support any gas tax increase for Illinois unless there is also language limiting the increase (or preferably all of the gas tax revenue) to transportation related uses. There's too big of risk of the increase getting redirected to fill some other budget hole - which is one of the reasons I suspect Illinois is already having issues with transportation funding.
Very true. Even the time limit is suspect - I can easily see it being extended indefinitely and going to the general fund in Year 5.
Quote from: Stratuscaster on November 29, 2015, 11:08:38 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 29, 2015, 07:29:11 PM
Illinois gas prices are already higher than most of the other surrounding states, at least from what I've seen.
All depends on where you are standing. Today, gas dropped to $1.569 in Warrenville, Dupage County.
Why is that Shell on 59 and batavia so cheap? It was $1.64 last Saturday.
Go 5 miles up 59 to West Chicago and prices jump 30 cents a gallon.
If someone were to run on a platform of:
Raising registration fees,
Raising the gas tax, and
Raising the income tax,
guaranteed that person, and maybe one other family member, would vote for them.
Quote from: Revive 755 on November 29, 2015, 08:15:59 PM
That said, I would be hesitant to support any gas tax increase for Illinois unless there is also language limiting the increase (or preferably all of the gas tax revenue) to transportation related uses. There's too big of risk of the increase getting redirected to fill some other budget hole - which is one of the reasons I suspect Illinois is already having issues with transportation funding.
Which would inevitably bring up questions over why roads should get priority over all other needs.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 30, 2015, 01:45:57 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on November 29, 2015, 08:15:59 PM
That said, I would be hesitant to support any gas tax increase for Illinois unless there is also language limiting the increase (or preferably all of the gas tax revenue) to transportation related uses. There's too big of risk of the increase getting redirected to fill some other budget hole - which is one of the reasons I suspect Illinois is already having issues with transportation funding.
Which would inevitably bring up questions over why roads should get priority over all other needs.
"A study by the National Highway Users Alliance says the backup wastes 6.3 million gallons of fuel each year. It estimates drivers lose a total of almost 17 million hours sitting in gridlock."
Thats just for the Kennedy backup, imagine adding the rest of the major ones up and looking at:
1. greenhouse gases that are wasted by idling cars
2. shipment delays due to traffic
3. hours wasted that could be saved
The gas tax should be phased out and replaced with something else, perhaps a mileage-based tax.
Quote from: quickshade on November 30, 2015, 02:24:18 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 30, 2015, 01:45:57 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on November 29, 2015, 08:15:59 PM
That said, I would be hesitant to support any gas tax increase for Illinois unless there is also language limiting the increase (or preferably all of the gas tax revenue) to transportation related uses. There's too big of risk of the increase getting redirected to fill some other budget hole - which is one of the reasons I suspect Illinois is already having issues with transportation funding.
Which would inevitably bring up questions over why roads should get priority over all other needs.
"A study by the National Highway Users Alliance says the backup wastes 6.3 million gallons of fuel each year. It estimates drivers lose a total of almost 17 million hours sitting in gridlock."
Thats just for the Kennedy backup, imagine adding the rest of the major ones up and looking at:
1. greenhouse gases that are wasted by idling cars
2. shipment delays due to traffic
3. hours wasted that could be saved
I wasn't making the argument for or against roads. I was suggesting that Illinois plowing a bunch of money into roads will call into question the state's priorities given their current budget situation.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 30, 2015, 03:41:34 PM
Quote from: quickshade on November 30, 2015, 02:24:18 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 30, 2015, 01:45:57 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on November 29, 2015, 08:15:59 PM
That said, I would be hesitant to support any gas tax increase for Illinois unless there is also language limiting the increase (or preferably all of the gas tax revenue) to transportation related uses. There's too big of risk of the increase getting redirected to fill some other budget hole - which is one of the reasons I suspect Illinois is already having issues with transportation funding.
Which would inevitably bring up questions over why roads should get priority over all other needs.
"A study by the National Highway Users Alliance says the backup wastes 6.3 million gallons of fuel each year. It estimates drivers lose a total of almost 17 million hours sitting in gridlock."
Thats just for the Kennedy backup, imagine adding the rest of the major ones up and looking at:
1. greenhouse gases that are wasted by idling cars
2. shipment delays due to traffic
3. hours wasted that could be saved
I wasn't making the argument for or against roads. I was suggesting that Illinois plowing a bunch of money into roads will call into question the state's priorities given their current budget situation.
Yea I know what you were saying, that would be my argument to anyone that questions it. Not only that but you could talk about the jobs it would add, that always seems to make people happy.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 30, 2015, 02:47:35 PM
The gas tax should be phased out and replaced with something else, perhaps a mileage-based tax.
A mileage tax might be one of the most unpopular taxes imaginable. We already pay a bunch in annual registration fees; adding another $200 to that would severely impact people who suffer from liquidity concerns. Having it apportioned in the gas tax throughout the year makes it much more tolerable.
Quote from: TXtoNJ on November 30, 2015, 03:57:55 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 30, 2015, 02:47:35 PM
The gas tax should be phased out and replaced with something else, perhaps a mileage-based tax.
A mileage tax might be one of the most unpopular taxes imaginable. We already pay a bunch in annual registration fees; adding another $200 to that would severely impact people who suffer from liquidity concerns. Having it apportioned in the gas tax throughout the year makes it much more tolerable.
If we had a mileage based tax, then a trucker would be paying as much tax as a small car.
We all know truckers do exponentially more damage than small cars.
Having a gas tax encourages people to buy small, more fuel efficient cars that do less damage on roads.
I'm against any mileage tax that has either one of these "features":
-Taxes miles driven out of state
-Has a GPS device tracking where the car is driven
-Requires the tax be paid all at once or one to guess how much they'll drive in a year
Oh wait, that's ALL mileage taxes...
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 30, 2015, 01:28:51 PM
If someone were to run on a platform of:
Raising registration fees,
Raising the gas tax, and
Raising the income tax,
guaranteed that person, and maybe one other family member, would vote for them.
I wouldn't vote for any idiot who proposed those things, even if it was a family member.
Quote from: johndoe780 on November 30, 2015, 04:05:42 PM
If we had a mileage based tax, then a trucker would be paying as much tax as a small car.
We all know truckers do exponentially more damage than small cars.
Having a gas tax encourages people to buy small, more fuel efficient cars that do less damage on roads.
Mileage based taxes could be adjusted for the class of vehicle, just like tolls.
I'd say the cost of fuel itself, when it is high, probably encourages people to buy fuel efficient cars more than taxes, at least in the US where gas tax policy is not used as a behavioral tool as it is in places like the UK and most EU states. Federal and state taxes per gallon haven't decreased any in the past 10 years, but the price drop from $4 to sub $2 gas hasn't been a great motivator for EV and hybrid sales, to say the least. Raising the gas tax (like IA just did) is probably the easiest short term solution...until the mix of vehicles is so heavily tilted to EVs and high efficiency gas engines that the inelasticity of the gas tax breaks and there is no other practical way to collect road taxes, I doubt if a mileage tax will fly in the US.
For electric cars, just tax the electricity used to recharge them. I expect that high efficiency gas engines and hybrids are just transitional technologies between gas an electric, so they might be moot.
Quote from: Rick Powell on December 01, 2015, 02:19:06 AM
Quote from: johndoe780 on November 30, 2015, 04:05:42 PM
If we had a mileage based tax, then a trucker would be paying as much tax as a small car.
We all know truckers do exponentially more damage than small cars.
Having a gas tax encourages people to buy small, more fuel efficient cars that do less damage on roads.
Mileage based taxes could be adjusted for the class of vehicle, just like tolls.
I'd say the cost of fuel itself, when it is high, probably encourages people to buy fuel efficient cars more than taxes, at least in the US where gas tax policy is not used as a behavioral tool as it is in places like the UK and most EU states. Federal and state taxes per gallon haven't decreased any in the past 10 years, but the price drop from $4 to sub $2 gas hasn't been a great motivator for EV and hybrid sales, to say the least. Raising the gas tax (like IA just did) is probably the easiest short term solution...until the mix of vehicles is so heavily tilted to EVs and high efficiency gas engines that the inelasticity of the gas tax breaks and there is no other practical way to collect road taxes, I doubt if a mileage tax will fly in the US.
Dunno about you, but I have no intention of buying a pickup just because gas prices are cheap for the near future.
EU also has excellent public transportation which is essentially nonexistent for most, if not nearly all US cities. You can get by without driving a car there, not here for the most part.
Or we could properly build our highways in the first place like the germans and still be perfectly fine 80 years later that doesn't need constant maintenance every year..... but you know.... job killers and whatnot.
Huge part of the problem are Chicago "freeways" I-94 & 290. Even with lower fuel prices everywhere, not many interstate trucks or cars fill-up in IL with higher fuel prices/taxes/user fees unless they have to. How does IL try to capture any $$$ that flies thru town, gratis? More I-pass? Look how good IL tollways look compared to free.
And with cars, trucks getting better mileage, as well as electric vehicles, how will road maintenance, let alone any new construction keep up?
This would never go, but imagine a small increase in fuel tax/road user fee say fifty miles from the IL border for west-bound traffic in IN and south-bound in WI. Sure, youd just go to the other side of the road if it was possible.
Or a fee at the weigh station, more if youre full, less if empty?
Or just raise the FHTF a nickle or two from 18 or 24 cents for diesel. Not increased since 1993? Oil glut will keep prices low for a decade? at least. Readjust the give/get or 55/45 rate? Our legislators just dont get it. Better, faster roads are in everyones interest.
Another thought may be to have a small tax/user fee (five cents a gal?) on railroad (freight and passenger) and off-road diesel. Maybe have it indexed to sulfur ppm? The rail fund would be used for upgrades (and CREATE type projects) to track & bridges used by both. The off-road would be to used to help fund continued or future road (or rail) projects.
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20151202/BLOGS02/151209969/chicago-eligible-for-more-federal-transportation-money
Looks like Chicago is a big winner in the new deal.
Most truckers avoid Chicago in general and try to take I-39 and bypass most tolls/congestion.
If freight needs to get through or to Chicago, they already utilize freight trains as much as possible.
Quote from: johndoe780 on December 02, 2015, 11:01:46 AM
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20151202/BLOGS02/151209969/chicago-eligible-for-more-federal-transportation-money
Looks like Chicago is a big winner in the new deal.
Most truckers avoid Chicago in general and try to take I-39 and bypass most tolls/congestion.
If freight needs to get through or to Chicago, they already utilize freight trains as much as possible.
The headline says "big winner", the article not so much.
Trucks may use I-39, but it adds over 50 miles to a Rockford-Gary trek. And there still may be I-80 to contend with. Imagine an option that yes, would cost more, but would be shorter, faster. In the time it took to reach Gary the "free" way, one could be near OH.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-trucks-toll-increase-met-20141226-story.html
Freight rail does indeed "utilize" Chicago as much as possible. 25% of all rail in the country happens here. Thats the problem. Theres no room for growth or to speed trains through the city in hours instead of days.
Aren't tolls roughly akin to a "mileage tax" anyway? If you look at the money that ISTA has compared to IDOT, maybe they should simply toll more roadways.
Quote from: dzlsabe on December 04, 2015, 11:56:09 AM
Quote from: johndoe780 on December 02, 2015, 11:01:46 AM
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20151202/BLOGS02/151209969/chicago-eligible-for-more-federal-transportation-money
Looks like Chicago is a big winner in the new deal.
Most truckers avoid Chicago in general and try to take I-39 and bypass most tolls/congestion.
If freight needs to get through or to Chicago, they already utilize freight trains as much as possible.
The headline says "big winner", the article not so much.
Trucks may use I-39, but it adds over 50 miles to a Rockford-Gary trek. And there still may be I-80 to contend with. Imagine an option that yes, would cost more, but would be shorter, faster. In the time it took to reach Gary the "free" way, one could be near OH.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-trucks-toll-increase-met-20141226-story.html
Freight rail does indeed "utilize" Chicago as much as possible. 25% of all rail in the country happens here. Thats the problem. Theres no room for growth or to speed trains through the city in hours instead of days.
Not necessarily true. If you're coming from a bit more south, say Indianapolis, and need to go to Minneapolis, you can easily just take I-74 to I-39, bypass ALL of Chicago traffic and toll and it would add 30 miles to the total trip.
The article is right. If we could fix Chicago's public transit, it'll keep people off the streets and won't clog up roads. That's a fact.
No doubt, from Indy, Is 74 and 39 are the way to go. Hopefully they buy a few gallons of D2 here. Maybe even weigh station user fees (tolls). Certainly prefer increase in FHTF collections.
All for transit and RAILS. Dont like reading that a huge portion seems headed to Union Station for upgrades that are needed, but selling air rights and building above it? Rather see more/something spent on more non-downtown RAIL projects.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 30, 2015, 02:47:35 PM
The gas tax should be phased out and replaced with something else, perhaps a mileage-based tax.
No!!! That would result in fewer people trading in old gross-emitting gas-guzzlers for newer cleaner more efficient vehicles. Right now, people enjoy the benefits of their vehicles but transfer to everyone else part of the costs (pollution). Fuel taxes need to be high enough to make vehicle owners cover the public costs of their pollution and pay for roads.
If there will ever be a mileage based tax, it's important that it include a multiplier for how much pollution the vehicle produced per mile.
In general, I would support an increase in state gasoline (and especially diesel) taxes. I would not support an increase in the federal gasoline tax because I think the balance of funding needs to shift from the feds (which fund projects more based on pork barrel politics than actual need) to the states (where pork barrel politics are still a problem, but not as severe as with the feds).