Okay so I apologize if this topic has already been started/discussed on the forum but I've been looking at articles about the possibility of Toll Roads coming to Wisconsin. I've been giving it some serious thought, and am currently on the fence about it. It makes sense to me to pay for something I use via a toll, however would it truly decrease tourism up north as the naysayers claim?
So I guess the question is, do you think tolls will come to Wisconsin, and the follow up is, are you for or against it? Also, sub-follow-up, what roads do you think/know would be tolled?
Well under the laws today they can't toll the interstates. That law can change but maybe for some alt history?
I-94 / Toll US 41 IL state line to Milwaukee / bypass area?
milwaukee bypass?
I-94 Madison to milwaukee bypass?
US 41 milwaukee bypass to green bay?
I-94 / I-90 Madison to MN?
I-90 Madison to IL or TOLL US 12 to IL.
As for today maybe TOLL US 12 or I-XX / I-XXX Madison to IL with some kind of TOLL IL-47 or TOLL US 12 + TOLL IL 120 + TOLL IL-53 / I-XX / I-XXX.
I know I'd read that they were looking to allow the states to toll the interstates, and a feasibility study is in place for 2015-2017 to at least look at being able to toll. Something about $30,000 required to study it, or maybe that's the Racine Metra connection possibility and I'm getting things mixed up but I know they're looking into it.
I would almost want to say, since there are a lot of projects that have been shelved and there are a lot of badly needed projects (I'll save that for the fictional forum LOL), that we'd almost have to toll all interstates and current freeways/divided highways (expressways). I know the original framers of the Eisenhower System wanted a toll road *I believe* from Eau Claire to Green Bay to loop back to I-94, so basically current Wis 29.
The notion on one side is that Illinois people are already used to paying tolls so we'd get their money for using our roads, and then on the other side of the fence, they're saying that people from Illinois and even Wisconsinites, would say think twice about making that trip up north because of the tolls, or that the secondary highways would get more wear and tear and congestion by toll-avoiders. In which case, then maybe not tolling the current expressways and sticking mainly to the interstates that people most use, say I94/41 from WI/IL to Milwaukee, then Milwaukee to Madison (and perhaps to MN state line), and I90 from Beloit to La Crosse.
I don't know at this point, I am currently neither for nor against but my mind can be molded. I can see the good and bad arguments on both sides of the fence, and neither one at present seems to be greener.
To the admins, I'm definitely not intending this to go into the fictional realm, just trying to open dialogue about the possibility of tolling in WI and would it be good or bad for us. Apologies in advance.
Quote from: Joe The DragonWell under the laws today they can't toll the interstates.
Federal law does not expressly prohibit this...but there are restrictions and requirements related to what WisDOT would do to both the roadway and the toll revenue.
Were you referring to a Wisconsin state law?
Unless the federal and state gas taxes are raised, which is unlikely given the current environment, tolling might be the best option if you consider the alternatives of either underfunding roadways and putting them on long-term schedules.
It's too bad that WIDOT really wasted a bunch of money on bad projects versus saving it for when the roads that really needed expansion were ready. But politics, etc. prevented that from happening.
Another bit I've been thinking about...maybe in addition to tolling in Wisconsin, they potentially sell naming rights to the freeways? I could see I-94 from at least the Zoo to the Marquette, being christened as, for example, the Herb Kohl Expressway? Why not, what with the big new shiny Bucks Arena and what not coming to Milwaukee...
As far as tourism suffering...I don't really think that it would, at least not as much as the Nay's would like to think. I'll still make my trip up north every year, just get ready to pay an additional $10 round trip say. You're already preparing to spend multiple hundreds of dollars up there...I for one wouldn't let a toll ruin my favorite Wisconsin destination...and in addition, it'll even benefit even in another way: So you don't want to pay the tolls, and you take the back roads. Well now you're going to go through places that have been bypassed over the years just to build the fancy 4-6 lane freeways and have been forgotten about...you're gonna have to stop for gas, and you're gonna have to stop to eat. Therefore you're helping the economy and tourism even by avoiding the tolls. Now you're stopping for lunch in Waupaca (for example) where you would have just bypassed it (okay that's a really bad example let me try again) You're going to actually drive through Wausau on what is now Business 51 instead of bypassing it with 39/51, where all the retail/fast food is, and you come across some Wausau Family Restaurant that'd been forgotten about. That's a little bit better, and I think you all get the point.
Regardless of what the money raised from potential tolls can or can't be used for, it'd be used for something, thus freeing up more dollars for say that one state highway that needs resurfacing but oh man we're spending millions redoing I-94 from Kenosha to Milwaukee. Not anymore with the toll I-94 is paying for itself, and now we can redirect that money elsewhere.
Obviously I'm a greenhorn and I know nothing about the way government and its money works so if I sound cocky it's definitely not intended, and bear in mind this is just some commoner's musings.
Quote from: merrycilantro on May 17, 2016, 09:51:00 AM
...It makes sense to me to pay for something I use via a toll, however would it truly decrease tourism up north as the naysayers claim?
No one ever visits New York City because of all the tolls. :meh:
And there's never a traffic jam on the Garden State Parkway from no one going to the Jersey Shore because of the tolls. :meh: :meh:
As you can see, my :meh:'s indicate that some of the largest tourist destinations in the country have tolls...large tolls...and remain some of the largest tourist destinations in the country.
Those against tolls are trying to find something that they think would sway public opinion. The reality is the tolls have little if no impact on tourism. If someone wants to visit a destination and are against tolls, they'll figure out the free roads around it.
Very True, I agree. Like I said I'm still going up north even if I have to pay a $10 toll. If I didn't want to pay it, I'd just go the 6 hour way we all used to go before the fancy freeways were built that cut travel time to 4 hours. But I'm glad you posted that because I didn't think of it that way :)
Yeah and every freeway in Orlando has tolls (except I-4).
I know plenty of people that have no problem with paying $20 in tolls on the Tri-State Tollway on their way to Milwaukee from Indiana. I on the other hand always take I-94 right through downtown Chicago and then take US 41 to the IL/WI border and pay $0 in tolls, but I am cheap.
By the way, which interstates in Wisconsin would become toll roads or does anyone know for sure?
I haven't been able to find anything on what roads they would want to toll unfortunately.
Also...the tolls don't exactly stop us from venturing to Chicago. Granted for me, I'd rather take the Metra or the CTA because then I don't have to worry about parking or congestion, but yeah I wouldn't think tourism would be affected that badly.
Side note: if anybody is privy to the information about whether or not tolling is gaining traction and/or what roads would be tolled, please share.
Quote from: merrycilantro on May 17, 2016, 11:44:30 AM
I haven't been able to find anything on what roads they would want to toll unfortunately.
Also...the tolls don't exactly stop us from venturing to Chicago. Granted for me, I'd rather take the Metra or the CTA because then I don't have to worry about parking or congestion, but yeah I wouldn't think tourism would be affected that badly.
Side note: if anybody is privy to the information about whether or not tolling is gaining traction and/or what roads would be tolled, please share.
My apologies...I thought you meant country-wide. If you go back to the main page showing all the forum groups and do a search there, you'll see how tolling has been gaining traction throughout the country...for the most part. All toll roads aren't successful though, with some operators going bankrupt and some toll roads getting cancelled prior to even getting built.
Did a quick search only to find a blurb or two about the possibility of tolling that was raised some years back, but the thread ended in 2012. Nothing stating as to which roads in WI would be tolled.
Also checked the DOT website, did not find much there either.
The two sections of interstate that I thought would be best to toll are...
1. I-90 at the IL line to I-94 at the MN line. This would be a "thruway" type of toll with a real lack of viable alternatives.
2. I-94 from the IL line to the Milwaukee County line. Basically an extension of the Tri-State Tollway. Massive traffic with drivers who are used to paying tolls.
Agreed. That'd at least be a good starting point/testing field to see if it would work and if so, how well.
Although to take it one half step further, they could Toll I-94 (/I-41) from IL State line all the way to the MN Line as the "Badger Turnpike", and then I-90 from IL to Madison as the "Madison Turnpike"...unless as aforementioned they sold the naming rights and some rich guy named it after himself.
I'm completely and utterly against tolls in Wisconsin on any widespread basis. For an HOV lane here or there in the metro areas like in the Twin Cities? Yeah, OK. Never ever for the entire road.
Quote from: invincor on May 17, 2016, 01:06:57 PM
I'm completely and utterly against tolls in Wisconsin on any widespread basis. For an HOV lane here or there in the metro areas like in the Twin Cities? Yeah, OK. Never ever for the entire road.
Why?
Quote from: froggie on May 17, 2016, 10:58:17 AM
Quote from: Joe The DragonWell under the laws today they can't toll the interstates.
Federal law does not expressly prohibit this...but there are restrictions and requirements related to what WisDOT would do to both the roadway and the toll revenue.
Were you referring to a Wisconsin state law?
To give an example, Federal law allows you to add a lane to an interstate and have that "Lexus lane" be a toll road.
In my opinion the tolling of interstates should be left up to the states. I don't care if Wisconsin wants all of their interstates to be tolled, just I-94 to be tolled between Madison and Milwaukee, or all of their interstates to remain free. I think it should be their decision, not the federal government's.
I agree, it should be left up to the states. In Wisconsin's case, it appears as though the notion of tolling has bipartisan support (at least for the time being), while it's about a 60/40 split in willingness to accept tolling, with 60 in favor. At least that's what I read, though I do not have the source.
As previously stated I'm not necessarily against tolling, especially if Wisconsin can get out of remedial transportation school and get on board (pun intended) with High Speed Rail. If enough people would ride the rails, maybe the need for additional lanes of highway/freeway or expensive reconstruction, would be decreased. Obviously this is from my naïve point of view, and I do realize there are expenses to that too. But we should *at the very least* revisit the high speed connection to Chicago. Madison, Milwaukee, Racine and Kenosha.
I wouldn't necessarily toll the highways per se. I would implement tolling via Express Lanes and HOT Lanes.
Tollways aren't going to be built in Wisconsin because it would be political suicide. States like Texas and Illinois have state legislatures that are solidly one party so they can toll without consequence. Wisconsin is a swing state and the state legislature can switch majority from one party to another within 2 years. The party in charge (Republicans currently) will not risk losing control with a toll road proposal. If Democrats regain control, I highly doubt they will make that risk either.
Just to show how powerful tolls can shift public opinion in politics, Larry Hogan is a Republican governor in Maryland, which is a Democratic state. He reduced tolls in Maryland and he is seeing high approval ratings despite being a Republican. Motorists see a cost savings when driving and most are thankful for the toll decrease. I doubt that his approval rating would be where it is if he wouldn't have reduced the toll fares across the state. That should actually be a moral for anyone running for office in state that tolls their roads. Pledge to reduce or eliminate tolls, you will be elected regardless of party affiliation.
I am against tolls and I am glad that I can get in my car and drive anywhere as long as I have gas in my car. This state is politically divided but the one issue that unites people on both sides of the political spectrum in Wisconsin. Citizens on both sides of the political spectrum don't want toll roads.
That makes sense to me, does it matter though if this time around the calls for tolling are getting bipartisan support? I suppose though either party could use the tolling as a case against the other party.
QuoteI doubt that his approval rating would be where it is if he wouldn't have reduced the toll fares across the state.
Hogan's approval rating goes far deeper than that...it has just as much (if not more) to do with the "lack of scandal" as it does cutting tolls. He has also alienated a lot of urban/suburban voters with some of his transportation choices.
And something else which most drivers don't bother to consider: the state wants to replace the US 301 Nice Bridge (over the Potomac) and is considering a 3rd span at the Bay Bridge (US 50/301 over Chesapeake Bay). Drivers support both projects, yet by cutting tolls, Hogan has cut the primary funding mechanism for those projects.
If you're against tolls, yet you're also against the higher gas taxes needed to build those projects that would otherwise be toll financed, you probably shouldn't be driving.
I like that thinking. Now, the information I do not know, is what will generate more revenue, a 1 cent increase of the gas tax or tolling the interstates? And why is Walker so against raising the gas tax? I'm just seeing projects shelved, delayed etc., due to the lack of funding. Example, Wis 23 from Fond du Lac to Plymouth...now granted that is probably just as much NIMBYs as it is funding, but it's just been "Salt-n-Pepa'd", and relegated to the "never gonna get it, never gonna get it....23, no you're never gonna get it." ...OK coffee is kicking in. Sorry for that.
The bigger picture might be instead of strictly roads that it's maybe time to revisit rails...I've got a fictional thread going about the KRM but seriously we should look at all the options, and not just ones that involve concrete beds that stretch for miles.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 17, 2016, 01:25:30 PM
Quote from: invincor on May 17, 2016, 01:06:57 PM
I'm completely and utterly against tolls in Wisconsin on any widespread basis. For an HOV lane here or there in the metro areas like in the Twin Cities? Yeah, OK. Never ever for the entire road.
Why?
PeterJ920's reasons are much the same as mine. To that, I would add that I've always hated the idea of having to slow down for a toll booth, fiddle for the right change, to have to remember to bring said change before I hit the road in the first place, etc. Nowadays with I-PASS and so on, that's just transferred over to yet another monthly bill to have to contend with.
Also, subjectively, it seems to me that every state I've been to that has toll roads also has roads that are in worse physical shape than Wisconsin's. It makes me think there's a disconnect in the maintenance process that tolling contributes to. Exactly where the failure is in that chain, I can't say for certain, but I subjectively see it.
I think tollways also hurt economic development for communities along the route. It's easy to compare I-94 along the Tri State Tollway to I-94 between Pleasant Prairie. The tollway has poorly built interchanges that either have missing ramps, or they penalize drivers with an extra toll for getting back on the tollway. The Oasis Service Plazas hurt communities along the tollway because it keeps traffic from exiting. Other than the Gurnee Exit, where is there an exit along the tollway that people stop at and spend their money?
After crossing into Wisconsin where the freeway is free, there is a lot more economic development and it's easy to get on and off without penalty. There is the massive outlet mall at the first exit coming into the state. Then Wis the Wis 50 interchange has a lot of development. Just north of there at the Wis 142/County S interchange, Amazon built their huge distribution center.
Can also see why Scaumburg had the growth that it has. It is near the I-90 tollway, but building where I-290 and IL 53 are, a free freeway probably greatly influenced decisions to build that area up.
That definitely adds a new perspective for me, I've never given it that direction of thought before. And it makes sense too. The Lake Forest Oasis is just that...and nobody can frequent other businesses of Lake Forest because to do so would as you said punish the driver by making them pay to get back on the tollway.
I'd be interested to see a case study comparing cities (or villages) like Schaumburg, Gurnee and the like, and Pleasant Prairie, Kenosha, et. al. Of course, the real life stories of those residing in those areas are just as valuable. I mean there's Gurnee Mills, but then there's also the Prime Outlets in Pleasant Prairie and as you stated, the Amazon Distribution Center...I'm sure there's a reason they chose Kenosha and not a farther south Chicagoland suburb. Taxes and Politics can potentially be a factor but I can't imagine they'd be the ONLY factor(s).
A buddy of mine is a farmer in Montello, for those not familiar it's smack in the middle of WI along I-39. He was saying something about farm exemption and how it's been taken away from MN, and they're trying to take it from WI...which leads to the question, would tolling in Wisconsin increase the overall prices of everything since the added expense of tolls for trucking (should they use the tolls) would ultimately, I'd assume, be passed onto the consumer...and then we'd see cost of living in that KRM corridor (and potentially further) be increased even more, becoming comparable to the North Shore suburbs of Chicago at present?
There's a lot of growth along I-94, and the investment to make it 8 lanes is already paying off and will continue to. With IKEA building at the Drexel Ave Interchange, that is already paying huge dividends. Gurnee is a destination exit with huge attractions, and people will pay tolls for that. But other businesses along the tollway wouldn't be able to draw many people from the tollway because of the penalty for exiting and not allowing people to get back on at certain exits. I remember growing up my family wanted to stop at Lambs Farm. We never ended up stopping there because we couldn't get back on there to go north. That has more to do with poor design than cost, but it shows how terribly the Tri State was built. Other states don't penalize people exiting as much as Illinois does.
My point is freeways that remain free give a lot higher return on investment than tollways. Tollways make it easy to get from one city to another but limit growth along the corridor. A free freeway does the same, but opens up a lot more development opportunities along the entire corridor. In turn, that provides more growth and a higher tax base with increased economic development.
Here is a pretty good article that talks about economic development along toll roads.
http://urbanland.uli.org/infrastructure-transit/toll-roads-the-route-to-redevelopment/
Basically if you are in a location that is growing dramatically, and toll roads are the only way to provide access, the economic development will follow.
@peterj920 - I know what you mean about Tri-State. I was just down there last week and there isn't a northbound 294 entrance to save your soul...I had to drive all the way up to Des Plaines to get back on, all because I missed an exit from 190 coming out of O'Hare.
@SEWIGuy - Very intriguing article!! So basically, tolling I-94 between the IL state line and say Milwaukee, because there is basically no other alternative (divided highway speaking...) that would take the driver to the desired destination, thus it may perhaps work?
Quote from: peterj920 on May 18, 2016, 11:10:40 AM
There's a lot of growth along I-94, and the investment to make it 8 lanes is already paying off and will continue to. With IKEA building at the Drexel Ave Interchange, that is already paying huge dividends. Gurnee is a destination exit with huge attractions, and people will pay tolls for that. But other businesses along the tollway wouldn't be able to draw many people from the tollway because of the penalty for exiting and not allowing people to get back on at certain exits. I remember growing up my family wanted to stop at Lambs Farm. We never ended up stopping there because we couldn't get back on there to go north. That has more to do with poor design than cost, but it shows how terribly the Tri State was built. Other states don't penalize people exiting as much as Illinois does.
Not poor design but the old toll road system (at least it's better then the other ticket toll roads build around the same time frame).
Now with ETC they need to add more ramps and maybe even Have an EOE like tolling system for that part of I-94
With all of the partial interchanges wouldn't that be attributed to poor design? I would prefer the ticket system to how IDOT tolls roads because with the tickets, the tolling is fair and calculates per mile. Once you get a ticket, there isn't a toll booth until the next exit or leaving the state. That eliminates the tolling penalty for exiting the freeway and getting back on for the most part. The other problem with the Illinois tollway is how unfair the tolling is. Someone traveling to Gurnee from Wisconsin has to pay $2.80 at the Waukegan Plaza and only has to travel 5 miles. In addition to that, an extra toll has to be paid to exit after IL 21. Coming from Chicago, the toll is $1.90 and the exits are toll free up to Gurnee, despite traveling many more miles than someone from Wisconsin to get there.
Seems like the Illinois Tollway system likes to nickel and dime people. Amazing that at the south end of I-355, there's a 90 cent toll for traffic to get off on US 6 despite traveling less than a mile from I-80. Even the people at google maps didn't want to pay the fare to record those ramps. Why would someone pay and use that ramp to get to I-80 when the US 30 exit to I-80 is free and is only about a mile away? Even after that it costs $3.80 to travel between I-80 and I-55. Even with the I-PASS discount the rates are pretty high and that tollway is completely useless for economic development with such high tolls. The new tollway does provide a bypass and another way for people to avoid I-294 if they want to avoid the high traffic, but most locals aren't paying that price to travel a few miles and most of the traffic using it aren't going to stop at the local ramps.
My personal stance is that tolls should only be used for major bridges and tunnels. I really like Michigan's approach. They only toll the Mackinac Bridge and the international bridge crossings because they are very expensive to maintain. Keeping freeways free with bring and guarantee more economic development than building a toll road. That article posted earlier proves it and shows how toll roads are hit and miss when it comes to development.
Quote from: peterj920 on May 18, 2016, 02:25:33 PM
With all of the partial interchanges wouldn't that be attributed to poor design? I would prefer the ticket system to how IDOT tolls roads because with the tickets, the tolling is fair and calculates per mile. Once you get a ticket, there isn't a toll booth until the next exit or leaving the state. That eliminates the tolling penalty for exiting the freeway and getting back on for the most part. The other problem with the Illinois tollway is how unfair the tolling is. Someone traveling to Gurnee from Wisconsin has to pay $2.80 at the Waukegan Plaza and only has to travel 5 miles. In addition to that, an extra toll has to be paid to exit after IL 21. Coming from Chicago, the toll is $1.90 and the exits are toll free up to Gurnee, despite traveling many more miles than someone from Wisconsin to get there.
they where more even when they had the old deer field toll. Back in the old Toll US 41 days it was not really the best setup for a ticket toll road.
I-90 elgin to WI was ticket as well. I-88 looks like at least part of it was ticket based.
IN toll road was fully ticket now the ticket part starts after the borman.
There won't be any toll booths. The tolling would be entirely electronic (I hope). And like I said above, I doubt the entire roadways would be tolled, I'd expect the tolls to be on Express or HOT Lanes. That would likely produce less opposition than tolling the entire roadways.
Makes sense to me. Introduce the idea cautiously. I'd say toll the Milwaukee Bypass, but if they did that they might as well toll I-94 too because traffic would shift in either direction and cause even more congestion. Although...now that I said that...perhaps tolling strictly in Milwaukee is an answer to the problem of adding lanes, where to add them, p*ssing off Neighborhood Members who don't want their neighborhoods further torn up by more freeways...Sure, it'll probably clog nearby streets like Greenfield Ave and Bluemound, but it'd take some traffic off I-94, and perhaps it might be easier or more cost efficient to expand Wis 59 (Greenfield) and US 18 (Bluemound). Almost like "Alternate I-94's" so to speak. Toll the Madison Beltline, small sectons of the bigger cities...maybe 172 in Green Bay, who knows.
Quote from: peterj920 on May 18, 2016, 09:50:42 AM
I think tollways also hurt economic development for communities along the route. It's easy to compare I-94 along the Tri State Tollway to I-94 between Pleasant Prairie. The tollway has poorly built interchanges that either have missing ramps, or they penalize drivers with an extra toll for getting back on the tollway. The Oasis Service Plazas hurt communities along the tollway because it keeps traffic from exiting. Other than the Gurnee Exit, where is there an exit along the tollway that people stop at and spend their money?
You need to get off the tollways more. There's a shitload of development near them.
Quote from: Brandon on May 18, 2016, 05:36:02 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on May 18, 2016, 09:50:42 AM
I think tollways also hurt economic development for communities along the route. It's easy to compare I-94 along the Tri State Tollway to I-94 between Pleasant Prairie. The tollway has poorly built interchanges that either have missing ramps, or they penalize drivers with an extra toll for getting back on the tollway. The Oasis Service Plazas hurt communities along the tollway because it keeps traffic from exiting. Other than the Gurnee Exit, where is there an exit along the tollway that people stop at and spend their money?
You need to get off the tollways more. There's a shitload of development near them.
I know that there is economic development near the tollways but I think it's more to serve the local population that lives in the immediate area. There are a lot of headquarters along it but nothing for the average travelor to stop. Gurnee will always be a destination but the other exits don't have much of an upside north of the airport. If you compare the exits along I-94 in Wisconsin compared to the Tri-State, there is a lot more going on with the exception of the IL 132 exit. Even compare the free sections of I-94 in Illinois compared to the tolled portions and there's more along the free area.
I know I'd read in that article about examples of development along toll roads...I'd guess since the exit ramps are all full interchanges, and provided they don't nickel/dime travelers who exit the would-be tollway on the Wisconsin side, it could still potentially work.
Quote"Given the state of transportation funding in this country, there will be a lot of different tools on the table, and value capture may be one of the solutions." — Kristi Lafleur
I just had to LOL about this line here. Value capture-gosh that's rich. Gotta love MBA's and their thought process, the terms they come up with.
Value Capture=How can I suck even more money out of peoples wallets.
I'm gonna use that line the next time we get a larceny call at work. I'm going to put it out on the radio as a value capture.
In all seriousness, and I've said this before in discussions about tolling in my own state. If you want to toll me, fine, go ahead, I'll gladly pay it-as long as you do away with the fuel taxes in return. Stop hosing me twice.
Does anybody know what Wisconsin's gas tax is at? High compared to others?
Quote from: merrycilantro on May 19, 2016, 09:47:15 AM
Does anybody know what Wisconsin's gas tax is at? High compared to others?
I believe that it is somewhere around 39¢, one of the higher state rates in the USA.
Between the early Thompson years and the late Doyle years, it was automatically adjusted every year to keep it level with inflation, but that was deep-sixed in a populist revolt in the latter 00s. In the 8-10 years since is when the current funding problems began.
----------
As for potential tollways in Wisconsin, IMHO, if Illinois would ever get their act together and build the planned US 12 tollway to the state line at Richmond, IL/Genoa City, WI, I could easily see the Wisconsin part of the project having tolled sections - the existing freeway sections of US 12 would remain freeways, but the new parts, specifically the Elkhorn-Whitewater 'corner cut' and the part between Fort Atkinson and Cambridge, would function very well as tollways, with the revenue easily being able to fund six-laning the whole thing between Genoa City and Madison, including re-engineering the I-39/90 'Beltline' interchange.
Mike
Mike I'm glad you joined in the thread, I always appreciate your insight :)
Could you see any other roads as being viable tolls in WI?
Again, the toll roads aren't happening. I brought up Illinois and Texas to show examples of one party rule where they're not afraid of toll roads. If one party rules either Democrat or Republican without having to worry about losing power, toll roads will be built. Republicans have full control in Wisconsin but it could be gone just like that, which is why they won't build any toll roads. Democrats would use that as a campaign issue. If Democrats regain control, expect the same.
Quote from: peterj920 on May 19, 2016, 03:49:50 PM
Again, the toll roads aren't happening. I brought up Illinois and Texas to show examples of one party rule where they're not afraid of toll roads. If one party rules either Democrat or Republican without having to worry about losing power, toll roads will be built. Republicans have full control in Wisconsin but it could be gone just like that, which is why they won't build any toll roads. Democrats would use that as a campaign issue. If Democrats regain control, expect the same.
Toll roads were built in Illinois long before only one party took power. That's only been since 2002. It has little to do with one party having power, and a lot more to do with Downstate vs. Chicagoland, and Downstate not wanting (rightly) to pay for Chicagoland infrastructure.
Quote from: Brandon on May 19, 2016, 05:15:40 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on May 19, 2016, 03:49:50 PM
Again, the toll roads aren't happening. I brought up Illinois and Texas to show examples of one party rule where they're not afraid of toll roads. If one party rules either Democrat or Republican without having to worry about losing power, toll roads will be built. Republicans have full control in Wisconsin but it could be gone just like that, which is why they won't build any toll roads. Democrats would use that as a campaign issue. If Democrats regain control, expect the same.
Toll roads were built in Illinois long before only one party took power. That's only been since 2002. It has little to do with one party having power, and a lot more to do with Downstate vs. Chicagoland, and Downstate not wanting (rightly) to pay for Chicagoland infrastructure.
I'm actually surprised that tolling isn't more widespread in Illinois. I-57 in my opinion would be the perfect road to toll. It also has a free alternative (IL 37 and US 45) the entire length for those who don't want to pay the tolls. I-70 would also be another reasonable option for tolling and it also a free alternative (US 40).
Quote from: Brandon on May 19, 2016, 05:15:40 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on May 19, 2016, 03:49:50 PM
Again, the toll roads aren't happening. I brought up Illinois and Texas to show examples of one party rule where they're not afraid of toll roads. If one party rules either Democrat or Republican without having to worry about losing power, toll roads will be built. Republicans have full control in Wisconsin but it could be gone just like that, which is why they won't build any toll roads. Democrats would use that as a campaign issue. If Democrats regain control, expect the same.
Toll roads were built in Illinois long before only one party took power. That's only been since 2002. It has little to do with one party having power, and a lot more to do with Downstate vs. Chicagoland, and Downstate not wanting (rightly) to pay for Chicagoland infrastructure.
Exactly, but not really- less to do with downstate vs chicagoland. and currently, more goes into the system downstate than in chicagoland, albeit infrastructure costs are much cheaper downstate, however in the state throughout- it's not generally very expensive. The state's flat as a pancake and you dont have to carve through mountains.
The original toll roads-90, 294, 88 were built before the Eisenhower interstate system- so 40s' 50s. I know the Pennsylvania 76 started in like 1945.
The only reason why the toll roads never went away is the same reason Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc. toll roads never went away-the states don't want to pay for upkeep.
However, I will say that Illinois toll roads are a ton cheaper than those in the east coast. My god, there's a toll road in Virginia-Dulles greenway or something- damn near $6 for 10 miles.
As far as toll roads in Wisconsin, I doubt it. Scott Walker would rather sell more bonds and pay for highway infrastructure and kick the can to our grandkids rather than raise the gas tax or put up toll booths.
Quote from: Brandon on May 18, 2016, 05:36:02 PM
You need to get off the tollways more. There's a shitload of development near them.
Yes.
Quote from: peterj920 on May 18, 2016, 06:12:17 PM
Even compare the free sections of I-94 in Illinois compared to the tolled portions and there's more along the free area.
No.
Development occurs along expressways in places where there is an
exit. No exit from the freeway, and there's no development. Because you can't stop. The development along the Tri-State is few and far-between, when the interchanges are few and far-between. And access along the Tri-State is heavily limited for a reason, because I-294 was intended as a beltway to get traffic through the Chicago area without being snagged by downtown and inner-city commuters. And since its target audience is out-of-staters, of course Illinois is going to tax the shit out of the users, to siphon money into the state from outside sources.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on May 19, 2016, 09:43:33 PM
Quote from: Brandon on May 18, 2016, 05:36:02 PM
You need to get off the tollways more. There's a shitload of development near them.
Yes.
Quote from: peterj920 on May 18, 2016, 06:12:17 PM
Even compare the free sections of I-94 in Illinois compared to the tolled portions and there's more along the free area.
No.
Development occurs along expressways in places where there is an exit. No exit from the freeway, and there's no development. Because you can't stop. The development along the Tri-State is few and far-between, when the interchanges are few and far-between. And access along the Tri-State is heavily limited for a reason, because I-294 was intended as a beltway to get traffic through the Chicago area without being snagged by downtown and inner-city commuters. And since its target audience is out-of-staters, of course Illinois is going to tax the shit out of the users, to siphon money into the state from outside sources.
Right. And if you look at where there are exits off the Northwest Tollway and I-88, there is plenty of development.
Quote from: johndoe780 on May 19, 2016, 09:32:41 PM
Quote from: Brandon on May 19, 2016, 05:15:40 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on May 19, 2016, 03:49:50 PM
Again, the toll roads aren't happening. I brought up Illinois and Texas to show examples of one party rule where they're not afraid of toll roads. If one party rules either Democrat or Republican without having to worry about losing power, toll roads will be built. Republicans have full control in Wisconsin but it could be gone just like that, which is why they won't build any toll roads. Democrats would use that as a campaign issue. If Democrats regain control, expect the same.
Toll roads were built in Illinois long before only one party took power. That's only been since 2002. It has little to do with one party having power, and a lot more to do with Downstate vs. Chicagoland, and Downstate not wanting (rightly) to pay for Chicagoland infrastructure.
Exactly, but not really- less to do with downstate vs chicagoland. and currently, more goes into the system downstate than in chicagoland, albeit infrastructure costs are much cheaper downstate, however in the state throughout- it's not generally very expensive. The state's flat as a pancake and you dont have to carve through mountains.
The original toll roads-90, 294, 88 were built before the Eisenhower interstate system- so 40s' 50s. I know the Pennsylvania 76 started in like 1945.
The only reason why the toll roads never went away is the same reason Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc. toll roads never went away-the states don't want to pay for upkeep.
However, I will say that Illinois toll roads are a ton cheaper than those in the east coast. My god, there's a toll road in Virginia-Dulles greenway or something- damn near $6 for 10 miles.
As far as toll roads in Wisconsin, I doubt it. Scott Walker would rather sell more bonds and pay for highway infrastructure and kick the can to our grandkids rather than raise the gas tax or put up toll booths.
Jim Doyle actually took money from the road fund and used it for other things. With Scott Walker bonding for projects, that is the result of voters not wanting to raise the fuel tax. John Oliver raised the infrastructure problem on his show and I have a link to the video. Fast forward to 13:10 and you will see why raising the gas tax is politically risky.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wpzvaqypav8
If you didn't care to see that part of the video, it has people calling into CSPAN opposing the gas tax. It didn't show all responses, but they said that the segment lasted an hour and no ONE person called in supporting a gas tax increase.
If the people on this board who live in Wisconsin and want to raise the fuel tax or build toll roads run for the Assembly or State Senate. If you campaign to raise fuel taxes or build toll roads, you will lose badly no matter what party you decide to run as. I'm just stating reality here, that's all. But there is a serious problem when funding roads, and no one is offering a solution at the state or federal level because of the fear of political backlash.
Quote from: peterj920 on May 19, 2016, 10:46:48 PM
With Scott Walker bonding for projects, that is the result of voters not wanting to raise the fuel tax.
Voters get to decide whether or not to raise gas taxes in Wisconsin? In Washington State, gas tax increases are usually bundled together with the road projects that they'll be funding. The package is then passed by the House and Senate, and signed off by the governor. This way, there's no one person to blame for a tax increase (and the whole concept of political suicide is avoided).
Quote from: jakeroot on May 19, 2016, 11:12:18 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on May 19, 2016, 10:46:48 PM
With Scott Walker bonding for projects, that is the result of voters not wanting to raise the fuel tax.
Voters get to decide whether or not to raise gas taxes in Wisconsin? In Washington State, gas tax increases are usually bundled together with the road projects that they'll be funding. The package is then passed by the House and Senate, and signed off by the governor. This way, there's no one person to blame for a tax increase (and the whole concept of political suicide is avoided).
If you watch the video above, nationally voters don't want the gas tax increases. Even President Obama wants to avoid the issue. In Wisconsin, Governor Walker can pass almost anything because Republicans currently control the Assembly and Senate. Right now they're seen as all in one so if it passes through both chambers and the governor, the Assembly Persons and State Senators would be committing political suicide.
From what I understand, Washington is a Democratic state and people are going to vote Democrat no matter what. If it were a swing state, it would be a different story.
Quote from: peterj920 on May 19, 2016, 11:34:25 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 19, 2016, 11:12:18 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on May 19, 2016, 10:46:48 PM
With Scott Walker bonding for projects, that is the result of voters not wanting to raise the fuel tax.
Voters get to decide whether or not to raise gas taxes in Wisconsin? In Washington State, gas tax increases are usually bundled together with the road projects that they'll be funding. The package is then passed by the House and Senate, and signed off by the governor. This way, there's no one person to blame for a tax increase (and the whole concept of political suicide is avoided).
If you watch the video above, nationally voters don't want the gas tax increases. Even President Obama wants to avoid the issue. In Wisconsin, Governor Walker can pass almost anything because Republicans currently control the Assembly and Senate. Right now they're seen as all in one so if it passes through both chambers and the governor, the Assembly Persons and State Senators would be committing political suicide.
From what I understand, Washington is a Democratic state and people are going to vote Democrat no matter what. If it were a swing state, it would be a different story.
And therein lies the problem. I'm not against a gas tax increase so long as it's a modest one- such as 5 cents. But some of these gas tax proposals are extreme-20-30 cents a gallon.
It also doesn't help that states and the feds sweep money from the gas tax and distribute it to other funds.
However as electric cars pick up, there's got to be some sort of new revenue to tap. Gas tax aint' gonna last forever, but toll roads are a very fair way to tax electric cars and it avoids the issue of double taxation- gas tax and tolls.
At my current village board meeting, they received 22% more funding from IDOT than budgetted via the gas tax (IDOT distributes the gas tax to towns via population-something like $24 per capita) Guess people are driving more now that gas prices are low now.
Quote from: merrycilantro on May 19, 2016, 10:30:32 AM
Mike I'm glad you joined in the thread, I always appreciate your insight :)
Could you see any other roads as being viable tolls in WI?
Not politically. There are 'choke points' that would likely be tolled if they were in many other states (ie, the I-39/90/94 Wisconsin River bridge or the I-41 causeway in Oshkosh), but nothing that will pass the legislature and governor.
Right now I'm very much leaning towards abolishing the segregated transportation fund and the special fuel tax, replacing the fuel tax with the regular state sales tax, adjusting its rate to be revenue neutral with the abolished fuel tax, then rounded up to the next even percent, and putting roads and other transport on the general fund.
Mike
Quotenationally voters don't want the gas tax increases.
And this, people, is why highway infrastructure will continue to deteriorate in this country. Because roads are expensive, and people don't want to pay the tolls or higher gas tax or other tax necessary to fix it.
Quote from: froggie on May 20, 2016, 07:37:37 AM
Quotenationally voters don't want the gas tax increases.
And this, people, is why highway infrastructure will continue to deteriorate in this country. Because roads are expensive, and people don't want to pay the tolls or higher gas tax or other tax necessary to fix it.
I don't think people mind paying to fix the roads, there's just this general thought that current tax income is misused. Of course, this isn't an opinion shared by everyone.
Quote from: jakeroot on May 20, 2016, 08:35:36 AM
I don't think people mind paying to fix the roads, there's just this general thought that current tax income is misused. Of course, this isn't an opinion shared by everyone.
That's because it is misused. I'm pretty sure that we would have plenty of money for roads if every cent of the gas tax actually went towards maintaining the roads rather than in some general fund that goes to who knows what.
The same is true with toll roads. If every single cent collected on a toll road went back to the toll road there would be no issues. This is why I am strongly opposed to privatizing toll roads. Toll roads should not be a money maker for someone. A toll road should just be a road that uses collected money to maintain / improve the road.
Seeing that there are tollways stretching across the northern half of IL, I think it's surprising that their neighbors to the north are even discussing tolls. I always thought they (IL and WI) had different views on everything.
Quote from: peterj920 on May 19, 2016, 11:34:25 PM
From what I understand, Washington is a Democratic state and people are going to vote Democrat no matter what. If it were a swing state, it would be a different story.
Not really. Yes, the governorship of Washington has been held by a Democrat since the early 1980s, but both houses of the legislature are pretty evenly divided. Currently the Senate is controlled by Republicans and a couple of independents who caucus with them, while the Democrats have a 50-48 majority in the House. With control so evenly divided, the Legislature is not about to take any courageous actions.
Quote from: kkt on May 20, 2016, 01:05:38 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on May 19, 2016, 11:34:25 PM
From what I understand, Washington is a Democratic state and people are going to vote Democrat no matter what. If it were a swing state, it would be a different story.
Not really. Yes, the governorship of Washington has been held by a Democrat since the early 1980s, but both houses of the legislature are pretty evenly divided. Currently the Senate is controlled by Republicans and a couple of independents who caucus with them, while the Democrats have a 50-48 majority in the House. With control so evenly divided, the Legislature is not about to take any courageous actions.
I'm surprised it's that close politically. Republicans in Texas don't have to worry about losing power so it's easy for them to build new toll roads. I did see an article looking at possibly scaling back or eliminating some tolls because new roads especially TX 130, isn't doing anything to ease traffic in Austin because people don't want to pay to use it. They interviewed a Democrat saying how bad the tolls are and for him it's probably an easy way to score political points.
I apologize if I'm talking too much about politics but when it comes to roads and new projects, that determines the fate of new projects, revenues, and tolls. My main point is that with one party rule, it's easier to raise the gas tax or implement new toll roads. If a state is a swing state, then it's a lot harder because the party that is in power caves more to public opinion and can be out of power on the next election cycle.
I don't blame any of you for bringing politics into the discussion. In my view, you can't divorce politics from anything.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 20, 2016, 04:13:59 PM
I don't blame any of you for bringing politics into the discussion. In my view, you can't divorce politics from anything.
I feel I'm making fair unbiased observations politically, but road funding and major projects come down to politics most of the time. A huge problem is building when it comes to funding. Project costs are increasing while revenue isn't, yet public opinion doesn't want any increases in fuel taxes or tolls. Increases have been done in states where politicians don't face backlash, but the volatile states and the federal level won't. At the federal level, there is a huge battle for power and if one party increases gas prices, the other party will use it against the other. The only solution I can think of is to start using the general fund for roads. At the federal level, it's already being used to make up for highway trust fund deficits.
Quote from: US 41That's because it is misused. I'm pretty sure that we would have plenty of money for roads if every cent of the gas tax actually went towards maintaining the roads rather than in some general fund that goes to who knows what.
That may be the case in some states, but not all. Furthermore, even in states where it isn't "misused", there isn't enough as you claim. For example: in Minnesota, gas tax revenue is Constitutionally dedicated to roads and highways (Article 14 of the state Constitution). Yet, even though vehicle registration fees and 60% of the motor vehicle sales tax are ALSO Constitutionally dedicated, it isn't enough.
Quote from: froggie on May 20, 2016, 06:52:23 PM
Quote from: US 41That's because it is misused. I'm pretty sure that we would have plenty of money for roads if every cent of the gas tax actually went towards maintaining the roads rather than in some general fund that goes to who knows what.
That may be the case in some states, but not all. Furthermore, even in states where it isn't "misused", there isn't enough as you claim. For example: in Minnesota, gas tax revenue is Constitutionally dedicated to roads and highways (Article 14 of the state Constitution). Yet, even though vehicle registration fees and 60% of the motor vehicle sales tax are ALSO Constitutionally dedicated, it isn't enough.
and what percentage of that gas tax goes towards bike lanes, beautification, landscaping, etc? Items that you and I wouldn't consider to be part of our road infrastructure but some idiot politician would.
Quote from: johndoe780 on May 22, 2016, 02:14:02 AM
Quote from: froggie on May 20, 2016, 06:52:23 PM
Quote from: US 41That's because it is misused. I'm pretty sure that we would have plenty of money for roads if every cent of the gas tax actually went towards maintaining the roads rather than in some general fund that goes to who knows what.
That may be the case in some states, but not all. Furthermore, even in states where it isn't "misused", there isn't enough as you claim. For example: in Minnesota, gas tax revenue is Constitutionally dedicated to roads and highways (Article 14 of the state Constitution). Yet, even though vehicle registration fees and 60% of the motor vehicle sales tax are ALSO Constitutionally dedicated, it isn't enough.
and what percentage of that gas tax goes towards bike lanes, beautification, landscaping, etc? Items that you and I wouldn't consider to be part of our road infrastructure but some idiot politician would.
Bike lines are a safety measure, and landscaping ensures rain has somewhere to go, other than drains.
Quote from: froggie on May 20, 2016, 06:52:23 PM
Quote from: US 41That's because it is misused. I'm pretty sure that we would have plenty of money for roads if every cent of the gas tax actually went towards maintaining the roads rather than in some general fund that goes to who knows what.
That may be the case in some states, but not all. Furthermore, even in states where it isn't "misused", there isn't enough as you claim. For example: in Minnesota, gas tax revenue is Constitutionally dedicated to roads and highways (Article 14 of the state Constitution). Yet, even though vehicle registration fees and 60% of the motor vehicle sales tax are ALSO Constitutionally dedicated, it isn't enough.
It's frustrating how many people in Minnesota do not know this. As a result they think the state is swimming in road money that's being used on buses and "choo choos" instead. They don't understand that there are multiple sources of funding for transportation, not just one big pot for everything that's "not being used properly" and as a result it's most likely going to derail any transportation bills as long as there is divided government.
Quoteand what percentage of that gas tax goes towards bike lanes, beautification, landscaping, etc? Items that you and I wouldn't consider to be part of our road infrastructure but some idiot politician would.
You may not consider them part of the infrastructure, but I do. Landscaping, especially, is necessary to prevent erosion in locations where grading/regrading was done. That said, to answer your question, the percentage is pretty low...basically decimals of a percent for bike lanes. Especially where the roadway was being paved/repaved to begin with, the "cost" of bike lanes is basically the cost of the paint. In other words, a rounding error.
Landscaping isn't that high either...maybe 5% or so for heavy landscaping, but landscaping is typically only required when you have either a new roadway, a major reconfiguration of an existing roadway or interchange, or a lot of digging up. For replacement-in-kind (i.e. no alignment changes), basically all one needs is to restore the turf where the construction vehicles were.
Regarding "beautification", MnDOT's policy is that they will pay for basic ground restoration and turf renewal, and perhaps the occasional tree or bush for soil erosion control, but will require cost-sharing with the local jurisdiction if the locals desire something beyond that.
For many people, the only part of road building that's required is the blacktop. They don't see the extensive other work that's necessary.
Quote from: froggie on May 22, 2016, 08:27:53 AM
Quoteand what percentage of that gas tax goes towards bike lanes, beautification, landscaping, etc? Items that you and I wouldn't consider to be part of our road infrastructure but some idiot politician would.
You may not consider them part of the infrastructure, but I do. Landscaping, especially, is necessary to prevent erosion in locations where grading/regrading was done. That said, to answer your question, the percentage is pretty low...basically decimals of a percent for bike lanes. Especially where the roadway was being paved/repaved to begin with, the "cost" of bike lanes is basically the cost of the paint. In other words, a rounding error.
Landscaping isn't that high either...maybe 5% or so for heavy landscaping, but landscaping is typically only required when you have either a new roadway, a major reconfiguration of an existing roadway or interchange, or a lot of digging up. For replacement-in-kind (i.e. no alignment changes), basically all one needs is to restore the turf where the construction vehicles were.
Regarding "beautification", MnDOT's policy is that they will pay for basic ground restoration and turf renewal, and perhaps the occasional tree or bush for soil erosion control, but will require cost-sharing with the local jurisdiction if the locals desire something beyond that.
On the I-41 project in Green Bay, quite a bit of money is being spent on landscaping. Over 0.5 million at the Wis 29 interchange alone and another $210,000 at the Wis 172 interchange was just listed on the new Northeast Region Construction Report. The MNDOT policy will soon be the WISDOT policy, as state lawmakers passed a law scrapping the CSD program, which will require municipalities to pick up any beautification costs. It will still take a few years to take effect because projects that are already under construction will not be affected by the changes and will get the CSD designs and the extra landscaping.
Quote from: peterj920 on May 22, 2016, 02:32:21 PM
Quote from: froggie on May 22, 2016, 08:27:53 AM
Quoteand what percentage of that gas tax goes towards bike lanes, beautification, landscaping, etc? Items that you and I wouldn't consider to be part of our road infrastructure but some idiot politician would.
You may not consider them part of the infrastructure, but I do. Landscaping, especially, is necessary to prevent erosion in locations where grading/regrading was done. That said, to answer your question, the percentage is pretty low...basically decimals of a percent for bike lanes. Especially where the roadway was being paved/repaved to begin with, the "cost" of bike lanes is basically the cost of the paint. In other words, a rounding error.
Landscaping isn't that high either...maybe 5% or so for heavy landscaping, but landscaping is typically only required when you have either a new roadway, a major reconfiguration of an existing roadway or interchange, or a lot of digging up. For replacement-in-kind (i.e. no alignment changes), basically all one needs is to restore the turf where the construction vehicles were.
Regarding "beautification", MnDOT's policy is that they will pay for basic ground restoration and turf renewal, and perhaps the occasional tree or bush for soil erosion control, but will require cost-sharing with the local jurisdiction if the locals desire something beyond that.
On the I-41 project in Green Bay, quite a bit of money is being spent on landscaping. Over 0.5 million at the Wis 29 interchange alone and another $210,000 at the Wis 172 interchange was just listed on the new Northeast Region Construction Report. The MNDOT policy will soon be the WISDOT policy, as state lawmakers passed a law scrapping the CSD program, which will require municipalities to pick up any beautification costs. It will still take a few years to take effect because projects that are already under construction will not be affected by the changes and will get the CSD designs and the extra landscaping.
The I-41 project cost just over $1B in Brown County. And people are bitching about $710,000 in landscaping.
Oy...
I wonder, could WisDOT test the concept of Express toll lanes or HOT lanes for some freeways as some sort of compromise?
Quote from: mgk920 on May 19, 2016, 10:07:03 AM
As for potential tollways in Wisconsin, IMHO, if Illinois would ever get their act together and build the planned US 12 tollway to the state line at Richmond, IL/Genoa City, WI, I could easily see the Wisconsin part of the project having tolled sections - the existing freeway sections of US 12 would remain freeways, but the new parts, specifically the Elkhorn-Whitewater 'corner cut' and the part between Fort Atkinson and Cambridge, would function very well as tollways, with the revenue easily being able to fund six-laning the whole thing between Genoa City and Madison, including re-engineering the I-39/90 'Beltline' interchange.
Mike
Exactly. I think folks would be receptive to paying tolls to fund new highway projects, such as a freeway along the US-12 corridor. A tollway connecting I-94 in Kenosha to US-12 in Lake Geneva, then along the US-12 corridor to Madison, would probably have no issue funding itself. It would be more likely to do so with a suitable connection through McHenry and Lake Counties to I-90.
Another such connection that would probably fund itself is a connection along the Hwy 16 corridor linking Portage to Waukesha.
Quote from: JREwing78 on May 22, 2016, 05:23:51 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on May 19, 2016, 10:07:03 AM
As for potential tollways in Wisconsin, IMHO, if Illinois would ever get their act together and build the planned US 12 tollway to the state line at Richmond, IL/Genoa City, WI, I could easily see the Wisconsin part of the project having tolled sections - the existing freeway sections of US 12 would remain freeways, but the new parts, specifically the Elkhorn-Whitewater 'corner cut' and the part between Fort Atkinson and Cambridge, would function very well as tollways, with the revenue easily being able to fund six-laning the whole thing between Genoa City and Madison, including re-engineering the I-39/90 'Beltline' interchange.
Mike
Exactly. I think folks would be receptive to paying tolls to fund new highway projects, such as a freeway along the US-12 corridor. A tollway connecting I-94 in Kenosha to US-12 in Lake Geneva, then along the US-12 corridor to Madison, would probably have no issue funding itself. It would be more likely to do so with a suitable connection through McHenry and Lake Counties to I-90.
Another such connection that would probably fund itself is a connection along the Hwy 16 corridor linking Portage to Waukesha.
St, Salem WI by pass for wi-50?
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on May 22, 2016, 06:50:13 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on May 22, 2016, 05:23:51 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on May 19, 2016, 10:07:03 AM
As for potential tollways in Wisconsin, IMHO, if Illinois would ever get their act together and build the planned US 12 tollway to the state line at Richmond, IL/Genoa City, WI, I could easily see the Wisconsin part of the project having tolled sections - the existing freeway sections of US 12 would remain freeways, but the new parts, specifically the Elkhorn-Whitewater 'corner cut' and the part between Fort Atkinson and Cambridge, would function very well as tollways, with the revenue easily being able to fund six-laning the whole thing between Genoa City and Madison, including re-engineering the I-39/90 'Beltline' interchange.
Mike
Exactly. I think folks would be receptive to paying tolls to fund new highway projects, such as a freeway along the US-12 corridor. A tollway connecting I-94 in Kenosha to US-12 in Lake Geneva, then along the US-12 corridor to Madison, would probably have no issue funding itself. It would be more likely to do so with a suitable connection through McHenry and Lake Counties to I-90.
Another such connection that would probably fund itself is a connection along the Hwy 16 corridor linking Portage to Waukesha.
St, Salem WI by pass for wi-50?
Paddock Lake.
Neither such a bypass, or a US-12 freeway is even close to happening.
Toll the highways and hold them to the same standard some demand from public transportation? Whaaaaaaaattt?
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 22, 2016, 03:27:41 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on May 22, 2016, 02:32:21 PM
Quote from: froggie on May 22, 2016, 08:27:53 AM
Quoteand what percentage of that gas tax goes towards bike lanes, beautification, landscaping, etc? Items that you and I wouldn't consider to be part of our road infrastructure but some idiot politician would.
You may not consider them part of the infrastructure, but I do. Landscaping, especially, is necessary to prevent erosion in locations where grading/regrading was done. That said, to answer your question, the percentage is pretty low...basically decimals of a percent for bike lanes. Especially where the roadway was being paved/repaved to begin with, the "cost" of bike lanes is basically the cost of the paint. In other words, a rounding error.
Landscaping isn't that high either...maybe 5% or so for heavy landscaping, but landscaping is typically only required when you have either a new roadway, a major reconfiguration of an existing roadway or interchange, or a lot of digging up. For replacement-in-kind (i.e. no alignment changes), basically all one needs is to restore the turf where the construction vehicles were.
Regarding "beautification", MnDOT's policy is that they will pay for basic ground restoration and turf renewal, and perhaps the occasional tree or bush for soil erosion control, but will require cost-sharing with the local jurisdiction if the locals desire something beyond that.
On the I-41 project in Green Bay, quite a bit of money is being spent on landscaping. Over 0.5 million at the Wis 29 interchange alone and another $210,000 at the Wis 172 interchange was just listed on the new Northeast Region Construction Report. The MNDOT policy will soon be the WISDOT policy, as state lawmakers passed a law scrapping the CSD program, which will require municipalities to pick up any beautification costs. It will still take a few years to take effect because projects that are already under construction will not be affected by the changes and will get the CSD designs and the extra landscaping.
The I-41 project cost just over $1B in Brown County. And people are bitching about $710,000 in landscaping.
Oy...
The $710,000 is for 2 out of 9 interchanges along the project. The cost adds up with them all included. Just because it's a small fraction of the total cost doesn't mean that it's a lot of money. Every dollar saved can go towards other projects.
Quote from: peterj920 on May 23, 2016, 12:18:04 AM
The $710,000 is for 2 out of 9 interchanges along the project. The cost adds up with them all included. Just because it's a small fraction of the total cost doesn't mean that it's a lot of money. Every dollar saved can go towards other projects.
710/2 = 355
355*9 = $3.195 mil
So: One traffic signal, or landscaping, so it doesn't look like a prop from Blade Runner?
Stop being cheap. It's not necessary. It's still a tiny fraction compared to everything else, and it's
easily budgeted.
Quote from: peterj920 on May 23, 2016, 12:18:04 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 22, 2016, 03:27:41 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on May 22, 2016, 02:32:21 PM
Quote from: froggie on May 22, 2016, 08:27:53 AM
Quoteand what percentage of that gas tax goes towards bike lanes, beautification, landscaping, etc? Items that you and I wouldn't consider to be part of our road infrastructure but some idiot politician would.
You may not consider them part of the infrastructure, but I do. Landscaping, especially, is necessary to prevent erosion in locations where grading/regrading was done. That said, to answer your question, the percentage is pretty low...basically decimals of a percent for bike lanes. Especially where the roadway was being paved/repaved to begin with, the "cost" of bike lanes is basically the cost of the paint. In other words, a rounding error.
Landscaping isn't that high either...maybe 5% or so for heavy landscaping, but landscaping is typically only required when you have either a new roadway, a major reconfiguration of an existing roadway or interchange, or a lot of digging up. For replacement-in-kind (i.e. no alignment changes), basically all one needs is to restore the turf where the construction vehicles were.
Regarding "beautification", MnDOT's policy is that they will pay for basic ground restoration and turf renewal, and perhaps the occasional tree or bush for soil erosion control, but will require cost-sharing with the local jurisdiction if the locals desire something beyond that.
On the I-41 project in Green Bay, quite a bit of money is being spent on landscaping. Over 0.5 million at the Wis 29 interchange alone and another $210,000 at the Wis 172 interchange was just listed on the new Northeast Region Construction Report. The MNDOT policy will soon be the WISDOT policy, as state lawmakers passed a law scrapping the CSD program, which will require municipalities to pick up any beautification costs. It will still take a few years to take effect because projects that are already under construction will not be affected by the changes and will get the CSD designs and the extra landscaping.
The I-41 project cost just over $1B in Brown County. And people are bitching about $710,000 in landscaping.
Oy...
The $710,000 is for 2 out of 9 interchanges along the project. The cost adds up with them all included. Just because it's a small fraction of the total cost doesn't mean that it's a lot of money. Every dollar saved can go towards other projects.
But as others have pointed out, landscaping isn't an unnecessary expense. It prevents erosion and controls rainwater runoff. And making it look good in the process shouldn't be considered a wasteful expense.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 23, 2016, 08:14:00 AM
But as others have pointed out, landscaping isn't an unnecessary expense. It prevents erosion and controls rainwater runoff. And making it look good in the process shouldn't be considered a wasteful expense.
THere is landscaping - and there is landscaping.
Grass on slopes so dirt doesn't wash off? - sure!
planting trees along the median, just to have them cut 2-3 years later? well...
Nice flowers on a hellstrip? Make sure there is a full-time florist to take care of those..
Quote from: froggie on May 22, 2016, 08:27:53 AM
Quoteand what percentage of that gas tax goes towards bike lanes, beautification, landscaping, etc? Items that you and I wouldn't consider to be part of our road infrastructure but some idiot politician would.
You may not consider them part of the infrastructure, but I do. Landscaping, especially, is necessary to prevent erosion in locations where grading/regrading was done. That said, to answer your question, the percentage is pretty low...basically decimals of a percent for bike lanes. Especially where the roadway was being paved/repaved to begin with, the "cost" of bike lanes is basically the cost of the paint. In other words, a rounding error.
Landscaping isn't that high either...maybe 5% or so for heavy landscaping, but landscaping is typically only required when you have either a new roadway, a major reconfiguration of an existing roadway or interchange, or a lot of digging up. For replacement-in-kind (i.e. no alignment changes), basically all one needs is to restore the turf where the construction vehicles were.
Regarding "beautification", MnDOT's policy is that they will pay for basic ground restoration and turf renewal, and perhaps the occasional tree or bush for soil erosion control, but will require cost-sharing with the local jurisdiction if the locals desire something beyond that.
Basic storm sewer work and turf, sure ok, I'll give you that. I'll even throw in noise walls too.
But trees, brick pavers, sidewalks, bike paths. street lighting etc? Hell no. That's not road infrastructure. Make the local towns pay for that crap.
Contrary to your claim, sidewalks, bike paths, and especially street lighting (nighttime safety) are all street infrastructure. It's obvious you don't like it, but each has a valid purpose. Furthermore, each is a relatively small part of a given project budget, so even if you cut them as you'd probably like to, you won't be able to build much with the savings.
Quote from: froggie on May 23, 2016, 01:51:32 PM
Contrary to your claim, sidewalks, bike paths, and especially street lighting (nighttime safety) are all street infrastructure. It's obvious you don't like it, but each has a valid purpose. Furthermore, each is a relatively small part of a given project budget, so even if you cut them as you'd probably like to, you won't be able to build much with the savings.
I would say differently: if we're talking about interstates - sidewalks, bike paths, crosswalks are removed from the equation. Lightning is usually put in high accident rate spots, and exists for a reason
If we're talking town streets - usually expenses are shared between different levels of government, so in essence one may say that town pays for painting crosswalks....
Quote from: kalvado on May 23, 2016, 02:20:09 PM
Quote from: froggie on May 23, 2016, 01:51:32 PM
Contrary to your claim, sidewalks, bike paths, and especially street lighting (nighttime safety) are all street infrastructure. It's obvious you don't like it, but each has a valid purpose. Furthermore, each is a relatively small part of a given project budget, so even if you cut them as you'd probably like to, you won't be able to build much with the savings.
I would say differently: if we're talking about interstates - sidewalks, bike paths, crosswalks are removed from the equation. Lightning is usually put in high accident rate spots, and exists for a reason
If we're talking town streets - usually expenses are shared between different levels of government, so in essence one may say that town pays for painting crosswalks....
No one crosses an overpass over the interstate highway? Being that's not true, there are sidewalks and bikepaths alongside the roadway on the overpass.
Crosswalks? Sure there are crosswalks. At interchanges, where the ramp meets the crossroad.
Lighting? Pretty standard at every highway interchange and on those ramps, cross streets, overpasses, etc.
And the argument that money saved can be spent on other projects basically comes down to "If this project isn't important to me, don't spend the money there. Use it elsewhere, such as improving the roads I drive on".
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 23, 2016, 02:47:03 PM
No one crosses an overpass over the interstate highway? Being that's not true, there are sidewalks and bikepaths alongside the roadway on the overpass.
Crosswalks? Sure there are crosswalks. At interchanges, where the ramp meets the crossroad.
Well, I would say that highway overpass is rather part of that overpassing road than part of highway. But yes, if locality invested in sidewalks on the road outside overpass - they did their part; if not - there is no point in sidewalk on that overpass.. Same with ramp crosswalks. Of course, there are situations when crosswalk doesn't have adjacent sidewalks, or sidewalks go to nowhere.. But those are minority..
But what if they want to add a sidewalk in the future? The state DOT isn't going to replace the bridge in that instance; if the sidewalks aren't added when the bridge is replaced, it never will be. Thus, it makes sense to install sidewalks if there is potential that they could be added in the foreseeable future.
Quote from: vdeane on May 23, 2016, 07:08:11 PM
But what if they want to add a sidewalk in the future? The state DOT isn't going to replace the bridge in that instance; if the sidewalks aren't added when the bridge is replaced, it never will be. Thus, it makes sense to install sidewalks if there is potential that they could be added in the foreseeable future.
Exactly. Many local municipalities are often unwilling to build sidewalks up to freeway interchanges, because there aren't any connecting sidewalks to ferry pedestrians over the freeway. If the state pulled the trigger first, so to speak, that often encourages the local municipality to "finish the job", and build some connecting sidewalks.
Quote from: jakeroot on May 23, 2016, 07:12:45 PM
Quote from: vdeane on May 23, 2016, 07:08:11 PM
But what if they want to add a sidewalk in the future? The state DOT isn't going to replace the bridge in that instance; if the sidewalks aren't added when the bridge is replaced, it never will be. Thus, it makes sense to install sidewalks if there is potential that they could be added in the foreseeable future.
Exactly. Many local municipalities are often unwilling to build sidewalks up to freeway interchanges, because there aren't any connecting sidewalks to ferry pedestrians over the freeway. If the state pulled the trigger first, so to speak, that often encourages the local municipality to "finish the job", and build some connecting sidewalks.
Makes sense, of course - but still somewhat depends on what we consider "potential".
Quote from: kalvado on May 23, 2016, 08:47:28 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 23, 2016, 07:12:45 PM
Quote from: vdeane on May 23, 2016, 07:08:11 PM
But what if they want to add a sidewalk in the future? The state DOT isn't going to replace the bridge in that instance; if the sidewalks aren't added when the bridge is replaced, it never will be. Thus, it makes sense to install sidewalks if there is potential that they could be added in the foreseeable future.
Exactly. Many local municipalities are often unwilling to build sidewalks up to freeway interchanges, because there aren't any connecting sidewalks to ferry pedestrians over the freeway. If the state pulled the trigger first, so to speak, that often encourages the local municipality to "finish the job", and build some connecting sidewalks.
Makes sense, of course - but still somewhat depends on what we consider "potential".
Really, we're talking about something no different than a highway department buying extra right-of-way in case of the "potential" that the road will need widening.
Quote from: kalvado on May 23, 2016, 02:20:09 PM
Quote from: froggie on May 23, 2016, 01:51:32 PM
Contrary to your claim, sidewalks, bike paths, and especially street lighting (nighttime safety) are all street infrastructure. It's obvious you don't like it, but each has a valid purpose. Furthermore, each is a relatively small part of a given project budget, so even if you cut them as you'd probably like to, you won't be able to build much with the savings.
I would say differently: if we're talking about interstates - sidewalks, bike paths, crosswalks are removed from the equation. Lightning is usually put in high accident rate spots, and exists for a reason
If we're talking town streets - usually expenses are shared between different levels of government, so in essence one may say that town pays for painting crosswalks....
Look, I like public transportation as much as the next guy, but when the transportation secretary comes out and says he wants 80% of the motor fuel tax.Aagain a tax I pay for at the pump to go to road infrastructure, something is messed up. These public transportation advocates, like the transportation secretary, should either find another source, or have the public transportation advocates pay for their own improvements.
http://www.streetsblog.net/2016/05/23/anthony-foxx-envisions-a-gradual-shift-away-from-car-dependence/
Good riddance Mr foxx. Don't let the door hit you on your way out come January.
Quote from: johndoe780Look, I like public transportation as much as the next guy,
Your attitude in this thread suggests otherwise. It also suggests that you don't see walking and bicycling as valid forms of transportation.
WisDOT has never funded lighting anywhere on freeways/expressways outside Milwaukee... EVER. Any lighting on a freeway or at interchanges is locally funded. The CSD done in Green Bay, Madison (overpasses), Oshkosh and (maybe) Milwaukee was out of line. I'd be willing to bet that most of the CSD rots as local munis neglect to maintain it.
Quote from: froggie on May 24, 2016, 07:40:53 AM
Quote from: johndoe780Look, I like public transportation as much as the next guy,
Your attitude in this thread suggests otherwise. It also suggests that you don't see walking and bicycling as valid forms of transportation.
I do, but not when it's not funded by the motor fuel tax.
Quote from: johndoe780 on May 24, 2016, 10:14:56 AM
Quote from: froggie on May 24, 2016, 07:40:53 AM
Quote from: johndoe780Look, I like public transportation as much as the next guy,
Your attitude in this thread suggests otherwise. It also suggests that you don't see walking and bicycling as valid forms of transportation.
I do, but not when it's not funded by the motor fuel tax.
I think sidewalks and bike paths should be funded through city (or local) taxes, not by funds collected from motorists.
Quote from: SSOWorld on May 24, 2016, 07:41:42 AM
WisDOT has never funded lighting anywhere on freeways/expressways outside Milwaukee... EVER. Any lighting on a freeway or at interchanges is locally funded. The CSD done in Green Bay, Madison (overpasses), Oshkosh and (maybe) Milwaukee was out of line. I'd be willing to bet that most of the CSD rots as local munis neglect to maintain it.
The lights on the I-43/Leo Frigo Bridge were funded through a Homeland Security Grant. I-41 is going to be lit from Wis 54 to I-43, and Wis 29 is lit from I-41 to County J. I'm sure that WISDOT is funding those lights. I doubt all of those lights would be put on the I-41 and Wis 29 mainlines if the Village of Howard had to pay for them. As for the landscaping, the Green Bay Packers are maintaining the landscaping along Lombardi Ave and the interchange with I-41, which saves taxpayers. They have a vested interest in the upkeep of the landscaping because of all of the money they're pouring into the area with the Titletown District and Lambeau Field. It will be interesting to see how the communities maintain the plants because it is going to cost money to maintain them. I know that someone on the board thought that just over $3 million for landscaping is small compared to the entire cost, but the $3 million was for special plants and flowers that will rot if they aren't cared for properly. What's amazing about the landscape projects are contracts listed on the Northeast Region Construction Report.
It costs nearly $249,000 for landscaping along Lombardi Ave and almost $23,000 a year to maintain according to WLUK TV. For some reason it wouldn't let me paste the link for the story but it's very interesting.
I really don't see how tolls in Wisconsin would work. I-39/90 has already been built as a free route the cost to convert to a toll raod would not be worth the expense that the revenue from the tolls would bring in.
Maybe just weigh stations at Kenosha, Beloit, LaCrosse and Hudson. If youre empty, you slide, if youre 80K GVWR, you (most likely the owner) pays WIDOT? Any shenanigans? Dont do it. Trust me WIers, you dont want your version of ISTHA.
Quote from: dzlsabe on May 25, 2016, 01:41:18 AM
Maybe just weigh stations at Kenosha, Beloit, LaCrosse and Hudson. If youre empty, you slide, if youre 80K GVWR, you (most likely the owner) pays WIDOT? Any shenanigans? Dont do it. Trust me WIers, you dont want your version of ISTHA.
Most people in Wisconsin don't want any tolls so it most likely won't happen.
Tolls would never happen in Wisconsin. It would be sacrilege. Us Wisconsinites don't like anything from or about Illinois, 1A being drivers, 1B tolls, and 1C duh Bears.
No tolls. No increases in the gas tax. What other options are there?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 25, 2016, 03:55:45 PM
No tolls. No increases in the gas tax. What other options are there?
I begin to wonder if a telethon would make sense to finance a road project? Or having an highway gap sponsored by some companies who'll fix the potholes like KFC. http://www.nuwireinvestor.com/articles/kfc-filling-potholes-in-exchange-for-advertising-52778.aspx
http://adage.com/article/news/a-pothole-filled-city-call-kfc/135534/
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 25, 2016, 03:55:45 PM
No tolls. No increases in the gas tax. What other options are there?
Taxes and tolls are proven fund-collection methods. I'm not sure why we'd need anything else.
Quote from: jakeroot on May 25, 2016, 04:42:01 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 25, 2016, 03:55:45 PM
No tolls. No increases in the gas tax. What other options are there?
Taxes and tolls are proven fund-collection methods. I'm not sure why we'd need anything else.
Taxing by the mile, which is being discussed in another thread: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=17983.0
Quote from: paulthemapguy on May 25, 2016, 05:44:52 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 25, 2016, 04:42:01 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 25, 2016, 03:55:45 PM
No tolls. No increases in the gas tax. What other options are there?
Taxes and tolls are proven fund-collection methods. I'm not sure why we'd need anything else.
Taxing by the mile, which is being discussed in another thread: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=17983.0
I was grouping that in with "taxes", but I see your point (now that I read Ghostbuster's comment again, which specifically says "gas taxes" and not just "taxes").
I'm just opposed to paying for roads using advertising, as discussed on the last page. I think raising taxes (be it a gas tax or mileage tax), as well as implementing tolls, are both sufficient means of funding maintenance and improvements.
Because, for some areas of the country, he's actually right. In those areas, the majority want no tolls, nor do they want a higher gas tax.
The alternatives are as varied as they are unpopular...
Dont really see where or how WI would/could pull a toll road off? How much traffic from MN and IL? Wouldn't it affect mostly WI drivers?
As far as Federal fuel tax, a dime increase would add a buck? to most car drivers bill (assuming ten gallons) per week, a hundred gallon truck tank $10. Inflation and highway robbery have diminished 18 & 24 cents quite a bit since 1993.
Quote from: dzlsabe on May 26, 2016, 01:27:29 AM
Dont really see where or how WI would/could pull a toll road off? How much traffic from MN and IL? Wouldn't it affect mostly WI drivers?
As far as Federal fuel tax, a dime increase would add a buck? to most car drivers bill (assuming ten gallons) per week, a hundred gallon truck tank $10. Inflation and highway robbery have diminished 18 & 24 cents quite a bit since 1993.
On one hand, I would gladly pay extra $1 to save $100 on suspension.
On the other hand, historic trend is really interesting:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2Fjoshbarro%2Ffiles%2F2012%2F04%2Fspending-GDP-chart1.png&hash=aa0dcc3def621730dd70f613d67b7ab4d47996d8)
I still think Express and HOT Lanes are more likely in my state, as opposed to full-blown toll roads. Mostly in the Milwaukee area, and possibly Madison. Of course, I could be wrong.
Quote from: kalvado on May 26, 2016, 08:50:21 AM
Quote from: dzlsabe on May 26, 2016, 01:27:29 AM
Dont really see where or how WI would/could pull a toll road off? How much traffic from MN and IL? Wouldn't it affect mostly WI drivers?
As far as Federal fuel tax, a dime increase would add a buck? to most car drivers bill (assuming ten gallons) per week, a hundred gallon truck tank $10. Inflation and highway robbery have diminished 18 & 24 cents quite a bit since 1993.
On one hand, I would gladly pay extra $1 to save $100 on suspension.
On the other hand, historic trend is really interesting:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2Fjoshbarro%2Ffiles%2F2012%2F04%2Fspending-GDP-chart1.png&hash=aa0dcc3def621730dd70f613d67b7ab4d47996d8)
I agree. Now come up with the graph of spending on highways/bridges in the same period.
As I've said before, raising the gas or adding a mileage tax will do nothing to improve the roads. The main issue is that the states have to be more committed to having good roads.
Texas is a great example. It's the second largest state, has pretty low taxes (no state income tax, 9 cent sales tax, and a low gas tax), and they miraculously have great roads. Whether its an interstate, state route, or FM route; they are all in pretty good shape. Also Texas seems to have little problem coming up with money for projects like I-69 and maybe even I-14. Texas is on the move because they have smart leaders that understand that transportation should be a priority. They also have smart leaders that understand how the economy works. Texas by itself has a larger economy than Australia.
QuoteThe main issue is that the states have to be more committed to having good roads.
And if gas tax/mileage tax is off the table, how do you propose this get funded?
Your Texas example also won't work at a national scale, given A) terrain/climate, B) population (remember, Texas has several very large cities), and C) costs. Furthermore, while Texas doesn't have an individual income tax, they do have a corporate franchise tax as well as a receipts tax for some business sectors.
Another thing you didn't mention: much of Texas' recent capacity expansion is the result of tolls and toll roads.
Lastly, since you mention Texas as an example, I'll mention a Texas case where massive road expansion can actually make things worse. Commutes on the I-10 Katy Freeway are now worse than they were before the recent expansion, which was not all that long ago.
Texas has some of the highest property taxes in the country but are all collected at the local levels. Which means there is no real revenue sharing like in states like Wisconsin. Furthermore their best highways are toll roads, and their toll rates are quite high. They also have better weather for road maintenance.
But in general I agree with your premise that roads are simply a priority for some states over another.
Texas also maintains more roads than any other state. They maintain over 79,000 miles of roadway for a state with 27 million people. Wisconsin maintains about 11,800 miles and has a population of about 5.75 million. Texas has more miles to maintain per person than Wisconsin does, which can strain their budget and is probably why they sought to build toll roads.
Quote from: US 41 on May 27, 2016, 10:14:40 AM
As I've said before, raising the gas or adding a mileage tax will do nothing to improve the roads. The main issue is that the states have to be more committed to having good roads.
Texas is a great example. It's the second largest state, has pretty low taxes (no state income tax, 9 cent sales tax, and a low gas tax), and they miraculously have great roads. Whether its an interstate, state route, or FM route; they are all in pretty good shape. Also Texas seems to have little problem coming up with money for projects like I-69 and maybe even I-14. Texas is on the move because they have smart leaders that understand that transportation should be a priority. They also have smart leaders that understand how the economy works. Texas by itself has a larger economy than Australia.
What, so you just wish good roads into existence? You just say "I wish there was a good road here," and it appears? The amount of total tax collected doesn't correlate to the amount spent on roads. Texas does place roads at a really high priority. Raising taxes can help improve roads AS LONG AS that money is allocated toward roads. Bringing up examples of taxes not paying for roads does nothing to prove your original point, that higher taxes won't help the quality of a road network.
Sure you can raise taxes to pay for roads, but what guarantee do you have that those tax dollars will go to roads, and not be diverted to other purposes?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 28, 2016, 02:42:26 PM
Sure you can raise taxes to pay for roads, but what guarantee do you have that those tax dollars will go to roads, and not be diverted to other purposes?
The state budget process.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 28, 2016, 06:02:49 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 28, 2016, 02:42:26 PM
Sure you can raise taxes to pay for roads, but what guarantee do you have that those tax dollars will go to roads, and not be diverted to other purposes?
The state budget process.
Given our state lawmakers voted for the budget without getting a chance to look inside before vote, I wouldn't hold my breath.
Quote from: kalvado on May 28, 2016, 06:07:22 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 28, 2016, 06:02:49 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 28, 2016, 02:42:26 PM
Sure you can raise taxes to pay for roads, but what guarantee do you have that those tax dollars will go to roads, and not be diverted to other purposes?
The state budget process.
Given our state lawmakers voted for the budget without getting a chance to look inside before vote, I wouldn't hold my breath.
Well then that's our fault as the voters then. Unless there is a state constitutional amendment that requires that gas taxes go to roads, it can change at anytime and most people don't really care.
I think Ghostbuster (and others in this thread) are onto something, HOT or possibly Tolls, especially in the Milwaukee/Madison area. Maybe even GB, on 172. You want a shortcut across the south side? You're gonna have to pay...I'd even say maybe even toll US-45 from I-41 to US-10. even up to I-39. A LOT of people use that new highway to get up north, it cuts drive time down to as little as 4 hours (from my area at least).
Quote from: merrycilantro on May 31, 2016, 09:04:14 AM
I think Ghostbuster (and others in this thread) are onto something, HOT or possibly Tolls, especially in the Milwaukee/Madison area. Maybe even GB, on 172. You want a shortcut across the south side? You're gonna have to pay...I'd even say maybe even toll US-45 from I-41 to US-10. even up to I-39. A LOT of people use that new highway to get up north, it cuts drive time down to as little as 4 hours (from my area at least).
The problem with your thinking on this is that it's crazy to add tolls to existing roads. They're already built, and therefore done. Any tolling needs to be done on new roads, or roads that have improvements paid for by bonds backed by tolls. That's the thing that's forgotten - tolls aren't used to pay for infrastructure across a geographical area (that's not fair to the toll payers) - they're used to finance the improvements to the road that you're paying the toll on.
Quote from: GeekJedi on May 31, 2016, 04:07:24 PM
Quote from: merrycilantro on May 31, 2016, 09:04:14 AM
I think Ghostbuster (and others in this thread) are onto something, HOT or possibly Tolls, especially in the Milwaukee/Madison area. Maybe even GB, on 172. You want a shortcut across the south side? You're gonna have to pay...I'd even say maybe even toll US-45 from I-41 to US-10. even up to I-39. A LOT of people use that new highway to get up north, it cuts drive time down to as little as 4 hours (from my area at least).
The problem with your thinking on this is that it's crazy to add tolls to existing roads. They're already built, and therefore done. Any tolling needs to be done on new roads, or roads that have improvements paid for by bonds backed by tolls. That's the thing that's forgotten - tolls aren't used to pay for infrastructure across a geographical area (that's not fair to the toll payers) - they're used to finance the improvements to the road that you're paying the toll on.
There are tolling the both the old and new parts of the EOE
Quote from: GeekJedi on May 31, 2016, 04:07:24 PM
Quote from: merrycilantro on May 31, 2016, 09:04:14 AM
I think Ghostbuster (and others in this thread) are onto something, HOT or possibly Tolls, especially in the Milwaukee/Madison area. Maybe even GB, on 172. You want a shortcut across the south side? You're gonna have to pay...I'd even say maybe even toll US-45 from I-41 to US-10. even up to I-39. A LOT of people use that new highway to get up north, it cuts drive time down to as little as 4 hours (from my area at least).
The problem with your thinking on this is that it's crazy to add tolls to existing roads. They're already built, and therefore done. Any tolling needs to be done on new roads, or roads that have improvements paid for by bonds backed by tolls. That's the thing that's forgotten - tolls aren't used to pay for infrastructure across a geographical area (that's not fair to the toll payers) - they're used to finance the improvements to the road that you're paying the toll on.
We're not talking about toll
roads. We're talking about toll
lanes, which provide a relief lane for travellers willing to pay a premium to bypass traffic.
Quote from: jakeroot on May 31, 2016, 05:16:36 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on May 31, 2016, 04:07:24 PM
Quote from: merrycilantro on May 31, 2016, 09:04:14 AM
I think Ghostbuster (and others in this thread) are onto something, HOT or possibly Tolls, especially in the Milwaukee/Madison area. Maybe even GB, on 172. You want a shortcut across the south side? You're gonna have to pay...I'd even say maybe even toll US-45 from I-41 to US-10. even up to I-39. A LOT of people use that new highway to get up north, it cuts drive time down to as little as 4 hours (from my area at least).
The problem with your thinking on this is that it's crazy to add tolls to existing roads. They're already built, and therefore done. Any tolling needs to be done on new roads, or roads that have improvements paid for by bonds backed by tolls. That's the thing that's forgotten - tolls aren't used to pay for infrastructure across a geographical area (that's not fair to the toll payers) - they're used to finance the improvements to the road that you're paying the toll on.
We're not talking about toll roads. We're talking about toll lanes, which provide a relief lane for travellers willing to pay a premium to bypass traffic.
Still that require
building that extra lane first.
Quote from: kalvado on May 31, 2016, 05:57:39 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 31, 2016, 05:16:36 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on May 31, 2016, 04:07:24 PM
Quote from: merrycilantro on May 31, 2016, 09:04:14 AM
I think Ghostbuster (and others in this thread) are onto something, HOT or possibly Tolls, especially in the Milwaukee/Madison area. Maybe even GB, on 172. You want a shortcut across the south side? You're gonna have to pay...I'd even say maybe even toll US-45 from I-41 to US-10. even up to I-39. A LOT of people use that new highway to get up north, it cuts drive time down to as little as 4 hours (from my area at least).
The problem with your thinking on this is that it's crazy to add tolls to existing roads. They're already built, and therefore done. Any tolling needs to be done on new roads, or roads that have improvements paid for by bonds backed by tolls. That's the thing that's forgotten - tolls aren't used to pay for infrastructure across a geographical area (that's not fair to the toll payers) - they're used to finance the improvements to the road that you're paying the toll on.
We're not talking about toll roads. We're talking about toll lanes, which provide a relief lane for travellers willing to pay a premium to bypass traffic.
Still that require building that extra lane first.
If no such infrastructure precedes it, yes, you'll need to build it. Around here, more and more freeways have HOV lanes, so converting those to toll lanes are a little easier.
Quote from: jakeroot on May 31, 2016, 05:16:36 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on May 31, 2016, 04:07:24 PM
Quote from: merrycilantro on May 31, 2016, 09:04:14 AM
I think Ghostbuster (and others in this thread) are onto something, HOT or possibly Tolls, especially in the Milwaukee/Madison area. Maybe even GB, on 172. You want a shortcut across the south side? You're gonna have to pay...I'd even say maybe even toll US-45 from I-41 to US-10. even up to I-39. A LOT of people use that new highway to get up north, it cuts drive time down to as little as 4 hours (from my area at least).
The problem with your thinking on this is that it's crazy to add tolls to existing roads. They're already built, and therefore done. Any tolling needs to be done on new roads, or roads that have improvements paid for by bonds backed by tolls. That's the thing that's forgotten - tolls aren't used to pay for infrastructure across a geographical area (that's not fair to the toll payers) - they're used to finance the improvements to the road that you're paying the toll on.
We're not talking about toll roads. We're talking about toll lanes, which provide a relief lane for travellers willing to pay a premium to bypass traffic.
There is no need for toll
lanes on US 45 between I-41 and I-39, which is what I was referencing. In that case, that would be a toll
road in place of an existing road.
Quote from: GeekJedi on May 31, 2016, 07:23:32 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 31, 2016, 05:16:36 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on May 31, 2016, 04:07:24 PM
Quote from: merrycilantro on May 31, 2016, 09:04:14 AM
I think Ghostbuster (and others in this thread) are onto something, HOT or possibly Tolls, especially in the Milwaukee/Madison area. Maybe even GB, on 172. You want a shortcut across the south side? You're gonna have to pay...I'd even say maybe even toll US-45 from I-41 to US-10. even up to I-39. A LOT of people use that new highway to get up north, it cuts drive time down to as little as 4 hours (from my area at least).
The problem with your thinking on this is that it's crazy to add tolls to existing roads. They're already built, and therefore done. Any tolling needs to be done on new roads, or roads that have improvements paid for by bonds backed by tolls. That's the thing that's forgotten - tolls aren't used to pay for infrastructure across a geographical area (that's not fair to the toll payers) - they're used to finance the improvements to the road that you're paying the toll on.
We're not talking about toll roads. We're talking about toll lanes, which provide a relief lane for travellers willing to pay a premium to bypass traffic.
There is no need for toll lanes on US 45 between I-41 and I-39, which is what I was referencing. In that case, that would be a toll road in place of an existing road.
Ahh, my mistake. Misread
merrycilantro's post. That said, the idea that toll roads exist entirely to fund maintenance is a little, uhh, 20th century. Nothing wrong with implementing tolls to encourage the use of another route.
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on May 31, 2016, 04:11:59 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on May 31, 2016, 04:07:24 PM
Quote from: merrycilantro on May 31, 2016, 09:04:14 AM
I think Ghostbuster (and others in this thread) are onto something, HOT or possibly Tolls, especially in the Milwaukee/Madison area. Maybe even GB, on 172. You want a shortcut across the south side? You're gonna have to pay...I'd even say maybe even toll US-45 from I-41 to US-10. even up to I-39. A LOT of people use that new highway to get up north, it cuts drive time down to as little as 4 hours (from my area at least).
The problem with your thinking on this is that it's crazy to add tolls to existing roads. They're already built, and therefore done. Any tolling needs to be done on new roads, or roads that have improvements paid for by bonds backed by tolls. That's the thing that's forgotten - tolls aren't used to pay for infrastructure across a geographical area (that's not fair to the toll payers) - they're used to finance the improvements to the road that you're paying the toll on.
There are tolling the both the old and new parts of the EOE
Which the feds signed off on. It was as much as a fed issue as it was a state issue.
However, after driving on it, it's worth the $0.90 cent toll IMO. Traffic on the eastern end of EOE during rush hour was maddening.
I would like to see toll lanes on the Beltline, or on Interstates 39/90/94 in the future. Both are being studied for long-term improvements.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 01, 2016, 06:23:41 PM
I would like to see toll lanes on the Beltline, or on Interstates 39/90/94 in the future. Both are being studied for long-term improvements.
It's got three interstate highways on the same road. It's practically BEGGING to be tolled!
I wouldn't expect to see tolls on either I-43 or I-41 north of Milwaukee...because if they toll one of the roads, all the Green Bay-Milwaukee traffic is just going to shift over to the other. As discussed earlier, there will probably be an emphasis on tolling roads that carry out-of-staters, because Wisconsin will want to siphon in that out-of-state money. They'll especially want money from the FIBs who flood in like vermin to infest their state and trash everything each summer :D :D :biggrin: I'd guess I-90 and the section of I-94 south of Milwaukee would be tolled if anything. Maybe also the Beltline as suggested in the quote here
Good luck adding toll lanes to the beltline - not enough room with all the businesses lining it.
Quote from: SSOWorld on June 01, 2016, 11:34:03 PM
Good luck adding toll lanes to the beltline - not enough room with all the businesses lining it.
They can toll the full thing and / or the new part.
Agreed on the above statements. Siphon some funds on I-41 and I-43, especially with Packer/Bear games...I'd assume too yeah it would have to be both vs. one or the other. And all the traffic that goes Up North. In-staters and Out-of-Staters. The least we could do (since before all the upgrades went in it took 6-8 hours just to drive from Milwaukee to Minocqua) is pay a toll to upkeep it and/or further more much-needed projects. Wis-23 ain't gonna build itself....(we won't get into the NIMBYs that are blocking it at present)...but how many other projects got shelved due to lack of funding. Sure, WisDOT may have overshot expenses on other projects in the past...and we may just have to pay for it now one way or another, but I'd be one of the potential minorities that wouldn't mind paying a toll...I mean sure it'd suck. And yeah we'd be almost mirroring Illinois (I exaggerate here)...but in the long run...could be beneficial. Worth exploring if it is possible. (Plus, it's not like Illinois is the ONLY state that tolls...for all the Illinois haters of Wisconsin LOL)
I would elevate the toll lanes above the existing lanes along the beltline. I know full well that going outwards between Verona Road (Exit 258) and South Towne Road (Exit 264) is impossible without a lot of condemning.
I'm not a resident of Madison and am by no means an expert, but I can almost assume that will go about as good as the Milwaukee freeway expansion of the 1960's and 1970's protests.
And nobody will green-light tolling a currently free road simply to raise funds for roads across the region. Perhaps as part of adding HOV lanes or something like that, but you will never see it on a road like the beltline where there is no reasonable free alternative.