We've all heard in every state that said state is out of cash, and you're only getting 10 miles statewide of widened roads per year.. yaddee yadee yada. Would you support toll facilities basically to "get the damn road built"? I'm generally talking about rural routes, but I won't limit it to that.
I think I would for several reasons. 1) I can only take so much of 2-lane roads and stoplights. 2) A nice new fast route can create economic development, and help out severely repressed counties.
I recently got a Sunpass Mini (though I probably should have just gotten the regular transponder), and it sure was great to drive the toll roads. I don't mind paying a couple bucks if it saves me time, fuel efficiency, and a much more relaxing drive. I didn't have to deal with digging for quarters, and it was great.
-----
I don't mean exits every mile which could induce sprawl, but an effective system can do a lot of good, and relieve other clogged arteries.
I certainly would. I don't see what the big fuss is about toll roads.
Commuters just get irritated with them when they used to be able to get to the same place for free.
I hate toll roads. Unless they by-pass huge highways (Like the 401 has the toll road called the 407)
If the toll road would be convenient, then I would almost assuredly take it. That said, I am not going to take a job that requires some long commute, it's not worth it to me.
If I'm traveling, I'll take the toll road 100% of the time if it saves me hassle.
It depends. I avoid the toll portion of Georgia 400 by either taking I-285 North to Georgia 400 North, or I turn off on Lenox Road and SR 141 North to Peachtree-Dunwoody Road North (it parallels the freeway). It's only $0.50, but I'm cheap (lol).
Be well,
Bryant
I support toll roads ONLY if we get something out of it. When there's a parallel free road (i.e. US-13/DE-1), I obviously choose it, even if it might add 5 minutes or so onto my trip.
Now if they decided to build a new HRBT, sure I'd pay a toll to cross it! But if they stick a toll on an existing route, no way. I'm finding an alternate route.
^^ Yeah, I agree -- I'm taking the free route, especially if they parallel one another. (I know, I kind of repeated my previous post, but... moving right along - lol.)
GDOT at one time was talking about making SR 316 a toll facility, in order to build a freeway from the current terminus of the freeway (just west of Collins Hill Road) to Paul Broun Parkway (SR 10 Loop/SR 422). US-78/SR 10 is an alternate to SR 316, but it goes through several towns: Snellville, Between, Loganville, Monroe, then crosses SR 316. It (US-78) also has a lower speed limt: between 45 and 55 mph, east of the Stone Mountain Freeway segement (which is between 55 and 65). Many who live off of 316 were heavily opposed to this, however.
Be well,
Bryant
I used to avoid tolls like the plague. When I lived in Tampa/St. Petersburg however, the Veterans/Suncoast became very appealing to me because it took me north to the U.S. 19/98 corridor for my routine trips to northwest Florida. Taking that route as opposed to Interstates 10/75 saved me some 30-35 miles. The lack of traffic on the northern half of the Suncoast added to its appeal as well. So the shorter travel time/distance made up for the $4.75 in tolls.
When I got a Sunpass (and later EZPass), I got even less apprehensive about paying tolls. Moving to Orlando cinched the deal on me being ok with toll roads, because every limited access highway outside of Interstate 4 is tolled. Sure I got to know the local arterials, but most of the time if I wanted to get from downtown to home or if I wanted to expedite my trip, the toll roads were the way to go.
Also when gas rose to $4/gallon, tolls were cheap compared to the gas I figured I'd burn sitting on traffic-choked arterials. So to answer the question, if a new toll road means a new limited access route may be available to me, then I support them. What I don't support however, is the tolling of a preexisting free facility.
I don't have any problems with toll roads per se, but I want to get a bang for my buck. If I'm paying for the road out of my own cash, I expect it to be immaculately maintained, with frequent, well-maintained service plazas and signs that look like someone who actually gives a damn laid them out. Taking this in mind it should come to no surprise that I tend to avoid OTA turnpikes as much as possible. The Kansas Turnpike is about what I expect out of a toll road so even though it costs $5.25 for the portion I use it doesn't bother me as much as the (lesser) amount I had to pay on the Turner and Will Rogers Turnpikes.
Although I will say that the Creek Turnpike is worth however many dollars it costs just to get around the insanity that Tulsans call the Skelly Drive.
I also don't have anything against toll roads, as long as the tolls are reasonable. In Europe, they're very high, for instance about $ 0.07 per mile in France. Driving north-south through the country can cost you as much as 80 dollars for a 600 mile trip.
The problem with urban toll roads is that people are gonna look for alternatives which are not always there, creating problems on surface streets that are not designed to handle much traffic, or residential streets where high volumes are undesired.
However, when there are two adjacent freeways, and one of them collects toll, everybody would use the tollfree freeway.
I also think that those roads should become toll-free after their initial investment is payed by the tolls collected over the years, like what happened to Kentucky's parkways. Maintenance can be payed from the regular fuel taxes. Most NY connections were payed off years ago, and now you're just paying tolls on those bridges and tunnels to fund mass transit. (MTA collects the tolls at most toll structures except those to NJ.) They collect 1.3 billion dollars in tolls annually, and the maintenance really doesn't cost 1.3 billion per year)
New Jersey - Tollbooths, nothing but tollboths :rolleyes: :crazy:
Classic example of parallels: NJ Turnpike - with I-295 running alongside it. (and I-95 further west)
I have an I-Pass (IL's version of the EZ-Pass) which will cut tolls on those roads (and IN) in half and allow continuous travel in IL (they have high speed toll "booths" - except the Skyway)
Now if we can get IN and OH to do the same instead of the "closed toll ticket" system :banghead:
Quote from: Master son on January 27, 2009, 10:33:36 AM
New Jersey - Tollbooths, nothing but tollboths :rolleyes: :crazy:
Classic example of parallels: NJ Turnpike - with I-295 running alongside it. (and I-95 further west)
I have an I-Pass (IL's version of the EZ-Pass) which will cut tolls on those roads (and IN) in half and allow continuous travel in IL (they have high speed toll "booths" - except the Skyway)
Now if we can get IN and OH to do the same instead of the "closed toll ticket" system :banghead:
It was mentioned above about decent service plazas on toll roads, and getting bang for your buck. What is laughable is the $3 toll on the Chicago Skyway which precedes the worse placed service plaza I've ever seen. Within the median after the plaza is a McDonalds, and some of the parking spots literally are access from the left-hand lane that leaves the toll barrier itself.
I know that this is now a privately-run toll road, but based upon this facility, it would be hard to support new toll roads. Fortunately most are built with modern standards in mind.
Well, I hate to say it, but I would not expect any new service plazas on toll roads - especially those marked as Interstate routes. Federal law prohibits commercial development that is directly accessible from the Interstate. (meaning that today, a service plaza must be on an arterial that you have to get off the toll road to access.) The toll roads that have them now were grandfathered in.
Well FWIW, they are closing the Delaware Turnpike Service Plaza and tearing it down for a rebuilt under new private ownership. Perhaps existing ones are still fair game, but new ones are not?
Quote from: Master son on January 27, 2009, 01:02:08 PM
Well, I hate to say it, but I would not expect any new service plazas on toll roads - especially those marked as Interstate routes. Federal law prohibits commercial development that is directly accessible from the Interstate. (meaning that today, a service plaza must be on an arterial that you have to get off the toll road to access.) The toll roads that have them now were grandfathered in.
Yes, the hopefully dead I-80 tolling project in Pennsylvania wouldn't have had any service plazas. Anyway, the toll roads that have them seem to be closing them down anyway.
As for the original question, I might use the toll road if it is new construction, but not if it is converting a previously "free" road to tolls. I think that the I-80 project in PA soured me on this as it basically is a plot by Gov. Rendell to make the rural areas that I-80 passes through pay for Phiily's and Pittsburgh rapid transit.
I haven't been to Florida in awhile, but are the Florida Turnpike service plazas well-maintained?
Be well,
Bryant
I'm absolutely 100% against tolls. Maybe it's just that I've never lived in the vicinity of a toll road, but I believe roads are a basic service and should be fully funded by taxes. Or, alternatively, advertising, which I'm surprised hasn't been considered. Frito-Lay Expressway, anyone?
I'd *maybe* be okay with it if it were a completely privately-built road and not previously tolled, but tolling existing free roads is a huge, huge no-no.
Of course, our state government here in Oregon is considering an absolutely insane plan to install GPS tracking devices on cars as part of a "Mileage Tax" plan, which would effectively turn the whole state into a big giant toll road.
-Alex (Tarkus)
PNW is crazy. It's like socialism up there. The gubbament is always up your ass up there. Anywho, I actually wouldn't mind seeing roads with corporate sponsorships if it meant the maintenance is top notch, and/or the road gets built in the first place. That way a company can easily "build" a road, but it would be a gov't authority actually doing the hard work. The company would just be paying for it.
I agree with deathtopumpkins. I don't mind toll roads if the toll money is actually used for the ROAD, and it is maintained and upgraded as needed.
See, here in New York, we have a lovely little thing called the New York State Thruway. Remember how I said in another forum topic I have certain rants about my state? Well, you're about to get one. You've been warned. And my apologies in advance to anyone who loves the Thruway and New York and is offended in any way shape or form by said rant. :-P
First off, the tolls were supposed to be gone in 1996. Paid off, in full. What does NY do? They vote to keep them in. And then they raise them. The most recent raise in tolls was the first of this month. They are planning on raising them another three times in the next two years. Here is my problem with that. The structure of the road is the same as it was when it was put in. Yes, it has had tweaks in it's interstate standards and all, but save for New York City, small portions in Albany and near Rochester, and Buffalo, the road is two lanes each way.
This provides a special problem for the Albany to New York City crowd in the summer, for those traveling to and from the Lake George area and the Adirondacks. Traffic gets backed up on numerous occasions.
Here's my solution: Do what Ohio did. They expanded the highway to three lanes each way from Cleveland to Toledo. Make it concrete too. Even though the concrete suggestion isn't really 100% necessary, it looks nice. Just check out the portion near Rochester between exits 44 and 45, or Buffalo between exits 53 and 54. It's very nice, and I am actually quite shocked it happened.
My other problem: the mileposts. The mileposts start on I-87 at the New York City line, 8 miles north of it's southern terminus, and count all the way to PA on I-90. Yeah.. here's the problem with that. The mileposts on I-90 are backwards. They count up as you go west, rather than count down. This will pose a problem when New York decides to eventually adopt a mileage based exit numbering system, which I have heard rumors of coming to fruition in 2011(anyone with any concrete proof, feel free to share). It also causes problems for the parts of I-87 that are not part of the Thruway.
With the economy the way it is, we drivers cannot afford to pay the ever expanding toll prices. And while they say the tolls are needed, what for? They don't go to the road. They go to maintain the Erie Canal system, which the Thruway Authority also owns, and to pay the authority bigwigs.
The new Highway Speed EZPass installation at Woodbury is indeed a nice thing to see. But there needs to be more. AsI have said before, New York's infrastructure is so way behind everyone else, it would take years just to fix the stuff that is bad/wrong, before we could ever see new roads and highways built.
And, as said before, the politics always come first here. No regard to communites and human life on the road are given. This isn't just the Thruway's fault. The DOT can be to blame too. But that my friends is another rant. ;-)
And the Thruway also raised tolls in 2005. The Pennsylvania Turnpike raised its tolls in 2004 and have raised them again recently.
The tolling of Interstate 80 in PA failed because the federal law states that money collected on that freeway via tolls can only go toward projects pertaining to that road. Therefore PA was stymied in its effort because they wanted the money to go toward the funding of projects statewide. I'm glad this failed.
Just today there was an article in North Carolina about the tolling of Interstate 95 being the only way the state can pay the $5 billion they estimate they need to upgrade the road. I hope this doesn't come to fruition.
My stated philosophy on tolls:
If they are used as accompliments to free roads (for instance, beltways or connectors), are independently sustainable, and can be self-maintainable through its own revenue (or if the tolls are removed when all the original bonds are paid off), then I am for it.
For upgrading existing roads and for roads that are already Federally funded, or for critical Interstate corridors, though...HELL TO THE NO. Those should be built as they were intended...as FREEWAYS paid with traditional fuel taxes and "free" revenue streams.
To use some actual examples: The Sam Houston Tollway in Houston or the Central Texas Turnpike system in Austin I would have no problem with (or proposed toll loops around Lafayette and Baton Rouge). Tolling the conversion of US 90 between Lafayette and New Orleans into I-49 South, though, would be a BIG problem. If the project is that crucial to national economic health, it should be publically funded and "free".
Anthony
Quote from: aaroads on January 28, 2009, 02:36:49 AM
And the Thruway also raised tolls in 2005. The Pennsylvania Turnpike raised its tolls in 2004 and have raised them again recently.
The tolling of Interstate 80 in PA failed because the federal law states that money collected on that freeway via tolls can only go toward projects pertaining to that road. Therefore PA was stymied in its effort because they wanted the money to go toward the funding of projects statewide. I'm glad this failed.
Just today there was an article in North Carolina about the tolling of Interstate 95 being the only way the state can pay the $5 billion they estimate they need to upgrade the road. I hope this doesn't come to fruition.
I don't have the exact dates handy but my dad has told me that the tolls were originally supposed to come off of the initial Irwin to Carlisle section of the PA Turnpike in 1965 or 1970. This would have been 25 or 30 years after the construction of this section. Obviously, that never happened.
I also read that the Ohio Turnpike was to become "free" when the original bonds were retired. (I think that would have been 2003, but I'm not sure.)
It's hard for politicians of any party or philosophy to get rid of a tax or a revenue stream. Plus, detolling those highways would have meant disbanding their turnpike commissions and all the cushy patronage jobs!
I know a number of roads that were once tolled are no longer. The best example is the state of Kentucky, at one time, there were around a dozen tolled parkways in the state. Just a couple of years ago, the tolls went off the last three.
Toll roads should have a better pavement than this though...
Pics of the Indian Nation Turnpike near Hugo by OKroads.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3106%2F3168688094_4a4309446e_o.jpg&hash=7fca19fb713d0cd40a96271aa787ec1da4ff3e31)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm2.static.flickr.com%2F1192%2F3168691792_87fd336886.jpg%3Fv%3D0&hash=8c1cd3549f839043b70529a0396c1e7c18d5ad3c)
Speaking of removed tolls, here in the 90s when VA-44 received its designation as I-264, they removed a $.10 toll on it that had been there since the highway opened. It was a little odd going through this old little toll both on an onramp where you just tossed a dime in the thing. Very low-tech and weirdly cheap.
Quote from: mightyace on January 28, 2009, 11:12:30 PMI don't have the exact dates handy but my dad has told me that the tolls were originally supposed to come off of the initial Irwin to Carlisle section of the PA Turnpike in 1965 or 1970. This would have been 25 or 30 years after the construction of this section. Obviously, that never happened.
I've heard 1984 would have been the final year of tolls on the entire Turnpike.
As for tolling I-80, I figured it was going to fail. That idea had been discussed practically since the last mile of concrete was curing.
Quote from: Master son on January 27, 2009, 10:33:36 AM
Now if we can get IN and OH to do the same instead of the "closed toll ticket" system :banghead:
how about the installation of EZ-pass only interchanges like this proposal on the PA NE extension? http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/3800 (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/3800)
Yes, I support tolls.
I have no problem with new toll roads - if it helps me get somewhere faster without traffic lights... I just went on a trip to Orlando from GA, the service plazas are kinda old, but well maintained, the gas is high ($1.99/gallon when off the turnpike its $1.84) but I had no problem paying the tolls. What you have to look at is the cost per mile - I drove about 50 miles on the turnpike and I paid $2.50 for it - that comes about to 5 cents a mile. In Atlanta, you pay 50 cents for 4 miles - thats 12 cents a mile! There is a problem with converting old roads to new toll roads - my idea is if it is possible - move the old road to the side of the new road - let the ones that dont want to pay deal with the traffic lights and traffic of course... and the people that dont want to deal with all that can used the toll road. So in a way you keep the old existing road and create the new toll road as well... Probably not the best idea - but I would think it would help a congested area...
Quote from: djracer201 on February 03, 2009, 04:09:23 PM
I my idea is if it is possible - move the old road to the side of the new road - let the ones that dont want to pay deal with the traffic lights and traffic of course... and the people that dont want to deal with all that can used the toll road. So in a way you keep the old existing road and create the new toll road as well... Probably not the best idea - but I would think it would help a congested area...
I've skimmed some information from Texas and it looks like that is the approach that they are taking for new toll roads in Austin and Dallas/Ft. Worth. The toll road follows an existing highway/freeway and the free lanes are off to the side and the toll road is in the middle.
Quote from: mightyace on February 03, 2009, 05:23:20 PM
Quote from: djracer201 on February 03, 2009, 04:09:23 PM
I my idea is if it is possible - move the old road to the side of the new road - let the ones that dont want to pay deal with the traffic lights and traffic of course... and the people that dont want to deal with all that can used the toll road. So in a way you keep the old existing road and create the new toll road as well... Probably not the best idea - but I would think it would help a congested area...
I've skimmed some information from Texas and it looks like that is the approach that they are taking for new toll roads in Austin and Dallas/Ft. Worth. The toll road follows an existing highway/freeway and the free lanes are off to the side and the toll road is in the middle.
That's basically the approach Texas did with the Sam Houston Tollway/Beltway 8; the beltway consists of the access roads, while the mainline roads are tolled. (So when are they going to finish the northeast section and add connectors to the Eastex Freeway interchange??)
But, it's not always the same approach....the Fort Bend Tollway, the Westpark Tollway, and the Grand Parkway are all proposed to not have any access roads at all; the entire mainline will be tolled.
The approach appears to be what Texas is planning for the segments of the proposed I-69 extension using existing highways (US 59, US 77, etc.)
Anthony
I would support new toll roads as long as they can support themselves and all toll revenue is used to maintain the road itself.
The I-185 toll road south of Greenville, SC was pushed by politicians as a way to spur development south of the city. As a result, its routing was flawed and the road has never been able to service its debt. The "free" alternative freeway (I-385) is just a few miles longer. It would probably have been more successful had it been built connecting the I-385/I-26 split to I-85 near Anderson.
On the other hand, the US 278 toll road on Hilton Head has been very successful and is well worth the money, especially during the summer months.
I live in Texas, so my answer is definitely NO! :biggrin:
If Texas had it's way, they'd toll every limited access roadway in the state. San Antonio doesn't have one yet. Lucky them.
I willingly gave $6 to help maintain the Golden Gate Bridge yesterday, so if it were a freeway that I liked then I guess I would.
Quote from: voyager on February 09, 2009, 12:55:49 AM
I willingly gave $6 to help maintain the Golden Gate Bridge yesterday, so if it were a freeway that I liked then I guess I would.
$6??funny how things change in 11 years
NOTE: I was in San Fran in 1997
Yes. The toll roads I've been on in Florida and Texas are beautifully maintained. Do more.
Well, living in Connecticut (the Free Bypass of the Northeast), I support tolls wholeheartedly. I can't stand that people from the Mid-Atlantic use I-95 or occasionally I-84 or even the Merritt to get between Boston (and Points North) to New York (and Points South and West). Maybe since I live in Hartford, I support them going at the Borders. I suppose about $5 would work. Plus, maybe they could get rid of the gas tax.
Well aren't I-95 and it's parallels the most direct routes between NYC and Boston? It would make no sense for someone to take the thruway up to the Mass Pike since it would take more time.
Quote from: Master son on May 03, 2010, 12:14:00 PM
Well aren't I-95 and it's parallels the most direct routes between NYC and Boston? It would make no sense for someone to take the thruway up to the Mass Pike since it would take more time.
It looks slightly shorter to take 684/84 to the Mass Pike (90) to get to Boston (as opposed to 95 all the way), due to the diagonal trajectory of 84 northeast of Hartford...shortest route though is 95-91-84-90.
As long as the tolls aren't exorbitant, I have no problem with toll roads. I especially like them if they are done such as Kentucky did using the tolls to pay off the construction bonds and then removing the tolls, but I don't have any problem with keeping tolls around as a user fee to help with the maintenance of the road.
Quote from: Tarkus on January 27, 2009, 10:49:33 PM
I'm absolutely 100% against tolls. Maybe it's just that I've never lived in the vicinity of a toll road, but I believe roads are a basic service and should be fully funded by taxes. Or, alternatively, advertising, which I'm surprised hasn't been considered. Frito-Lay Expressway, anyone?
I'd *maybe* be okay with it if it were a completely privately-built road and not previously tolled, but tolling existing free roads is a huge, huge no-no.
Of course, our state government here in Oregon is considering an absolutely insane plan to install GPS tracking devices on cars as part of a "Mileage Tax" plan, which would effectively turn the whole state into a big giant toll road.
-Alex (Tarkus)
Back in the day, the Interstate Bridge used to be tolled. The Bridge of the Gods and the Hood River Bridge are tolled.
There's talk of retolling the Interstate Bridge when it gets rebuilt as part of the CRC. Um.
Quote from: huskeroadgeek on May 03, 2010, 01:28:15 PM
As long as the tolls aren't exorbitant, I have no problem with toll roads. I especially like them if they are done such as Kentucky did using the tolls to pay off the construction bonds and then removing the tolls, but I don't have any problem with keeping tolls around as a user fee to help with the maintenance of the road.
That's how the Thruway was built. Bonds are paid off, but tolls remain.
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 27, 2009, 03:03:04 AM
I don't have any problems with toll roads per se, but I want to get a bang for my buck. If I'm paying for the road out of my own cash, I expect it to be immaculately maintained, with frequent, well-maintained service plazas and signs that look like someone who actually gives a damn laid them out. Taking this in mind it should come to no surprise that I tend to avoid OTA turnpikes as much as possible. The Kansas Turnpike is about what I expect out of a toll road so even though it costs $5.25 for the portion I use it doesn't bother me as much as the (lesser) amount I had to pay on the Turner and Will Rogers Turnpikes.
The rural Oklahoma turnpikes have a 75 MPH speed limit, which makes the toll much easier to swallow.
Quote
Although I will say that the Creek Turnpike is worth however many dollars it costs just to get around the insanity that Tulsans call the Skelly Drive.
Have you been on it in the last month or so? They have the WB lanes detoured onto the frontage road at Darlington. There's normally a 3 way stop and there are red flashing lights (they have been temporarily disabled) which is a little unnerving. Traffic usually slows down to 20-30 which is annoying because I can easily drive it at 55.
Quote from: Master son on January 27, 2009, 01:02:08 PM
Well, I hate to say it, but I would not expect any new service plazas on toll roads - especially those marked as Interstate routes. Federal law prohibits commercial development that is directly accessible from the Interstate. (meaning that today, a service plaza must be on an arterial that you have to get off the toll road to access.) The toll roads that have them now were grandfathered in.
How long has this rule been in effect? The Cherokee Turnpike was built in 1991 and has a Burger King and convenience store/gas station in the median. It's not an interstate, but it is US 412 which may be a future interstate someday.
Quote from: lamsalfl on January 27, 2009, 10:54:39 PM
Anywho, I actually wouldn't mind seeing roads with corporate sponsorships if it meant the maintenance is top notch, and/or the road gets built in the first place. That way a company can easily "build" a road, but it would be a gov't authority actually doing the hard work. The company would just be paying for it.
I'm absolutely 100% against it. Besides, what happens when Corporation A is bought out and the Corporation A Turnpike becomes the Corporation B Turnpike until Corporation B is bought by Corporation C? Or if Corporation D goes bankrupt? Or if Corporation E is renamed to Corporation F? The roads would be renamed each time the company name changed. Which would result in mass confusion. I don't want to see our highways renamed willy nilly like that.
everyone would just use the number designation for the highway.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 04, 2010, 10:07:22 PM
everyone would just use the number designation for the highway.
Or, in the case of it being a current road that gets renamed for a sponsor, whatever they called it before (like the Ohio Turnpike, for example).
But really, if a corporation wants to pay for the rights to name something and that gives funding the gov'net doesn't have to get anywhere else, I'm all for it.
Going back to the original question, yes, I would strongly support building new tollways. It seems to be the best way to get new freeways built, IMHO. The DOT sure as heck can't get funding for them, and when they do, they take forever to do so.
With the toll roads, more study has to be done to see how useful the road will be. Even if it's useful, but not "REALLY USEFUL," people aren't going to pay $3 to save 10 minutes (generally, I know I would on some days), there may not be the traffic to support it.
I live in Texas and would definitely NOT support new toll roads. I'm sorry, but a frontage road is not a free alternative. What makes me mad about Texas is that the toll money collected from toll roads goes to fund more than just road construction. And they gripe and complain there's no money to build or even widen freeways without adding some sort of toll lanes. Well, stop funding other areas with toll money and maybe you'd have more money to build/expand those roads.
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 27, 2009, 03:03:04 AM
I don't have any problems with toll roads per se, but I want to get a bang for my buck. If I'm paying for the road out of my own cash, I expect it to be immaculately maintained, with frequent, well-maintained service plazas and signs that look like someone who actually gives a damn laid them out. Taking this in mind it should come to no surprise that I tend to avoid OTA turnpikes as much as possible. The Kansas Turnpike is about what I expect out of a toll road so even though it costs $5.25 for the portion I use it doesn't bother me as much as the (lesser) amount I had to pay on the Turner and Will Rogers Turnpikes.
I don't mind paying for the Muskogee Turnpike when going to Arkansas. Avoiding driving through Muskogee is worth the $3 alone. And I enjoy the 75 MPH speed limit. It's relaxing driving legally at that speed.
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 27, 2009, 03:03:04 AM
Although I will say that the Creek Turnpike is worth however many dollars it costs just to get around the insanity that Tulsans call the Skelly Drive.
With Skelly Drive under construction, it's definitely worth the money to use the Creek Turnpike. If you don't want to pay the toll, I-244 is a good alternative to I-44. Right now, part of I-244 is closed downtown but traffic is detoured onto I-444. And that way, you get to see the skyline up close.
I don't think the Kansas Turnpike currently has many signs which "look like someone who actually gives a damn laid them out"--though (now don't kill me, please) that is starting to change with the new Clearview signs. As far as I am concerned, KTA completely wrecked Turnpike signing in the last major sign rehabilitation cycle--badly detailed exit tabs, too-wide kerning on sign legend, legend too close to borders, etc. The older signs were done substantially to older KDOT specifications and looked much better.
It would be a real pain to try to get from Wichita to Topeka without the Turnpike though. I-135 to US 50 is an acceptable substitute for a Wichita-to-Kansas City itinerary, but there was no plausible Wichita-to-Topeka "beeline" before the Turnpike.
There are a few things I do NOT support with a toll road:
1. Using a toll road to support the state highway budget, rather than to pay off the road. The tolls should end when the project is paid off.
2. Putting tolls on roads where there is no alternate route (such as toll bridges where crossings are few and far between).
3. Charging to enter the city center or some other high traffic area (e.g. London UK).
4. Ramps you can't use if you don't have that stupid automatic toll collection device (which should be banned for invasion of privacy).
Quote from: Troubleshooter on August 27, 2010, 11:48:17 AM
There are a few things I do NOT support with a toll road:
1. Using a toll road to support the state highway budget, rather than to pay off the road. The tolls should end when the project is paid off.
2. Putting tolls on roads where there is no alternate route (such as toll bridges where crossings are few and far between).
3. Charging to enter the city center or some other high traffic area (e.g. London UK).
4. Ramps you can't use if you don't have that stupid automatic toll collection device (which should be banned for invasion of privacy).
Any proof of number 4 being true? :eyebrow:
Quote from: Master son on August 27, 2010, 12:26:21 PM
Quote from: Troubleshooter on August 27, 2010, 11:48:17 AM
There are a few things I do NOT support with a toll road:
1. Using a toll road to support the state highway budget, rather than to pay off the road. The tolls should end when the project is paid off.
2. Putting tolls on roads where there is no alternate route (such as toll bridges where crossings are few and far between).
3. Charging to enter the city center or some other high traffic area (e.g. London UK).
4. Ramps you can't use if you don't have that stupid automatic toll collection device (which should be banned for invasion of privacy).
Any proof of number 4 being true? :eyebrow:
Near here, the new Eola Rd interchange on I-88.
^^^
I would say more potential invasion of privacy. I doubt that the tolling authorities do anything with the data more than to bill you. And, even on "toll by plate" images, it's been pretty much established that image taking in an open, public area is legal. (may not be prudent and some cops especially Amtrak and New Jersey Transit tend to forget that)
Now, getting to the potential part. At the moment, the greatest danger would be data taken from a security breach. Though, it is probably only a matter of time before law enforcement agencies start requesting (demanding?) toll information to track suspects.
Quote from: Master son on August 27, 2010, 12:26:21 PM
Quote from: Troubleshooter on August 27, 2010, 11:48:17 AM
There are a few things I do NOT support with a toll road:
1. Using a toll road to support the state highway budget, rather than to pay off the road. The tolls should end when the project is paid off.
2. Putting tolls on roads where there is no alternate route (such as toll bridges where crossings are few and far between).
3. Charging to enter the city center or some other high traffic area (e.g. London UK).
4. Ramps you can't use if you don't have that stupid automatic toll collection device (which should be banned for invasion of privacy).
Any proof of number 4 being true? :eyebrow:
Exit 340/Virginia Drive on I-276 (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Fort+Washington,+PA&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Fort+Washington,+Montgomery,+Pennsylvania&ll=40.140664,-75.165281&spn=0.007628,0.01929&z=16&layer=c&cbll=40.140697,-75.165185&panoid=sbrH0EKtsr9lGmk9O99c5g&cbp=12,257.79,,0,-20.53)
Although I do support tolling for CT, I think that in general tolling should be operated by the state or by a PPP. If a PPP operates the tolling they should maintain the road and build the road well and keep it clear of traffic, if we spend money to use a road the least they can do is keep it clean, maintained and more importantly clear. If a state operates it then I suppose I would want the same thing. It kills me that even though the country keeps growing in terms of people that states are cutting money to infrastructure.
Let's see...
Toll roads can provide congestion relief for congested areas...
...I don't live in a congested area...
...toll roads are supported by tolls from people driving it, not tax dollars...
...it helps people and I don't have to pay for it? Sign me up! :D
^^^
:hmmm: I hadn't thought of it that way. And, since the Tennessee Turnpike Authority or whatever it's called is stillborn, then I say go for it!
:sombrero:
The problem is that turnabout is fair play. What if your community would benefit greatly from a new road, e.g. to relieve traffic congestion, but the rest of the state says, "We will not agree to an increase in the fuel tax to pay for it. However, you can build it as a toll road even though you would have to pay a grossly inflated per-mile charge to use it and its congestion reduction benefits would be greatly reduced as a result"?
Also, a reliance on toll financing for new capital improvements creates a bias for facilities that can be operated as closed corridors even when smaller-scale improvements would deliver a significantly higher social rate of return. Crude example: $300 million for a toll road to bypass a well-known bottleneck when removal of the bottleneck itself would cost, say, $50 million, and not expose any new bottlenecks. More realistic example: toll road agency builds new road to a white-flight suburb just because it can--it already has the administrative infrastructure for new-location road construction and the requisite access to the capital markets--while the stack interchange downtown is neglected by the underfunded state DOT. (I certainly understand and sympathize with others' objections that cross-subsidization destroys the "pay only for what you use" transparency that is traditionally associated with toll roads, but the fact remains that without provision for cross-subsidization and for toll road agency purchase of exploitable corridors from the state DOT, both of which have been used extensively in e.g. north-central Texas, toll road provision would probably be even more inegalitarian than it now is.)
It is very hard to design systems which can support tolling (or collection of a user charge in some sort of relation to the imputed cost of using the facility, taking into account externalities like congestion and pollution) in an "open" roadway environment without creating the infrastructure for gross invasion of privacy.
BTW, I thought electronic tolling data was already being used for law enforcement purposes. Paraphrase from a Harlan Coben thriller (admittedly not a factual reference): "We checked EZ-Pass records and she crossed the GWB going west at 2 AM . . ."
Quote1. Using a toll road to support the state highway budget, rather than to pay off the road. The tolls should end when the project is paid off.
I see no problem with keeping tolls on when a project is paid off if those tolls are used to maintain/improve the facility. That also saves the state DOT from having to divert funding for maintenance of the facility when it's suddenly dumped into their lap.
Quote4. Ramps you can't use if you don't have that stupid automatic toll collection device (which should be banned for invasion of privacy).
Invasion of privacy in what sense? Plus, last I checked, there's nothing requiring you to get one...THAT would be the invasion, not the manner of the device itself.
Well, if you want to use the ramp. I'm against ezpass-only exits, but they're very popular now.
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 28, 2010, 03:31:17 AM
"We checked EZ-Pass records and she crossed the GWB going west at 2 AM . . ."
Well, someone messed that up. The GWB, like all Hudson River crossings, is tolled
eastbound.
But yes, EZPass records have been used to chase runaway criminals. And they're hardly unique in terms of high tech tracking. Cell phones are used for this purpose all the time.
Quote from: deanej on August 28, 2010, 10:45:41 AM
I'm against ezpass-only exits, but they're very popular now.
They're becoming a thing because they require a lot less space than a full toll interchange, are cheaper to build, and since they are unmanned are cheaper to operate.
Problem is, they exclude people who aren't local. EZPass has a large range, but much of the country is beyond its domain. Someone from Nebraska wouldn't reasonably expected to have an EZPass for when they visit their family that lives near Virginia Drive in Pennsylvania.
The solution would be to install cameras and go to cashless tolling, but this would require that the entire turnpike to go over to such a system. And I do believe the toll collectors are unionized, so... good luck.
I wish that we could get an extension of the Kansas Turnpike to Western Kansas along the US 54 corridor. There are a lot of people that use that road on a daily basis, especially trucks. They are currently building the expressway portion from Kingman to Greensburg, but a tollway could help pay for future maintenance and construction.
Quote from: PAHighways on August 27, 2010, 07:30:03 PM
Quote from: Master son on August 27, 2010, 12:26:21 PM
Quote from: Troubleshooter on August 27, 2010, 11:48:17 AM
There are a few things I do NOT support with a toll road:
1. Using a toll road to support the state highway budget, rather than to pay off the road. The tolls should end when the project is paid off.
2. Putting tolls on roads where there is no alternate route (such as toll bridges where crossings are few and far between).
3. Charging to enter the city center or some other high traffic area (e.g. London UK).
4. Ramps you can't use if you don't have that stupid automatic toll collection device (which should be banned for invasion of privacy).
Any proof of number 4 being true? :eyebrow:
Exit 340/Virginia Drive on I-276 (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Fort+Washington,+PA&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Fort+Washington,+Montgomery,+Pennsylvania&ll=40.140664,-75.165281&spn=0.007628,0.01929&z=16&layer=c&cbll=40.140697,-75.165185&panoid=sbrH0EKtsr9lGmk9O99c5g&cbp=12,257.79,,0,-20.53)
Brandon and PAHighways - I meant the Invasion of Privacy thing - I know the exits exist - I passed by one 3 weeks ago. (coincidently the one PAHighways mentioned.)
^^^
Yes, exactly.
Now, with the exception of that EZPass only exit, for now, you can still travel the turnpike anonymously by paying cash.
Now, in Texas and Florida plus Toronto, have all-electronic toll roads with either a transponder (no cash) or a picture of your plate taken and your identity tracked.
For the most part, you can pay for goods and services anonymously (cash) or tracked (check, credit card, debit card). The number of situations that are card-only are few. Auto rental is card only, but the renters have the right and need to know who you are.
Now, I often pay by card, but it's my choice not someone else's.
The only solution with the toll roads is shunpiking. And, as we have discussed before, that has variable levels of success depending on what you're bypassing.
Now, it wouldn't bother me as much if a border crossing bridge was electronic only as the US and Canadian/Mexican authorities already know that I'm crossing.
Georgia used to have 2 toll roads.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_State_Route_400
First was the Torras Causeway between Brunswick and St. Simons Island. Bonds were paid off and tolls actually removed.
Second is a section of the southern segment of GA 400 between I-85 and I-285. Bonds have been paid off, but, under terms of fine print, tolls cannot be removed before 2011. Debate is slowly growing as to whether tolls should be eliminated, especially with a $2 billion rebuild of the GA 400/I-285 intersection looming (GDOT has also seriously studied feasibility of expanding GA 400/I-85 intersection to provide ramps for SB 400 to NB 85 and SB 85 to NB 400). Also, the cost of annual yearly maintenance is considerable. I'm sure the tolls will remain for a long time before anything is decided.
My position is as follows (I'm assuming technology of drive-thru cards could accomodate this):
1. The ideal solution is to have the tolls removed. Torras Causeway.
2. Limit the continuation of tolls to 2 categories: (1) required annual maintenance ON THE TOLLED ROAD ITSELF, and (2) needed infrastructure improvements ON THE TOLLED ROAD ITSELF. (We all know what happens when the pot of money becomes too pork-attractive). For GA 400, I would be in favor of the continuation of tolls for these limited purposes.
3. At some point, a toll road will come down to the annual maintenance issue. I would be in favor a computer adjustment to the toll rate to either "end" the toll at a given point in the year when the anticipated annual budget is met, or to have a toll rate adjusted on an annual basis based on anticipated maintenance budget.
EDIT - FOLLOWUP QUESTION
With Torras Causeway in mind, and at the risk of straying too far from original topic,
where else in country have tolls successfully been discontinued?
QuoteWith Torras Causeway in mind, and at the risk of straying too far from original topic,
where else in country have tolls successfully been discontinued?
Virginia Beach, VA. The current I-264 from I-64 to the Oceanfront used to be VA 44, a toll road until the late 1990s.
The Kentucky Parkways.
I-190 in the Niagra Falls, NY area.
The Merritt Pkwy and Connecticut Turnpike (I-95).
The Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike (I-95), Virginia.
Are current annual maintenance issues now part of respective state general budgets?
IIRC The Kentucky Parkways have always been maintained by tax dollars. The toll money was solely for building the road.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on August 28, 2010, 11:39:23 PM
I-190 in the Niagra Falls, NY area.
Unless there was once a toll booth north of the Grand Island Bridges, this is false. The toll barriers in Buffalo have been removed, but tolls remain on the Grand Island Bridges.
Quote from: deanej on August 29, 2010, 12:34:29 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on August 28, 2010, 11:39:23 PM
I-190 in the Niagra Falls, NY area.
Unless there was once a toll booth north of the Grand Island Bridges, this is false. The toll barriers in Buffalo have been removed, but tolls remain on the Grand Island Bridges.
Exactly! Did I misinterpret that?
Quote from: mightyace on August 27, 2010, 01:31:43 PM
^^^
At the moment, the greatest danger would be data taken from a security breach. Though, it is probably only a matter of time before law enforcement agencies start requesting (demanding?) toll information to track suspects.
I'd be more worried about Big Brother tracking On-Star vehicles in the now Government-owned GM vehicle family. All the necessary resources seem to be in place in order to follow those driving On-Star/GM cars. And if I recall correctly, even if you don't subscribe to the normal On-Star benefits, it is still operating 24/7 in case the vehicle crashes or is car-jacked -- they can still locate the vehicle in real time.
For the most part, tollways only encompass a fraction of the nation's road miles, and I do not believe transponders can be tracked when away from tolling facilities.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on August 29, 2010, 03:01:41 PM
Exactly! Did I misinterpret that?
Well, Niagara Falls kinda implies the Grand Island bridges rather than the booths that were near downtown Buffalo.
Quote from: mightyace on August 27, 2010, 01:31:43 PM
^^^
I would say more potential invasion of privacy. I doubt that the tolling authorities do anything with the data more than to bill you. And, even on "toll by plate" images, it's been pretty much established that image taking in an open, public area is legal. (may not be prudent and some cops especially Amtrak and New Jersey Transit tend to forget that)
Now, getting to the potential part. At the moment, the greatest danger would be data taken from a security breach. Though, it is probably only a matter of time before law enforcement agencies start requesting (demanding?) toll information to track suspects.
What makes people think that they have a right to privacy when they drive on a public road?
^^^
Point taken. But, there is no completely privately owned way to travel any distance.
However, if you don't have a transponder on a toll road and pay cash or not take the toll road. You have a modicum of privacy.
Of course, anyone including cops that watches you can know to some degree who you are, but they have to be there.
Anything that records data reduces privacy.
The main issue to me, is not that the data is recorded, but that the more data is recorded the more data there is for someone to abuse.
For all we know someone could be abusing the data we type into this or any other website - is that different than a toll transponder? I think not.
The difference is that a website like this is a want while some of your transportation is a need.
Also, the chance of someone trying to glean data from this site is rather low.
Another difference is that whatever danger there is at this website has always been there. However, tracking movement automatically, even partially, is a new phenomenon.
So, part of it is psychological. For example, baggage fees at most major airlines. When you think about it, it is logical to charge for bags as those who check bags are carrying more weight on the plane than those who don't. But, until recently, this was not done.
Quote from: mightyace on August 30, 2010, 02:43:47 PMSo, part of it is psychological. For example, baggage fees at most major airlines. When you think about it, it is logical to charge for bags as those who check bags are carrying more weight on the plane than those who don't. But, until recently, this was not done.
There are actually solid justifications for the old pricing system. It was more transparent--the ticket was all-inclusive, so you knew what you had to pay as you booked it, and did not have to worry about the cost net of luggage fees (typically imposed at a later stage of the booking process) or any additional fees that might be payable at check-in. It also encouraged people to check in small suitcases which nowadays hog all the room in overhead bins, which were never designed to function as luggage cages. There was also more certainty about cabin baggage allowances because airlines did not feel pressed to defend a right to charge per case: you could be sure that you could always carry one bag and "one personal item" (even another bag, e.g. a laptop case) on the aircraft. That certainty has been lost with EasyJet and possibly some other budget airlines since they have done away with the "personal item" allowance without mentioning it on their websites: you do not find this out until you show up at the airport. In EasyJet's case this allows the ticket agent at check-in to order you to cram your laptop bag inside your backpack, just so they can sadistically hit you with a £15 charge for airport bag check-in when you fail (the bag charge at booking is much lower--£7.50, IIRC).
The real purpose of bag fees is not to charge more to the passengers that cost the airlines more to carry, since a single fat passenger can easily cost the airline more in jet fuel than a thin passenger paying the same price for the ticket plus a bag fee to check in a rucksack (my weight plus that of my rucksack--about 180 pounds combined--is about the same, or slightly less, than the average weight for adult American men of my height). Bag fees are also charged on the basis of unit (essentially a maximum volume and mass per unit) rather than actual mass, even though mass is the key factor in jet fuel consumption. Rather, since bag fees do not vary in time, unlike the prices of the tickets themselves, the introduction of them is a "price rise that sticks" (guaranteed minimum revenue) and they also allow the airline to run promotions with seductively low headline prices.
Bag fees have the marked disadvantage of lost price transparency and this is one reason
à la carte ticketing has not driven the concept of all-inclusive ticketing out of the marketplace despite having had well over a decade to do so.
price transparency? airlines? :pan:
if someone can explain to me why a ticket from Point A to Point B costs what it does, I would love to know. For example, why does it cost me $280 to fly from San Diego to Atlanta to Mobile, and back - and $356 to fly to Atlanta only and return, on the exact same flights?
Quote from: Master son on August 30, 2010, 02:10:03 PM
For all we know someone could be abusing the data we type into this or any other website - is that different than a toll transponder? I think not.
In fact, this is the case. Right now I am riding the data like a mechanical bull. Later I intend to tell it how worthless it is and how I wish it was never born, and possibly slap it in the face a few dozen times.
meh, data is worthless and slapping it around is no big deal. I mean, approximately half of it is just a bunch of zeroes.
An element of the Scope of Work contained in the AHTD's RFP for an "I-69 Innovative Financing" study:
Analyze the potential funding and innovative financing options for the seven I-69 states from
Indiana to Texas, both individually and collectively. The analysis will include an evaluation
of the viability of tolling in each state. This evaluation will include estimates of toll revenue
along with the estimated costs of constructing, operating and maintaining electronic toll
collection facilities. This evaluation of potential toll revenue should assume that the entire
I-69 corridor is operating, not just the section(s) that is/are tolled. If there is a specific reason
to study toll revenue for an individual segment of the corridor, then the report on that portion
of the study should specifically articulate which portions are operating. Future toll revenues
should take into account the expected increase in demand for freight transportation.
Projected demand, particularly freight demand, should be vetted by the I-69 Steering
Committee and the USDOT prior to being applied.
http://www.arkansashighways.com/news/2010/RFP%20Full%20012100%20I69%20Innovative%20Financing%20final.pdf
Is a national toll road looming?
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 30, 2010, 04:05:28 PMIn EasyJet's case this allows the ticket agent at check-in to order you to cram your laptop bag inside your backpack, just so they can sadistically hit you with a £15 charge for airport bag check-in when you fail (the bag charge at booking is much lower--£7.50, IIRC).
Typical Sleazy Jet.
The only times I've flown low cost, I've only had one bag (carry on), so I haven't been hit with it. Then again, I don't think I'll be doing any big group of lads flying down to the med, carry on bags only, camping outside trips anymore. Then again, I'd be able to take out my sleeping bag, and put clothes in that, buying toiletries past security. I can still use my 18L rucksack.
Quote from: deanej on August 30, 2010, 09:14:10 AM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on August 29, 2010, 03:01:41 PM
Exactly! Did I misinterpret that?
Well, Niagara Falls kinda implies the Grand Island bridges rather than the booths that were near downtown Buffalo.
I couldn't remember which specific city they were in. Doesn't really matter though, it's the same general area and should have been fairly evident.