Washington Post: Chao says U.S. drivers may face more tolls to raise infrastructure funds (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/chao-says-us-drivers-may-face-more-tolls-to-raise-infrastructure-funds/2017/03/04/85cad5ec-005e-11e7-99b4-9e613afeb09f_story.html)
L.A. Times (op-ed): There's only one way to fix L.A.'s traffic, and it isn't Elon Musk's tunnels. We need tolls – lots of them (http://www.latimes.com/opinion/livable-city/la-ol-traffic-toll-lane-freeway-20170303-story.html)
I, for one, don't mind paying a bit more for better roads. With bunch of "IFs".
-if money actually spent on roads
-if construction funded by tolls occurs where it is needed, not where non-elected officials think it would work best for "revitalizing" of stinky rotten downtown
-if (my pet one) no roundabouts get funded by tolls.
As for congestion pricing... It has to couple with some legal way of forcing employers into some flexibility whenever it is possible at all. some poor souls just have no choice other than coming in at peak of rush hour or waiting for the shift in the lobby due to being too early.
(edit): Oh, and tolls have to be reasonable, not "you will pay anyway!". For cars, 3-5 cents a mile seem like a good number cost-wise. That is 3-6x current federal gas tax. That may vary depending on actual toll coverage, but I suspect things wouldn't work if commuter has to pay more than $200-300 a year
Quote from: kalvado on March 06, 2017, 08:44:00 AM
I, for one, don't mind paying a bit more for better roads. With bunch of "IFs".
-if money actually spent on roads
-if construction funded by tolls occurs where it is needed, not where non-elected officials think it would work best for "revitalizing" of stinky rotten downtown
-if (my pet one) no roundabouts get funded by tolls.
As for congestion pricing... It has to couple with some legal way of forcing employers into some flexibility whenever it is possible at all. some poor souls just have no choice other than coming in at peak of rush hour or waiting for the shift in the lobby due to being too early.
(edit): Oh, and tolls have to be reasonable, not "you will pay anyway!". For cars, 3-5 cents a mile seem like a good number cost-wise. That is 3-6x current federal gas tax. That may vary depending on actual toll coverage, but I suspect things wouldn't work if commuter has to pay more than $200-300 a year
Those numbers are way too low. $300 a year, divided by a regular 260 days or so one normally works in a year, means tolls would only be $1 a day. And since tolling is generally done 2 ways, that's 50 cents per trip. That would be insanely low for modern day tolling.
Ugh. Every time I hear "public private partnership" it makes me reach for my revolver. See Indiana Toll Road... I guess it is one of those dumb terms that are going to cycle every few years or so. Might as well call it what it is: Give contractors more money, have them increase the burden on the public for their own profit and then laugh all the way to the bank.
Tolls are regressive taxes. That is all there is to it.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 06, 2017, 08:57:52 AM
Quote from: kalvado on March 06, 2017, 08:44:00 AM
I, for one, don't mind paying a bit more for better roads. With bunch of "IFs".
-if money actually spent on roads
-if construction funded by tolls occurs where it is needed, not where non-elected officials think it would work best for "revitalizing" of stinky rotten downtown
-if (my pet one) no roundabouts get funded by tolls.
As for congestion pricing... It has to couple with some legal way of forcing employers into some flexibility whenever it is possible at all. some poor souls just have no choice other than coming in at peak of rush hour or waiting for the shift in the lobby due to being too early.
(edit): Oh, and tolls have to be reasonable, not "you will pay anyway!". For cars, 3-5 cents a mile seem like a good number cost-wise. That is 3-6x current federal gas tax. That may vary depending on actual toll coverage, but I suspect things wouldn't work if commuter has to pay more than $200-300 a year
Those numbers are way too low. $300 a year, divided by a regular 260 days or so one normally works in a year, means tolls would only be $1 a day. And since tolling is generally done 2 ways, that's 50 cents per trip. That would be insanely low for modern day tolling.
And that is exactly what I am talking about. You didn't try to include travel distances, traffic counts - just "$1 is not enough!"
If there is a significant administrative/toll collection overhead which eats up most of $1 toll - then idea is not workable. If $30M/year collected on a stretch with 100k traffic count is not enough, then supplementing tolls with some competitive approaches- like expedited approvals for competing roads, f&ck urbanists and EPA, may be required.
Quote from: Rothman on March 06, 2017, 09:12:47 AM
Ugh. Every time I hear "public private partnership" it makes me reach for my revolver. See Indiana Toll Road... I guess it is one of those dumb terms that are going to cycle every few years or so. Might as well call it what it is: Give contractors more money, have them increase the burden on the public for their own profit and then laugh all the way to the bank.
Tolls are regressive taxes. That is all there is to it.
Do you think gas tax is also regressive? After all, difference in fuel burn between S-class Mercedes and Honda Accord is not that great. And someone who has to drive truck for a living may pay through the nose, since they cannot afford a separate commute car...
Perhaps, but the demand isn't as inelastic as it is with tolls. If I can't shunpike, I must pay the toll. I do, however, have a lot of control over elective trips and therefore how much gas I burn (e.g., when I was poor, you bet I didn't go on any trips at all outside of commutes or for necessary shopping).
The only way to make a road related tax non-regressive is to bake it into the income tax somehow. You could argue for a higher income tax in lieu of things like sales, gas, tolls, or any other consumption based taxes, that's the only way to avoid a regressive tax structure.
The big benefit to tolls is that they capture out of state drivers. There's no way to do this feasibly WITHOUT a regressive tax structure.
Quote from: kalvado on March 06, 2017, 08:44:00 AM
-if money actually spent on roads
-if construction funded by tolls occurs where it is needed, not where non-elected officials think it would work best for "revitalizing" of stinky rotten downtown
And those are the to biggest ifs that exist.
And, IMHO, states simply cannot be trusted. In my state, and I suspect it is similar in most states, money that flows directly to an agency is not looked at by the legislature. All the legislature worries about is ballencing the budget, which is appropriating the tax money. And that is what tolls are. Off-budget. The WV Turnpike administration is totally corrupt and totally incompetent. Yet if you look at the state budget, it is not mentioned. It takes in and spends millions, with NO oversight at all. This corruption and incompetence was outlined, more than a decade ago, in a devastating report by the Legislative Auditor. And not one thing was done about it.
And it is not just WV. Pennsylvania's and New York's systems are covered in graft. And then we have these deals like the Indiana Toll Road.
You just cannot trust the states to actually build roads where needed and not do boondoggle projects, featherbed the workforce, and waste money.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on March 06, 2017, 09:36:58 AM
The big benefit to tolls is that they capture out of state drivers.
So does the federal gas tax.
Quote from: Rothman on March 06, 2017, 09:25:50 AM
Perhaps, but the demand isn't as inelastic as it is with tolls. If I can't shunpike, I must pay the toll. I do, however, have a lot of control over elective trips and therefore how much gas I burn (e.g., when I was poor, you bet I didn't go on any trips at all outside of commutes or for necessary shopping).
I would say that demand is pretty inelastic in both cases. Of course, if you can afford additional trips - you pay extra in both tolls and gas. But then sales tax is also a non-regressive tax, if you can afford something...
But commute is pretty much determined by where you live and where you work, so it is non-elastic short term. Ideally, tolls should also shape your selection of both to bring commute cost under control. That is the elasticity of toll demand - a long-term one. Same with cost of public transportation, cost of car etc - they shape long-term selections...
Quote from: Rothman on March 06, 2017, 09:57:59 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on March 06, 2017, 09:36:58 AM
The big benefit to tolls is that they capture out of state drivers.
So does the federal gas tax.
I would put things differently - that is not an out-of-state tax, that is the tax on living in
United States, and associated costs of maintaining long haul connectivity.
Quote from: Rothman on March 06, 2017, 09:57:59 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on March 06, 2017, 09:36:58 AM
The big benefit to tolls is that they capture out of state drivers.
So does the federal gas tax.
That's nice and all but it doesn't go directly to the states.
Quote from: kalvado on March 06, 2017, 09:15:31 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 06, 2017, 08:57:52 AM
Quote from: kalvado on March 06, 2017, 08:44:00 AM
I, for one, don't mind paying a bit more for better roads. With bunch of "IFs".
-if money actually spent on roads
-if construction funded by tolls occurs where it is needed, not where non-elected officials think it would work best for "revitalizing" of stinky rotten downtown
-if (my pet one) no roundabouts get funded by tolls.
As for congestion pricing... It has to couple with some legal way of forcing employers into some flexibility whenever it is possible at all. some poor souls just have no choice other than coming in at peak of rush hour or waiting for the shift in the lobby due to being too early.
(edit): Oh, and tolls have to be reasonable, not "you will pay anyway!". For cars, 3-5 cents a mile seem like a good number cost-wise. That is 3-6x current federal gas tax. That may vary depending on actual toll coverage, but I suspect things wouldn't work if commuter has to pay more than $200-300 a year
Those numbers are way too low. $300 a year, divided by a regular 260 days or so one normally works in a year, means tolls would only be $1 a day. And since tolling is generally done 2 ways, that's 50 cents per trip. That would be insanely low for modern day tolling.
And that is exactly what I am talking about. You didn't try to include travel distances, traffic counts - just "$1 is not enough!"
If there is a significant administrative/toll collection overhead which eats up most of $1 toll - then idea is not workable. If $30M/year collected on a stretch with 100k traffic count is not enough, then supplementing tolls with some competitive approaches- like expedited approvals for competing roads, f&ck urbanists and EPA, may be required.
But you also used a blanket "but I suspect things wouldn't work if commuter has to pay more than $200-300 a year" statement. You didn't try to include travel distances either.
Also, if you're considering congestion pricing, what would your upper and lower limits be? How would it work? On the NJ Turnpike, congestion pricing is simply EZ Pass customers getting charged the cash rate for a 2 hour period in the morning and evening rush hours (and on weekends). In Virginia, congestion pricing is a variable toll. The VA toll has a lot more back-end expenses to worry about, compared to a fixed-time variable toll like the NJ Turnpike uses.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on March 06, 2017, 11:01:20 AM
Quote from: Rothman on March 06, 2017, 09:57:59 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on March 06, 2017, 09:36:58 AM
The big benefit to tolls is that they capture out of state drivers.
So does the federal gas tax.
That's nice and all but it doesn't go directly to the states.
It still ends up mostly in the states' hands through the federal formula-based fund sources (STP, NHP, CMAQ, HSIP, etc.).
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 06, 2017, 11:37:57 AM
Quote from: kalvado on March 06, 2017, 09:15:31 AM
And that is exactly what I am talking about. You didn't try to include travel distances, traffic counts - just "$1 is not enough!"
If there is a significant administrative/toll collection overhead which eats up most of $1 toll - then idea is not workable. If $30M/year collected on a stretch with 100k traffic count is not enough, then supplementing tolls with some competitive approaches- like expedited approvals for competing roads, f&ck urbanists and EPA, may be required.
But you also used a blanket "but I suspect things wouldn't work if commuter has to pay more than $200-300 a year" statement. You didn't try to include travel distances either.
Also, if you're considering congestion pricing, what would your upper and lower limits be? How would it work? On the NJ Turnpike, congestion pricing is simply EZ Pass customers getting charged the cash rate for a 2 hour period in the morning and evening rush hours (and on weekends). In Virginia, congestion pricing is a variable toll. The VA toll has a lot more back-end expenses to worry about, compared to a fixed-time variable toll like the NJ Turnpike uses.
Well, I sort of did - I assumed typical number of 13k miles/year, which corresponds to 50 miles daily if driven only for commute.
Then my statement translates into something like "extra 2 cents/mile". Maybe 3 cents if car is used outside commute on local roads.
This is on a lower side of scale - but for heavily used roads, if done
in addition to gas tax and trying to extract money from those @#*&(^(ers who don't vote here - then probably that is not unreasonable number.
For reference: some semi-random chart of tolls in different locations:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.tstc.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F01%2Ftolls-per-mile.png&hash=e1af533c11b3c78b671d102c51889e413db966a6)
Quote from: Rothman on March 06, 2017, 11:39:48 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on March 06, 2017, 11:01:20 AM
That's nice and all but it doesn't go directly to the states.
It still ends up mostly in the states' hands through the federal formula-based fund sources (STP, NHP, CMAQ, HSIP, etc.).
Well, last time I checked federal government doesn't do much road construction.
So I would read that as "money go into dedicated state accounts with some oversight, not into bottomless general fund"
Quote from: kalvado on March 06, 2017, 11:54:41 AM
Quote from: Rothman on March 06, 2017, 11:39:48 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on March 06, 2017, 11:01:20 AM
That's nice and all but it doesn't go directly to the states.
It still ends up mostly in the states' hands through the federal formula-based fund sources (STP, NHP, CMAQ, HSIP, etc.).
Well, last time I checked federal government doesn't do much road construction.
So I would read that as "money go into dedicated state accounts with some oversight, not into bottomless general fund"
Uh, no.
Fed funding is a reimbursement program. States first instance their own funds and feds reimburse as they go up to a state's obligation limitation as set by the Feds. Money is not just handed down, but is essentially ready to reimburse state expenses.
I guess it's possible.
Quote from: Rothman on March 06, 2017, 12:01:30 PM
Quote from: kalvado on March 06, 2017, 11:54:41 AM
Quote from: Rothman on March 06, 2017, 11:39:48 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on March 06, 2017, 11:01:20 AM
That's nice and all but it doesn't go directly to the states.
It still ends up mostly in the states' hands through the federal formula-based fund sources (STP, NHP, CMAQ, HSIP, etc.).
Well, last time I checked federal government doesn't do much road construction.
So I would read that as "money go into dedicated state accounts with some oversight, not into bottomless general fund"
Uh, no.
Fed funding is a reimbursement program. States first instance their own funds and feds reimburse as they go up to a state's obligation limitation as set by the Feds. Money is not just handed down, but is essentially ready to reimburse state expenses.
I would say it doesn't matter. What I am saying, a lot (not all, but a lot) of spending discretion is still in Washington, not in Albany. State cannot ask for reimbursement of funds diverted elsewhere....
Quote from: kalvado on March 06, 2017, 12:09:21 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 06, 2017, 12:01:30 PM
Quote from: kalvado on March 06, 2017, 11:54:41 AM
Quote from: Rothman on March 06, 2017, 11:39:48 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on March 06, 2017, 11:01:20 AM
That's nice and all but it doesn't go directly to the states.
It still ends up mostly in the states' hands through the federal formula-based fund sources (STP, NHP, CMAQ, HSIP, etc.).
Well, last time I checked federal government doesn't do much road construction.
So I would read that as "money go into dedicated state accounts with some oversight, not into bottomless general fund"
Uh, no.
Fed funding is a reimbursement program. States first instance their own funds and feds reimburse as they go up to a state's obligation limitation as set by the Feds. Money is not just handed down, but is essentially ready to reimburse state expenses.
I would say it doesn't matter. What I am saying, a lot (not all, but a lot) of spending discretion is still in Washington, not in Albany. State cannot ask for reimbursement of funds diverted elsewhere....
No state I know of leaves core federal funds sitting on the table. That would just be idiotic.
Quote from: Rothman on March 06, 2017, 12:46:33 PM
Quote from: kalvado on March 06, 2017, 12:09:21 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 06, 2017, 12:01:30 PM
Quote from: kalvado on March 06, 2017, 11:54:41 AM
Quote from: Rothman on March 06, 2017, 11:39:48 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on March 06, 2017, 11:01:20 AM
That's nice and all but it doesn't go directly to the states.
It still ends up mostly in the states' hands through the federal formula-based fund sources (STP, NHP, CMAQ, HSIP, etc.).
Well, last time I checked federal government doesn't do much road construction.
So I would read that as "money go into dedicated state accounts with some oversight, not into bottomless general fund"
Uh, no.
Fed funding is a reimbursement program. States first instance their own funds and feds reimburse as they go up to a state's obligation limitation as set by the Feds. Money is not just handed down, but is essentially ready to reimburse state expenses.
I would say it doesn't matter. What I am saying, a lot (not all, but a lot) of spending discretion is still in Washington, not in Albany. State cannot ask for reimbursement of funds diverted elsewhere....
No state I know of leaves core federal funds sitting on the table. That would just be idiotic.
Wanna bet? Illinois has done this due to a complete and total lack of matching funds. Of course, you did say "idiotic".
Quote from: Brandon on March 06, 2017, 04:04:50 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 06, 2017, 12:46:33 PM
Quote from: kalvado on March 06, 2017, 12:09:21 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 06, 2017, 12:01:30 PM
Quote from: kalvado on March 06, 2017, 11:54:41 AM
Quote from: Rothman on March 06, 2017, 11:39:48 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on March 06, 2017, 11:01:20 AM
That's nice and all but it doesn't go directly to the states.
It still ends up mostly in the states' hands through the federal formula-based fund sources (STP, NHP, CMAQ, HSIP, etc.).
Well, last time I checked federal government doesn't do much road construction.
So I would read that as "money go into dedicated state accounts with some oversight, not into bottomless general fund"
Uh, no.
Fed funding is a reimbursement program. States first instance their own funds and feds reimburse as they go up to a state's obligation limitation as set by the Feds. Money is not just handed down, but is essentially ready to reimburse state expenses.
I would say it doesn't matter. What I am saying, a lot (not all, but a lot) of spending discretion is still in Washington, not in Albany. State cannot ask for reimbursement of funds diverted elsewhere....
No state I know of leaves core federal funds sitting on the table. That would just be idiotic.
Wanna bet? Illinois has done this due to a complete and total lack of matching funds. Of course, you did say "idiotic".
On an annual OL basis? Or were there just projects they didn't want to do?
In short, prove it. :D
Quote from: Rothman on March 06, 2017, 12:46:33 PM
No state I know of leaves core federal funds sitting on the table. That would just be idiotic.
How much is New Hampshire foregoing each year because it doesn't have a seat belt law?
Quote from: hbelkins on March 06, 2017, 07:51:50 PM
How much is New Hampshire foregoing each year because it doesn't have a seat belt law?
As far as I can tell, none. But they aren't required to, since there is no federal law withholding funds to any state which does not have a seat belt law. The other 49 states all decided to enact laws to this effect on their own without being given a financial ultimatum.
In terms of seat belt law non-compliance, states are probably paying the penalty with the portion of apportionment that is in excess of the obligation limitation, so the ability to use federal funds is unaffected.
change the rules.
as for Chicago area old roads to toll???
IL-53 / I-290 (I-90 to I-355) / I-355 ??
palatine road with upgrades?
IL-83 I-290 to 63rd street with upgrades??
I-290 I-355 to I-294?
US-41 WI to lake cook rd with upgrades?
I-55 I-294 to I-355??
I-55 I-355 to I-80?
I-80 I-355 to I-294??
----------------
City of Chicago
LSD with upgrades?
I-90?
I-94?
I-55?
I-57?
-------
New roads
I-X55? / I-X90? / I-X43? / I-X94? / toll IL-53? / toll us-12? / toll IL-120?
Quote from: Duke87 on March 06, 2017, 08:52:21 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on March 06, 2017, 07:51:50 PM
How much is New Hampshire foregoing each year because it doesn't have a seat belt law?
As far as I can tell, none. But they aren't required to, since there is no federal law withholding funds to any state which does not have a seat belt law. The other 49 states all decided to enact laws to this effect on their own without being given a financial ultimatum.
What? When the push to pass a seat belt law was on in Kentucky, the public was told that unless such a law was passed, the state would forfeit x number of federal dollars. I can't imagine that the Kentucky legislature, even though it was controlled by Democrats at the time, would have passed such a nanny state law without such pressure. The same thing was also said when the state changed its seat belt law from a secondary offense to a primary offense.
(Of course, I was surprised that West Virginia passed a nanny state hands-free phone use law; I don't foresee that being passed in Kentucky anytime soon unless the feds demand it.)
Took a deeper look into this. The penalties are for not having compliant open container and repeat intoxication laws, not seat belts.
See: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/notices/n4510812/n4510812_t6.cfm
This is the only penalty-related supplemental table I'm aware of at this point.
Quote from: hbelkins on March 07, 2017, 08:41:01 PM
What? When the push to pass a seat belt law was on in Kentucky, the public was told that unless such a law was passed, the state would forfeit x number of federal dollars.
And that may have been true, albeit not for a reason as simple as "you must pass a seat belt law or lost money". There have been various plays with federal funding on this matter over the years.
For example, TEA-21 offered incentive money each year from 1999 through 2003 (https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/157faq_incentives.pdf) for states that increased their seat belt use rate above the national average. But this was
1) structured as a carrot, not a stick
2) tied to measurable results, not merely the existence of a law
3) temporary
New Hampshire is therefore not losing money on account of its seat belt law. And Kentucky probably would not lose any money if theirs were to be repealed, however they may well have gained some money back in the 90s as a result of passing and enforcing it.
It's also worth noting that New Hampshire
does have a seat belt law for minors. Only people 18 or older are legally permitted to not wear their seat belt if they so choose.
Quote from: kalvado on March 06, 2017, 08:44:00 AM
....
(edit): Oh, and tolls have to be reasonable, not "you will pay anyway!". For cars, 3-5 cents a mile seem like a good number cost-wise. That is 3-6x current federal gas tax. That may vary depending on actual toll coverage, but I suspect things wouldn't work if commuter has to pay more than $200-300 a year
Heh. We paid about $2.41 a mile tonight–the toll for the Beltway HO/T lanes from I-66 to Springfield (about eight miles) was $19.30. We were going 70 mph the whole way while the "free" lanes were at a standstill, though, which says to me the variable tolling is working as intended. It makes me ponder what "reasonable" necessarily means in different situations. I think it's fair to accept that express lanes of the sort we were using are a different animal from a fully-tolled road that doesn't offer an immediate alternative relatively adjacent to the tolled route (by that I mean, for example, Florida's Turnpike doesn't really have any good alternative route between Orlando and Fort Pierce unless you go well out of your way, and most people would wind up paying the toll on the Bee Line anyway if they took I-95). Keeping the toll more manageable is more important when the toll road is to be the "primary" artery. Even then, there's bound to be some tension between figuring out how to help the daily user versus the guy who comes through once a year on vacation and who therefore doesn't much care what the toll is. I recall reading some discussion of that tension in regard to North Carolina's proposal to toll I-95.
(Regarding our commute tonight, it was raining, which always messes up traffic, and because of that I never seriously considered using the "free" lanes. The subway isn't a viable option this month due to track work at our end of the line. Even with the huge toll, we still spent some $4.00 less than we would have taking commuter rail and got home in about half the time.)