It's only been one year since the last fare hike, but the Turnpike Commission is again ringing in the New Year with a toll increase. The increase is needed so the PTC can meet financial obligations under Act 44.
http://www.paturnpike.com/Press/2009/20091229165725.htm
28.75% increase in six years. That's way higher than inflation, in fact, that is creating inflation.
What else did you expect when the Legislature (through Act 44) ordered them to give multi-million dollar handouts on a regular basis to PennDOT?
In reality, it's not much different than what Chicago did with the Skyway or Indiana did with the Toll Road, or what Delaware has been doing for years: the toll facility is a cash cow for the rest of the state. Main difference from the Skyway or IN Toll Road is this is an ongoing payment, whereas those two were a single up-front lump sum.
Quote from: froggie on December 30, 2009, 07:20:08 AM
What else did you expect when the Legislature (through Act 44) ordered them to give multi-million dollar handouts on a regular basis to PennDOT?
I still expect them to show some restraint when raising the tolls, not give me even more motivation or a slight financial incentive to bypass the Turnpike whenever possible - which I did recently and would have been much nicer had I-81 not come to a halt in Maryland.
This is one of the many reasons I'm opposed to the I-80 tolling project.
Somehow, I doubt that the addition of 80 to the Turnpike system would decrease the amount of the toll increases and I-80 would be subject to the same increases.
(The documents on the Turnpike website state that per mile tolls on I-80 would be kept roughly equivalent to that on the mainline turnpike.)
Well, that's unfortunate. To the people living in Pa. : HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA!
I am not a regular user of PTC infrastructure (in fact I think my last drive on the Turnpike was in August 1998), so I take a very philosophical attitude to it all. Right now I get PennDOT plans electronically through ECMS, but there is as yet no similar provision for the PTC. (I tend to doubt there will be because they seem more security-obsessed than PennDOT.) So if Act 44 required the PTC to funnel all its revenue to PennDOT, rather than just a share of it, I would really struggle to shed a tear. My main complaint is that the PennDOT projects designated as getting Act 44 funding seem all to be resurfacing jobs, with no signing to speak of. (The deckchairs must be in order!)
just pay the money, people. get over it. it may look much on a per-use basis but when you do out the math, it's still less than what the Turnpike cost in 1940 when adjusted for inflation.
QuoteMy main complaint is that the PennDOT projects designated as getting Act 44 funding seem all to be resurfacing jobs, with no signing to speak of.
According to the PTC release posted at the beginning of the thread, Act 44 funding has also been used for 92 bridge replacements.
Quote from: leifvanderwall on December 30, 2009, 08:27:03 PMWell, that's unfortunate. To the people living in Pa. : HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA!
We know how to avoid parts of or entire trips on the PTC system.
Quote from: J N Winkler on December 30, 2009, 10:40:21 PMMy main complaint is that the PennDOT projects designated as getting Act 44 funding seem all to be resurfacing jobs, with no signing to speak of. (The deckchairs must be in order!)
I'll take smooth roads and bridges not in danger of collapsing over new signs any day.
The choice between smooth roads and rehabilitated bridges on the one hand, and new signs on the other, is often a false one. Within certain limits (one of which is no bridges on the system at imminent risk of collapse), money spent on new signs can often deliver a higher rate of return than money spent on resurfacing or bridge rehabilitation. This is because signing work, even on freeways, is typically much cheaper than other heavy construction items. Good design is critical, however--it does little good to replace bad signing in kind.
The complaint I was expressing about Act 44's focus on resurfacing was essentially a personal one. Construction plans for resurfacings and bridge rehabilitations are very boring. I wasn't passing comment on the economic or practical necessity of such work compared to other potential uses of the money.
the thing is, even signs deemed "bad" (say, that US-60/US-70/US-99/I-10 porcelain gantry in Banning that has been routinely derided in another thread) are a lot more functional than bad roads. The 60 sign does its job reasonably well. An interchange with a horrible weaving problem does not do its job reasonably well, and that is where the money should go.
Quote from: J N Winkler on December 31, 2009, 10:29:41 PM
The choice between smooth roads and rehabilitated bridges on the one hand, and new signs on the other, is often a false one. Within certain limits (one of which is no bridges on the system at imminent risk of collapse), money spent on new signs can often deliver a higher rate of return than money spent on resurfacing or bridge rehabilitation. This is because signing work, even on freeways, is typically much cheaper than other heavy construction items. Good design is critical, however--it does little good to replace bad signing in kind.
I'm not against signage improvements, but I don't want my tax/toll dollars going to replace perfectly good signs as some states do by replacing everything (no matter the condition) in a given section. Signing work is cheaper, no doubt, but so is not improving the condition or safety of a road or one of the thousands of structurally deficient bridges here which can have disastrous results. With available money (Act 44 or ARRA), eliminating dangerous road conditions should take precedence in a state that continually gets voted at or near the top of
Overdrive's Worst Roads list.
I remember one time PA was near the top on both the "Most Improved Roads" and "Worst Roads" categories. Shows you how far behind they are!
PA is the only state I have visited so far where I've thought better of the roads in Oklahoma!
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 02, 2010, 12:04:54 AMI remember one time PA was near the top on both the "Most Improved Roads" and "Worst Roads" categories. Shows you how far behind they are!
I remember it too, it was about 10 years ago. I asked the editor who has contacted me about the article how that happened, and he told me that instead of calculating all positives and negatives to get an average score, they separate the positives and all negatives then average them separately.
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 02, 2010, 12:04:54 AMPA is the only state I have visited so far where I've thought better of the roads in Oklahoma!
One issue I had with OK was the raised grass median on I-44/HEB Turnpike (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=34.197747,-98.468742&spn=0,359.845676&z=13&layer=c&cbll=34.206265,-98.482652&panoid=Vkfchlq1LDG8-ayS65j_Bw&cbp=12,354.53,,0,5). US 30 here used to have a grass median, but there was about a three-foot-wide patch of asphalt covered in with gravel next to the passing lane so if you drifted to the left, you'd know you're out of the travel lane much like SNAP strips to today.