I'm going to add my opinion to the toll road debate. To understand why they're bad we need to remember why we built freeways in the first place. It wasn't just to offer faster travel for motorists, but also to alleviate the through traffic that was bringing noise, congestion, and accidents to many communities. By tolling highways, we encourage people to use surface streets that are more dangerous, more easily congested, and are more of a community nuisance.
Let's say that the maximum flow on I-90 is achieved at 2200 vehicles per hour per lane. (This number is mostly independent of which freeway it is, so it's a reasonable assumption.)
If 4400 vehicles per hour want to use it, it will be significantly congested, and the flow will be much lower.
Assuming triangular model where optimal density = 1/5 of jam density and free-flow speed is 75 mph:
At optimal flow, density is 2200 vehicles per hour / 75 mph = 29 vehicles per mile per lane
Jam density = 29*5 = 147 vehicles (looks slightly off due to rounding)
wave speed = 2200/(147-29) = -18.7 mph
Demand of 4400 vehicles per hour: Density increases to 4400/2200 * 29 = 59 vehicles per mile
Flow decreases by ¼ (it's linear from the optimal point to the jammed point, and density went from ⅕ to ⅖) to 1650 vehicles per hour
Speed = 1650/59 = 28 mph. By doubling the number of cars on the road, your speed is now less than half what it was. (This makes sense; doubling the number of cars at the same flow will halve the average speed, so if the flow decreases, speed will decrease, too.)
This is alleviated slightly by Waze users seeing it's congested.
Here are the numbers if demand is 3000 and optimal is 2200:
Density = 3000/2200 * 29 = 39.5 vehicles per mile
Flow decreases by 800/(2200*4) * 2200 = 200 → flow = 2000 vehicles per hour
Speed = 2000/39.5 = 50.6 mph. Still a significant difference compared to 75 mph free flow.
If tolling reduces demand to 2200 or 2000 vehicles per hour, it will flow much better.
Image for reference (a triangle is very close and much easier to calculate):
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bc/Flow_Density_Relationship.png)
Attribution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flow_Density_Relationship.png
Toll roads aren't inherently bad. The way they are implemented could be, though.
With our current mix of taxes and tolls, I find tolls a means to divide the economic classes -- only those who can afford to can travel on the roads rather than all those that need to.
But, if we tolled everything and got rid of taxes, I think the inequality could be lessened.
Better yet: Fund everything through a VMT tax and get rid of tolls.
In most cases, Toll Roads are a means for states to raise revenue from residents of other states. Income taxes, sales taxes and vehicle registration fees come almost entirely from in state. Tolls, as well as lodging taxes, come largely from out of state.
Aaaaand, out come the charts ... :bigass:
Is it just me or does it seem like every other forum user starts out with the same generic opinions that are all over the road world as of late?
Quote from: 1 on August 30, 2020, 01:00:57 PM
Let's say that the maximum flow on I-90 is achieved at 2200 vehicles per hour per lane. (This number is mostly independent of which freeway it is, so it's a reasonable assumption.)
If 4400 vehicles per hour want to use it, it will be significantly congested, and the flow will be much lower.
Assuming triangular model where optimal density = 1/5 of jam density and free-flow speed is 75 mph:
At optimal flow, density is 2200 vehicles per hour / 75 mph = 29 vehicles per mile per lane
Jam density = 29*5 = 147 vehicles (looks slightly off due to rounding)
wave speed = 2200/(147-29) = -18.7 mph
Demand of 4400 vehicles per hour: Density increases to 4400/2200 * 29 = 59 vehicles per mile
Flow decreases by ¼ (it's linear from the optimal point to the jammed point, and density went from ⅕ to ⅖) to 1650 vehicles per hour
Speed = 1650/59 = 28 mph. By doubling the number of cars on the road, your speed is now less than half what it was. (This makes sense; doubling the number of cars at the same flow will halve the average speed, so if the flow decreases, speed will decrease, too.)
This is alleviated slightly by Waze users seeing it's congested.
Here are the numbers if demand is 3000 and optimal is 2200:
Density = 3000/2200 * 29 = 39.5 vehicles per mile
Flow decreases by 800/(2200*4) * 2200 = 200 → flow = 2000 vehicles per hour
Speed = 2000/39.5 = 50.6 mph. Still a significant difference compared to 75 mph free flow.
If tolling reduces demand to 2200 or 2000 vehicles per hour, it will flow much better.
Image for reference (a triangle is very close and much easier to calculate):
Question. If traffic on the freeway is reduced enough due to high tolls that traffic becomes free-flowing, where does that traffic that's no longer on the freeway go? Are they on a parallel surface route choking it to death meanwhile those paying high tolls can speed by at 55+ mph?
It helps to look at it as the system effect, that includes both the toll road and the parallel free route, as opposed to solely the toll road. What strategies can be used to create as much free flow on both routes?
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 30, 2020, 07:40:50 PM
It helps to look at it as the system effect, that includes both the toll road and the parallel free route, as opposed to solely the toll road. What strategies can be used to create as much free flow on both routes?
Transit rides
Changing time of travel away from peak
Carpools
Eliminate the trips completely by changing living area vs work and commerce area patterns
Just a couple of ideas that can help create more free flow
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 30, 2020, 07:40:50 PM
Quote from: 1 on August 30, 2020, 01:00:57 PM
Let's say that the maximum flow on I-90 is achieved at 2200 vehicles per hour per lane. (This number is mostly independent of which freeway it is, so it's a reasonable assumption.)
If 4400 vehicles per hour want to use it, it will be significantly congested, and the flow will be much lower.
Assuming triangular model where optimal density = 1/5 of jam density and free-flow speed is 75 mph:
At optimal flow, density is 2200 vehicles per hour / 75 mph = 29 vehicles per mile per lane
Jam density = 29*5 = 147 vehicles (looks slightly off due to rounding)
wave speed = 2200/(147-29) = -18.7 mph
Demand of 4400 vehicles per hour: Density increases to 4400/2200 * 29 = 59 vehicles per mile
Flow decreases by ¼ (it's linear from the optimal point to the jammed point, and density went from ⅕ to ⅖) to 1650 vehicles per hour
Speed = 1650/59 = 28 mph. By doubling the number of cars on the road, your speed is now less than half what it was. (This makes sense; doubling the number of cars at the same flow will halve the average speed, so if the flow decreases, speed will decrease, too.)
This is alleviated slightly by Waze users seeing it's congested.
Here are the numbers if demand is 3000 and optimal is 2200:
Density = 3000/2200 * 29 = 39.5 vehicles per mile
Flow decreases by 800/(2200*4) * 2200 = 200 → flow = 2000 vehicles per hour
Speed = 2000/39.5 = 50.6 mph. Still a significant difference compared to 75 mph free flow.
If tolling reduces demand to 2200 or 2000 vehicles per hour, it will flow much better.
Image for reference (a triangle is very close and much easier to calculate):
Question. If traffic on the freeway is reduced enough due to high tolls that traffic becomes free-flowing, where does that traffic that's no longer on the freeway go? Are they on a parallel surface route choking it to death meanwhile those paying high tolls can speed by at 55+ mph?
It helps to look at it as the system effect, that includes both the toll road and the parallel free route, as opposed to solely the toll road. What strategies can be used to create as much free flow on both routes?
This is a legitimate issue, and I believe that Massachusetts needs a better arterial system. However, congestion on surface roads is not as bad for two reasons:
1. On many arterials, traffic signals dictate how fast you can go unless things get really backed up.
2. There are more alternate routes on surface roads.
I would tolerate toll roads a lot more if
a) they didn't retain pre interstate designs like a narrow RoW that forces a concrete barrier between both directions (penna tpk, kansas tpk, ok turnpike system)
b) all toll systems used the same transponder or had interoperable transponder systems
c) weren't so goddamned expensive to use per mile (penna tpk)
i understand the concept of toll roads, and yes in some areas of the country they are probably necessary to be permanent if only due to help pay for regular maintenance. but I question the private ownership of a piece of controlled limited access highway designated as a federal interstate. if there is to be a cost for using an interstate, make it a nominal fee that goes for upkeep and improvements. if it weren't for the fact that I had an ezpass, I would never have driven the pennsylvania turnpike. I did it this once in because driving all the mainland 2di is a bucket list item plus I wanted to experience the tunnels. if I'm ever in that part of country's again I'll take I 80 simply because it won't cost me almost $50 to use it.
Quote from: Rothman on August 30, 2020, 01:30:07 PM
....
Better yet: Fund everything through a VMT tax and get rid of tolls.
I've always disliked this idea because I assume it would mean some sort of location tracking in order to compensate each jurisdiction for the distance you drove in that state during a given period. That is, consider a college student who attends school out of state but keeps his car registered in his home state, or consider someone who travels out of state for vacation (say, the stereotypical drive down I-95 to Disney World) or to visit relatives. That person is putting wear and tear on other states' roads in the course of travel, and if the miles driven tax is intended to account for that, then presumably there has to be some way to track where the vehicle was driven.
But that opens the door to all sorts of other sinister problems. About four years ago a former colleague of mine was all for the idea until I looked at him and said, "OK, how will you feel when one night the police show up at your door and say, 'Mr. [Smith], there has been a wave of crime in a wealthy part of Potomac. Records showing cars driven in the area show you were in that neighborhood. You're black and that's a white neighborhood. Explain why you were there." He is indeed black, and when I posed this scenario he suddenly froze and his eyes went wide and he said, "Maybe it's NOT such a good idea." I tend to assume that regardless of what "safeguards" the law imposes on the data, it would be misused for other purposes or the law would quickly be amended to allow for other uses.
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 31, 2020, 07:39:27 AM
Quote from: Rothman on August 30, 2020, 01:30:07 PM
....
Better yet: Fund everything through a VMT tax and get rid of tolls.
I've always disliked this idea because I assume it would mean some sort of location tracking in order to compensate each jurisdiction for the distance you drove in that state during a given period. That is, consider a college student who attends school out of state but keeps his car registered in his home state, or consider someone who travels out of state for vacation (say, the stereotypical drive down I-95 to Disney World) or to visit relatives. That person is putting wear and tear on other states' roads in the course of travel, and if the miles driven tax is intended to account for that, then presumably there has to be some way to track where the vehicle was driven.
But that opens the door to all sorts of other sinister problems. About four years ago a former colleague of mine was all for the idea until I looked at him and said, "OK, how will you feel when one night the police show up at your door and say, 'Mr. [Smith], there has been a wave of crime in a wealthy part of Potomac. Records showing cars driven in the area show you were in that neighborhood. You're black and that's a white neighborhood. Explain why you were there." He is indeed black, and when I posed this scenario he suddenly froze and his eyes went wide and he said, "Maybe it's NOT such a good idea." I tend to assume that regardless of what "safeguards" the law imposes on the data, it would be misused for other purposes or the law would quickly be amended to allow for other uses.
What if the all the money goes to the state your license plate says? Then you would just need to check the odometer.
Quote from: 1 on August 31, 2020, 07:41:06 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 31, 2020, 07:39:27 AM
Quote from: Rothman on August 30, 2020, 01:30:07 PM
....
Better yet: Fund everything through a VMT tax and get rid of tolls.
I've always disliked this idea because I assume it would mean some sort of location tracking in order to compensate each jurisdiction for the distance you drove in that state during a given period. That is, consider a college student who attends school out of state but keeps his car registered in his home state, or consider someone who travels out of state for vacation (say, the stereotypical drive down I-95 to Disney World) or to visit relatives. That person is putting wear and tear on other states' roads in the course of travel, and if the miles driven tax is intended to account for that, then presumably there has to be some way to track where the vehicle was driven.
But that opens the door to all sorts of other sinister problems. About four years ago a former colleague of mine was all for the idea until I looked at him and said, "OK, how will you feel when one night the police show up at your door and say, 'Mr. [Smith], there has been a wave of crime in a wealthy part of Potomac. Records showing cars driven in the area show you were in that neighborhood. You're black and that's a white neighborhood. Explain why you were there." He is indeed black, and when I posed this scenario he suddenly froze and his eyes went wide and he said, "Maybe it's NOT such a good idea." I tend to assume that regardless of what "safeguards" the law imposes on the data, it would be misused for other purposes or the law would quickly be amended to allow for other uses.
What if the all the money goes to the state your license plate says? Then you would just need to check the odometer.
But isn't part of the point of a VMT tax that you could eliminate the issue of someone who drives extensively in a state or other jurisdiction but never refuels there, such as (in the current world) someone who drives a lot in DC but always goes across to Virginia to take advantage of the lower gas tax?
Quote from: 1 on August 31, 2020, 07:41:06 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 31, 2020, 07:39:27 AM
Quote from: Rothman on August 30, 2020, 01:30:07 PM
....
Better yet: Fund everything through a VMT tax and get rid of tolls.
I've always disliked this idea because I assume it would mean some sort of location tracking in order to compensate each jurisdiction for the distance you drove in that state during a given period. That is, consider a college student who attends school out of state but keeps his car registered in his home state, or consider someone who travels out of state for vacation (say, the stereotypical drive down I-95 to Disney World) or to visit relatives. That person is putting wear and tear on other states' roads in the course of travel, and if the miles driven tax is intended to account for that, then presumably there has to be some way to track where the vehicle was driven.
[snip]
What if the all the money goes to the state your license plate says? Then you would just need to check the odometer.
That works only if there is an equal number of miles from residents of all states. Pass-through states such as OH and IN would get the shaft because of having to maintain the toll roads from wear and tear without collecting corresponding revenue.
It's the same reason a lot of states don't have reciprocal income tax agreements with other states. even though they would be a convenience to people who work in one state and live in another.
Quote from: wanderer2575 on August 31, 2020, 08:03:34 AM
That works only if there is an equal number of miles from residents of all states. Pass-through states such as OH and IN would get the shaft because of having to maintain the toll roads from wear and tear without collecting corresponding revenue.
You do realize that there are a disproportionately high number of trucks from Indiana, right? Indiana would probably be one of the states that benefits the most from this system.
Quote from: 1 on August 31, 2020, 08:06:23 AM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on August 31, 2020, 08:03:34 AM
That works only if there is an equal number of miles from residents of all states. Pass-through states such as OH and IN would get the shaft because of having to maintain the toll roads from wear and tear without collecting corresponding revenue.
You do realize that there are a disproportionately high number of trucks from Indiana, right? Indiana would probably be one of the states that benefits the most from this system.
Is that right? Come to think of it, it makes sense, I see so many semis with Indiana plates.
The subject line of this thread has me picturing Mr. Mackey from South Park saying "Toll roads are bad, m'kay?"
I'm going to argue with the premise specifically in the case of the NJ Turnpike, which, for those of you who don't know, is a completely self-sufficient road that draws no tax money but uses its tolls for maintenance, policing, and construction. Also, it was originally planned that the Turnpike become "added to the state highways" (in other words, go toll free) when the bonds were paid off, but that never occurred.
Because the NJ Turnpike (and yes, now the Garden State Parkway figures in, but for simplicity in making my case, I'll just refer to the Turnpike) is self-sufficient, the only people who pay for it are the people who use it.
Is that not ideal? NJ taxes are outrageous as they are - if only other public works could be so self-sufficient so as to decrease our tax burden! And, as many are pointing out, it's not just New Jerseyans who are feeling the hit - the out of state drivers are bringing THEIR money into the state and helpfully paying for the Turnpike's maintenance and construction etc etc.
So, I don't know if we can paint that broad a stroke against tolls. I'd love to know the story of the highway robbery on I-95 on the Delaware/Maryland border. You know; the one everyone famously shunpikes using 896 and by sneaking into Elkton? Far as I know, that stretch is as federally funded as any other generic interstate. They'd have to be funding therapeutic puppy camps for disabled children for me to feel anything but disdain for that particular toll!
Quote from: J3ebrules on August 31, 2020, 09:29:46 AM
....
So, I don't know if we can paint that broad a stroke against tolls. I'd love to know the story of the highway robbery on I-95 on the Delaware/Maryland border. You know; the one everyone famously shunpikes using 896 and by sneaking into Elkton? Far as I know, that stretch is as federally funded as any other generic interstate. They'd have to be funding therapeutic puppy camps for disabled children for me to feel anything but disdain for that particular toll!
Delaware originally financed the road by issuing bonds because if they had waited for the standard federal funding to make it a free Interstate, it was estimated to be at least another four years before the road would have been completed. Maryland likewise financed I-95 northeast of Baltimore via bonds because most of their highway funding had been consumed by other construction. The Delaware Turnpike, and the portion of I-95 in Maryland to which it connects, was dedicated by President Kennedy and the two states' governors on November 14, 1963, and the roads opened at midnight that night. That helps explain why the highway is now named for the President, given a certain event that occurred in Dallas a week later.
Quote from: J3ebrules on August 31, 2020, 09:29:46 AM
I'm going to argue with the premise specifically in the case of the NJ Turnpike, which, for those of you who don't know, is a completely self-sufficient road that draws no tax money but uses its tolls for maintenance, policing, and construction. Also, it was originally planned that the Turnpike become "added to the state highways" (in other words, go toll free) when the bonds were paid off, but that never occurred.
Because the NJ Turnpike (and yes, now the Garden State Parkway figures in, but for simplicity in making my case, I'll just refer to the Turnpike) is self-sufficient, the only people who pay for it are the people who use it.
Is that not ideal? NJ taxes are outrageous as they are - if only other public works could be so self-sufficient so as to decrease our tax burden! And, as many are pointing out, it's not just New Jerseyans who are feeling the hit - the out of state drivers are bringing THEIR money into the state and helpfully paying for the Turnpike's maintenance and construction etc etc.
So, I don't know if we can paint that broad a stroke against tolls. I'd love to know the story of the highway robbery on I-95 on the Delaware/Maryland border. You know; the one everyone famously shunpikes using 896 and by sneaking into Elkton? Far as I know, that stretch is as federally funded as any other generic interstate. They'd have to be funding therapeutic puppy camps for disabled children for me to feel anything but disdain for that particular toll!
Doesn't US 1 in New Jersey have massive traffic problems because of people avoiding the Pike's tolls?
Regarding a VMT tax, I don't see why it couldn't be a federal tax that is distributed back to states based upon miles driven on their states.
In a more serious answer I would agree that in Orlando all the toll roads push the majority of traffic onto I-4 and high capacity surface streets. Problem was that Orlando (aside I-4) was left out of the spur Interstate game. At minimum I would say the tolls in the Orlando Area (and really Florida) are fairly nominal compared to other areas.
Quote from: Rothman on August 31, 2020, 10:06:32 AM
Regarding a VMT tax, I don't see why it couldn't be a federal tax that is distributed back to states based upon miles driven on their states.
Doesn't that more or less pose the same problem I noted earlier, though? How do you determine how many miles are driven in a respective state unless you have some way to track where vehicles are driven?
Quote from: kernals12 on August 31, 2020, 09:54:43 AM
Doesn't US 1 in New Jersey have massive traffic problems because of people avoiding the Pike's tolls?
Why would a road in New Jersey have traffic problems because of tolls in Massachusetts (the state where people call their turnpike "the Pike")? :confused:
:bigass:
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 31, 2020, 10:53:27 AM
Quote from: Rothman on August 31, 2020, 10:06:32 AM
Regarding a VMT tax, I don't see why it couldn't be a federal tax that is distributed back to states based upon miles driven on their states.
Doesn't that more or less pose the same problem I noted earlier, though? How do you determine how many miles are driven in a respective state unless you have some way to track where vehicles are driven?
Quote from: kernals12 on August 31, 2020, 09:54:43 AM
Doesn't US 1 in New Jersey have massive traffic problems because of people avoiding the Pike's tolls?
Why would a road in New Jersey have traffic problems because of tolls in Massachusetts (the state where people call their turnpike "the Pike")? :confused:
:bigass:
No wonder taxes in Jersey are so high if they're wasting so much money on superfluous letters like that.
Toll roads are not per se "bad". It is a valid way to build more roads more quickly. However, poor government can lead to toll roads that do bad things.
- Of course, the only morally legitimate purpose of a toll is to pay for construction. Use of tolls to force people to make life decisions other than those they wish, such as use communal transit or live in urban slums, is just as invalid as the use of any other tax to force anyone to do anything. The J O B of government is to create the society that its citizens want. If people want a suburban lifestyle then build more suburbs and more highways.
- Toll agencies can be very profitable. This leads to many paying above market wages for their employees, to triple featherbeded executive offices, and to diversion of money to boondoggle projects.
- Many states use toll roads to create special sections of traffic cops. Often made up of those who failed at serious police work and who should be fired.
As to a VMT. This could work, but really only if EVERY state, and perhaps even every province totally replaced the current fuel tax model with one. Since governments cannot be trusted to do that, it cannot work and would thus be not a replacement tax but an additional tax, and taxation is theft.
As to Indiana and trucking, this is an old wives' tale. While you can drive a normal car or light truck anywhere in North America on a single jurisdiction's plates due to an international agreement, this does not apply to large commercial trucking. Trucks must have "apportioned" plates. While issued by a single jurisdiction, the fees are split between each jurisdiction in which the vehicle is authorized to operate. Also these vehicles must have a IFTA sticker and file quarterly IFTA (International Fuel Tax Agreement) reports that shift fuel taxes from the collecting states where the fuel was purchased to where the truck was actually driven based on mileage.
Quote from: SP Cook on August 31, 2020, 11:08:34 AM
Toll roads are not per se "bad". It is a valid way to build more roads more quickly. However, poor government can lead to toll roads that do bad things.
- Of course, the only morally legitimate purpose of a toll is to pay for construction. Use of tolls to force people to make life decisions other than those they wish, such as use communal transit or live in urban slums, is just as invalid as the use of any other tax to force anyone to do anything. The J O B of government is to create the society that its citizens want. If people want a suburban lifestyle then build more suburbs and more highways.
- Toll agencies can be very profitable. This leads to many paying above market wages for their employees, to triple featherbeded executive offices, and to diversion of money to boondoggle projects.
- Many states use toll roads to create special sections of traffic cops. Often made up of those who failed at serious police work and who should be fired.
As to a VMT. This could work, but really only if EVERY state, and perhaps even every province totally replaced the current fuel tax model with one. Since governments cannot be trusted to do that, it cannot work and would thus be not a replacement tax but an additional tax, and taxation is theft.
As to Indiana and trucking, this is an old wives' tale. While you can drive a normal car or light truck anywhere in North America on a single jurisdiction's plates due to an international agreement, this does not apply to large commercial trucking. Trucks must have "apportioned" plates. While issued by a single jurisdiction, the fees are split between each jurisdiction in which the vehicle is authorized to operate. Also these vehicles must have a IFTA sticker and file quarterly IFTA (International Fuel Tax Agreement) reports that shift fuel taxes from the collecting states where the fuel was purchased to where the truck was actually driven based on mileage.
If we need new roads, we should pay for them through gas taxes and registration fees (or a VMT fee in the future when cars are electric).
Quote from: kernals12 on August 31, 2020, 11:19:42 AMIf we need new roads, we should pay for them through gas taxes and registration fees (or a VMT fee in the future when cars are electric).
Why? Do you never want to see new roads built again?
Quote from: Chris19001 on August 31, 2020, 11:26:45 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 31, 2020, 11:19:42 AMIf we need new roads, we should pay for them through gas taxes and registration fees (or a VMT fee in the future when cars are electric).
Why? Do you never want to see new roads built again?
We have built and widened many highways without resorting to tolls. And as a matter of fact, with telecommuting, the slowdown in population growth, driverless cars, and possibly VTOL aircraft, it's highly possible that we will be seeing very few new roads in the future.
Quote from: cabiness42 on August 30, 2020, 01:41:20 PM
In most cases, Toll Roads are a means for states to raise revenue from residents of other states.
That's certainly not the case in Kentucky. I don't know the history of the Kentucky Turnpike, or why the first toll road built in the state was between E-town and Louisville instead of another corridor -- say, Lexington to Frankfort to Louisville -- but for the rest of them, they were built to connect far-flung areas of the state.
And to our credit, tolls were removed as the construction bonds were paid off (or when federal appropriations paid off the bonds early) and they didn't keep tolls indefinitely as has been done in most other states.
Quote from: kernals12 on August 31, 2020, 11:31:47 AM
Quote from: Chris19001 on August 31, 2020, 11:26:45 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 31, 2020, 11:19:42 AMIf we need new roads, we should pay for them through gas taxes and registration fees (or a VMT fee in the future when cars are electric).
Why? Do you never want to see new roads built again?
We have built and widened many highways without resorting to tolls. And as a matter of fact, with telecommuting, the slowdown in population growth, driverless cars, and possibly VTOL aircraft, it's highly possible that we will be seeing very few new roads in the future.
VTOL aircraft? What is this 1950s pie in the sky future fantasy again?
Anyways you're missing the point about how a lot of limited access roads were funded which was through the Federal Highway Aid Act. Getting legislation on that level for infrastructure isn't likely to happen again and wouldn't garner a ton of public support. Even on more localized levels the only way limited access roads tend to be built at times is via tolled facilities. Selling the general public on needing more high capacity often isn't a dead bang winner like you want it to be.
Quote from: kernals12 on August 31, 2020, 11:07:36 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 31, 2020, 10:53:27 AM
Quote from: Rothman on August 31, 2020, 10:06:32 AM
Regarding a VMT tax, I don't see why it couldn't be a federal tax that is distributed back to states based upon miles driven on their states.
Doesn't that more or less pose the same problem I noted earlier, though? How do you determine how many miles are driven in a respective state unless you have some way to track where vehicles are driven?
Quote from: kernals12 on August 31, 2020, 09:54:43 AM
Doesn't US 1 in New Jersey have massive traffic problems because of people avoiding the Pike's tolls?
Why would a road in New Jersey have traffic problems because of tolls in Massachusetts (the state where people call their turnpike "the Pike")? :confused:
:bigass:
No wonder taxes in Jersey are so high if they're wasting so much money on superfluous letters like that.
What in the world are you talking about?
Quote from: kernals12 on August 31, 2020, 09:54:43 AM
Quote from: J3ebrules on August 31, 2020, 09:29:46 AM
I'm going to argue with the premise specifically in the case of the NJ Turnpike, which, for those of you who don't know, is a completely self-sufficient road that draws no tax money but uses its tolls for maintenance, policing, and construction. Also, it was originally planned that the Turnpike become "added to the state highways" (in other words, go toll free) when the bonds were paid off, but that never occurred.
Because the NJ Turnpike (and yes, now the Garden State Parkway figures in, but for simplicity in making my case, I'll just refer to the Turnpike) is self-sufficient, the only people who pay for it are the people who use it.
Is that not ideal? NJ taxes are outrageous as they are - if only other public works could be so self-sufficient so as to decrease our tax burden! And, as many are pointing out, it's not just New Jerseyans who are feeling the hit - the out of state drivers are bringing THEIR money into the state and helpfully paying for the Turnpike's maintenance and construction etc etc.
So, I don't know if we can paint that broad a stroke against tolls. I'd love to know the story of the highway robbery on I-95 on the Delaware/Maryland border. You know; the one everyone famously shunpikes using 896 and by sneaking into Elkton? Far as I know, that stretch is as federally funded as any other generic interstate. They'd have to be funding therapeutic puppy camps for disabled children for me to feel anything but disdain for that particular toll!
Doesn't US 1 in New Jersey have massive traffic problems because of people avoiding the Pike's tolls?
i'm assuming the "massive traffic problems" you're referring to are the daily jams for commuter traffic. the Somerset Freeway (original planned routing of I-95 north from the Trenton area to I-287) would've taken the majority of that traffic burden. the Turnpike, on the other hand, is far out of the way for anyone using US 1.
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 31, 2020, 12:17:05 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 31, 2020, 11:07:36 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 31, 2020, 10:53:27 AM
Quote from: Rothman on August 31, 2020, 10:06:32 AM
Regarding a VMT tax, I don't see why it couldn't be a federal tax that is distributed back to states based upon miles driven on their states.
Doesn't that more or less pose the same problem I noted earlier, though? How do you determine how many miles are driven in a respective state unless you have some way to track where vehicles are driven?
Quote from: kernals12 on August 31, 2020, 09:54:43 AM
Doesn't US 1 in New Jersey have massive traffic problems because of people avoiding the Pike's tolls?
Why would a road in New Jersey have traffic problems because of tolls in Massachusetts (the state where people call their turnpike "the Pike")? :confused:
:bigass:
No wonder taxes in Jersey are so high if they're wasting so much money on superfluous letters like that.
What in the world are you talking about?
It's called sarcasm
Quote from: odditude on August 31, 2020, 12:19:34 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 31, 2020, 09:54:43 AM
Quote from: J3ebrules on August 31, 2020, 09:29:46 AM
I'm going to argue with the premise specifically in the case of the NJ Turnpike, which, for those of you who don't know, is a completely self-sufficient road that draws no tax money but uses its tolls for maintenance, policing, and construction. Also, it was originally planned that the Turnpike become "added to the state highways" (in other words, go toll free) when the bonds were paid off, but that never occurred.
Because the NJ Turnpike (and yes, now the Garden State Parkway figures in, but for simplicity in making my case, I'll just refer to the Turnpike) is self-sufficient, the only people who pay for it are the people who use it.
Is that not ideal? NJ taxes are outrageous as they are - if only other public works could be so self-sufficient so as to decrease our tax burden! And, as many are pointing out, it's not just New Jerseyans who are feeling the hit - the out of state drivers are bringing THEIR money into the state and helpfully paying for the Turnpike's maintenance and construction etc etc.
So, I don't know if we can paint that broad a stroke against tolls. I'd love to know the story of the highway robbery on I-95 on the Delaware/Maryland border. You know; the one everyone famously shunpikes using 896 and by sneaking into Elkton? Far as I know, that stretch is as federally funded as any other generic interstate. They'd have to be funding therapeutic puppy camps for disabled children for me to feel anything but disdain for that particular toll!
Doesn't US 1 in New Jersey have massive traffic problems because of people avoiding the Pike's tolls?
i'm assuming the "massive traffic problems" you're referring to are the daily jams for commuter traffic. the Somerset Freeway (original planned routing of I-95 north from the Trenton area to I-287) would've taken the majority of that traffic burden. the Turnpike, on the other hand, is far out of the way for anyone using US 1.
The Somerset Freeway was opposed by the New Jersey Turnpike Authority because it would've offered a toll free competitor to the Jersey Turnpike
Quote from: kernals12 on August 31, 2020, 12:24:26 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 31, 2020, 12:17:05 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 31, 2020, 11:07:36 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 31, 2020, 10:53:27 AM
Quote from: Rothman on August 31, 2020, 10:06:32 AM
Regarding a VMT tax, I don't see why it couldn't be a federal tax that is distributed back to states based upon miles driven on their states.
Doesn't that more or less pose the same problem I noted earlier, though? How do you determine how many miles are driven in a respective state unless you have some way to track where vehicles are driven?
Quote from: kernals12 on August 31, 2020, 09:54:43 AM
Doesn't US 1 in New Jersey have massive traffic problems because of people avoiding the Pike's tolls?
Why would a road in New Jersey have traffic problems because of tolls in Massachusetts (the state where people call their turnpike "the Pike")? :confused:
:bigass:
No wonder taxes in Jersey are so high if they're wasting so much money on superfluous letters like that.
What in the world are you talking about?
It's called sarcasm
It doesn't look like sarcasm (meaning the opposite of what you say) to me. The way I interpreted it, "Pike" is fewer letters than "Turnpike", and it's as if each letter costs money.
Quote from: 1 on August 31, 2020, 12:28:41 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 31, 2020, 12:24:26 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 31, 2020, 12:17:05 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 31, 2020, 11:07:36 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 31, 2020, 10:53:27 AM
Quote from: Rothman on August 31, 2020, 10:06:32 AM
Regarding a VMT tax, I don't see why it couldn't be a federal tax that is distributed back to states based upon miles driven on their states.
Doesn't that more or less pose the same problem I noted earlier, though? How do you determine how many miles are driven in a respective state unless you have some way to track where vehicles are driven?
Quote from: kernals12 on August 31, 2020, 09:54:43 AM
Doesn't US 1 in New Jersey have massive traffic problems because of people avoiding the Pike's tolls?
Why would a road in New Jersey have traffic problems because of tolls in Massachusetts (the state where people call their turnpike "the Pike")? :confused:
:bigass:
No wonder taxes in Jersey are so high if they're wasting so much money on superfluous letters like that.
What in the world are you talking about?
It's called sarcasm
It doesn't look like sarcasm (meaning the opposite of what you say) to me. The way I interpreted it, "Pike" is fewer letters than "Turnpike", and it's as if each letter costs money.
That's the joke
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 31, 2020, 09:52:12 AM
Quote from: J3ebrules on August 31, 2020, 09:29:46 AM
....
So, I don't know if we can paint that broad a stroke against tolls. I'd love to know the story of the highway robbery on I-95 on the Delaware/Maryland border. You know; the one everyone famously shunpikes using 896 and by sneaking into Elkton? Far as I know, that stretch is as federally funded as any other generic interstate. They'd have to be funding therapeutic puppy camps for disabled children for me to feel anything but disdain for that particular toll!
Delaware originally financed the road by issuing bonds because if they had waited for the standard federal funding to make it a free Interstate, it was estimated to be at least another four years before the road would have been completed. Maryland likewise financed I-95 northeast of Baltimore via bonds because most of their highway funding had been consumed by other construction. The Delaware Turnpike, and the portion of I-95 in Maryland to which it connects, was dedicated by President Kennedy and the two states' governors on November 14, 1963, and the roads opened at midnight that night. That helps explain why the highway is now named for the President, given a certain event that occurred in Dallas a week later.
Thank you for that insight - it does explain the original tolling, but not the continuation about 60 years later. Why do they continue to toll if presumably the bonds were paid back and that portion of I95 is now just another part of the Interstate system?
Quote from: odditude on August 31, 2020, 12:19:34 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 31, 2020, 09:54:43 AM
Quote from: J3ebrules on August 31, 2020, 09:29:46 AM
I'm going to argue with the premise specifically in the case of the NJ Turnpike, which, for those of you who don't know, is a completely self-sufficient road that draws no tax money but uses its tolls for maintenance, policing, and construction. Also, it was originally planned that the Turnpike become "added to the state highways" (in other words, go toll free) when the bonds were paid off, but that never occurred.
Because the NJ Turnpike (and yes, now the Garden State Parkway figures in, but for simplicity in making my case, I'll just refer to the Turnpike) is self-sufficient, the only people who pay for it are the people who use it.
Is that not ideal? NJ taxes are outrageous as they are - if only other public works could be so self-sufficient so as to decrease our tax burden! And, as many are pointing out, it's not just New Jerseyans who are feeling the hit - the out of state drivers are bringing THEIR money into the state and helpfully paying for the Turnpike's maintenance and construction etc etc.
So, I don't know if we can paint that broad a stroke against tolls. I'd love to know the story of the highway robbery on I-95 on the Delaware/Maryland border. You know; the one everyone famously shunpikes using 896 and by sneaking into Elkton? Far as I know, that stretch is as federally funded as any other generic interstate. They'd have to be funding therapeutic puppy camps for disabled children for me to feel anything but disdain for that particular toll!
Doesn't US 1 in New Jersey have massive traffic problems because of people avoiding the Pike's tolls?
i'm assuming the "massive traffic problems" you're referring to are the daily jams for commuter traffic. the Somerset Freeway (original planned routing of I-95 north from the Trenton area to I-287) would've taken the majority of that traffic burden. the Turnpike, on the other hand, is far out of the way for anyone using US 1.
According to my grandfather, US 1 was a mess in north/central Jersey long before the Turnpike. Probably not as far down as the mess is now, though, as I'd imagine New Brunswick to Princeton was much less developed.
And I do disagree that US 1 is out of the way as an alternative to the Turnpike - my father and I have taken it down to avoid nasty accidents that backed up the Southbound lanes for miles. Sometimes we don't get off til New Brunswick and then take 1 down to 295, but still there is a possible shunpiking opportunity there.
Quote from: J3ebrules on August 31, 2020, 12:59:02 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 31, 2020, 09:52:12 AM
Quote from: J3ebrules on August 31, 2020, 09:29:46 AM
....
So, I don't know if we can paint that broad a stroke against tolls. I'd love to know the story of the highway robbery on I-95 on the Delaware/Maryland border. You know; the one everyone famously shunpikes using 896 and by sneaking into Elkton? Far as I know, that stretch is as federally funded as any other generic interstate. They'd have to be funding therapeutic puppy camps for disabled children for me to feel anything but disdain for that particular toll!
Delaware originally financed the road by issuing bonds because if they had waited for the standard federal funding to make it a free Interstate, it was estimated to be at least another four years before the road would have been completed. Maryland likewise financed I-95 northeast of Baltimore via bonds because most of their highway funding had been consumed by other construction. The Delaware Turnpike, and the portion of I-95 in Maryland to which it connects, was dedicated by President Kennedy and the two states' governors on November 14, 1963, and the roads opened at midnight that night. That helps explain why the highway is now named for the President, given a certain event that occurred in Dallas a week later.
Thank you for that insight - it does explain the original tolling, but not the continuation about 60 years later. Why do they continue to toll if presumably the bonds were paid back and that portion of I95 is now just another part of the Interstate system?
The same reason why they still toll the Jersey Turnpike in your state and the MassPike in mine. The state doesn't want to pay for the maintenance.
Quote from: kernals12 on August 31, 2020, 01:05:57 PM
Quote from: J3ebrules on August 31, 2020, 12:59:02 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 31, 2020, 09:52:12 AM
Quote from: J3ebrules on August 31, 2020, 09:29:46 AM
....
So, I don't know if we can paint that broad a stroke against tolls. I'd love to know the story of the highway robbery on I-95 on the Delaware/Maryland border. You know; the one everyone famously shunpikes using 896 and by sneaking into Elkton? Far as I know, that stretch is as federally funded as any other generic interstate. They'd have to be funding therapeutic puppy camps for disabled children for me to feel anything but disdain for that particular toll!
Delaware originally financed the road by issuing bonds because if they had waited for the standard federal funding to make it a free Interstate, it was estimated to be at least another four years before the road would have been completed. Maryland likewise financed I-95 northeast of Baltimore via bonds because most of their highway funding had been consumed by other construction. The Delaware Turnpike, and the portion of I-95 in Maryland to which it connects, was dedicated by President Kennedy and the two states' governors on November 14, 1963, and the roads opened at midnight that night. That helps explain why the highway is now named for the President, given a certain event that occurred in Dallas a week later.
Thank you for that insight - it does explain the original tolling, but not the continuation about 60 years later. Why do they continue to toll if presumably the bonds were paid back and that portion of I95 is now just another part of the Interstate system?
The same reason why they still toll the Jersey Turnpike in your state and the MassPike in mine. The state doesn't want to pay for the maintenance.
Perhaps Maryland should use money towards widening I-95 to 8 lanes between Baltimore and Delaware.
"We build toll highways to encourage the use of non-tolled highways" has to be one of the stupidest arguments I've heard about roads.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on August 31, 2020, 02:05:20 PM
"We build toll highways to encourage the use of non-tolled highways" has to be one of the stupidest arguments I've heard about roads.
It is a stupid argument, or it would be if anyone made it.
Quote from: SP Cook on August 31, 2020, 11:08:34 AM
- Of course, the only morally legitimate purpose of a toll is to pay for construction. Use of tolls to force people to make life decisions other than those they wish, such as use communal transit or live in urban slums, is just as invalid as the use of any other tax to force anyone to do anything. The J O B of government is to create the society that its citizens want. If people want a suburban lifestyle then build more suburbs and more highways.
There is so much wrong with this paragraph, I don't know where to begin. I am not going to argue about the moral purpose of tolls. I'm arguing against pretty much everything else.
Urban slums? There's a whole lot of urban area that is not slum. In fact, a lot of currently growing cities from DC to LA have huge areas of expensive land with expensive homes within the city limits. I would guess your opinion of cities is that they are nothing but crime-ridden, violent areas. Some cities may be mostly slum (Detroit, East St Louis), but it's wrong to characterize all cities as urban slums. They might not be areas you want to live, but that doesn't make them slums.
"The J O B of government is to create the society that its citizens want." Which citizens? Not all citizens want to live in far-flung suburbs. I currently live in Palm Springs, but my career was mostly in St Louis and I never lived more than 12 miles from downtown. Most of the time I was about half that or less. I never lived in a bad crime area, and I always had a nice yard and home. Why should my taxes go to subsidize your need for a highway to commute 30 or more miles? It's certainly not the life I or many of my friends wanted. Most people live in cities or near suburbs. Your definition of most people is not your and your friends, or me and my friends who never wanted the suburban lifestyle. A country's citizens includes a large group of people with different ideas of a utopian society. The trick is in balancing that. It seems a lot harder today than 40 years ago, but a large part of that is we're listening to more people now.
The truth is there is only so much land around major cities, so the land is more expensive due to increased demand. If you absolutely have to have a half-acre lot with a three-car garage, it's going to cost you. That's capitalism. (Frankly, I thought a quarter-acre lot was too much work and prefer a yard small enough to cut with a push mower or weed-whacker.) Most people want something they can call their own. That's about the only truth I know. That something can be a condo, a mobile home in a senior park (like me), or something much larger. But your lifestyle will cost you more if you want more, and it's tremendously unfair for taxpayers like me to foot the bill for ever-expanding free highways. I'm not footing the bill for 16 lane freeways and other infrastructure into LA so everyone can have a half-acre in the LA metro with a solid ring of subdivisions from Blythe/ Barstow/ Bakersfield to the coast. I certainly don't want Palm Springs to have even more commuters than it currently does. It's bad enough that Del Webb is subdividing any available property in Rancho Mirage and La Quinta.
Building more freeway lanes works in smaller metros. But once you start approaching a half-million people, it starts becoming impractical. At that point, you start needing transit just to cut down on the number of cars on the road. I saw in another thread recently where someone called commuting by train indignant. I'm guessing that poster never actually commuted on the train, but I and many people I know like and prefer it. It was far easier to take the Red Line from my hotel in Bethesda to the Navy Yard when my TDY training was there, and I got on the subway at the height of rush hour both ways.
I have mixed feelings about tolls. The best tolls are on roads that have a lot of out-of-state drivers - especially trucks - to pay for the road; toll roads from Chicago to Philly are a good example (and being a toll probably saved I-80's usefulness around Cleveland or it would be as bad as I-270 north of STL), as is the Will Rogers Turnpike. They're also good when you need a toll to build something that otherwise wouldn't be built; CA 241 would be an excellent example if the north end connected to the HOT lanes on CA 91 instead of the main road, but it's still a good example. I'm not a fan most other places.
You get the government you pay for. Nothing is free, though a lot of people with
every political viewpoint think Uncle Sugar should only pay for what they want and not anyone else. New Urbanists want to remove freeways, build bike lanes everywhere, and massive transit subsidies. Developers want new highways and infrastructure (treatment plants, utility lines, schools, etc) built for them on farmland and hillsides far from urban job centers. It's a lot harder to strike a balance (and balance is needed) rather than satisfy one side at the expense of the other.
Quote from: skluth on August 31, 2020, 02:59:42 PM
"The J O B of government is to create the society that its citizens want."
Which citizens? Not all citizens want to live in far-flung suburbs. I currently live in Palm Springs, but my career was mostly in St Louis and I never lived more than 12 miles from downtown. Most of the time I was about half that or less. I never lived in a bad crime area, and I always had a nice yard and home. Why should my taxes go to subsidize your need for a highway to commute 30 or more miles? It's certainly not the life I or many of my friends wanted. Most people live in cities or near suburbs. Your definition of most people is not your and your friends, or me and my friends who never wanted the suburban lifestyle. A country's citizens includes a large group of people with different ideas of a utopian society. The trick is in balancing that. It seems a lot harder today than 40 years ago, but a large part of that is we're listening to more people now.
All citizens.
Why shouldn't your tax dollars go to fund the transportation needs of other citizens? Our tax dollars fund all sorts of transportation needs in places we never go. Your tax dollars fund the transportation needs of people in other neighborhoods of the city you live in. Drivers' tax dollars fund public transit networks they never use. Etc, etc.
Isn't that the whole point of taxes? to indirectly fund programs and projects that are larger than just your own sphere?
I don't care if your "idea of a utopian society" includes commuting 90 minutes through suburban sprawl or if it includes commuting 20 minutes on light rail: your transportation needs should be met. This shouldn't be an either/or scenario.
Quote from: kernals12 on August 31, 2020, 12:25:33 PM
Quote from: odditude on August 31, 2020, 12:19:34 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 31, 2020, 09:54:43 AM
Quote from: J3ebrules on August 31, 2020, 09:29:46 AM
I'm going to argue with the premise specifically in the case of the NJ Turnpike, which, for those of you who don't know, is a completely self-sufficient road that draws no tax money but uses its tolls for maintenance, policing, and construction. Also, it was originally planned that the Turnpike become "added to the state highways" (in other words, go toll free) when the bonds were paid off, but that never occurred.
Because the NJ Turnpike (and yes, now the Garden State Parkway figures in, but for simplicity in making my case, I'll just refer to the Turnpike) is self-sufficient, the only people who pay for it are the people who use it.
Is that not ideal? NJ taxes are outrageous as they are - if only other public works could be so self-sufficient so as to decrease our tax burden! And, as many are pointing out, it's not just New Jerseyans who are feeling the hit - the out of state drivers are bringing THEIR money into the state and helpfully paying for the Turnpike's maintenance and construction etc etc.
So, I don't know if we can paint that broad a stroke against tolls. I'd love to know the story of the highway robbery on I-95 on the Delaware/Maryland border. You know; the one everyone famously shunpikes using 896 and by sneaking into Elkton? Far as I know, that stretch is as federally funded as any other generic interstate. They'd have to be funding therapeutic puppy camps for disabled children for me to feel anything but disdain for that particular toll!
Doesn't US 1 in New Jersey have massive traffic problems because of people avoiding the Pike's tolls?
i'm assuming the "massive traffic problems" you're referring to are the daily jams for commuter traffic. the Somerset Freeway (original planned routing of I-95 north from the Trenton area to I-287) would've taken the majority of that traffic burden. the Turnpike, on the other hand, is far out of the way for anyone using US 1.
The Somerset Freeway was opposed by the New Jersey Turnpike Authority because it would've offered a toll free competitor to the Jersey Turnpike
the Somerset Freeway went unbuilt because of NIMBYs, not because of any supposed opposition by NJTA.
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 31, 2020, 10:53:27 AM
Quote from: Rothman on August 31, 2020, 10:06:32 AM
Regarding a VMT tax, I don't see why it couldn't be a federal tax that is distributed back to states based upon miles driven on their states.
Doesn't that more or less pose the same problem I noted earlier, though? How do you determine how many miles are driven in a respective state unless you have some way to track where vehicles are driven?
States already estimate VMT, so there's no issue there.
Quote from: Rothman on August 31, 2020, 05:50:34 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 31, 2020, 10:53:27 AM
Quote from: Rothman on August 31, 2020, 10:06:32 AM
Regarding a VMT tax, I don't see why it couldn't be a federal tax that is distributed back to states based upon miles driven on their states.
Doesn't that more or less pose the same problem I noted earlier, though? How do you determine how many miles are driven in a respective state unless you have some way to track where vehicles are driven?
States already estimate VMT, so there's no issue there.
The issue there would be the incentive to estimate high.
Quote from: GaryV on August 31, 2020, 06:07:11 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 31, 2020, 05:50:34 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 31, 2020, 10:53:27 AM
Quote from: Rothman on August 31, 2020, 10:06:32 AM
Regarding a VMT tax, I don't see why it couldn't be a federal tax that is distributed back to states based upon miles driven on their states.
Doesn't that more or less pose the same problem I noted earlier, though? How do you determine how many miles are driven in a respective state unless you have some way to track where vehicles are driven?
States already estimate VMT, so there's no issue there.
The issue there would be the incentive to estimate high.
Federal allocations have had it as a factor before, so no biggie.
Quote from: kernals12 on August 31, 2020, 12:25:33 PM
Quote from: odditude on August 31, 2020, 12:19:34 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 31, 2020, 09:54:43 AM
Quote from: J3ebrules on August 31, 2020, 09:29:46 AM
I'm going to argue with the premise specifically in the case of the NJ Turnpike, which, for those of you who don't know, is a completely self-sufficient road that draws no tax money but uses its tolls for maintenance, policing, and construction. Also, it was originally planned that the Turnpike become "added to the state highways" (in other words, go toll free) when the bonds were paid off, but that never occurred.
Because the NJ Turnpike (and yes, now the Garden State Parkway figures in, but for simplicity in making my case, I'll just refer to the Turnpike) is self-sufficient, the only people who pay for it are the people who use it.
Is that not ideal? NJ taxes are outrageous as they are - if only other public works could be so self-sufficient so as to decrease our tax burden! And, as many are pointing out, it's not just New Jerseyans who are feeling the hit - the out of state drivers are bringing THEIR money into the state and helpfully paying for the Turnpike's maintenance and construction etc etc.
So, I don't know if we can paint that broad a stroke against tolls. I'd love to know the story of the highway robbery on I-95 on the Delaware/Maryland border. You know; the one everyone famously shunpikes using 896 and by sneaking into Elkton? Far as I know, that stretch is as federally funded as any other generic interstate. They'd have to be funding therapeutic puppy camps for disabled children for me to feel anything but disdain for that particular toll!
Doesn't US 1 in New Jersey have massive traffic problems because of people avoiding the Pike's tolls?
i'm assuming the "massive traffic problems" you're referring to are the daily jams for commuter traffic. the Somerset Freeway (original planned routing of I-95 north from the Trenton area to I-287) would've taken the majority of that traffic burden. the Turnpike, on the other hand, is far out of the way for anyone using US 1.
The Somerset Freeway was opposed by the New Jersey Turnpike Authority because it would've offered a toll free competitor to the Jersey Turnpike
Not only is that not true, but please explain how I-295 got built alongside 60 miles of the NJ Turnpike.
Regarding US 1, much of the congestion is basically on a corridor nowhere near the Turnpike. A lot of congestion is in a stretch of roadway which is only 2 lanes wide per direction. NJDOT recently permitted shoulder running during rush hour to make it 3 lanes during those times. If the Turnpike had their say, they'll be against that, or any other improvement NJDOT wanted to make to US 1 and any other potential alternative route to the Turnpike.
Quote from: kphoger on August 31, 2020, 03:10:49 PM
Quote from: skluth on August 31, 2020, 02:59:42 PM
"The J O B of government is to create the society that its citizens want."
Which citizens? Not all citizens want to live in far-flung suburbs. I currently live in Palm Springs, but my career was mostly in St Louis and I never lived more than 12 miles from downtown. Most of the time I was about half that or less. I never lived in a bad crime area, and I always had a nice yard and home. Why should my taxes go to subsidize your need for a highway to commute 30 or more miles? It's certainly not the life I or many of my friends wanted. Most people live in cities or near suburbs. Your definition of most people is not your and your friends, or me and my friends who never wanted the suburban lifestyle. A country's citizens includes a large group of people with different ideas of a utopian society. The trick is in balancing that. It seems a lot harder today than 40 years ago, but a large part of that is we're listening to more people now.
All citizens.
Why shouldn't your tax dollars go to fund the transportation needs of other citizens? Our tax dollars fund all sorts of transportation needs in places we never go. Your tax dollars fund the transportation needs of people in other neighborhoods of the city you live in. Drivers' tax dollars fund public transit networks they never use. Etc, etc.
Isn't that the whole point of taxes? to indirectly fund programs and projects that are larger than just your own sphere?
I don't care if your "idea of a utopian society" includes commuting 90 minutes through suburban sprawl or if it includes commuting 20 minutes on light rail: your transportation needs should be met. This shouldn't be an either/or scenario.
Yes, paying for infrastructure and other taxpayer needs is the point of taxes. It doesn't mean you end up with an unlimited bucket of funds. There is far more cost to building further out in lost land, utility infrastructure, and higher water usage than just more lanes. The environmental cost alone is huge and often hard to mitigate. I don't mind people moving out of the city; I had coworkers in St Louis commute from two hours away (e.g., DuQuoin IL, Rolla, Mark Twain Lake, Fredericktown) to be closer to family and it was the best decision for them. But it is not the government's responsibility to build all the infrastructure wanted, whether multilane highways to everywhere or a subway grid under every major urban street unless the people are willing to tax themselves to provide sufficient funds to afford them. And everybody thinks more of the money should go to their needs, including me. That's human nature.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 31, 2020, 06:51:02 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 31, 2020, 12:25:33 PM
Quote from: odditude on August 31, 2020, 12:19:34 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 31, 2020, 09:54:43 AM
Quote from: J3ebrules on August 31, 2020, 09:29:46 AM
I'm going to argue with the premise specifically in the case of the NJ Turnpike, which, for those of you who don't know, is a completely self-sufficient road that draws no tax money but uses its tolls for maintenance, policing, and construction. Also, it was originally planned that the Turnpike become "added to the state highways" (in other words, go toll free) when the bonds were paid off, but that never occurred.
Because the NJ Turnpike (and yes, now the Garden State Parkway figures in, but for simplicity in making my case, I'll just refer to the Turnpike) is self-sufficient, the only people who pay for it are the people who use it.
Is that not ideal? NJ taxes are outrageous as they are - if only other public works could be so self-sufficient so as to decrease our tax burden! And, as many are pointing out, it's not just New Jerseyans who are feeling the hit - the out of state drivers are bringing THEIR money into the state and helpfully paying for the Turnpike's maintenance and construction etc etc.
So, I don't know if we can paint that broad a stroke against tolls. I'd love to know the story of the highway robbery on I-95 on the Delaware/Maryland border. You know; the one everyone famously shunpikes using 896 and by sneaking into Elkton? Far as I know, that stretch is as federally funded as any other generic interstate. They'd have to be funding therapeutic puppy camps for disabled children for me to feel anything but disdain for that particular toll!
Doesn't US 1 in New Jersey have massive traffic problems because of people avoiding the Pike's tolls?
i'm assuming the "massive traffic problems" you're referring to are the daily jams for commuter traffic. the Somerset Freeway (original planned routing of I-95 north from the Trenton area to I-287) would've taken the majority of that traffic burden. the Turnpike, on the other hand, is far out of the way for anyone using US 1.
The Somerset Freeway was opposed by the New Jersey Turnpike Authority because it would've offered a toll free competitor to the Jersey Turnpike
Not only is that not true, but please explain how I-295 got built alongside 60 miles of the NJ Turnpike.
All that time we spent on the Turnpike when we were driving to DC to visit my sister and nobody told us there was another road.
Quote from: kernals12 on August 30, 2020, 12:55:31 PM
I'm going to add my opinion to the toll road debate. To understand why they're bad we need to remember why we built freeways in the first place. It wasn't just to offer faster travel for motorists, but also to alleviate the through traffic that was bringing noise, congestion, and accidents to many communities. By tolling highways, we encourage people to use surface streets that are more dangerous, more easily congested, and are more of a community nuisance.
Why (state-owned) toll roads are good (privately-owned or privately-leased toll roads
are a different matter):
(1) The users of the toll road (or toll bridge or toll tunnel) pays the capital, maintenance
and operating cost of what is frequently a
very expensive collection of infrastructure,
freeing-up tax dollars that can be spent on the "free" road network. Toll road agencies, even
though they are public-sector operations, usually do not get toll dollars (though there are
some exceptions).
(2) With modern cashless toll collection, it is possible to charge a higher rate when demand
is high, thus eliminating or managing traffic congestion. As was illustrated above, an
uncongested freeway can carry significantly more traffic than a congested one, and managing
that congestion (or more correctly, the traffic using the toll road) means that the road can run
near its highest-possible capacity.
(3) Most toll-maintained roads and crossings are in better condition than their "free"
counterparts. This can be especially important in states where winter maintenance is
critical due to snow and ice.
(4) When drivers have a choice between "free" slow and congested roads and a
free-flowing toll road, many of them will choose to drive the toll road.
(5) The days of states getting 90% of the dollars to construct freeways from the federal
government are over and not likely to return, and toll roads are one good way to get
new roads built.
Quote from: kernals12 on August 31, 2020, 10:37:23 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 31, 2020, 06:51:02 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 31, 2020, 12:25:33 PM
Quote from: odditude on August 31, 2020, 12:19:34 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 31, 2020, 09:54:43 AM
Quote from: J3ebrules on August 31, 2020, 09:29:46 AM
I'm going to argue with the premise specifically in the case of the NJ Turnpike, which, for those of you who don't know, is a completely self-sufficient road that draws no tax money but uses its tolls for maintenance, policing, and construction. Also, it was originally planned that the Turnpike become "added to the state highways" (in other words, go toll free) when the bonds were paid off, but that never occurred.
Because the NJ Turnpike (and yes, now the Garden State Parkway figures in, but for simplicity in making my case, I'll just refer to the Turnpike) is self-sufficient, the only people who pay for it are the people who use it.
Is that not ideal? NJ taxes are outrageous as they are - if only other public works could be so self-sufficient so as to decrease our tax burden! And, as many are pointing out, it's not just New Jerseyans who are feeling the hit - the out of state drivers are bringing THEIR money into the state and helpfully paying for the Turnpike's maintenance and construction etc etc.
So, I don't know if we can paint that broad a stroke against tolls. I'd love to know the story of the highway robbery on I-95 on the Delaware/Maryland border. You know; the one everyone famously shunpikes using 896 and by sneaking into Elkton? Far as I know, that stretch is as federally funded as any other generic interstate. They'd have to be funding therapeutic puppy camps for disabled children for me to feel anything but disdain for that particular toll!
Doesn't US 1 in New Jersey have massive traffic problems because of people avoiding the Pike's tolls?
i'm assuming the "massive traffic problems" you're referring to are the daily jams for commuter traffic. the Somerset Freeway (original planned routing of I-95 north from the Trenton area to I-287) would've taken the majority of that traffic burden. the Turnpike, on the other hand, is far out of the way for anyone using US 1.
The Somerset Freeway was opposed by the New Jersey Turnpike Authority because it would've offered a toll free competitor to the Jersey Turnpike
Not only is that not true, but please explain how I-295 got built alongside 60 miles of the NJ Turnpike.
All that time we spent on the Turnpike when we were driving to DC to visit my sister and nobody told us there was another road.
Maps?
Even looking over and seeing another highway didn't peak your curiosity?
Quote from: SP Cook on August 31, 2020, 11:08:34 AM
- Toll agencies can be very profitable. This leads to many paying above market wages for their employees, to triple featherbeded executive offices, and to diversion of money to boondoggle projects.
People that work in the state toll agency where I live are paid on the same job classification and salary scales as those that work for the state DOT.
As for diversion of toll road dollars to other things, there's always transit, and transit boosters are always eager for transit to get a "fair share" of the toll revenues.
This happens in states as diverse as New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia and New Jersey (recent details on proposed increased diversion of dollars from the New Jersey Turnpike Authority to New Jersey Transit can be found here (https://www.njspotlight.com/2020/03/murphys-plan-for-nj-transit-where-the-moneys-going-to-come-from/)). Though the worst state for
borrowing billions of dollars on the bond market and then handing it to transit is probably Pennsylvania, thanks to Act 44 and Act 89. Those bonds will be paid-off by users of the Pennsylvania Turnpike system of toll roads.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 31, 2020, 11:12:33 PM
(2) With modern cashless toll collection, it is possible to charge a higher rate when demand
is high, thus eliminating or managing traffic congestion.
Thus deferring more traffic to local arterials to bypass the high toll and congesting them further. The freeway may be congestion free, but it makes the situation worse on parallel routes. The whole network needs to be assessed, not just the freeway.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 31, 2020, 11:12:33 PM
(4) When drivers have a choice between "free" slow and congested roads and a
free-flowing toll road, many of them will choose to drive the toll road.
Not with a high toll. That factor alone is a deterrent and the higher you get, the less opt to pay. It gets to the point where people would rather sit in congestion as opposed to paying a high toll just to save some minutes.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 31, 2020, 11:12:33 PM
(5) The days of states getting 90% of the dollars to construct freeways from the federal
government are over and not likely to return, and toll roads are one good way to get
new roads built.
Not sure this is true. Interstate-specific fund programs are no longer, but 90% is still available through the National Highway Performance Program for interstate highways. I would think the new interstates in NC are funded in this fashion.
Hm. I believe Prospect Mountain in NY to convert NY 17 to I-86 utilized NHPP...I can check to see what the % was, but I'm betting 90%.
90% is also available through HSIP, too, but it probably isn't a fund source that would be used for new freeways.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 31, 2020, 11:17:51 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 31, 2020, 10:37:23 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 31, 2020, 06:51:02 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 31, 2020, 12:25:33 PM
Quote from: odditude on August 31, 2020, 12:19:34 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 31, 2020, 09:54:43 AM
Quote from: J3ebrules on August 31, 2020, 09:29:46 AM
I'm going to argue with the premise specifically in the case of the NJ Turnpike, which, for those of you who don't know, is a completely self-sufficient road that draws no tax money but uses its tolls for maintenance, policing, and construction. Also, it was originally planned that the Turnpike become "added to the state highways" (in other words, go toll free) when the bonds were paid off, but that never occurred.
Because the NJ Turnpike (and yes, now the Garden State Parkway figures in, but for simplicity in making my case, I'll just refer to the Turnpike) is self-sufficient, the only people who pay for it are the people who use it.
Is that not ideal? NJ taxes are outrageous as they are - if only other public works could be so self-sufficient so as to decrease our tax burden! And, as many are pointing out, it's not just New Jerseyans who are feeling the hit - the out of state drivers are bringing THEIR money into the state and helpfully paying for the Turnpike's maintenance and construction etc etc.
So, I don't know if we can paint that broad a stroke against tolls. I'd love to know the story of the highway robbery on I-95 on the Delaware/Maryland border. You know; the one everyone famously shunpikes using 896 and by sneaking into Elkton? Far as I know, that stretch is as federally funded as any other generic interstate. They'd have to be funding therapeutic puppy camps for disabled children for me to feel anything but disdain for that particular toll!
Doesn't US 1 in New Jersey have massive traffic problems because of people avoiding the Pike's tolls?
i'm assuming the "massive traffic problems" you're referring to are the daily jams for commuter traffic. the Somerset Freeway (original planned routing of I-95 north from the Trenton area to I-287) would've taken the majority of that traffic burden. the Turnpike, on the other hand, is far out of the way for anyone using US 1.
The Somerset Freeway was opposed by the New Jersey Turnpike Authority because it would've offered a toll free competitor to the Jersey Turnpike
Not only is that not true, but please explain how I-295 got built alongside 60 miles of the NJ Turnpike.
All that time we spent on the Turnpike when we were driving to DC to visit my sister and nobody told us there was another road.
Maps?
Even looking over and seeing another highway didn't peak your curiosity?
I wasn't the one driving, my Mom was.
Every Interstate Highway must be tolled, and be funding them selves, rail lines, including adding more tracks, grade separations, (for Rail, and also Americas Interchanges) and the improvements of wider parallel "Shun Pike" roads. Any roads built and upgraded to the Interstate Highway System must also be tolled. The tolls must remain for ever.
Just look at what is happening now to road constructions. There is simply not much happening. It is never going to be as rapid construction as it was. They built many roads, but they left most unfinished.
My favourite roads that I wish to see improved are still not improved, even in urban or suburban areas such as Denton County. They are just now attempting construction of U.S. 377 and it will take at least 10 years to finish. If every Interstate lane in Denton County suddenly be came tolled, some other roads such as U.S. 377 would be congested. But even if The Interstates stay "Free", they will also be congested, and U.S. 377 will also be congested. So toll them anyways so the roads can be constructed much faster.
With every Interstate tolled, there can be more Ports To Plains Corridors, U.S. 87, U.S. 287, U.S. 81, U.S. 82, U.S. 83, U.S. 84, U.S. 177, U.S. 277, U.S. 377, and U.S. 281, equipped with the features described, and perhaps an extra set of Frontage Roads for out side of the Toll Road Right Of Way so that people can Shun Pike. ... paid for by the Pikes that they Shun.
I do not care how much they cost. I think I will pay for any Toll. It is not like they are charging thousands per month per person. I will gladly pay the tolls that are necessary to be able to enjoy the beautiful roads constructed.
Quote from: In_Correct on September 01, 2020, 07:45:31 AM
I do not care how much they cost.
Quote from: In_Correct on September 01, 2020, 07:45:31 AM
It is not like they are charging thousands per month per person.
These two statements contradict each other.
Also, look at the I-95 Richmond to DC debates between Beltway and sprjus4.
$30 * 2 directions * 365/12 days per month * 5/7 weekdays = $1304 per month
Quote from: kernals12 on September 01, 2020, 07:37:25 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 31, 2020, 11:17:51 PM
Maps?
Even looking over and seeing another highway didn't peak your curiosity?
I wasn't the one driving, my Mom was.
That makes no sense. The person driving also shouldn't be looking at a map. Passengers in the vehicle have plenty of time to look around.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 01, 2020, 08:06:28 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on September 01, 2020, 07:37:25 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 31, 2020, 11:17:51 PM
Maps?
Even looking over and seeing another highway didn't peak your curiosity?
I wasn't the one driving, my Mom was.
That makes no sense. The person driving also shouldn't be looking at a map. Passengers in the vehicle have plenty of time to look around.
I disagree. No mere passenger will tell me where to go. Just stay out of my way if you see a big paper map driving a car behind you.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 31, 2020, 11:37:16 AM
Quote from: cabiness42 on August 30, 2020, 01:41:20 PM
In most cases, Toll Roads are a means for states to raise revenue from residents of other states.
That's certainly not the case in Kentucky. I don't know the history of the Kentucky Turnpike, or why the first toll road built in the state was between E-town and Louisville instead of another corridor -- say, Lexington to Frankfort to Louisville -- but for the rest of them, they were built to connect far-flung areas of the state.
And to our credit, tolls were removed as the construction bonds were paid off (or when federal appropriations paid off the bonds early) and they didn't keep tolls indefinitely as has been done in most other states.
while it is nice that we did get rid of the tolls on the parkways once the they were paid off, I don't think they designed the interchanges where the tolls were collected very well for an eventual conversion to being free. especially if many of them were eventually planned on getting added as official federal interstates. there have been a few times the last few years I've been on the wkp I was hoping no one was entering the highway because the acceleration lanes are that short.
people are a little concerned that the orbp bridges are going to stay tolled once they eventually get paid off. I think with our history they'll go free.
Quote from: skluth on August 31, 2020, 07:34:32 PM
Yes, paying for infrastructure and other taxpayer needs is the point of taxes. It doesn't mean you end up with an unlimited bucket of funds. There is far more cost to building further out in lost land, utility infrastructure, and higher water usage than just more lanes. The environmental cost alone is huge and often hard to mitigate. I don't mind people moving out of the city; I had coworkers in St Louis commute from two hours away (e.g., DuQuoin IL, Rolla, Mark Twain Lake, Fredericktown) to be closer to family and it was the best decision for them. But it is not the government's responsibility to build all the infrastructure wanted, whether multilane highways to everywhere or a subway grid under every major urban street unless the people are willing to tax themselves to provide sufficient funds to afford them. And everybody thinks more of the money should go to their needs, including me. That's human nature.
I suspect many urban people don't realise the scale of utility sprawl they need. NYC, as one close to me: water district starts in Schoharie. 200 miles away from the city. Trash is hauled 300 miles away. Power from Niagara travels about 400 miles. Things are much more rural in smaller cities and suburbs
Water rates may be a good metric - I checked some for big cities - they were eye-watering.
Reliability is another cost factor. Power loss in downtown is a huge deal - elevators stuck, subway trains not running and people are evacuated from tunnels.
Worst come to worst, I can roll out my generator to keep fridge cold and run to the woods in a backyard if there is no water to flush.
So utility part of this argument is overrated at best.
Quote from: kalvado on September 02, 2020, 09:57:58 AM
....
Worst come to worst, I can roll out my generator to keep fridge cold and run to the woods in a backyard if there is no water to flush.
....
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/59/5f/63/595f63f6a9d4fd1544a7bdb4a935e097.gif)
I taught my wife to pee outdoors on our camping trip to Colorado a few years ago. The port-a-potty was at the opposite end of the campground, along a high-clearance dirt road, so we all just walked into the woods any time we needed to do our business. She had never peed without a toilet before, but now she knows how.
Quote from: kphoger on September 02, 2020, 12:28:34 PM
I taught my wife to pee outdoors on our camping trip to Colorado a few years ago. The port-a-potty was at the opposite end of the campground, along a high-clearance dirt road, so we all just walked into the woods any time we needed to do our business. She had never peed without a toilet before, but now she knows how.
Something worthy for her CV. :-D
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 02, 2020, 10:43:20 AM
Quote from: kalvado on September 02, 2020, 09:57:58 AM
....
Worst come to worst, I can roll out my generator to keep fridge cold and run to the woods in a backyard if there is no water to flush.
....
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/59/5f/63/595f63f6a9d4fd1544a7bdb4a935e097.gif)
As a matter of fact, my cats manage to reduce litter consumption almost to zero during warmer months of the year....
Quote from: ctkatz on September 02, 2020, 07:08:12 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 31, 2020, 11:37:16 AM
Quote from: cabiness42 on August 30, 2020, 01:41:20 PM
In most cases, Toll Roads are a means for states to raise revenue from residents of other states.
That's certainly not the case in Kentucky. I don't know the history of the Kentucky Turnpike, or why the first toll road built in the state was between E-town and Louisville instead of another corridor -- say, Lexington to Frankfort to Louisville -- but for the rest of them, they were built to connect far-flung areas of the state.
And to our credit, tolls were removed as the construction bonds were paid off (or when federal appropriations paid off the bonds early) and they didn't keep tolls indefinitely as has been done in most other states.
while it is nice that we did get rid of the tolls on the parkways once the they were paid off, I don't think they designed the interchanges where the tolls were collected very well for an eventual conversion to being free. especially if many of them were eventually planned on getting added as official federal interstates. there have been a few times the last few years I've been on the wkp I was hoping no one was entering the highway because the acceleration lanes are that short.
people are a little concerned that the orbp bridges are going to stay tolled once they eventually get paid off. I think with our history they'll go free.
They're gradually converting those to diamonds. To my knowledge, only one "toll booth cloverleaf" remains on the WK; at US 431/KY 70 at Central City. The ones at Dawson Springs and Leitchfield have been converted to diamonds.
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 01, 2020, 12:06:11 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 31, 2020, 11:12:33 PM
(2) With modern cashless toll collection, it is possible to charge a higher rate when demand
is high, thus eliminating or managing traffic congestion.
Thus deferring more traffic to local arterials to bypass the high toll and congesting them further. The freeway may be congestion free, but it makes the situation worse on parallel routes. The whole network needs to be assessed, not just the freeway.
Not always. A new toll road will remove traffic from nearby congested "free" roads.
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 01, 2020, 12:06:11 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 31, 2020, 11:12:33 PM
(4) When drivers have a choice between "free" slow and congested roads and a
free-flowing toll road, many of them will choose to drive the toll road.
Not with a high toll. That factor alone is a deterrent and the higher you get, the less opt to pay. It gets to the point where people would rather sit in congestion as opposed to paying a high toll just to save some minutes.
Again, not always. Even Ontario's Highway 407 ETR, which is a nice road but charges remarkably
high tolls, attracts traffic from somewhere, and manages to make its owners a lot of money in the
process. Virginia's HOV/toll lanes run by concession owner Transurban (in the I-95, I-395 and I-495
corridors) were (at least before the COVID19-related reduction in traffic) attracting plenty of traffic,
and not all of it was HOV-3 (HOV-3 and buses can use all of them at no charge).
Your assertion may be correct in some places but not in others.
^
Any new capacity that's tolled will help to some extent, regardless of rates. I'm referring to tolling an existing, free facility, such as the I-95 and I-395 HOV lanes outside of previous rush hours that has only worsened general purpose congestion, and I-66 inside the beltway outside of previous rush hours that has not helped nearby arterial facilities.
It depends on the length of the road. If it's meant to carry local traffic (e.g. I-355), then more drivers will use it. If it's a long-distance route (e.g. Tri-State and Ronald Reagan Memorial Tollways), then chances are, they'll shunpike it.
Quote from: Henry on September 04, 2020, 10:04:22 PM
It depends on the length of the road. If it's meant to carry local traffic (e.g. I-355), then more drivers will use it. If it's a long-distance route (e.g. Tri-State and Ronald Reagan Memorial Tollways), then chances are, they'll shunpike it.
The RR isn't a fair comparison, because the I-80 is the main line for most long-distance travelers. It's easier to say long-distance travelers will shunpike the Tri-State than actually do it. I used to travel a lot between St Louis and Green Bay. Even shunpiking the Tri-State by using I-39/I-43 meant I still hit a toll between Rockford and South Beloit on the Northwest/Addams. The main reason to shunpike the Tri-State is the congestion. The best thing about most toll roads is traffic usually flows much smoother even around cities because of the limited junctions. Drivers don't get that on the Tri-State.
I'd say a lot more long distance drivers drive the Will Rogers or Turner Turnpikes in Oklahoma than shunpike it, especially if you are going west from OKC. There's no easy way to shunpike the West Virginia Turnpike. Trust me; I've tried. It's also pretty difficult to get anywhere long distance south or west from Philly; sure, you can take US 202/ US 30/ PA 283 or PA 309/ I-78 to Harrisburg and then US 22 to I-80 to shunpike, but is it really worth the hassle?
Quote from: kernals12 on September 01, 2020, 07:37:25 AM
I wasn't the one driving, my Mom was.
Good reason not to argue.