Ohio Governor John Kasich is looking at the possibility of privatizing the Ohio Turnpike. For right now, this is not happening because the economy is still not in good shape. Either way, selling off the turnpike IMO is not a good decision because it generates money to the state. :no:
http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/5007 (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/5007)
http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2011/01/gov_john_kasich_hasnt_dismisse.html (http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2011/01/gov_john_kasich_hasnt_dismisse.html)
Ohio should make the Ohio Turnpike a regular freeway. Encourage, not discourage people from traveling to/through your depressed state.
Agreed. There was something being mentioned about the Turnpike to stop collecting tolls in the 80s. Needless to point out that did not happen. :thumbdown:
If it happens, it'll occur this year with Ohio's budget deficit. Right now, I'd say 60-40 the OTC goes private.
If the Turnpike should be privatized, how likely would it be that the speed limit would go higher than the 70 mph limit coming into effect in April?
No, it should not be privatized, nor should it be made a freeway. How do you pay for the maintenance? Dump it on cash-strapped ODOT? Privatizing is the mistake they made in Greece (as well as Indiana).
Privatization: Short term money for a long-term loan, essentially.
The issue is, if a private company thinks they can come in, hand over a few billions, and over 99 years (or whatever) make that money back, maintain the road, AND turn a profit to make it worth their while,... then the government should do exactly that and cut out the middle man. Why funnel motorists dollars overseas when they could stay here and then be diverted to other road projects.
If you've driven the Indiana Toll Road since they've privatized, you'll realize they're very shoddy in how it is maintained. Massive potholes in the right lane. Toll lanes where the gate fails to operate properly (and this happens on a consistent basis). Why? Because they're not looking to break even, they're looking to turn a profit.
After reading about the situation in Indiana, privatization is a bad way to go.
In this day and age of EZ-Pass, I'm surprised that the old toll gates are still up, especially when in other parts of the country, more toll plazas are ditching the gates for electronic payments where you zip through a scanner that deducts charges from your account.
In the northeast you have a lot of occasional users who won't drive on a road if they need a transponder or will pay a heavy fee for processing the licence plate. I still don't see why you need gates though - the Thruway uses cash payments, and it doesn't have gate arms.
I tend not to favor privatization deals, but as a general rule it is not possible to say that a private company will uniformly underperform a state agency, even in a sector such as this one where comparative costs of private and public ownership are relatively easy to calculate. Each proposed privatization agreement has to be evaluated on its merits.
I opposed the Indiana Toll Road privatization, but my concerns with it had more to do with the agreement exempting the concessionaire from Indiana's open-records statute and not requiring the concessionaire to turn over construction documentation to the State of Indiana until after the lease period expired. In theory this meant that if I wanted to obtain construction plans for signing on the ITR, and the concessionaire refused to cooperate, I would have to wait fifty years and then file a request with Indiana DOT or a successor agency. (In this connection it is worth noting that most of the overseas companies involved with American highway privatizations have been Spanish or Australian. Spain and Australia both have weak cultures of transparency. The Spanish have actually been ahead of Europe at large in putting construction documentation online for highway projects, but this applies only to the public sector, and the Spanish understanding of the principle of publicity is much different from that prevailing in the US. For example, Spain has no separate law guaranteeing public access to governmental information, and that access is regulated through a broader statute on administrative proceedings which provides that a government agency can deny public access to any document if it relates to a file which is outside a publicity period and relates to a government action which is not finished. For example, if an agency releases an anteproyecto for a major subway project, that anteproyecto is fully available during a period of public inspection, and is then closed to the public. If an agency advertises a construction project, then the proyecto for that project is available until bids are opened, and then it is closed to the public until after construction is finished and the project is finaled.)
However, it is increasingly becoming unusual for DBFOs and other highway privatizations not to have open-records pass-through provisions. For example, Michigan DOT now inserts pass-through provisions in its DBFOs which require private companies to make records related to the DBFOs accessible to the public as if they were a Michigan state agency. (The fact that Michigan's open-records law has a punitive cost-recovery provision which makes it useless is a separate issue.) Moreover, the ITR concessionaire advertises construction projects electronically, so it is possible to obtain the construction plans by monitoring its lettings as if it were a state DOT. The main difference between it and Indiana DOT is that there is no post-letting availability of plans--if you don't catch it before bids are opened, you are out of luck.
For what it is worth, when the ITR privatization deal went through, the consensus was that the private company had overpaid (i.e., the state got a better deal than it could have expected). So all the problems the ITR has developed under the concessionaire have to be balanced against the additional construction the $3 billion lump-sum payment has made possible in Indiana. (I don't know, though, whether the calculation of relative advantage takes into account indirect effects related to toll collectors' pensions. The ITR concessionaire staged a mass firing of toll collectors, who were employed on more or less the same terms as state employees.)
I don't think privatization of the Ohio Turnpike is likely because I see no obvious source of economies or organizational efficiencies other than cutting employee numbers or compensation. I also don't support privatization because, unlike the vast majority of turnpike agencies, the Ohio Turnpike Commission is transparent and responsive. Why fix what is broken?
Quote from: J N Winkler on February 14, 2011, 11:26:09 AMif an agency releases an anteproyecto for a major subway project, that anteproyecto is fully available during a period of public inspection, and is then closed to the public.
there's no Julian Assange out there who keeps hosting the anteproyecto documentation even after it has been officially re-classified as top secret?
Nope. No Julian Assange figure in this sector, alas. Just an American tourist who goes with a pen drive to the provincial delegation where copies of the anteproyectos are kept (on both hardcopy and CD), copies them, and marks himself as a real nerd by taking pictures of the patio before he goes.
Quote from: Brandon on February 13, 2011, 11:33:23 PM
No, it should not be privatized, nor should it be made a freeway. How do you pay for the maintenance?
Gas tax revenues. Dying Ohio needs the lifeblood of a freeway. Tolled mainlines = rust belt.
The problem, Landshark, is the gas tax revenue doesn't currently cover the state well enough as it is. Throwing on 200+ miles of maintenance will require raising that tax. Something a Republican will be steadfastly against to their detriment.
The gas tax gets worse every year that fuel economy of cars increases and inflation increases. Gas taxes should be pegged to inflation and adjusted yearly based on an average of the fuel economy of all passenger cars on the road (and the same can be done for commercial vehicles). That would've stopped a lot of these funding problems that keep growing year after year.
Sykotyk
Quote from: Landshark on February 14, 2011, 06:45:05 PM
Quote from: Brandon on February 13, 2011, 11:33:23 PM
No, it should not be privatized, nor should it be made a freeway. How do you pay for the maintenance?
Gas tax revenues. Dying Ohio needs the lifeblood of a freeway. Tolled mainlines = rust belt.
Gas tax = potholes and unwidened freeways.
Tolls = smooth and wider freeways.
Take our experience around Chicago as an example.
Quote from: Brandon on February 15, 2011, 09:49:02 AM
Gas tax = potholes and unwidened freeways.
Tolls = smooth and wider freeways.
Take our experience around Chicago as an example.
Also add Quebec as another exemple. We got the higher gas tax in Canada... >_<
As for privitazation, selling the current toll road might be risky. However what if it was for a all-new toll road project? I checked this old thread at https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=425.0
That would be a totally different story. Yet even with an all-new toll road it could carry some risks. One of the toll roads in Texas (I don't know which) is one example.
So, sell off a publicly built piece of infrastructure to some company so that now in addition to paying tolls for the upkeep of the roadway we have to pay for this hypothetical company to turn a profit? Or are they just going to skimp on maintenance so they can keep tolls 'low' and still make money? Either way I predict any such arrangement ending with some sort of taxpayer subsidy for the hypothetical company, maybe even a total buyout. The employees lose their jobs and the executives descend on the their golden bailout parachutes. And another short-sighted privatization winds up costing more in the long run. Count me against.
Although it is an interesting thought experiment to try and hold highway infrastructure to the same standard some demand for public transit.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on February 15, 2011, 05:21:23 PM
Although it is an interesting thought experiment to try and hold highway infrastructure to the same standard some demand for public transit.
I would like to see that happen, because we expect our roads to be efficient and free of potholes.
Quote from: The Premier on February 18, 2011, 08:55:56 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on February 15, 2011, 05:21:23 PM
Although it is an interesting thought experiment to try and hold highway infrastructure to the same standard some demand for public transit.
I would like to see that happen, because we expect our roads to be efficient and free of potholes.
That, and the only good pothole is one that's been paved over! :D
A thought just came to me: The turnpikes can keep their tolls, but I say replace all tollbooths with transponders that communicate with EZ-Pass users, and cameras to snap up the license plates of non-EZ-Pass users for billing in the mail, similar to what's being done on the ICC in Maryland (and that's an interesting concept they're using over there!). Traffic would flow more continuously, and there'd be no need to stop, except to get off at an exit.
Except then you force people without transponders to pay a hefty fee or stay off the road. Additionally, other than the Thruway, I don't know of any transponders without a monthly or yearly fee so you're forcing occasional users who may not have enough usage to justify a transponder off the road. Plus some people don't like the idea of pre-paying their tolls by putting money on the account.
Quote from: Sykotyk on February 14, 2011, 11:29:25 PM
The problem, Landshark, is the gas tax revenue doesn't currently cover the state well enough as it is. Throwing on 200+ miles of maintenance will require raising that tax. Something a Republican will be steadfastly against to their detriment.
The state needs to grow. That's the problem. The public sector needs to take a temporary big hit so the state can implement some competitive growth measures to attract people, money, and business. Dumping the tolls is a nice start. As more people move, travel to/through Ohio and buy gas, the gas tax revenues (as well as sales tax. lodging tax, etc) will increase too.
Again: tolled mainlines = rust belt
Quote from: Brandon on February 15, 2011, 09:49:02 AM
Gas tax = potholes and unwidened freeways.
Tolls = smooth and wider freeways.
Not from my experience. The freeways we have out west are superior to those rust belt tollways.
Quote from: deanej on February 18, 2011, 09:36:49 AM
Except then you force people without transponders to pay a hefty fee or stay off the road. Additionally, other than the Thruway, I don't know of any transponders without a monthly or yearly fee so you're forcing occasional users who may not have enough usage to justify a transponder off the road. Plus some people don't like the idea of pre-paying their tolls by putting money on the account.
It was merely a suggestion! I never said anything along the lines of "they should actually do it."
Quote from: Landshark on February 18, 2011, 03:31:27 PM
Quote from: Sykotyk on February 14, 2011, 11:29:25 PM
The problem, Landshark, is the gas tax revenue doesn't currently cover the state well enough as it is. Throwing on 200+ miles of maintenance will require raising that tax. Something a Republican will be steadfastly against to their detriment.
The state needs to grow. That's the problem. The public sector needs to take a temporary big hit so the state can implement some competitive growth measures to attract people, money, and business. Dumping the tolls is a nice start. As more people move, travel to/through Ohio and buy gas, the gas tax revenues (as well as sales tax. lodging tax, etc) will increase too.
Again: tolled mainlines = rust belt
Every road in the Midwest could be free and that wouldn't change the region's fate one bit.
It's not like the Ohio Turnpike is difficult to avoid either.
US 20-US250-US30, or US30 all the way, US6-OH53-OH2, etc. So many ways to bypass it.
The problem with the thought on removing the tolls to increase people showing up in Ohio is that the majority of the toll traffic is from out-of-state drivers passing through (the road barely skims any urban areas). It gets close to Toledo, Cleveland, Akron, Youngstown, but never quite gets within the urban area where commuters will generally take it.
Add in the fact that more people taking the road (in your hypothesis) will also increase the wear and tear the road experiences and increase the amount of money needed to upkeep up. At the same time, the state still receives gas tax when someone buys fuel and drives the toll road in addition to the toll.
What's killing the area is the loss of the factory jobs oversees and menial jobs to the south and west where 'new land' is cheaper and they've yet to hit the wall when their infrastructure starts to falter. Through in the fact that only the insurance/healthcare industry can prop them up explains the fervor in protecting the leaches to bleed us dry.
It's the last thing keeping most any formerly industrial older city alive (look at Pittsburgh).
A $10 toll to drive 232 miles is not stopping people from living here, working here, relocating here, etc.
Well said . Its a valuable asset and the people of Ohio should keep it. Its cheap for a trip across the state.
I have no problem with somthing minor like teh Chicaho Skyway or allowing some new private roads but to give up major interstates like the turnpike or the Illinois Tollway -no way
Quote from: Henry on February 14, 2011, 08:37:01 AM
After reading about the situation in Indiana, privatization is a bad way to go.
Can you be specific why the Indiana situation was bad? From what I can tell, the Toll Road is finally being widened from Gary to Hammond unlike when the state ran it. With the money, Indiana is rebuilding half of I-465, I-69 from Evansville north, US 31 freeway in Carmel/Westfield, Kokomo, and Plymouth to South Bend, US 24 freeway from Fort Wayne to Ohio, SR 25 expressway from Logansport to Lafayette, US 231 expressway from I-64 to Kentucky, and many other smaller projects. I don't really see a down side. Especially because the Toll Road never made a profit when the state ran it.
Indiana got their money when the economy was good. They're building new roads when costs are low (so far). I am not sure that Ohio would get a good deal given the current economic conditions and the proximity of parallel freeways, though.
Quote from: InterstateNG on February 18, 2011, 05:06:28 PM
It's not like the Ohio Turnpike is difficult to avoid either.
Especially since US 30 is nearly all freeway or expressway grade all the way from I-71 in Ohio to I-65 in Indiana.
Quote from: mukade on February 18, 2011, 11:45:13 PM
Quote from: Henry on February 14, 2011, 08:37:01 AM
After reading about the situation in Indiana, privatization is a bad way to go.
Can you be specific why the Indiana situation was bad? From what I can tell, the Toll Road is finally being widened from Gary to Hammond unlike when the state ran it. With the money, Indiana is rebuilding half of I-465, I-69 from Evansville north, US 31 freeway in Carmel/Westfield, Kokomo, and Plymouth to South Bend, US 24 freeway from Fort Wayne to Ohio, SR 25 expressway from Logansport to Lafayette, US 231 expressway from I-64 to Kentucky, and many other smaller projects. I don't really see a down side. Especially because the Toll Road never made a profit when the state ran it.
Indiana got their money when the economy was good. They're building new roads when costs are low (so far). I am not sure that Ohio would get a good deal given the current economic conditions and the proximity of parallel freeways, though.
Because Indiana is greatly skimping on the upkeep of the road already there. Potholes are now a major problem this year when they never had that problem before. The Izoom lanes have had problems not reading sensors and therefore not opening the gate arms. Which take forever for one of the few workers (if there is one) to go open the gate manually. Which results in people, I've seen numerous times, backing out of the toll lane to go to another lane to try.
Yet, that problem persists, what, two years later?
They're trying to turn a profit on a road that before was designed to breakeven.
The only way to do it is to cut corners.
Quote from: Sykotyk on February 19, 2011, 11:59:53 PM
Quote from: mukade on February 18, 2011, 11:45:13 PM
Quote from: Henry on February 14, 2011, 08:37:01 AM
After reading about the situation in Indiana, privatization is a bad way to go.
Can you be specific why the Indiana situation was bad? From what I can tell, the Toll Road is finally being widened from Gary to Hammond unlike when the state ran it. With the money, Indiana is rebuilding half of I-465, I-69 from Evansville north, US 31 freeway in Carmel/Westfield, Kokomo, and Plymouth to South Bend, US 24 freeway from Fort Wayne to Ohio, SR 25 expressway from Logansport to Lafayette, US 231 expressway from I-64 to Kentucky, and many other smaller projects. I don't really see a down side. Especially because the Toll Road never made a profit when the state ran it.
Indiana got their money when the economy was good. They're building new roads when costs are low (so far). I am not sure that Ohio would get a good deal given the current economic conditions and the proximity of parallel freeways, though.
Because Indiana is greatly skimping on the upkeep of the road already there. Potholes are now a major problem this year when they never had that problem before. The Izoom lanes have had problems not reading sensors and therefore not opening the gate arms. Which take forever for one of the few workers (if there is one) to go open the gate manually. Which results in people, I've seen numerous times, backing out of the toll lane to go to another lane to try.
Yet, that problem persists, what, two years later?
They're trying to turn a profit on a road that before was designed to breakeven.
The only way to do it is to cut corners.
I don't know if I buy that. First, there are potholes every year, and this year is a very bad year for potholes everywhere in the upper Midwest. I just drove the Toll Road from I-65 to the Skyway last week after the snow. It is a mess where ITR is widening it, but then again I-465 is a huge mess where it is being widened. How do you avoid that? I-65 south of US 231 is an example of a road that really needs rebuilding. The toll road did not seem too bad to me - when the state controlled it was it really better?
As for the iZoom lanes, I was inbound to Chicago around 4:00pm so I was going the better way. At that time, I saw no backups either way at the toll booths. That said, I don't like being forced to stop when I own a tag, but that is a remnant of when the state built it. Don't blame ITR for that.
With regard to cutting corners, every agency wants to minimize cost. ITR will lose a chunk of business to I-94, US 30, and I-70 and if things get really bad, so they will keep it up. Just seeing that they are actually spending money to widen the toll road (something the state did not do), tells me they will do an adequate job.
Quote from: Sykotyk on February 18, 2011, 10:29:44 PM
The problem with the thought on removing the tolls to increase people showing up in Ohio is that the majority of the toll traffic is from out-of-state drivers passing through (the road barely skims any urban areas). It gets close to Toledo, Cleveland, Akron, Youngstown, but never quite gets within the urban area where commuters will generally take it.
More the reason to remove the toll. You will import more $ into the state from the out of state drivers.
The region needs to remove its human push factors. The excuses above for the region's decline are laughable. More freedom elsewhere, that's why the region is hurting. Freedom of movement is a big freedom, remove those tolls!
Again: tolled mainlines = rust belt. My guess is the mentality of areas that accept excessive taxation on mobility also support excessive taxation/regulation in other areas, limiting freedom and pushing folks to freer pastures.
Quote from: Landshark on February 20, 2011, 05:14:21 PM
Quote from: Sykotyk on February 18, 2011, 10:29:44 PM
The problem with the thought on removing the tolls to increase people showing up in Ohio is that the majority of the toll traffic is from out-of-state drivers passing through (the road barely skims any urban areas). It gets close to Toledo, Cleveland, Akron, Youngstown, but never quite gets within the urban area where commuters will generally take it.
More the reason to remove the toll. You will import more $ into the state from the out of state drivers.
The region needs to remove its human push factors. The excuses above for the region's decline are laughable. More freedom elsewhere, that's why the region is hurting. Freedom of movement is a big freedom, remove those tolls!
Again: tolled mainlines = rust belt. My guess is the mentality of areas that accept excessive taxation on mobility also support excessive taxation/regulation in other areas, limiting freedom and pushing folks to freer pastures.
And again, where's the tax revenue coming from to support making the road free? Answer: nowhere. The tolled roads aren't what's hurting the region. It's a transition from one type of economy to another. As vehicles become more fuel efficient (or use zero gasoline or diesel at all), that wonderful gas tax revenue will dry up. Then, your wonderful sunburned belt roads will be a mass of potholes.
Quote from: Brandon on February 20, 2011, 07:42:41 PM
As vehicles become more fuel efficient (or use zero gasoline or diesel at all), that wonderful gas tax revenue will dry up. Then, your wonderful sunburned belt roads will be a mass of potholes.
The best solution to address this is to have the gas tax adjusted to inflation. That would have solve all the problems and we wouldn't have this discussion over privatizing the Ohio Turnpike or the Indiana Toll Road. Yet the sad thing of all of this is that no one, either in Columbus or Washington, have the political will to even consider this. Which is a damn shame. :thumbdown:
Quote from: Landshark on February 20, 2011, 05:14:21 PM
Quote from: Sykotyk on February 18, 2011, 10:29:44 PM
The problem with the thought on removing the tolls to increase people showing up in Ohio is that the majority of the toll traffic is from out-of-state drivers passing through (the road barely skims any urban areas). It gets close to Toledo, Cleveland, Akron, Youngstown, but never quite gets within the urban area where commuters will generally take it.
More the reason to remove the toll. You will import more $ into the state from the out of state drivers.
I will disagree on that heavily. The fact of the matter is that tolls have nothing to do with why the area is in danger of going downhill.
So let me ask you this Landshark: How are you going to get the money to pay for the necessary repairs? And how are you going to pay for this? :hmmm:
IF the tolls cease to collect, those things aren't going to be done.
So your "tolled mainlines = rust belt" theory is very invalid. :no:
Not just inflation, The Premier, but also it would need to be pegged to CAFE standards (at least).The more mileage for a gallon of gas/diesel means lesser income to pay for the tires pounding the pavement. Inflation is a problem, but fuel economy can be just as bad. Hypermileage cars are only going to exacerbate the problem.
A 1,500 pound car getting 60mpg compared to a 1,500 pound car getting 20mpg is still inflicting the same amount of wear on a roadway.
That's why roadways are in such a funk. For as good as the CAFE standards have been to increasing fuel economy it has quietly siphoned cash from the till to maintain the roads the cars are driven on.
As for 'tolled mainlines'... the two most 'sought after' states in the country of Texas and Florida are building toll roads like crazy. No major work is done, really, unless it is a toll road. Which funnels much more traffic onto the mainline than it can handle (I-35 from San Antonio to Waco is a great example of that problem). The Austin bypass is horribly under par when it comes to revenue. They pegged truck traffic (the ideal thing to get off the mainline) at a much higher user rate for a toll that equals almost $1/mile and requires you to have TxTag (which the bigger trucking firms will not sign up for as there is free alternatives, and individual drivers for those companies cannot sign up for TxTag on their own because only the motor carrier can enter into a contract for TxTag). So, only a small handful of the thousands of trucks a day through the Austin bottleneck actually can take the tolled bypass AND go ahead and pay for a nearly $50 toll to add 10-20 miles to the trip and only save, at most, maybe 45 minutes of travel.
Tolling bypasses, same problem Orlando has. I-4 is getting swapped, yet every alternatives requires you to pay for the privilege.
Sykotyk
Quote from: Sykotyk on February 20, 2011, 10:55:51 PM
As for 'tolled mainlines'... the two most 'sought after' states in the country of Texas and Florida are building toll roads like crazy. No major work is done, really, unless it is a toll road. Which funnels much more traffic onto the mainline than it can handle (I-35 from San Antonio to Waco is a great example of that problem). The Austin bypass is horribly under par when it comes to revenue. They pegged truck traffic (the ideal thing to get off the mainline) at a much higher user rate for a toll that equals almost $1/mile and requires you to have TxTag (which the bigger trucking firms will not sign up for as there is free alternatives, and individual drivers for those companies cannot sign up for TxTag on their own because only the motor carrier can enter into a contract for TxTag). So, only a small handful of the thousands of trucks a day through the Austin bottleneck actually can take the tolled bypass AND go ahead and pay for a nearly $50 toll to add 10-20 miles to the trip and only save, at most, maybe 45 minutes of travel.
Sykotyk
That's just crazy. :wow: This issue would be solved easily by allowing trucks to use credit/debit cards or even cash rather to force everyone to use electronic toll tags.
The problem with the 130 toll bypass of Austin is that it was a high-priced road that didn't go anywhere and was especially hard to access for NB I-35 traffic. Traffic can now bypass Austin since 45 SE got built a couple years ago, and 130 is supposed to be complete down to Seguin and I-10 in 2012. Whether that boosts traffic counts is yet to be seen, but it's not like the toll roads are killing the desire of people to move to Central Texas.
Quote from: Landshark on February 20, 2011, 05:14:21 PM
More the reason to remove the toll. You will import more $ into the state from the out of state drivers.
I'm afraid I'm gonna have to poo-poo this idea. People may not like the added cost of tolls in their travels, but I seriously doubt that someone considering doing out-of-state travel is going to alter or cancel their plans because of a toll road. Conversely, I don't think anyone is gonna be at home thinking, "I'd go spend the money on gas, possible lodging, whatever out-of-state activities I'd be doing, etc... if only that highway was toll-free; That's the deal-breaker."
And, as someone pointed out earlier, the OH Turnpike specifically doesn't really enter any major cities, so if more people actually drove it, but didn't need to stop for food or gas in Ohio, all they are importing is more wear and tear on a road without ANY $$$.
Quote from: The Premier on February 21, 2011, 09:16:37 AM
Quote from: Sykotyk on February 20, 2011, 10:55:51 PM
As for 'tolled mainlines'... the two most 'sought after' states in the country of Texas and Florida are building toll roads like crazy. No major work is done, really, unless it is a toll road. Which funnels much more traffic onto the mainline than it can handle (I-35 from San Antonio to Waco is a great example of that problem). The Austin bypass is horribly under par when it comes to revenue. They pegged truck traffic (the ideal thing to get off the mainline) at a much higher user rate for a toll that equals almost $1/mile and requires you to have TxTag (which the bigger trucking firms will not sign up for as there is free alternatives, and individual drivers for those companies cannot sign up for TxTag on their own because only the motor carrier can enter into a contract for TxTag). So, only a small handful of the thousands of trucks a day through the Austin bottleneck actually can take the tolled bypass AND go ahead and pay for a nearly $50 toll to add 10-20 miles to the trip and only save, at most, maybe 45 minutes of travel.
Sykotyk
That's just crazy. :wow: This issue would be solved easily by allowing trucks to use credit/debit cards or even cash rather to force everyone to use electronic toll tags.
Maybe you're not grasping the enormity of the price. If an average OTR company driver makes roughly $100 a day, they're not going to spend $50 of their own money to shave a half an hour off their drive time AND drive a few extra miles for which his company will probably be upset that he drove. Now, owner-operators could still conceivably think this toll is worthwhile. But, based on usage totals, it is not.
Nobody is going to go out of their way to pay $50+ plus the extra miles to save at most 30 minutes. And their companies certainly aren't going to do it, either.
Quote from: Mr_Northside on February 21, 2011, 04:47:08 PM
People may not like the added cost of tolls in their travels, but I seriously doubt that someone considering doing out-of-state travel is going to alter or cancel their plans because of a toll road.
I generally agree, but I would have made an exception if Fast Eddie's I-80 tolling project in PA had come to fruition.
It looks like privatization of the Turnpike is on the 2011 budget set by the governor. On top of that, there's a website calling on the privatization of the Ohio Turnpike. :thumbdown:
http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/1719 (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/1719)
http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2011/03/kasich_administration_source_s.html (http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2011/03/kasich_administration_source_s.html)
That was back in 2006. The Skyway and Indiana toll road probably wouldnt get as much today.
Also Ohio is a referendum state so would voters get a say ?
Quote from: 3467 on March 21, 2011, 07:53:12 PM
Also Ohio is a referendum state so would voters get a say ?
More than likely. But then again, it will be interesting to see whether or not this debate will go to the polls this year.
Quote from: Sykotyk on February 14, 2011, 01:22:42 AM
Privatization: Short term money for a long-term loan, essentially.
If you've driven the Indiana Toll Road since they've privatized, you'll realize they're very shoddy in how it is maintained. Massive potholes in the right lane. Toll lanes where the gate fails to operate properly (and this happens on a consistent basis). Why? Because they're not looking to break even, they're looking to turn a profit.
Just drove the whole length of the Toll Road yesterday - like you said, massive potholes in the right lane. In fact, near Hammond, there were signs posted stating "ROUGH PAVEMENT". What a shame.
I don't think it's a bad idea for the future.
I have a question about speed limits on private undedicated roads in Ohio. Does anyone know if the minimum speed limit is 25, or can residents desiginate a lower limit? We live in a 55 & older retirement commmunity and 25 does not cut it. Most people go over 25 to 30 especially visitors, workmen, etc. We are worried that some older residents that do not move very quickly could be hit. Can we lower the limit to 15 or 17 or something like that?
eriegator
Quote from: eriegator on April 25, 2011, 08:07:31 PM
I don't think it's a bad idea for the future.
I have a question about speed limits on private undedicated roads in Ohio. Does anyone know if the minimum speed limit is 25, or can residents desiginate a lower limit? We live in a 55 & older retirement commmunity and 25 does not cut it. Most people go over 25 to 30 especially visitors, workmen, etc. We are worried that some older residents that do not move very quickly could be hit. Can we lower the limit to 15 or 17 or something like that?
eriegator
Erie: Welcome to the forum. In general, please try to keep on topic. I would appreciate if you posted this question as a new thread.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/16/toll-road-privatization_n_878169.html
The Columbus Dispatch: Moneymaker or drain on drivers? (http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/07/10/moneymaker-or-drain-on-drivers.html?sid=101)
Are there ANY privatized toll roads/toll bridges/toll tunnels that are cheaper than or equal to similar nearby government-based toll authorities? That is one of the problems. And that is why those privatized toll facilities go to pot so quickly. Since the private ownership can't funnel extra needed money over from other government funding sources, they have to raise tolls by a lot to get money to pay for things. And as most people know, when you raise fees, you lose customers. And how are you going to convince the well-to-dos to pay boku money to travel on roads that, over time, will probably get worse than roads that the common people can ride on for free?
I just see these privatization moves as having a snake start eating it's own tail, and sooner or later the governments will have to bail them out and dump more money to bring these facilities back up to acceptable levels. Sure, decades down the road governments may have ample money to be able to save these "slum tollways", but if they have to bail them out in a economic time like the one we are in now, I don't see any good coming out of these deals.
It's getting late...did I make ANY sense??? :confused:
Quote from: thenetwork on July 10, 2011, 11:36:40 PM
Are there ANY privatized toll roads/toll bridges/toll tunnels that are cheaper than or equal to similar nearby government-based toll authorities?
Yes, those that are run at a loss because they benefit the operator in another way (such as providing access to development). Of course that doesn't apply to these major turnpikes.
Quote from: thenetwork on July 10, 2011, 11:36:40 PM
Are there ANY privatized toll roads/toll bridges/toll tunnels that are cheaper than or equal to similar nearby government-based toll authorities? That is one of the problems. And that is why those privatized toll facilities go to pot so quickly. Since the private ownership can't funnel extra needed money over from other government funding sources, they have to raise tolls by a lot to get money to pay for things. And as most people know, when you raise fees, you lose customers. And how are you going to convince the well-to-dos to pay boku money to travel on roads that, over time, will probably get worse than roads that the common people can ride on for free?
I just see these privatization moves as having a snake start eating it's own tail, and sooner or later the governments will have to bail them out and dump more money to bring these facilities back up to acceptable levels. Sure, decades down the road governments may have ample money to be able to save these "slum tollways", but if they have to bail them out in a economic time like the one we are in now, I don't see any good coming out of these deals.
It's getting late...did I make ANY sense??? :confused:
Absolutely made sense. (Same thing is going on with health care in a way, Medicare is actually less expensive per capita than pretty much most regular insurance and it performs quite a bit better. But of course, the center-right Democrats and far-right Republicans both want to gimp and gut it just to make a quick buck for them and their corporate benefactors.)
Government is not meant to be run like a business. It is supposed to care and protect its people and being run like a business forgoes that. Government should cover where capitalist ventures don't. (That's basically the beginning of how we got the Internet and other things like accurate weather forecasting developed in the 50s/60s/70s.) Business interests are always too short-sighted.
I like the Thousand Islands Bridge Authority and I'm pretty sure they're private. The toll is $2.50 for a one-way trip across the whole system or both across a single span (each is between a couple of islands and the US/Canadian mainland; leaving the islands is free but the toll is on entering). However, I'm pretty sure all the St. Lawrence crossings between the US and Canada are private so I can't think of a nearby area to compare it to. They are cheaper than the public NYC area bridges and other private bridges like the Ambassador. They also own/operate Boldt Castle.
Since they don't do anything like Mouron does, the only downside I can think of is the lack of Ez-pass; they won't enter the program because the costs are too high. I-81 may be the only interstate in the entire northeast where a cash toll is mandatory; the only other places without electronic tolling options that I know of are the other two bridges across the St. Lawrence.
Quote from: thenetwork on July 10, 2011, 11:36:40 PM
Are there ANY privatized toll roads/toll bridges/toll tunnels that are cheaper than or equal to similar nearby government-based toll authorities?
Dingmans Ferry Bridge is now equal to other westbound Delaware crossings at $1. (The others were 75 cents, and Dingmans also charges eastbound.)
Quote from: thenetwork on July 10, 2011, 11:36:40 PM
Are there ANY privatized toll roads/toll bridges/toll tunnels that are cheaper than or equal to similar nearby government-based toll authorities? That is one of the problems. And that is why those privatized toll facilities go to pot so quickly. Since the private ownership can't funnel extra needed money over from other government funding sources, they have to raise tolls by a lot to get money to pay for things. And as most people know, when you raise fees, you lose customers. And how are you going to convince the well-to-dos to pay boku money to travel on roads that, over time, will probably get worse than roads that the common people can ride on for free?
The best solution to all of this is rather than leasing the Turnpike, the solution is to raise the vehicle registration fees, the vehicle title fees, raise the sales tax for motor vehicles, and, in urban metro areas, establish a vehicle tax. If a car is priced at $50,000 or more (restricted to cars only), a luxury tax needs to be added. If you live in a larger metro area, such as Cleveland, Akron-Canton, and Toledo, no doubt it will cost you more. Those taxes will go strictly into maintaing and building our roads, and it will be based by county population. That way, there will be no need to privatize the Ohio Turnpike.
I have mentioned about this in both the crumbling infrastructure (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4555.msg100217#msg100217) and the If you could fix... (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4569.msg102977#msg102977) threads.
Quote from: deanej on July 11, 2011, 12:30:57 PM
I like the Thousand Islands Bridge Authority and I'm pretty sure they're private. The toll is $2.50 for a one-way trip across the whole system or both across a single span (each is between a couple of islands and the US/Canadian mainland; leaving the islands is free but the toll is on entering). However, I'm pretty sure all the St. Lawrence crossings between the US and Canada are private so I can't think of a nearby area to compare it to. They are cheaper than the public NYC area bridges and other private bridges like the Ambassador. They also own/operate Boldt Castle.
Since they don't do anything like Mouron does, the only downside I can think of is the lack of Ez-pass; they won't enter the program because the costs are too high. I-81 may be the only interstate in the entire northeast where a cash toll is mandatory; the only other places without electronic tolling options that I know of are the other two bridges across the St. Lawrence.
Thousand Island Bridge is as much a private entity as the New York Thruway.
From http://www.tibridge.com/wp/?page_id=2 (http://www.tibridge.com/wp/?page_id=2)
The TIBA is defined by New York State Public Authorities Law as a public benefit corporation. Its seven members are appointed to five-year terms by the Chairman of the Jefferson County Board of Legislators, subject to approval by such Board and are comprised of four US Citizens and three Canadian Citizens serving without salary or monetary compensation, but in the interest of public and community service.
Quote from: The Premier on July 11, 2011, 08:56:44 PM
The best solution to all of this is rather than leasing the Turnpike, the solution is to raise the vehicle registration fees, the vehicle title fees, raise the sales tax for motor vehicles, and, in urban metro areas, establish a vehicle tax. If a car is priced at $50,000 or more (restricted to cars only), a luxury tax needs to be added. If you live in a larger metro area, such as Cleveland, Akron-Canton, and Toledo, no doubt it will cost you more. Those taxes will go strictly into maintaing and building our roads, and it will be based by county population. That way, there will be no need to privatize the Ohio Turnpike.
I have mentioned about this in both the crumbling infrastructure (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4555.msg100217#msg100217) and the If you could fix... (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4569.msg102977#msg102977) threads.
Actually, that what we did in Quebec and the results was not as big as we hoped.
Quote from: nyratk1 on July 11, 2011, 10:35:30 AM
Government is not meant to be run like a business. It is supposed to care and protect its people and being run like a business forgoes that.
The latter is true if money is ALL the business cares about. Now, I'll admit it's rare in corporate America, but there are countless small businesses across the country that forgo the maximum profit possible to care for their employees and/or the community.
Also, our government is not being run like a business and it STILL DOESN'T CARE ABOUT PEOPLE!
Quote from: nyratk1 on July 11, 2011, 10:35:30 AM
Business interests are always too short-sighted.
I think you should say U.S. business interests are usually short-sighted. To say always is like saying politicians always lie. The Japanese seem to work for the long term. However, as their business and government are more intertwined than ours, that may affect that.
Quote from: nyratk1 on July 11, 2011, 10:35:30 AM
Absolutely made sense. (Same thing is going on with health care in a way, Medicare is actually less expensive per capita than pretty much most regular insurance and it performs quite a bit better..
Huh? What evidence do you have to support this claim? And, if it is true, it is probably because it limits coverage. For example, Medicare won't pay for annual exams. (preventive medicine)
Why else are there Medicare supplement plans?
Quote from: The Premier on July 11, 2011, 08:56:44 PM
If a car is priced at $50,000 or more (restricted to cars only), a luxury tax needs to be added.
Why, does a luxury tax NEED to be added? This kind of thinking is why I'm a political conservative. I can't stomach a system that assume that if I have more than you I must have exploited someone or just because I have more I should pay more.
Quote from: mightyace on July 13, 2011, 05:26:25 PM
Also, our government is not being run like a business
no it's not. unless its product is "borrowing", in which case business is booming.
Quote from: mightyace on July 13, 2011, 05:26:25 PM
Also, our government is not being run like a business and it STILL DOESN'T CARE ABOUT PEOPLE!
That's a combination of lobbyists, special interest groups, and people acting like sheep. We could fix the government simply by enacting REAL campaign finance reform (including ending the ridiculous notions that money = speech and that corporations are people), outlawing interest groups, and if people actually payed attention to politics and what politicians are actually saying (instead of buying the politician's image, voting by party, and generally forgetting everything that has happened previous to the last election).
Quote
Why, does a luxury tax NEED to be added? This kind of thinking is why I'm a political conservative. I can't stomach a system that assume that if I have more than you I must have exploited someone or just because I have more I should pay more.
It would be a step in the right direction to making the sales tax system less regressive. As of now, a poor person pays a far greater percentage of their income in sales taxes than a rich person.
Also, a lot of wealthy people do get rich by exploiting the system/others. Just look at multi-million dollar bonuses to CEOs while wages for everyone else stagnate.
IMO everyone should be entitled to a basic living and the ability to earn money to raise their standard of living beyond that by making positive contributions to society. It would be a lot nicer than the current system, where nobody is entitled to anything and earns money by being lucky enough to have opportunity and be prepared for said opportunity, knowing people, inheritance, or "stealing" the money from someone else through legal or illegal means (this covers exploiting people/the system, corruption, and theft under one umbrella). Kinda a merger between communism and capitalism, taking the best of both. Sadly I don't think people are willing to put up with the eternal vigilance on their part that would be necessary to maintain it.
Quote from: deanej on July 14, 2011, 12:38:41 PM
if people actually payed attention to politics and what politicians are actually saying (instead of buying the politician's image, voting by party, and generally forgetting everything that has happened previous to the last election).
I think for that to happen we'd have to reinvent the species.