Arizona DOT is proposing to toll it's section of Interstate 15 in the sparsely-populated northwestern corner of the state. ADOT argues that they initially didn't want to build the interstate through the Virgin River Gorge, and now is looking at the high cost of rehabbing the bridges along that stretch--a stretch that benefits relatively few Arizonans but is an important piece of the CANAMEX corridor.
Arizona plans to gouge I-15 drivers with toll (http://www.lvrj.com/news/arizona-plans-to-gouge-i-15-drivers-with-toll-132399058.html) - Las Vegas Review Journal, Sunday 10/23/11
What a shoddy piece of journalism. I like my news to be objective, not editorialized.
"They could give a hoot about the feelings of non-Arizona residents who frequently travel between St. George, Utah, and Mesquite. And because it is part of the trade route dubbed CANAMEX, truckers would have no choice but to pass through their cash-collecting web.
You can almost picture the transportation types rubbing their evil little hands together. Mua-ha-ha-ha."
Now that's some objective journalism!
They could always hand over the area to Utah or Nevada (or both) if they feel that way.
Who the hell deleted my post?
Post fairy. What were you saying?
(edited to note that I haven't checked the forum in a few days, so clearly was not me)
NE2 pointed to an article about "100-pound scrotum" to impeach the newspaper's credibility; in my reply, also deleted, I pointed out that elephantiasis is a serious problem in tropical countries (though admittedly not in the US and other wealthy countries), so the article couldn't be immediately dismissed as fictitious or made-up.
These two posts were only marginally on topic but personally I think they should have been moved instead of being sent to join los desaparecidos.
fuck! I go have a life for several hours and I miss a serious post on giant ballsacks?
I am never leaving the computer again.
I never said it was fictitious, just written like a tabloid. It's one of the top Google results for "las vegas review journal".
people that whine about tolls have always amused me.
it's three dollars - given the current costs of gasoline and typical fuel efficiency, you're gonna be paying three dollars to go about 20 miles anyway. since the Virgin River section of I-15 is so far away from most civilization, it is quite likely that all it is doing is raising your travel budget from $15 to $18.
yawn.
I'd gladly pay $3 to travel that segment of I-15 if traveling that way. It's not one of the $53 tolls to cross the bridge between Denmark and Sweden.
All you people want to drive your Prii and Volts and Leaves and other non-gas guzzlers and don't want to pay for road maintenance. Shipping companies put things on trucks because the government subsidizes that infrastructure a lot more than rails/whatever else, so they don't pay their fair share either.
If you're not paying fuel tax, you've got to pay somehow. A $3 toll is nothing compared to what we'll likely be seeing in the future.
I'm probably completely wrong, but I thought interstates that were specifically built as part of the network (and not grandfathered in) were not allowed to be tolled?
I'm assuming that US-91 was not built up to interstate standards by 1957, so how would the state be able to toll this portion? Or have tolled interstates always been allowed?
QuoteI'm probably completely wrong, but I thought interstates that were specifically built as part of the network (and not grandfathered in) were not allowed to be tolled?
They're allowed, but you'd lose federal funding for that stretch of interstate unless a waiver is granted (waivers are sometimes granted). Given that the infrastructure is already built and just needs to be maintained, AZ could probably make more on tolls than the money they get from the feds. I'd assume that once they determine whether or not toll revenue is greater than federal funding they'd pull the trigger.
Either way, that's going to need to be re-visited. With increased trucking (and truckers do not pay anything close to their fair share- and I don't know that we want them to because that just drives up the cost of goods- but maybe we want goods to become more expensive in an effort to increase the efficiency of the supply chain- I don't know what the answer is there) and more fuel efficient cars, highway funding is in crisis and states need the ability to raise money to maintain their own roads.
There's a pilot program: http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/tolling_pricing/interstate_rr.htm
Quote from: corco on October 25, 2011, 07:02:11 PMEither way, that's going to need to be re-visited. With increased trucking (and truckers do not pay anything close to their fair share- and I don't know that we want them to because that just drives up the cost of goods- but maybe we want goods to become more expensive in an effort to increase the efficiency of the supply chain- I don't know what the answer is there) and more fuel efficient cars, highway funding is in crisis and states need the ability to raise money to maintain their own roads.
Highway funding is not in crisis just because CAFE is going up and people are buying Volts, Priuses, or whatever. That development is in any case driven more by the fact that gas prices are permanently higher as a result of enhanced demand from China, India, and other industrializing countries.
What needs to happen is that the public, state legislatures, and Congress need to face up to the fact that the fuel tax has to go up. Because demand for motor fuel is inelastic, the tax can be hiked to more than triple current levels before the increases have a perceptible effect on consumption. Take-up of different propulsion technologies will eventually force abandonment of taxation of liquid fuels as a major revenue source, but we are several decades from that point. The problem we face
right now is that the marginal fuel tax is just too low to finance upkeep and a reasonable level of capital improvement.
Tolls are not the totality of the answer or even a major part of it. Tolls are corridor-specific and at this point the funding needs are felt throughout the entire system. The present fad for slapping tolls on through-through routes is not a solution to the funding problem; it is only a symptom.
These generalities disposed of, I don't like this particular I-15 tolling plan.
* Because I-15 handles mainly transit traffic, the toll is effectively a form of welcome-stranger taxation. This will invite retaliation from states neighboring Arizona.
* I-15 is hundreds of miles from the nearest ETC-capable toll road, so operating it as an ETC-only toll road is not a practical proposition. This means Arizona DOT will have to build additional infrastructure for toll booths, collection lanes, etc. and staff them, all of which is costly and will exacerbate public resentment since the users will in effect be paying someone to take their money for using what was previously a free road. (Ever get tired of waiting in a department store, with clothes in your arms, for a salesclerk to show up and take your money? That's what this feels like.)
* As a free Interstate originally built with Interstate Construction funds, Arizona DOT currently gets up to 80% from the federal government for major work under IM. With tolls this match won't be available, so tolls will have to cover the whole cost
plus collection expenses. The tolls themselves will suppress demand.
I see this plan as another own goal in the making from the same people who gave us SB 1070. I don't see it going very far.
Let's be real, folks. There are no good alternate routes between Salt Lake and Las Vegas. No one will be willing to take US-93 all the way from Wendover to Las Vegas. Even if one is in St. George, I don't think old US-91 is maintained well enough for that to be a viable alternative. Arizona has the wherewithal to get away with any toll they might impose.
Why was I-15 built through the Virgin River Gorge in the first place? It's mighty scenic, but it's proved expensive in the long run.
Quote from: CL on October 26, 2011, 09:17:55 PM
Let's be real, folks. There are no good alternate routes between Salt Lake and Las Vegas. No one will be willing to take US-93 all the way from Wendover to Las Vegas. Even if one is in St. George, I don't think old US-91 is maintained well enough for that to be a viable alternative. Arizona has the wherewithal to get away with any toll they might impose.
Why was I-15 built through the Virgin River Gorge in the first place? It's mighty scenic, but it's proved expensive in the long run.
I've wondered if, in some kind of reaction, Utah extends UT-8 along Old US-91 southwest down to the Arizona line, as Mohave County Route 91 is in pretty good shape. I've also whipped up an idea stemming from my US Route in Southern Utah/Northern Arizona should this happen--US-160 to Littlefield, AZ*. I'm not counting on it, but at the risk of venturing into Fictional Highway territory, it's interesting:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm7.static.flickr.com%2F6223%2F6285317542_0a6e41c95c_b.jpg&hash=43017ace4360ddd9368551927cca87974f96f3c0)
*
Here it goes all the way to Mesquite in the case that the entire Arizona section is tolled, notwithstanding the steps needed to actually make it happen.
that would be interesting, since Utah US 160 was, once upon a time, on the books.
Quoteas Mohave County Route 91 is in pretty good shape.
I wonder if they'd do the same as was proposed with the I-80 in Wyoming tollbooth that's proposed between Wamsutter and Rawlins, where they have said they'd ban through trucks from exiting onto the frontage roads and then put a cop on the side road to enforce
Quote from: corco on October 27, 2011, 12:34:30 AM
I wonder if they'd do the same as was proposed with the I-80 in Wyoming tollbooth that's proposed between Wamsutter and Rawlins, where they have said they'd ban through trucks from exiting onto the frontage roads and then put a cop on the side road to enforce
what about making the frontage road physically impassable? how badly would that affect ranch/local business traffic?
Quote from: corco on October 27, 2011, 12:34:30 AM
Quoteas Mohave County Route 91 is in pretty good shape.
I wonder if they'd do the same as was proposed with the I-80 in Wyoming tollbooth that's proposed between Wamsutter and Rawlins, where they have said they'd ban through trucks from exiting onto the frontage roads and then put a cop on the side road to enforce
I-80 between Wamsutter and Rawlins in Wyoming is nowhere near crossing into another state, whereas I-15 in Arizona is so isolated from the rest of the state that the ratio of Arizona drivers to Utah/Nevada drivers is almost nonexistent. I would think that Utah and Nevada will have more say in this as it goes along, as they'll have to deal with the consequences far more than Arizona ever will. This reeks of Arizona trying to, in the words of the Dire Straits song, get their money for nothing (but no chicks for free).
QuoteI-80 between Wamsutter and Rawlins in Wyoming is nowhere near crossing into another state, whereas I-15 in Arizona is so isolated from the rest of the state that the ratio of Arizona drivers to Utah/Nevada drivers is almost nonexistent. I would think that Utah and Nevada will have more say in this as it goes along, as they'll have to deal with the consequences far more than Arizona ever will. This reeks of Arizona trying to, in the words of the Dire Straits song, get their money for nothing (but no chicks for free).
The intent is the same though- Wyoming sees that the majority of its traffic is A) truck, which is unique for an interstate and B) isn't beginning or ending in Wyoming, just passing through. Because of that, Wyoming wants to nick truck traffic for a few more bucks, since they're wearing down the freeway and Wyoming isn't really seeing a lot of gain- here's the feasibility study (http://www.dot.state.wy.us/webdav/site/wydot/shared/Planning/I80%20Tolling%20Feasibility%20Final%20Report%2010.01.08.pdf) (PDF)
Arizona wants to do it for exactly the same reason, although the distance is shorter and out of state traffic less. Since it's Arizona's road, if they don't want federal funding to maintain the road they are free to do whatever they want. NV/UT can't stop them.
Both states would be doing it basically to suck captive out of state drivers with no voting power in that jurisdiction, especially truckers, for a bunch of extra money
Quote from: corco on October 27, 2011, 03:32:17 PMArizona wants to do it for exactly the same reason, although the distance is shorter and out of state traffic less. Since it's Arizona's road, if they don't want federal funding to maintain the road they are free to do whatever they want. NV/UT can't stop them.
Certainly there seems to be no procedural mechanism by which they can do so. However, they can retaliate, e.g. by charging tolls at locations where their road systems interface with Arizona's. They might also be able to get around nondiscrimination by charging higher apportionment rates for cargos originating from states which have recently imposed tolls on through-through traffic. To make the point especially clear to Arizona, each state could set the enhanced rates so that the total take exactly matches Arizona's total take from drivers in that state from I-15 tolls.
I just don't see the point in embarking down this road of tit-for-tat when I-15 is just a special local problem that has been exposed by a general decline in federal funding levels.
Maybe they should just transfer that section of the state to Utah.
Quote from: J N Winkler on October 25, 2011, 08:42:56 PM
Because demand for motor fuel is inelastic
Bunk. The past few years have proven that the demand is very much elastic.
That said, tolls are a much better option, IMHO, than either raising a gas tax or using a miles-drive type taxation system.
Quote from: Brandon on October 29, 2011, 06:32:07 PMQuote from: J N Winkler on October 25, 2011, 08:42:56 PMBecause demand for motor fuel is inelastic
Bunk. The past few years have proven that the demand is very much elastic.
They have done nothing of the kind.
Take a look at OHPI statistics for the last three years that are available--2007 (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2007/vm1.cfm), 2008 (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2008/vm1.cfm), and 2009 (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2009/vm1.cfm). Remember also that gas prices spiked in 2008.
In these tables, total fuel consumption (all classes of vehicle) clusters tightly around 170 million gallons in all three years, ranging from a low of 168 million gallons (2009) to a high of 176 million gallons (2007). Average miles driven annually per light-duty short-wheelbase vehicle (basically, passenger cars plus pickups and SUVs) clusters tightly around 10,000 miles in all three years, and annual fuel consumption per such vehicle clusters tightly around 440 gallons.
Bottom line: a factor of two increase in fuel prices has failed to cause a factor of two decrease in fuel consumption or miles driven, as one would expect if demand were elastic. There was a lot of buzz about "staycations" in 2008 as a result of high fuel prices, but it was just that--buzz. In reality very little mileage is genuinely discretionary. The difficulties state DOTs were having financing construction projects in 2008 had more to do with high prices for input materials like asphalt than with any changes in the revenue situation.
QuoteThat said, tolls are a much better option, IMHO, than either raising a gas tax or using a miles-drive type taxation system.
Tolls, like motor fuel taxes and VMT taxation, are a tool that has a range of appropriate uses. Tolls tend to work well for defined corridors which carry volumes of traffic that are either very high or insensitive to price. Tolls do not work well on a systemwide basis because the costs of collecting toll at infrequently travelled points in the system overwhelm the revenues gained thereby. And in corridors which are just barely self-liquidable through tolls (like SH 130 in Texas), the choice of tolls as a financing mechanism tends to promote a buildup of underutilized capacity because traffic demand in those corridors tends to be elastic with respect to price.
Wouldn't I-15 in Arizona pretty much be the definition of a well-defined corridor that is insensitive to price?
And Utah's refusal to improve the Lincoln Highway continues to have repercussions :)
(To be fair going via Bishop is about 100 miles longer than via Vegas; the distance was really only comparable before the Vegas-Barstow cutoff was built in the 1920s.)
Quote from: corco on October 29, 2011, 08:17:33 PMWouldn't I-15 in Arizona pretty much be the definition of a well-defined corridor that is insensitive to price?
It is a well-defined corridor. I am less sure about sensitivity to price, but I am willing to grant that point on the basis that highway corridors running through thinly populated rural areas tend to have low elasticities.
My objections to the toll have more to do with the potential for retaliation, the fact that adding infrastructure for toll collection adds to the base cost of the work that has to be done, and the general observation that what Arizona DOT wants to charge tolls for (bridge replacements, etc.) is a general systematic need that seems to have surfaced only now, in this particular location, because federal funding has come up short and ADOT sees a captive audience.
I-15 in Arizona may very well be a toll-viable corridor, but I don't think enough information has been published yet for us to make that determination. I am sure ADOT has an accounting in hand which estimates (at minimum) full liquidation of the reconditioning and collection infrastructure through tolls, but those scenarios often don't stand contact with reality.
Another question to think about: does Arizona DOT really
want to collect tolls on I-15? Could this not be, for example, a way to send a message indirectly to Congress--"If you don't increase transportation funding, this is what we will be forced to resort to?" ADOT does not currently collect tolls anywhere else (as far as I know), so even a franchising agreement would require some organizational changes.
Keep in mind that any recent analysis has to account for general economic conditions as well. An economic downturn results in less frivolous driving (vacations, Sunday outings, etc.) and therefore less mileage. On the other hand, our country is always growing, so there's an upward pressure in terms of number of vehicles on the road. I would say there is a very limited elasticity with regard to gas prices, not zero, but it's foolish to think it would be 1:1.
Returning to the I-15 tolling proposal specifically, a Google search on {ADOT I-15 tolling plan} turns up a number of interesting hits, including Arizona DOT's application (http://www.azdot.gov/highways/Projects/Public_Private_Partnerships/PDF/IRRP-EOI-application-fhwa_I-15_August-9-2011.pdf). Governor Herbert (Utah) has already come out against the plan publicly. A related article in the Arizona Republic suggests turnpike mania in Arizona extends not just to I-15 but also to SR 189 (which connects I-19 to the Mariposa port of entry just west of Nogales), for which widening is planned to accommodate a projected onslaught of Mexican trucks, and a proposed I-10 reliever route in the Phoenix-Tucson corridor.
It looks like Arizona DOT is looking at PPP deals for all three corridors, with tolls not actually being put on I-15 until after it is rehabilitated. Arizona DOT also claims, in its application, to have advised Nevada DOT and Utah DOT of what it wants to do with I-15, and to have obtained their acquiescence. In light of Governor Herbert's public position on I-15 tolling this claim has to be viewed with some skepticism.
I think every state boundary should be looked at and "right-sized"
Utah: You don't do anything useful with the bit north of the Grand Canyon. You don't like to build roads there, and you barely maintain the roads you have there. We have had to lend you money to build your part of I-15 so we could connect to Las Vegas and points south. Why don't you give us your northern strip?
Arizona: (unprintable)
FWIW, I drove both ways along Arizona's portion of I-15 in the last couple of days. With this thread in my mind as I drove it, here are some of my random musings...
1) The only thing I saw that needs to be rehabbed is the pavement. The bridges seemed to have normal wear and tear, and were still probably better than a lot of bridges in colder climates. It looks as though AzDOT is skimpy when it comes to repaving projects there, just re-paving one lane in short stretches where needed, but ISTR I-10 between Phoenix & Tucson in the same rag-tag condition. In my opinion, they need to start rebuilding the older roads that need it before they spring for yet another freeway around Phoenix.
2) Are the Virgin River bridges narrow with little to no shoulders? Absoulutely. But I don't think they need to rehab them or widen them for the sake of widening them (if this is what AzDOT is really concerned about). It is much cheaper to have Arizona, (or even hire off-duty NV or UT highway patrolmen) to keep drivers to the posted speeds using an Arizona Highway Patrol car than to build, staff and maintain toll booths so they can widen the bridges another 30 feet..
3) One of the "requirements" AzDOT makes to I-15 travelers is that all commercial vehicles are "required" to check in at the Port of Entry at the AZ/UT line before they can exit I-15 for the few destinations in NW Arizona. You kind of wonder how that can really be enforced, especially any trucks coming to/from Nevada who are only going to/from destinations south or the Virgin River Gorge.
Since it relates to I-15 through the Virgin River Gorge, apparently Arizona will give $11 Million to repave I-15 (http://kcsg.com/view/full_story/18331698/article-Arizona-Transportation-Board-Awards--11-Million-Project-to-Repave-I-15-Arizona-Strip-Virgin-River-Corridor-Segment?instance=home_first_stories). It's not a huge thing, but it's looking less and less like the tolling will ever become reality; according to the article, there are already talks to rehabilitate bridges and the like.
I say tansfer the gorge stretch of I-15 to Utah, in fact just carve out a square of land that includes the gorge, but not much land south or east of it and transfer the box area to Utah.
I like the idea of tolling Interstate 15 right there. It doesn't really serve AZ in any way and the toll shouldn't be too bad; it's only 15 miles of interstate.
What would be the point of that? That would be an obstacle to SLC-Vegas traffic; people shunpiking that would have to take US 93 and US 50 just to avoid that toll. I don't mind transferring that section of I-15 in AZ to maintenance crews from Nevada, it could be a bit cheaper because it's not far from any major population centers there.
Quote from: national highway 1 on May 10, 2012, 05:21:11 AM
What would be the point of that? That would be an obstacle to SLC-Vegas traffic; people shunpiking that would have to take US 93 and US 50 just to avoid that toll. I don't mind transferring that section of I-15 in AZ to maintenance crews from Nevada, it could be a bit cheaper because it's not far from any major population centers there.
If you don't have enough money to pay a 1 dollar toll you shouldn't be going to Las Vegas.
Quote from: national highway 1 on May 10, 2012, 05:21:11 AM
What would be the point of that? That would be an obstacle to SLC-Vegas traffic; people shunpiking that would have to take US 93 and US 50 just to avoid that toll. I don't mind transferring that section of I-15 in AZ to maintenance crews from Nevada, it could be a bit cheaper because it's not far from any major population centers there.
using I-80 is shorter than US-50 due to that strange jog that US-50 does near I-15.
but still, we are talking about a difference of 60 miles. that's about $5 worth of gas, not to mention the value of your time. a
one dollar toll seems to not be anything worth avoiding.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 10, 2012, 04:08:18 PM
Quote from: national highway 1 on May 10, 2012, 05:21:11 AM
What would be the point of that? That would be an obstacle to SLC-Vegas traffic; people shunpiking that would have to take US 93 and US 50 just to avoid that toll. I don't mind transferring that section of I-15 in AZ to maintenance crews from Nevada, it could be a bit cheaper because it's not far from any major population centers there.
using I-80 is shorter than US-50 due to that strange jog that US-50 does near I-15.
but still, we are talking about a difference of 60 miles. that's about $5 worth of gas, not to mention the value of your time. a one dollar toll seems to not be anything worth avoiding.
Truckers? Same one-dollar toll? Of course, they use more fuel too...
Quote from: kphoger on May 10, 2012, 04:12:28 PM
Truckers? Same one-dollar toll? Of course, they use more fuel too...
probably not, but figure 8mpg instead of 35 ...
Putting tolls on previously free sections of interstate should be out of the question. Maybe if Arizona wants to refund to Uncle Sam all the money that they ever received to construct that route or maintain it up until now, plus interest.
Gas taxes should be set to allow highways to be maintained without tolls. If the Federal gas tax isn't doing it, states should cooperate to share gas tax revenue for a route that spends only a little distance in one state.
Tolls are an inefficient way to collect money.