Road Usage Charging Is Focus of Toll Industry Discussion

[triplemultiplex]

But don't the most direct routes involve going thru the populated areas?  If I was continuing in the same direction I was already in, generally speaking the shortest route would be directly thru a city, whereas a route away from populated areas would be much longer, and thus more costly.

Quite obviously, you would make the 'bypass' route cheaper to incentivize the thru-traffic to avoid city centers.  At the very least, it wouldn't count against a commercial vehicle when, say, they are forced onto the Atlanta Perimeter instead of uses a 'shorter' route through the core of the city.

America needs to start by having one toll transponder you can use anywhere in the damn country.  What do we have now; like 5 or 6?  That's silly.  It's like going to a another state and they have different shaped electrical outlets.  It's the same technology, but because you don't have the special plug, you're forced to dig out your wallet.  And what's the deal with toll booths that don't take credit cards?  It's 2015 for Christ's sake.  I would think they would have implemented this technology from the 1970's (or whatever) by now.

As far as the privacy concerns about GPS-based tolling; people show again and again that they will trade privacy for convenience.  If they cared that much, they'd never use Google or pay for anything with a credit card.

[jeffandnicole]

But don't the most direct routes involve going thru the populated areas?  If I was continuing in the same direction I was already in, generally speaking the shortest route would be directly thru a city, whereas a route away from populated areas would be much longer, and thus more costly.

Quite obviously, you would make the 'bypass' route cheaper to incentivize the thru-traffic to avoid city centers.  At the very least, it wouldn't count against a commercial vehicle when, say, they are forced onto the Atlanta Perimeter instead of uses a 'shorter' route through the core of the city.

The biggest issue remains: How do you enforce any vehicle to verify their tracking device is in the car.  What will stop someone from just leaving it at home while they drive around the country?  You have police already trying to enforce a zillion different laws, with everyone complaining that the laws aren't enforced enough.  Do you take those limited resources away by now requiring cops to try to locate the tracking device on every vehicle they pass by, which at minimum are located either on the bumper or the windshield, and then try to figure out where exactly on that windshield it is?

America needs to start by having one toll transponder you can use anywhere in the damn country.  What do we have now; like 5 or 6?  That's silly.  It's like going to a another state and they have different shaped electrical outlets.  It's the same technology, but because you don't have the special plug, you're forced to dig out your wallet.

Actually, it's not the same technology when it comes to toll collection.  The technologies are always evolving.  What a toll road may have used when they started their system in the 90's is going to be different than what a toll road may use that is starting up their system today.  It's actually an accomplishment that several states agreed on a single technology in order to make EZ Pass regional in nature.  They are pushing for interoperability across all the various systems, but it will take a while to get there.   Currently, it's only for customer convenience, so the incentive isn't exactly there.

And what's the deal with toll booths that don't take credit cards?  It's 2015 for Christ's sake.  I would think they would have implemented this technology from the 1970's (or whatever) by now.

Some actually did use it and took it away; others currently do use it; and some never used it.  There's a significant expense to the toll agencies in regards to equipment costs, merchant fees, batching, stolen card use, unreadable cards, and so forth.  Electronic tolling doesn't require a vehicle to stop at all.  Cash transactions can be handled very quickly when using exchange change, and slows down a bit when change needs to be given back.  With a credit card, it would be no faster than a slow cash transaction, leading to delays.  Overall, the preference is to go toll-booth free, so most agencies will invest their funds in electronic toll collections, rather than toll collections that require stopping at a booth.

As far as the privacy concerns about GPS-based tolling; people show again and again that they will trade privacy for convenience.  If they cared that much, they'd never use Google or pay for anything with a credit card.

Overall, people are stupid when it comes to privacy.  Someone will be arguing that they want privacy, while posting on Facebook their exact location.   If they cared that much, they wouldn't be using a cell phone in the first place.  Using your credit card example: They'll be swiping that with no problem, while having a big issue with the security camera above their head.

[2Co5_14]

Here's a solution that doesn't involve the expense and intrusion of GPS tracking:

Introduce a gas tax that is indexed to the average gas mileage of vehicles on the road. The way it would work is that when the average mileage of vehicles increases, the gas tax would increase a certain percentage along with it. So even though the total amount of fuel people purchase might decrease, the increase in gas tax would offset that automatically, and overall tax revenues would remain steady. Some type of algorithm would be created to determine the exact numbers used in the index.

Having an index that adjusts automatically would eliminate the need to make the politically unpopular move of having to raise the tax by legislative action each time. Average vehicle mileage could easily be determined by compiling vehicle registration information each year.

[corco]

Here's a solution that doesn't involve the expense and intrusion of GPS tracking:

Introduce a gas tax that is indexed to the average gas mileage of vehicles on the road. The way it would work is that when the average mileage of vehicles increases, the gas tax would increase a certain percentage along with it. So even though the total amount of fuel people purchase might decrease, the increase in gas tax would offset that automatically, and overall tax revenues would remain steady. Some type of algorithm would be created to determine the exact numbers used in the index.

Having an index that adjusts automatically would eliminate the need to make the politically unpopular move of having to raise the tax by legislative action each time. Average vehicle mileage could easily be determined by compiling vehicle registration information each year.

I like the idea, but what about vehicles that don't use gas? They probably aren't going away, especially if gas users continue to subsidize their wear and tear on highways.

[kkt]

Here's a solution that doesn't involve the expense and intrusion of GPS tracking:

Introduce a gas tax that is indexed to the average gas mileage of vehicles on the road. The way it would work is that when the average mileage of vehicles increases, the gas tax would increase a certain percentage along with it. So even though the total amount of fuel people purchase might decrease, the increase in gas tax would offset that automatically, and overall tax revenues would remain steady. Some type of algorithm would be created to determine the exact numbers used in the index.

Having an index that adjusts automatically would eliminate the need to make the politically unpopular move of having to raise the tax by legislative action each time. Average vehicle mileage could easily be determined by compiling vehicle registration information each year.

I like the idea, but what about vehicles that don't use gas? They probably aren't going away, especially if gas users continue to subsidize their wear and tear on highways.

Vehicles designed for great gas mileage generally are built as lightly as possible, and the plug-in hybrids and electrics even more than gas powered hybrids.  Road wear and tear is proportional to the 4th power of the weight, so road wear from hybrids is very small.  I'm okay with letting them get a break.  (No, I don't own a hybrid.)

[jeffandnicole]

They could always add a small tax to the electric bill then to accommodate that.  Yes, it won't be fair, because those with gasoline powered vehicles will be paying a road tax at the pump and when they run their fridge and turn on the lights.  It'll help fund those bicycle lanes that bicyclists don't pay to use as well.

[corco]

Here's a solution that doesn't involve the expense and intrusion of GPS tracking:

Introduce a gas tax that is indexed to the average gas mileage of vehicles on the road. The way it would work is that when the average mileage of vehicles increases, the gas tax would increase a certain percentage along with it. So even though the total amount of fuel people purchase might decrease, the increase in gas tax would offset that automatically, and overall tax revenues would remain steady. Some type of algorithm would be created to determine the exact numbers used in the index.

Having an index that adjusts automatically would eliminate the need to make the politically unpopular move of having to raise the tax by legislative action each time. Average vehicle mileage could easily be determined by compiling vehicle registration information each year.

I like the idea, but what about vehicles that don't use gas? They probably aren't going away, especially if gas users continue to subsidize their wear and tear on highways.

Vehicles designed for great gas mileage generally are built as lightly as possible, and the plug-in hybrids and electrics even more than gas powered hybrids.  Road wear and tear is proportional to the 4th power of the weight, so road wear from hybrids is very small.  I'm okay with letting them get a break.  (No, I don't own a hybrid.)

Not really true. A Nissan Leaf weighs 3,493 lbs. A gas Ford Focus weighs 3,243 lbs. Those cars are very close in size. They also use road capacity just as much as a regular car, which is a big part of what the gas tax pays for. We only need giant, massive infrastructure projects because there are a lot of cars- if there were half as many cars, we'd need half as much infrastructure, so no matter how the car is propelled it should pay its share.

With CAFE standards getting stricter, everybody is trying to build cars as light as possible while still including required safety equipment. Electric batteries arenr exactly light either.

[UCFKnights]

Here's a solution that doesn't involve the expense and intrusion of GPS tracking:

Introduce a gas tax that is indexed to the average gas mileage of vehicles on the road. The way it would work is that when the average mileage of vehicles increases, the gas tax would increase a certain percentage along with it. So even though the total amount of fuel people purchase might decrease, the increase in gas tax would offset that automatically, and overall tax revenues would remain steady. Some type of algorithm would be created to determine the exact numbers used in the index.

Having an index that adjusts automatically would eliminate the need to make the politically unpopular move of having to raise the tax by legislative action each time. Average vehicle mileage could easily be determined by compiling vehicle registration information each year.

I like the idea, but what about vehicles that don't use gas? They probably aren't going away, especially if gas users continue to subsidize their wear and tear on highways.

We seem to already give tax credits and rebates on those vehicles, so why not get rid of the initial incentive for getting the alternate fuel vehicles, and have the subsidy provided by not having to pay the gas tax? Also makes it more fair to the intended goal as we won't end up subsidizing these vehicles that are not actually on the road and bought for secondary use or as a show off vehicle (not that it is much of a problem).

[corco]

Here's a solution that doesn't involve the expense and intrusion of GPS tracking:

Introduce a gas tax that is indexed to the average gas mileage of vehicles on the road. The way it would work is that when the average mileage of vehicles increases, the gas tax would increase a certain percentage along with it. So even though the total amount of fuel people purchase might decrease, the increase in gas tax would offset that automatically, and overall tax revenues would remain steady. Some type of algorithm would be created to determine the exact numbers used in the index.

Having an index that adjusts automatically would eliminate the need to make the politically unpopular move of having to raise the tax by legislative action each time. Average vehicle mileage could easily be determined by compiling vehicle registration information each year.

I like the idea, but what about vehicles that don't use gas? They probably aren't going away, especially if gas users continue to subsidize their wear and tear on highways.

We seem to already give tax credits and rebates on those vehicles, so why not get rid of the initial incentive for getting the alternate fuel vehicles, and have the subsidy provided by not having to pay the gas tax? Also makes it more fair to the intended goal as we won't end up subsidizing these vehicles that are not actually on the road and bought for secondary use or as a show off vehicle (not that it is much of a problem).

I guess I disagree that we need to subsidize at all at this point. It made sense twelve years ago when gas was less than $2 per gallon and the technology was new, but now the technology has evolved to the point that hybrid/electric cars are affordable and a sensible purchasing decision without subsidy and the free market (with the help of pesky things like CAFE regulations) should be able to carry them forward. They still use just as much highway capacity and contribute just as much to wear and tear as everybody else. They're no longer a rare minority on our highways, and are now a healthy chunk of all the vehicles on the road. They should have to pay proportionally for that road use.

At some point, we need to realize as a country, for all fuel types, that driving is not nearly as cheap as we like to think it is. I don't know what the right solution is to collect those taxes- an end of year odometer certification subject to audit would work well, but then people would have to pay a large tax bill at the end of the year. Tolling has its own equity problems, and GPS-based tolling has privacy concerns. I'd say something like as mentioned above would be the solution for gasoline powered cars.

For electric cars, I feel like the technology has to be just about there for people who own electric cars to be required to get a new meter type that can detect when a car is plugged in and charge for that electric usage accordingly. There will always be some fraud, but if you can get 90% of people, it's a good solution.

The big question is hybrids. They aren't lighter and they pay less in tax to drive. They're really the kink that makes some kind of distance based tolling an inevitability. If a car is propelled by one power source, it's easy to figure out a solution. With multiple power sources, they essentially freeload, and would continue to do so even with a gas tax increase like the one proposed above. I think as a country we want to support hybrids, but I don't support subsidizing things that don't have an explicit need to be subsidized. I guess, if we get to a point where >50% of America's fleet is hybrid, the solution above would work, so maybe we just have to wait for that.

[J N Winkler]

The big question is hybrids. They aren't lighter and they pay less in tax to drive. They're really the kink that makes some kind of distance based tolling an inevitability. If a car is propelled by one power source, it's easy to figure out a solution. With multiple power sources, they essentially freeload, and would continue to do so even with a gas tax increase like the one proposed above. I think as a country we want to support hybrids, but I don't support subsidizing things that don't have an explicit need to be subsidized. I guess, if we get to a point where >50% of America's fleet is hybrid, the solution above would work, so maybe we just have to wait for that.

I don't think the heavier weight per unit of fuel consumed for hybrids will be a concern unless 18-wheeler hybrids emerge.  The reason for this is that axle weight, which is the true determinant of structural wear and tear on pavements and bridges, is much higher for trucks than it is for either conventional or hybrid passenger cars.

The roadspace occupancy of hybrids is a problem, but I don't think it is serious enough to justify breaking them out as a separate category for some form of use taxation.  Phasing-out of the existing subsidies (preferential access to managed lanes, reduced vehicle excise tax, etc.) is probably sufficient.  Part of the problem with hybrids is that they really fall on a continuum, ranging from strictly economy-oriented (such as the Prius) to the "mild hybrid" versions of luxury cars like the Lexus LS, Lincoln MKZ, and so on.

Since congestion is usually worse in cities, it may make sense to have a tax enhancement (such as a locally higher gas tax or a higher vehicle excise tax) that reflects the greater cost of providing uncongested roadspace in urban areas.  The proceeds of this tax would remain with the conurbation in which it was collected, and would be used to fund transport improvements there, including but not limited to highways.  Congestion pricing as practiced in London and Oslo has significant boundary effects, so I don't think it would work well in the majority of urban areas.

As for the suggestion that rural Interstates be tolled, I frankly would dismiss the idea out of hand, for these reasons:

*  It gives motorists a financial incentive to take less safe parallel roads, which is a recipe both for congestion and for increased traffic fatalities

*  In terms of structural wear, it costs far more to accommodate a unit ESAL on a surface highway than on the parallel Interstate--in Kansas the disparity has been quoted as something like $1 on surface highway, 10c or less on Interstate.  Why charge more for the highway that has the lower cost basis?

If structural condition is the principal concern (and it is not the only one, since we also have needs for capacity expansion even in rural areas), it would make more sense to jack up road use taxes for trucks.  However, taxes for trucks that are low in comparison to the structural damage they inflict--so that there is a tendency for cars to cross-subsidize trucks when traffic levels stay generally flat, so that capacity considerations do not apply--is part of the bargain we agree to for cheap goods in the stores.  Are we prepared to renegotiate that deal?

[vdeane]

I don't see hybrids as sticking around for the long haul.  They're a transitional technology meant to bridge the gap between gas and electric.  Once electric cars become as cheap and convenient as gas cars, I fully expect that both gas cars and hybrids will go the way of the dodo.

[US 41]

In all honesty I feel as if I pay enough taxes. I don't want to pay a road usage tax too. I already pay a road usage tax it's called the gas tax. It's not my fault the government spends it irresponsibly. Maybe if they actually made sure the roads are built good and that contractors are actually doing the job right, they wouldn't have to fix the roads so much. There are multiple states looking at tolling rural interstates and that's most likely the way it will go. Politicians know that adding new taxes will not go over well with the people that vote for them.

[corco]

In all honesty I feel as if I pay enough taxes. I don't want to pay a road usage tax too. I already pay a road usage tax it's called the gas tax. It's not my fault the government spends it irresponsibly. Maybe if they actually made sure the roads are built good and that contractors are actually doing the job right, they wouldn't have to fix the roads so much. There are multiple states looking at tolling rural interstates and that's most likely the way it will go. Politicians know that adding new taxes will not go over well with the people that vote for them.

The flat gas tax hasn't been raised in 22 years, so you're really not paying your fair share anymore. If gas tax were indexed as a percent, then yeah, you wouldn't be paying more than you used to, but the gas tax is a flat 18.4 cent per gallon amount that hasn't kept up with inflation. We pay significantly less to drive than we used to. In the meantime, our infrastruture is aging and there is no money to maintain or expand it.

At this point, especially if you drive during peak hours in an urban area or live in an incredibly rural area, you aren't paying anything close to the cost it actually costs to maintain the infrastructure that you use.

Do you have any evidence that contractor fraud is a systemic problem at a nationwide level? You can probably link me to a few one-off instances, but that doesn't mean that all roads are built poorly.

People complain about taxes, but the percentage of your income that goes to taxes is just about the lowest it has been since we industrialized as a society. Go back to 1975 if you want to complain about taxes. I agree that it's hard to raise taxes in today's environment, but that means that we as a country need to start to shift the message, but no, you don't pay for your road use. Roads are really expensive.

[US 41]

In all honesty I feel as if I pay enough taxes. I don't want to pay a road usage tax too. I already pay a road usage tax it's called the gas tax. It's not my fault the government spends it irresponsibly. Maybe if they actually made sure the roads are built good and that contractors are actually doing the job right, they wouldn't have to fix the roads so much. There are multiple states looking at tolling rural interstates and that's most likely the way it will go. Politicians know that adding new taxes will not go over well with the people that vote for them.

The flat gas tax hasn't been raised in 22 years, so you're really not paying your fair share anymore. If gas tax were indexed as a percent, then yeah, you wouldn't be paying more than you used to, but the gas tax is a flat 18.4 cent per gallon amount that hasn't kept up with inflation. We pay significantly less to drive than we used to. In the meantime, our infrastruture is aging and there is no money to maintain or expand it.

At this point, especially if you drive during peak hours in an urban area or live in an incredibly rural area, you aren't paying anything close to the cost it actually costs to maintain the infrastructure that you use.

Do you have any evidence that contractor fraud is a systemic problem at a nationwide level? You can probably link me to a few one-off instances, but that doesn't mean that all roads are built poorly.

People complain about taxes, but the percentage of your income that goes to taxes is just about the lowest it has been since we industrialized as a society. Go back to 1975 if you want to complain about taxes. I agree that it's hard to raise taxes in today's environment, but that means that we as a country need to start to shift the message, but no, you don't pay for your road use. Roads are really expensive.

But you don't like the idea of tolling interstates??? That's the most fair way. If you want to drive 70 everywhere pay for it. If you want to drive 55 and then 30 through every little town and stop a couple times at lights or 4 way stops on the way you shouldn't have to pay extra for that. Most people will probably pay the tolls as long as they aren't overly expensive.

[corco]

In all honesty I feel as if I pay enough taxes. I don't want to pay a road usage tax too. I already pay a road usage tax it's called the gas tax. It's not my fault the government spends it irresponsibly. Maybe if they actually made sure the roads are built good and that contractors are actually doing the job right, they wouldn't have to fix the roads so much. There are multiple states looking at tolling rural interstates and that's most likely the way it will go. Politicians know that adding new taxes will not go over well with the people that vote for them.

The flat gas tax hasn't been raised in 22 years, so you're really not paying your fair share anymore. If gas tax were indexed as a percent, then yeah, you wouldn't be paying more than you used to, but the gas tax is a flat 18.4 cent per gallon amount that hasn't kept up with inflation. We pay significantly less to drive than we used to. In the meantime, our infrastruture is aging and there is no money to maintain or expand it.

At this point, especially if you drive during peak hours in an urban area or live in an incredibly rural area, you aren't paying anything close to the cost it actually costs to maintain the infrastructure that you use.

Do you have any evidence that contractor fraud is a systemic problem at a nationwide level? You can probably link me to a few one-off instances, but that doesn't mean that all roads are built poorly.

People complain about taxes, but the percentage of your income that goes to taxes is just about the lowest it has been since we industrialized as a society. Go back to 1975 if you want to complain about taxes. I agree that it's hard to raise taxes in today's environment, but that means that we as a country need to start to shift the message, but no, you don't pay for your road use. Roads are really expensive.

But you don't like the idea of tolling interstates??? That's the most fair way. If you want to drive 70 everywhere pay for it. If you want to drive 55 and then 30 through every little town and stop a couple times at lights or 4 way stops on the way you shouldn't have to pay extra for that. Most people will probably pay the tolls as long as they aren't overly expensive.

Because that ignores the laws of supply and demand- if you build a toll road and charge the "true cost to drive,"  you're looking at toll rates like those in Mexico or on E-470.  If you do that, then in rural areas if there is a free route that isn't that much slower, the free route will build up to capacity quickly, and then you either have to widen the free route or lower the toll on the highway (to the point that the toll facility would still be mostly dependent on fuel taxes and other "normal" highway revenue to pay for their construction). The alternative is to be Mexico and have dangerous parallel highways in horrible condition that most folks use. Those 55 MPH roads through town aren't built to the same standards as interstate highways are, and if you load them up with truck traffic, they will get ugly very quickly. Either way, you're defeating the purpose.


It's kind of a Malthusian Tragedy-of-the-Commons type dilemma- if one person goes the cheap route and uses a free parallel facility, then it's fine and it benefits that person. If most people, all acting rationally, decide to do that, it costs society as a whole and each individual more money in wear and tear. If we all pay into the same pot, we can have better roadways for everybody.

We want to be encouraging cars to use that highway system as efficiently as possible for everyone, because that is what will lower the cost for everyone to drive. The cost to build and maintain an interstate is less per car when they have more cars on them. That means letting through traffic get on the interstate.

Even driving at 55 off freeway at current gas tax rates, you're still not paying for the entirety of your road use. 

[J N Winkler]

But you don't like the idea of tolling interstates??? That's the most fair way. If you want to drive 70 everywhere pay for it. If you want to drive 55 and then 30 through every little town and stop a couple times at lights or 4 way stops on the way you shouldn't have to pay extra for that. Most people will probably pay the tolls as long as they aren't overly expensive.

Tolling the Interstates only is a fee-for-premium-service model, not "the most fair way."  Tolling reduces consumer's surplus because it drives a share of price-sensitive drivers onto less suitable roads where journeys take longer, use more fuel, etc.  When a transportation system is supported by taxes or fees on its users, it makes more sense to maximize consumer's surplus.  Charging to use the better-quality facility is a form of price discrimination, which makes sense only in the context of profit maximization.  A transportation agency is serving derived demand (no-one buys transportation services as end products), so it should not be in business to turn a profit--only to cover its costs.  (There are certain theoretical exceptions to the last rule, specifically cases where the profits can be reinvested to achieve a higher sustained rate of return than the transportation system; these are discussed in Christopher Foster's The Transport Problem.)

Charging tolls on rural freeways is also an excellent way to end up with white elephants, as TxDOT has done with SH 130.

[US 41]

At least those people who are low income would have a choice of whether or not they want to take a toll road or not. A mileage tax wouldn't give them much of a choice. I'll admit it, I'm poverty level, which is why I avoid toll roads even if adds to my travel time. I don't have a lot of extra money to spend when I travel. Driving is a hobby for me and I often will drive 3-4 hours on any given day just for a fun cruise. I don't want to pay extra taxes to drive. Gas taxes pay for the roads. Two lane highways are not as costly to fix as interstates. Tolling interstates is not discrimination, it's smart.

EDIT: Mexico's two lane highways do not look like they are in disrepair. They look like any other two lane highway in the US except maybe a little narrower. For the most part they look like nice and smooth highways. When I go to Mazatlan, Mexico in the future I plan on taking MX 30 and 40 libre over 85D and 40D to save around $170. If the roads looked that bad I wouldn't plan on taking them.

[froggie]

Gas taxes pay for the roads.

The problem here is the gas tax doesn't come close to covering the cost of roads.  Even if you didn't have the diversions to transit and bike/walk, the amount of gas tax revenue falls short of what's annually spent by an order of about 11-digits...

[Sykotyk]

At least those people who are low income would have a choice of whether or not they want to take a toll road or not. A mileage tax wouldn't give them much of a choice. I'll admit it, I'm poverty level, which is why I avoid toll roads even if adds to my travel time. I don't have a lot of extra money to spend when I travel. Driving is a hobby for me and I often will drive 3-4 hours on any given day just for a fun cruise. I don't want to pay extra taxes to drive. Gas taxes pay for the roads. Two lane highways are not as costly to fix as interstates. Tolling interstates is not discrimination, it's smart.

EDIT: Mexico's two lane highways do not look like they are in disrepair. They look like any other two lane highway in the US except maybe a little narrower. For the most part they look like nice and smooth highways. When I go to Mazatlan, Mexico in the future I plan on taking MX 30 and 40 libre over 85D and 40D to save around $170. If the roads looked that bad I wouldn't plan on taking them.

The problem is that interstate routes aren't the only roads out there paid with fuel tax. Sure, that's where your 18.4cpg goes to, mostly, but then you have your state tax that also covers all those other roads you run. Do you think some small town with their own roads is also collecting a gas tax as well?

Paved roads are EXPENSIVE. Trying to 'value-added service' the freeways in exchange for booting the less capable onto the free roads makes the roads even more expensive. Now you have the toll roads charging and maintaining the toll roads. And then you have over-burdened free roads that must be paid and maintained while also bearing the brunt of the traffic.

Just as everyone can probably agree that traffic moves better when all traffic can go the same speed (no split speed limits like IL and OH had before), the cost of road construction is better when all roads are funded the same way.

Look at the PA Turnpike for an example in how not to run a toll road. Look at US30, PA283, US322, US422, US422, etc and how traffic is affected by a road being tolled. And seeing as volume doesn't meet the desired revenue, how the toll rises and pushes even more traffic onto other routes. Personally, I never take the PA Turnpike. I take US422 to US22 to I-99 to US30 to I-70 in Breezewood instead of just taking I-76 from Ohio if I were headed to DC or Baltimore areas. And a lot of other people do it, too.

[J N Winkler]

At least those people who are low income would have a choice of whether or not they want to take a toll road or not. A mileage tax wouldn't give them much of a choice. I'll admit it, I'm poverty level, which is why I avoid toll roads even if adds to my travel time. I don't have a lot of extra money to spend when I travel. Driving is a hobby for me and I often will drive 3-4 hours on any given day just for a fun cruise. I don't want to pay extra taxes to drive. Gas taxes pay for the roads. Two lane highways are not as costly to fix as interstates. Tolling interstates is not discrimination, it's smart.

It is certainly smart for you!  If the plan you suggest were adopted, you would have the rest of us pay more (as a result of forgone consumer's surplus as a result of Interstate tolling, which would have knock-on effects all the way down the supply chain) while you get preferential pricing for the roads you yourself use.

EDIT: Mexico's two lane highways do not look like they are in disrepair. They look like any other two lane highway in the US except maybe a little narrower. For the most part they look like nice and smooth highways. When I go to Mazatlan, Mexico in the future I plan on taking MX 30 and 40 libre over 85D and 40D to save around $170. If the roads looked that bad I wouldn't plan on taking them.

Have you actually been south of the border yet?  I know you have mentioned driving to Mazatlán, and Corco's posts upthread suggest you have already been and gone, but your last paragraph makes it sound like south-of-the-border travel is still only in prospect.

I wouldn't describe the libres as a soft option.  Some of them are paved quite well, but as a whole the surface quality is quite rough and striping and delineation tend to be quite old.  The unit lane width is probably an even three meters, about 10 feet in old money, which is pretty narrow compared to American standards (unit lane width of 12 feet with shoulders that include some paved width adjacent to the traveled way).  Long lengths have concrete-paved drainage gullies, called cunetas in Spanish, which start right at the edge of the traveled way and are too steep to permit easy recovery from tracking errors.

This is fairly typical of my experience of Mexican libres:

Mex. 16 near Coyame, Chihuahua

They can be very scenic, but they are not a fast way to travel and since they are narrow and curvy, often with speed limits that are quite low (Mex. 16 between Chihuahua city and the US border at Ojinaga is mostly 70 km/h, if memory serves), they are limited in the extent to which they can act as an industrial factor.  Meanwhile, the autopistas, which are more versatile, are barely used because of the sky-high charges.  (I am not sure the charges even cover their true cost to build, operate, and maintain since they were the main cause of Mexico's mid-1990's economic crisis and I think there may have been a debt restructuring that resulted in some First World investors being required to take a bath.)

Setting aside the many reasons the Mexican model is not for us--as an example, it takes three weeks to open a bank account in Mexico--if we are in the position of having to consider tolling high-class roads to keep the rest of the network at a low cost of entry to accommodate low-income people, then perhaps what we really need is an incomes policy.

[Duke87]

It's kind of a Malthusian Tragedy-of-the-Commons type dilemma- if one person goes the cheap route and uses a free parallel facility, then it's fine and it benefits that person. If most people, all acting rationally, decide to do that, it costs society as a whole and each individual more money in wear and tear. If we all pay into the same pot, we can have better roadways for everybody.

This is why I always argue that in order to use tolls effectively, you have to set them up in such a way that there is no practical shunpike route available. The best way to do this is to set up toll walls, such as what exists on the Hudson River south of Albany - every crossing is tolled eastbound. Every single one. No free routes. It's an imperfect example since there is a wide variance in the amount of the toll between different bridges, and the toll on the Verazzano throws things out of whack by effectively making the Staten Island crossings tolled both ways instead of one, but it can still serve as a source of inspiration.

What if, for example, all the authorities involved teamed up to place a toll on every crossing of the Ohio River downstream from Pittsburgh? And then every crossing of the Mississippi downstream of Cairo?

Rivers are the easiest place to do this since they have the fewest crossing points where you'd have to collect tolls, but the same could apply elsewhere - say, for example, you barricade some of the more minor roads crossing the Smokies between Tennessee and North Carolina, and then toll the remaining ones at the state line. Or keep the minor roads open but sign quite prominently that they are for local traffic only, and ticket anyone caught driving through without stopping like MWAA does with the Dulles Access Road.

[Mr_Northside]

Look at the PA Turnpike for an example in how not to run a toll road. Look at US30, PA283, US322, US422, US422, etc and how traffic is affected by a road being tolled. And seeing as volume doesn't meet the desired revenue, how the toll rises and pushes even more traffic onto other routes. Personally, I never take the PA Turnpike. I take US422 to US22 to I-99 to US30 to I-70 in Breezewood instead of just taking I-76 from Ohio if I were headed to DC or Baltimore areas. And a lot of other people do it, too.

I don't think it's a lack of volume problem, I think it's mostly the horrible Act 44, which dictates massive amounts of money be handed over to PennDOT, and I think the rate hikes themselves are legislated in (though not 100% sure about that).
I also have my doubts how much extra traffic the routes you mention actually get just because people do not want to pay tolls. I'm sure there is some, including you, but I doubt it's really that much.

[corco]

It's kind of a Malthusian Tragedy-of-the-Commons type dilemma- if one person goes the cheap route and uses a free parallel facility, then it's fine and it benefits that person. If most people, all acting rationally, decide to do that, it costs society as a whole and each individual more money in wear and tear. If we all pay into the same pot, we can have better roadways for everybody.

This is why I always argue that in order to use tolls effectively, you have to set them up in such a way that there is no practical shunpike route available. The best way to do this is to set up toll walls, such as what exists on the Hudson River south of Albany - every crossing is tolled eastbound. Every single one. No free routes. It's an imperfect example since there is a wide variance in the amount of the toll between different bridges, and the toll on the Verazzano throws things out of whack by effectively making the Staten Island crossings tolled both ways instead of one, but it can still serve as a source of inspiration.

What if, for example, all the authorities involved teamed up to place a toll on every crossing of the Ohio River downstream from Pittsburgh? And then every crossing of the Mississippi downstream of Cairo?

Rivers are the easiest place to do this since they have the fewest crossing points where you'd have to collect tolls, but the same could apply elsewhere - say, for example, you barricade some of the more minor roads crossing the Smokies between Tennessee and North Carolina, and then toll the remaining ones at the state line. Or keep the minor roads open but sign quite prominently that they are for local traffic only, and ticket anyone caught driving through without stopping like MWAA does with the Dulles Access Road.

I'm actually okay with tolling massive, expensive pieces of infrastructure like bridges. Those tend to cost a massive amount and serve a localized market, without having much in the way of alternate routing or nationwide relevance. Even the Verazzano, while certainly a very important bridge, priimarily serves local, and not national traffic.

Because of the tendency for them to be localized in importance (excepting Mississippi River crossings and the like), I'd be highly against using those tolls to fund national highway improvements- bridge tolls that go to pay off bridge construction bonds and save up for ongoing O&M expenses and future bridge replacement are acceptable. I do have an issue with MTA charging $15 to go over the Verazzano when the Verazzano is paid for, and then pumping that money into things like transit*, but at least in that case it's a local decision made at the local level on a bridge that primarily serves local traffic, so it's somewhat defensible.

Putting tolls on I-70 through western Kansas and then maintaining a free US-24 parallel to it is where I become anti-toll. That just doesn't make any sense and is a horribly inefficient use of capacity. The sheer expense to have I-70 out there in the first place isn't really worth it- had it not been for the interstate system, there is no way it would be a freeway. Put tolls on it to reflect the cost to drive, and they'd have to be astronomical to be worth it, and then there's US-24 next to it that doesn't pass through very much and you can legally go 65 on it. There's absolutely no point in maintaining a "rich people freeway" next to a "poor person/truck 2-lane" when the freeway isn't remotely close to capacity.

*I'm pro-transit and do think transit funding should come partially from the national level (and possibly even from auto-usage taxes like the fuel tax if it can be demonstrated that those dollars are going into activities that directly offset capacity/O&M issues on roadways) since a very healthy chunk of taxpayers live near and can use transit, and transit does relieve the burden on nationally-important highways through cities. In the case of a toll to pay off a bridge, I don't think it's right to use that money for things other than that bridge (or other bridges that serve the same function), unless the intent is to serve as congestion pricing of some type, but that's back to being a local decision.

[US 41]

If all the interstates were toll roads I doubt trucks would waste their time taking free 2 lane highways. They have places they have to be. Maybe lowering the weight limit on interstates would help make the interstates last longer.

To JN Winkler: I have not been to Mexico yet. All my knowledge is from looking at Mexican highways on streetview.

[briantroutman]

If all the interstates were toll roads I doubt trucks would waste their time taking free 2 lane highways.

At opening of the Pennsylvania Turnpike in 1940, the toll rate for cars was approximately 1¢ per mile; truck rates were significantly higher. A year earlier, the BPR's "Toll Roads and Free Roads"  report concluded that, since the cost of operating a private automobile was also approximately 1¢ per mile at the time, motorists would view such a toll as a doubling of their driving expense and therefore would use alternate free routes. History would seem to have proven the BPR wrong, because the volume of paying customers on the Pennsylvania Turnpike far exceeded all expectations. Though the Pennsylvania Motor Truck Association threatened a boycott over the high truck tolls, its members voted with their wallets, and truck volumes were also higher than projected.

If we adjust that original 1¢ toll rate for inflation, it would equal approximately 17¢ per mile today–still 4¢ higher than today's outrageously hiked cash rate, and nearly double the current E-ZPass rate.

If we instead use the metric of the toll being "equal to the cost of operation of a motor vehicle" , we'd be looking at toll rate of 50 or 60¢ per mile–or $180-$200 just to cross the Commonwealth.

I'm not saying that tolls should be that high, nor do I support the kind of inefficiency and corruption that the PTC represents–nor am I ignoring the fact that the tolls were instituted to recoup construction costs that have long since been recouped. What I am saying, however, is that I think people are willing to pay more in tolls to use a fast, direct route than you might expect.