GA 400 Tolls to close in NOV

[Tomahawkin]

With the state in desperate need for money to fix its infrastructure and address numerous bottleneck issues, This is Flat out Dumb...GA needs to add more toll roads (Mainly Interstate 95 at the FL state line and Interstate 75 Near the Tennessee State line since both locations are in rural areas) so the state can invest more in public transit as well as fixing all the Bottlenecks that are near the Atlanta area

Not To mention 50 percent of travelers who pay the 50 cent toll on GA 400 are the one's who can afford the newest Gas Guzzling SUV...Makes no sense to get rid of the toll when the state is strapped for money

The extension of the HOT lanes in Gwinnett County is another issue, they are worthless....

[jeffandnicole]

...GA needs to add more toll roads (Mainly Interstate 95 at the FL state line and Interstate 75 Near the Tennessee State line since both locations are in rural areas) so the state can invest more in public transit as well as fixing all the Bottlenecks that are near the Atlanta area...

Or...they can raise public transit fares so they can invest more in public transit, and they can toll the areas near Atlanta where bottlenecking occurs.

Heck, why don't we just add tolls in North Dakota and a tax on couches in Wyoming to fix Georgia's problems while we're at it.

[WashuOtaku]

So feel better getting that out of your system? 

Though I'm sure someone appreciated your rant, I thought it was silly.  That's my two-cents.

[Alps]

So feel better getting that out of your system? 

Though I'm sure someone appreciated your rant, I thought it was silly.  That's my two-cents.

You can keep your worthless coinage. This is the first discussion of GA 400 toll removal on this forum and, as moderator, I welcome people's opinions on the matter. If you don't have an opinion on it, shove off.

[cpzilliacus]

With the state in desperate need for money to fix its infrastructure and address numerous bottleneck issues, This is Flat out Dumb...GA needs to add more toll roads (Mainly Interstate 95 at the FL state line and Interstate 75 Near the Tennessee State line since both locations are in rural areas) so the state can invest more in public transit as well as fixing all the Bottlenecks that are near the Atlanta area

I vigorously object to Delaware Turnpike-style tolling schemes (on I-95 between the Maryland border and Del. 896) that only collect tolls from traffic crossing a state border.  The Delaware abomination is grandfathered, but I hope that Congress will make sure that no other state gets to repeat that scam.

Not To mention 50 percent of travelers who pay the 50 cent toll on GA 400 are the one's who can afford the newest Gas Guzzling SUV...Makes no sense to get rid of the toll when the state is strapped for money

I actually agree with you.  But I believe that the decision to get rid of the Ga. 400 tolls was made by some nice people called elected officials in Georgia.  Perhaps you should let them know of your opinion?

The extension of the HOT lanes in Gwinnett County is another issue, they are worthless....

At least one group disagrees with your assertion.

[NE2]

Bahaha. If the "reason foundation" disagrees with you you're probably right.

[kphoger]

Baaaaa.

FTFY

[lordsutch]

Personally I think as a public policy matter that SR 400 should remain a toll road (and, for equity's sake, it should be AET with toll points between each exit, to ensure Buckhead traffic is paying its share), but when it was built the promise was that the tolls would go away when the bonds were paid off.  Given how small the toll is I'm not sure it makes that much of a traffic difference either way; these days the incremental gas of using 75 or 85 to 285 to avoid the toll would probably cost more than paying the toll for most folks, even leaving aside the time loss.

I think the HOT lanes will be more useful the longer they are.  That said I think the upcoming I-75/575 north and I-75 south projects, with proper separated express lanes with dedicated entrances (I hate the term "managed lanes" but it seems to be sticking) are more likely to accomplish their goals than the HOV-conversion on I-85 which started with trying to make the best of an outmoded HOV design anyway.

As for single point tolls I don't think they're very equitable and are likely to get rat-run.  And these days with AET there's no reason to do it except to screw long-distance travelers into paying for local trips.  Besides for both I-75 & I-95 the time to do it was before the 6-laning, not now when most of the projects are close to done; I-75, except through Macon where I-475 functions as the through route, will probably be done in the next year, and there's no reason for people crossing into Florida south of Valdosta to be paying to fix the I-75/16 interchange.

[SP Cook]

Or...they can raise public transit fares so they can invest more in public transit, and they can toll the areas near Atlanta where bottlenecking occurs.

Heck, why don't we just add tolls in North Dakota and a tax on couches in Wyoming to fix Georgia's problems while we're at it.

This.

The OP's rant presupposes several things that simply are not true.

- It illegal to put tolls on roads built under the highway trust fund, such as 95 or 75.
- Georgia is not broke, it simply decided to spend money on things other than highways, if government (any government) simply restricted itself to the historic things that governements are supposed to do, all would have plenty of money.
- Promises made, promises kept.  GA 400 was built with the promise that the tolls would come off when it was paid for, which was 2 years ago.   Georgia thus joins Kentucky in doing the RIGHT thing.
- Transit does not work, and even if it did, there is no logical reason that highway user should subsidize it.
- Governments do not "invest".  Governments "spend".  People "invest".

[cpzilliacus]

Or...they can raise public transit fares so they can invest more in public transit, and they can toll the areas near Atlanta where bottlenecking occurs.

Heck, why don't we just add tolls in North Dakota and a tax on couches in Wyoming to fix Georgia's problems while we're at it.

This.

The OP's rant presupposes several things that simply are not true.

- It illegal to put tolls on roads built under the highway trust fund, such as 95 or 75.

Mostly correct, though I think we will increasingly see Congress deciding to allow "free" Interstates to be tolled. 

It has allowed a limited number of states to at least study the tolling of "free" roads - details on the FHWA Web site here.

- Georgia is not broke, it simply decided to spend money on things other than highways, if government (any government) simply restricted itself to the historic things that governements are supposed to do, all would have plenty of money.

I don't know the details of Georgia's financial situation, so I will not comment.

- Promises made, promises kept.  GA 400 was built with the promise that the tolls would come off when it was paid for, which was 2 years ago.   Georgia thus joins Kentucky in doing the RIGHT thing.

I agree.  I don't have a problem with  toll roads staying tolled after the construction bonds are paid off, but if a promise was made to detoll when those bonds were paid, then I do not have a problem with removing the tolls.

Virginia used to detoll its toll roads and toll crossings when the bonds were paid off, but it looks like the Dulles Toll Road (Va. 267) will remain a toll road forever to fund the parallel train project called Dulles Rail.  Its original construction bonds were to have been paid off this decade.

- Transit does not work, and even if it did, there is no logical reason that highway user should subsidize it.

Agreed in part and disagree in part. 

Will transit decongest highways?  I am not aware of any project in the United States where that has ever happened, though transit promoters often claim that their rail transit lines will provide highway congestion relief.

The claim of highway congestion relief is often used to justify diversion of large amounts of highway user revenues (motor fuel taxes, tolls, parking charges, registration fees and excise taxes) to transit operating and capital subsidies.  The last perhaps being more egregious, since transit patrons in the United States usually don't pay any of the capital cost of the systems that they use.

- Governments do not "invest".  Governments "spend".  People "invest".

Curious that transit advocates (and especially rail transit advocates) love to use the word invest to describe large capital subsidies that are obtained from sources other than transit patrons.  And once the transit line is up and running, it invariably loses lots of money, requiring operating subsidies from non-transit sources, often highway users.  But I see most investment in passenger rail projects as bids to go "forward into the past," for passenger rail is mostly a legacy technology.

Having said that, I do believe that government has invested (and invested well) in certain assets.  Most of the Interstate system was (and is) an investment.  So is investment in airports, sea and river ports and related infrastructure, though I happen to believe that airports might be better run by the private sector, as they are in Great Britain (the governments of Mrs. Thatcher sold-off nearly all of the British Airports Authority to private investors).

Government has invested large amounts of money  in projects like the dams along the Colorado and Columbia Rivers; and along the Tennessee River in the Southeast.  Those investments have yielded significant benefits to the areas they serve.

So were the federal and state investments in railroads and canals (especially the Eire Canal), generally in the 19th Century. 

[xcellntbuy]

"Broke" is a funny word in state government.  You have not experienced "broke" until you have lived in New York.

New York is broke.  Michigan is broke.  California is broke.  All three States have spent and spent and spent into oblivion. 

Georgia is far from broke, trust me.

[deathtopumpkins]

- Transit does not work, and even if it did, there is no logical reason that highway user should subsidize it.

That is quite the bold claim to make. In what regard does transit "not work?"

The goal of a public transit system is to carry people from point to point, which it does. I depend on it daily to get me around Greater Boston, which it does with very few issues. If I want to take a bus somewhere, I look up the bus schedule, go wait at the bus stop, get on the bus, and ride it to my destination. So I'd say transit "works" in that I can take it when I need to go somewhere.

Now it doesn't generally reduce road congestion, which is probably what you were implying, at least not to a noticeable level most places. Up here in the northeast, however, I would argue that it does contribute, on the basis that I, and many other people I know, would much, much, much rather take commuter rail than drive into Boston. Heck, that's why commuter rail stations like Anderson/Woburn and Route 128, and subway stations like Alewife and the Quincy stations and Wonderland with their massive park-and-ride lots exist - they're intended to let traffic get off the freeway and straight onto a train, which people do. Most MBTA garages fill up quickly on a typical weekday,  which means that people are using them, and I see plenty of people come in from the suburbs to attend events like sports games at places like TD Garden on my commuter trains. These people opted to take the train rather than drive in to the city, which means the rail line helped alleviate road congestion. Of course what is true here is not true in southern and western cities, which are less densely populated and more car-accessible.

Should money from highway funds be used to subsidize transit? That's up for debate. The fact that in densely-populated areas people do often take transit rather than drive, however, is not.

[Revive 755]

"Broke" is a funny word in state government.  You have not experienced "broke" until you have lived in New York.

New York is broke.  Michigan is broke.  California is broke.  All three States have spent and spent and spent into oblivion.

You forgot Illinois.

[xcellntbuy]

Yes, I did.  Duly corrected.

[vdeane]

"Broke" is a funny word in state government.  You have not experienced "broke" until you have lived in New York.

New York is broke.  Michigan is broke.  California is broke.  All three States have spent and spent and spent into oblivion. 

Georgia is far from broke, trust me.

Actually, NY just balanced their budget last year for the first time in ages.

[SP Cook]

- Transit does not work, and even if it did, there is no logical reason that highway user should subsidize it.

That is quite the bold claim to make. In what regard does transit "not work?"

Glad you asked.  The number of transit systems that are able to support themselves from fees paid by users:

The Las Vegas Monorail (which is set up as a non-profit).

(end of list)

Every other form of transit, being a failed economic model, is subsidized by taxes paid by people who DO NOT USE IT.  Unlike highways, which are paid for out only by users via the gasoline tax and tolls, or air travel, which is paid for only by taxes and landing fees paid, at the end of the day, only by users. 

Transit does not work, because those using it are unable or unwilling to pay the full costs.

[Alps]

Every other form of transit, just like other modes of travel, is subsidized by taxes paid by people who use any or all modes of travel. Unlike highways, which are paid for by users via the gasoline tax and tolls as well as various other appropriations and Federal money, or air travel, which is a private industry and thus not even a part of this discussion.

Transit does not support itself, just like any other mode of transportation, and requires the use of taxes and other transportation money.

Fixed.

[froggie]

Steve beat me to it.  Roads are no better at supporting themselves through user fees.  Witness, for example, that the Highway Trust Fund has required more than one multi-billion-dollar transfer from the Treasury in recent years...and that's just at the Federal level.  Or that several states use general sales taxes to help fund roads.

An admittedly back-of-the-napkin calculation suggests that, for roads to truly be free of subsidization (i.e. no non-transportation-based revenues going for roads at ANY level of government), we'd have to increase our gas tax on the scale of 60-70 cents per gallon.  And that's just to cover what we currently spend, to say nothing about unfunded improvements.  Would you be willing to pay that, SP?

[mtantillo]

Don't forget that other modes are often indirectly subsidized too.  For example, air travel would not be possible without weather information.  The National Weather Service provides this information much cheaper than if the airlines had to fund it themselves.  And somehow I doubt that the measley $2.50 September 11 security fees fully fund TSA.  Most airports are owned by local governments and airlines can lease space.  Much cheaper than if each airline had to provide their own airports.

And...despite the subsidies, the airlines are still in trouble financially....

[deathtopumpkins]

So, SP Cook, if transit is such a "failed economic model", what do you propose instead to give mobility to people living in the city? Do you think all cities should be replaced by auto-centric suburbs? Oh, wait, I'm sure you don't since suburban housing is one of the most expensive things the federal government subsidizes, which means it fails, correct?

Sarcasm aside, I'm actually quite curious to hear your solution.

[cpzilliacus]

So, SP Cook, if transit is such a "failed economic model", what do you propose instead to give mobility to people living in the city? Do you think all cities should be replaced by auto-centric suburbs? Oh, wait, I'm sure you don't since suburban housing is one of the most expensive things the federal government subsidizes, which means it fails, correct?

I don't presume to speak for S P and I won't.  But my big problem with transit is not the enormous sums diverted from highway user fees of various kinds (tolls, motor fuel tax revenues, parking charges and the rest) for some of the reasons you mention above.

But I do have a major beef with transit promoters (and the unions that represent employees of most urban transit systems) that claim that their preferred mode of transportation is going to decongest any part of the highway system (they won't); improve air quality (even the "clean electric" trains frequently use electric power produced at coal-fired (or other fossil-fuel fired) electric generating stations); somehow make for "better" land use (I sure as Hades could not afford to live in a co-op near a subway stop in Mid-town Manhattan, or near the Pentagon  City stop on the Washington Metrorail system) and I can show you plenty of blighted areas near rail transit stops in places as diverse as Los Angeles; Portland (Oregon); Washington, D.C.; Baltimore and Stockholm,  Sweden.

Sarcasm aside, I'm actually quite curious to hear your solution.

Transit is a minority mode of transportation in very nearly all of the United States.  We need to provide (and fund) transit service so that people who don't have access to a private motor vehicle (or cannot safely operate one) are able to get around.  In the future, self-driving cars may better meet the  needs of people who cannot drive - we will just have to see what evolves.

EDIT: corrected typos.

[NE2]

Transit is a minority mode of transportation in very nearly all of the United States.

Kind of like basketball courts, eh?

[Alps]

Transit has its uses. I'll use a bus or train to visit NY City instead of driving, although I can perfectly well afford to drive. Assuming I can park for free, the costs are the same order of magnitude (per-mile plus toll is more expensive, but then add subway fare to the bus/train round-trip). The time is faster if I drive. I just don't want to deal with the hassle, and I feel like if an area is well-served by transit, I ought to make use of it. It's not all about the lowest common denominator.

[sdmichael]

I could care less if transit promoters use "it will reduce congestion" as one of their points. New York, San Francisco, London, Paris, Chicago, and many other cities are well known for their mass transit systems. They are also well known for their traffic problems. Having an option to get around that DOESN'T involve cars is a major ASSET to any major city. Passenger rail has rarely ever made money. In the past, it was subsidized through Postal contracts or freight service. Should that really matter? I don't think so when it benefits so many. Why does everything have to make money? It is a really poor methodology for grading the effectiveness of something.

[SP Cook]

I could care less if transit promoters use "it will reduce congestion" as one of their points. New York, San Francisco, London, Paris, Chicago, and many other cities are well known for their mass transit systems. They are also well known for their traffic problems.

Exactly.  There simply is no study that shows more transit does anything to reduce congestion.  Quite the opposite, as is seen in the DC area, which has the least expressways per capita and the most transit.  And the worst traffic.

Because, outside a few big cities such as NY, Philly, Chicago, and a very few others, transit is something one HAS to use because of one's economic situation, not something people choose to use.  Because, given the choice, most people would choose the suburban lifestyle, with a single family house, a CAR, etc.

Which is why transit, where it works, should be paid for by those who use it, or at least those who live where it is used, and not by highway users in the main part of the country who will never use it.  And why people need to stop saying thing like "sprawl" and start using the right words, which are "growth" "freedom" and "prosperity".