Elephant in the Room - Tolls in Wisconsin?

[jakeroot]

The $710,000 is for 2 out of 9 interchanges along the project.  The cost adds up with them all included. Just because it's a small fraction of the total cost doesn't mean that it's a lot of money.  Every dollar saved can go towards other projects.

710/2 = 355

355*9 = $3.195 mil

So: One traffic signal, or landscaping, so it doesn't look like a prop from Blade Runner?

Stop being cheap. It's not necessary. It's still a tiny fraction compared to everything else, and it's easily budgeted.

[SEWIGuy]

and what percentage of that gas tax goes towards bike lanes, beautification, landscaping, etc? Items that you and I wouldn't consider to be part of our road infrastructure but some idiot politician would.

You may not consider them part of the infrastructure, but I do.  Landscaping, especially, is necessary to prevent erosion in locations where grading/regrading was done.  That said, to answer your question, the percentage is pretty low...basically decimals of a percent for bike lanes.  Especially where the roadway was being paved/repaved to begin with, the "cost" of bike lanes is basically the cost of the paint.  In other words, a rounding error.

Landscaping isn't that high either...maybe 5% or so for heavy landscaping, but landscaping is typically only required when you have either a new roadway, a major reconfiguration of an existing roadway or interchange, or a lot of digging up.  For replacement-in-kind (i.e. no alignment changes), basically all one needs is to restore the turf where the construction vehicles were.

Regarding "beautification", MnDOT's policy is that they will pay for basic ground restoration and turf renewal, and perhaps the occasional tree or bush for soil erosion control, but will require cost-sharing with the local jurisdiction if the locals desire something beyond that.

On the I-41 project in Green Bay, quite a bit of money is being spent on landscaping.  Over 0.5 million at the Wis 29 interchange alone and another $210,000 at the Wis 172 interchange was just listed on the new Northeast Region Construction Report.  The MNDOT policy will soon be the WISDOT policy, as state lawmakers passed a law scrapping the CSD program, which will require municipalities to pick up any beautification costs.  It will still take a few years to take effect because projects that are already under construction will not be affected by the changes and will get the CSD designs and the extra landscaping.   

The I-41 project cost just over $1B in Brown County.  And people are bitching about $710,000 in landscaping.

Oy...

The $710,000 is for 2 out of 9 interchanges along the project.  The cost adds up with them all included.  Just because it's a small fraction of the total cost doesn't mean that it's a lot of money.  Every dollar saved can go towards other projects.

But as others have pointed out, landscaping isn't an unnecessary expense.  It prevents erosion and controls rainwater runoff.  And making it look good in the process shouldn't be considered a wasteful expense. 

[kalvado]

But as others have pointed out, landscaping isn't an unnecessary expense.  It prevents erosion and controls rainwater runoff.  And making it look good in the process shouldn't be considered a wasteful expense.

THere is landscaping - and there is landscaping.
Grass on slopes so dirt doesn't wash off? - sure!
planting trees along the median, just to have them cut 2-3 years later? well...
Nice flowers on a hellstrip? Make sure there is a full-time florist to take care of those..

[johndoe780]

and what percentage of that gas tax goes towards bike lanes, beautification, landscaping, etc? Items that you and I wouldn't consider to be part of our road infrastructure but some idiot politician would.

You may not consider them part of the infrastructure, but I do.  Landscaping, especially, is necessary to prevent erosion in locations where grading/regrading was done.  That said, to answer your question, the percentage is pretty low...basically decimals of a percent for bike lanes.  Especially where the roadway was being paved/repaved to begin with, the "cost" of bike lanes is basically the cost of the paint.  In other words, a rounding error.

Landscaping isn't that high either...maybe 5% or so for heavy landscaping, but landscaping is typically only required when you have either a new roadway, a major reconfiguration of an existing roadway or interchange, or a lot of digging up.  For replacement-in-kind (i.e. no alignment changes), basically all one needs is to restore the turf where the construction vehicles were.

Regarding "beautification", MnDOT's policy is that they will pay for basic ground restoration and turf renewal, and perhaps the occasional tree or bush for soil erosion control, but will require cost-sharing with the local jurisdiction if the locals desire something beyond that.

Basic storm sewer work and turf, sure ok, I'll give you that. I'll even throw in noise walls too.

But trees, brick pavers, sidewalks, bike paths. street lighting etc? Hell no. That's not road infrastructure. Make the local towns pay for that crap.

[froggie]

Contrary to your claim, sidewalks, bike paths, and especially street lighting (nighttime safety) are all street infrastructure.  It's obvious you don't like it, but each has a valid purpose.  Furthermore, each is a relatively small part of a given project budget, so even if you cut them as you'd probably like to, you won't be able to build much with the savings.

[kalvado]

Contrary to your claim, sidewalks, bike paths, and especially street lighting (nighttime safety) are all street infrastructure.  It's obvious you don't like it, but each has a valid purpose.  Furthermore, each is a relatively small part of a given project budget, so even if you cut them as you'd probably like to, you won't be able to build much with the savings.

I would say differently: if we're talking about interstates - sidewalks, bike paths, crosswalks are removed from the equation. Lightning is usually put in high accident rate spots, and exists for a reason
If we're talking town streets - usually expenses are shared between different levels of government, so in essence one may say that town pays for painting crosswalks.... 

[jeffandnicole]

Contrary to your claim, sidewalks, bike paths, and especially street lighting (nighttime safety) are all street infrastructure.  It's obvious you don't like it, but each has a valid purpose.  Furthermore, each is a relatively small part of a given project budget, so even if you cut them as you'd probably like to, you won't be able to build much with the savings.

I would say differently: if we're talking about interstates - sidewalks, bike paths, crosswalks are removed from the equation. Lightning is usually put in high accident rate spots, and exists for a reason
If we're talking town streets - usually expenses are shared between different levels of government, so in essence one may say that town pays for painting crosswalks.... 

No one crosses an overpass over the interstate highway?  Being that's not true, there are sidewalks and bikepaths alongside the roadway on the overpass.

Crosswalks?  Sure there are crosswalks.  At interchanges, where the ramp meets the crossroad.

Lighting?  Pretty standard at every highway interchange and on those ramps, cross streets, overpasses, etc.

And the argument that money saved can be spent on other projects basically comes down to "If this project isn't important to me, don't spend the money there.  Use it elsewhere, such as improving the roads I drive on".

[kalvado]

No one crosses an overpass over the interstate highway?  Being that's not true, there are sidewalks and bikepaths alongside the roadway on the overpass.

Crosswalks?  Sure there are crosswalks.  At interchanges, where the ramp meets the crossroad.

Well, I would say that highway overpass is rather part of that overpassing road than part of highway.  But yes, if locality invested in sidewalks on the road outside overpass - they did their part; if not - there is no point in sidewalk on that overpass.. Same with ramp crosswalks. Of course, there are situations when crosswalk doesn't have adjacent sidewalks, or sidewalks go to nowhere.. But those are minority..

[vdeane]

But what if they want to add a sidewalk in the future?  The state DOT isn't going to replace the bridge in that instance; if the sidewalks aren't added when the bridge is replaced, it never will be.  Thus, it makes sense to install sidewalks if there is potential that they could be added in the foreseeable future.

[jakeroot]

But what if they want to add a sidewalk in the future?  The state DOT isn't going to replace the bridge in that instance; if the sidewalks aren't added when the bridge is replaced, it never will be.  Thus, it makes sense to install sidewalks if there is potential that they could be added in the foreseeable future.

Exactly. Many local municipalities are often unwilling to build sidewalks up to freeway interchanges, because there aren't any connecting sidewalks to ferry pedestrians over the freeway. If the state pulled the trigger first, so to speak, that often encourages the local municipality to "finish the job", and build some connecting sidewalks.

[kalvado]

But what if they want to add a sidewalk in the future?  The state DOT isn't going to replace the bridge in that instance; if the sidewalks aren't added when the bridge is replaced, it never will be.  Thus, it makes sense to install sidewalks if there is potential that they could be added in the foreseeable future.

Exactly. Many local municipalities are often unwilling to build sidewalks up to freeway interchanges, because there aren't any connecting sidewalks to ferry pedestrians over the freeway. If the state pulled the trigger first, so to speak, that often encourages the local municipality to "finish the job", and build some connecting sidewalks.

Makes sense, of course - but still somewhat depends on what we consider "potential".

[jeffandnicole]

But what if they want to add a sidewalk in the future?  The state DOT isn't going to replace the bridge in that instance; if the sidewalks aren't added when the bridge is replaced, it never will be.  Thus, it makes sense to install sidewalks if there is potential that they could be added in the foreseeable future.

Exactly. Many local municipalities are often unwilling to build sidewalks up to freeway interchanges, because there aren't any connecting sidewalks to ferry pedestrians over the freeway. If the state pulled the trigger first, so to speak, that often encourages the local municipality to "finish the job", and build some connecting sidewalks.

Makes sense, of course - but still somewhat depends on what we consider "potential".

Really, we're talking about something no different than a highway department buying extra right-of-way in case of the "potential" that the road will need widening.

[johndoe780]

Contrary to your claim, sidewalks, bike paths, and especially street lighting (nighttime safety) are all street infrastructure.  It's obvious you don't like it, but each has a valid purpose.  Furthermore, each is a relatively small part of a given project budget, so even if you cut them as you'd probably like to, you won't be able to build much with the savings.

I would say differently: if we're talking about interstates - sidewalks, bike paths, crosswalks are removed from the equation. Lightning is usually put in high accident rate spots, and exists for a reason
If we're talking town streets - usually expenses are shared between different levels of government, so in essence one may say that town pays for painting crosswalks....

Look, I like public transportation as much as the next guy, but when the transportation secretary comes out and says he wants 80% of the motor fuel tax.Aagain a tax I pay for at the pump to go to road infrastructure, something is messed up. These public transportation advocates, like the transportation secretary, should either find another source, or have the public transportation advocates pay for their own improvements.

http://www.streetsblog.net/2016/05/23/anthony-foxx-envisions-a-gradual-shift-away-from-car-dependence/

Good riddance Mr foxx. Don't let the door hit you on your way out come January.

[froggie]

Look, I like public transportation as much as the next guy,

Your attitude in this thread suggests otherwise.  It also suggests that you don't see walking and bicycling as valid forms of transportation.

[SSOWorld]

WisDOT has never funded lighting anywhere on freeways/expressways outside Milwaukee... EVER.  Any lighting on a freeway or at interchanges is locally funded.  The CSD done in Green Bay, Madison (overpasses), Oshkosh and (maybe) Milwaukee was out of line.  I'd be willing to bet that most of the CSD rots as local munis neglect to maintain it.

[johndoe780]

Look, I like public transportation as much as the next guy,

Your attitude in this thread suggests otherwise.  It also suggests that you don't see walking and bicycling as valid forms of transportation.

I do, but not when it's not funded by the motor fuel tax.

[US 41]

Look, I like public transportation as much as the next guy,

Your attitude in this thread suggests otherwise.  It also suggests that you don't see walking and bicycling as valid forms of transportation.

I do, but not when it's not funded by the motor fuel tax.

I think sidewalks and bike paths should be funded through city (or local) taxes, not by funds collected from motorists.

[peterj920]

WisDOT has never funded lighting anywhere on freeways/expressways outside Milwaukee... EVER.  Any lighting on a freeway or at interchanges is locally funded.  The CSD done in Green Bay, Madison (overpasses), Oshkosh and (maybe) Milwaukee was out of line.  I'd be willing to bet that most of the CSD rots as local munis neglect to maintain it.

The lights on the I-43/Leo Frigo Bridge were funded through a Homeland Security Grant.  I-41 is going to be lit from Wis 54 to I-43, and Wis 29 is lit from I-41 to County J.  I'm sure that WISDOT is funding those lights.  I doubt all of those lights would be put on the I-41 and Wis 29 mainlines if the Village of Howard had to pay for them.  As for the landscaping, the Green Bay Packers are maintaining the landscaping along Lombardi Ave and the interchange with I-41, which saves taxpayers.  They have a vested interest in the upkeep of the landscaping because of all of the money they're pouring into the area with the Titletown District and Lambeau Field.  It will be interesting to see how the communities maintain the plants because it is going to cost money to maintain them.  I know that someone on the board thought that just over $3 million for landscaping is small compared to the entire cost, but the $3 million was for special plants and flowers that will rot if they aren't cared for properly.  What's amazing about the landscape projects are contracts listed on the Northeast Region Construction Report.   

It costs nearly $249,000 for landscaping along Lombardi Ave and almost $23,000 a year to maintain according to WLUK TV.  For some reason it wouldn't let me paste the link for the story but it's very interesting. 

[dvferyance]

I really don't see how tolls in Wisconsin would work. I-39/90 has already been built as a free route the cost to convert to a toll raod would not be worth the expense that the revenue from the tolls would bring in.

[dzlsabe]

Maybe just weigh stations at Kenosha, Beloit, LaCrosse and Hudson. If youre empty, you slide, if youre 80K GVWR, you (most likely the owner) pays WIDOT? Any shenanigans? Dont do it. Trust me WIers, you dont want  your version of ISTHA. 

[peterj920]

Maybe just weigh stations at Kenosha, Beloit, LaCrosse and Hudson. If youre empty, you slide, if youre 80K GVWR, you (most likely the owner) pays WIDOT? Any shenanigans? Dont do it. Trust me WIers, you dont want  your version of ISTHA.

Most people in Wisconsin don't want any tolls so it most likely won't happen.

[tchafe1978]

Tolls would never happen in Wisconsin. It would be sacrilege. Us Wisconsinites don't like anything from or about Illinois, 1A being drivers, 1B tolls, and 1C duh Bears.

[The Ghostbuster]

No tolls. No increases in the gas tax. What other options are there?

[Stephane Dumas]

No tolls. No increases in the gas tax. What other options are there?

I begin to wonder if a telethon would make sense to finance a road project?  Or having an highway gap sponsored by some companies who'll fix the potholes like KFC. http://www.nuwireinvestor.com/articles/kfc-filling-potholes-in-exchange-for-advertising-52778.aspx
http://adage.com/article/news/a-pothole-filled-city-call-kfc/135534/

[jakeroot]

No tolls. No increases in the gas tax. What other options are there?

Taxes and tolls are proven fund-collection methods. I'm not sure why we'd need anything else.