Elephant in the Room - Tolls in Wisconsin?

[paulthemapguy]

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.

Taxing by the mile, which is being discussed in another thread: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=17983.0

[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.

Taxing by the mile, which is being discussed in another thread: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=17983.0

I was grouping that in with "taxes", but I see your point (now that I read Ghostbuster's comment again, which specifically says "gas taxes" and not just "taxes").

I'm just opposed to paying for roads using advertising, as discussed on the last page. I think raising taxes (be it a gas tax or mileage tax), as well as implementing tolls, are both sufficient means of funding maintenance and improvements.

[froggie]

Because, for some areas of the country, he's actually right.  In those areas, the majority want no tolls, nor do they want a higher gas tax.

The alternatives are as varied as they are unpopular...

[dzlsabe]

Dont really see where or how WI would/could pull a toll road off? How much traffic from MN and IL? Wouldn't it affect mostly WI drivers?

As far as Federal fuel tax, a dime increase would add a buck? to most car drivers bill (assuming ten gallons) per week, a hundred gallon truck tank $10. Inflation and highway robbery have diminished 18 & 24 cents quite a bit since 1993.

[kalvado]

Dont really see where or how WI would/could pull a toll road off? How much traffic from MN and IL? Wouldn't it affect mostly WI drivers?

As far as Federal fuel tax, a dime increase would add a buck? to most car drivers bill (assuming ten gallons) per week, a hundred gallon truck tank $10. Inflation and highway robbery have diminished 18 & 24 cents quite a bit since 1993.

On one hand, I would gladly pay extra $1 to save $100 on suspension.
On the other hand, historic trend is really interesting:

[The Ghostbuster]

I still think Express and HOT Lanes are more likely in my state, as opposed to full-blown toll roads. Mostly in the Milwaukee area, and possibly Madison. Of course, I could be wrong.

[dzlsabe]

Dont really see where or how WI would/could pull a toll road off? How much traffic from MN and IL? Wouldn't it affect mostly WI drivers?

As far as Federal fuel tax, a dime increase would add a buck? to most car drivers bill (assuming ten gallons) per week, a hundred gallon truck tank $10. Inflation and highway robbery have diminished 18 & 24 cents quite a bit since 1993.

On one hand, I would gladly pay extra $1 to save $100 on suspension.
On the other hand, historic trend is really interesting:

I agree. Now come up with the graph of spending on highways/bridges in the same period.

[US 41]

As I've said before, raising the gas or adding a mileage tax will do nothing to improve the roads. The main issue is that the states have to be more committed to having good roads.

Texas is a great example. It's the second largest state, has pretty low taxes (no state income tax, 9 cent sales tax, and a low gas tax), and they miraculously have great roads. Whether its an interstate, state route, or FM route; they are all in pretty good shape. Also Texas seems to have little problem coming up with money for projects like I-69 and maybe even I-14. Texas is on the move because they have smart leaders that understand that transportation should be a priority. They also have smart leaders that understand how the economy works. Texas by itself has a larger economy than Australia.

[froggie]

The main issue is that the states have to be more committed to having good roads.

And if gas tax/mileage tax is off the table, how do you propose this get funded?

Your Texas example also won't work at a national scale, given A) terrain/climate, B) population (remember, Texas has several very large cities), and C) costs.  Furthermore, while Texas doesn't have an individual income tax, they do have a corporate franchise tax as well as a receipts tax for some business sectors.

Another thing you didn't mention:  much of Texas' recent capacity expansion is the result of tolls and toll roads.

Lastly, since you mention Texas as an example, I'll mention a Texas case where massive road expansion can actually make things worse.  Commutes on the I-10 Katy Freeway are now worse than they were before the recent expansion, which was not all that long ago.

[SEWIGuy]

Texas has some of the highest property taxes in the country but are all collected at the local levels.  Which means there is no real revenue sharing like in states like Wisconsin.  Furthermore their best highways are toll roads, and their toll rates are quite high.  They also have better weather for road maintenance.

But in general I agree with your premise that roads are simply a priority for some states over another.

[peterj920]

Texas also maintains more roads than any other state.  They maintain over 79,000 miles of roadway for a state with 27 million people.  Wisconsin maintains about 11,800 miles and has a population of about 5.75 million.  Texas has more miles to maintain per person than Wisconsin does, which can strain their budget and is probably why they sought to build toll roads.

[paulthemapguy]

As I've said before, raising the gas or adding a mileage tax will do nothing to improve the roads. The main issue is that the states have to be more committed to having good roads.

Texas is a great example. It's the second largest state, has pretty low taxes (no state income tax, 9 cent sales tax, and a low gas tax), and they miraculously have great roads. Whether its an interstate, state route, or FM route; they are all in pretty good shape. Also Texas seems to have little problem coming up with money for projects like I-69 and maybe even I-14. Texas is on the move because they have smart leaders that understand that transportation should be a priority. They also have smart leaders that understand how the economy works. Texas by itself has a larger economy than Australia.

What, so you just wish good roads into existence?  You just say "I wish there was a good road here," and it appears?  The amount of total tax collected doesn't correlate to the amount spent on roads.  Texas does place roads at a really high priority.  Raising taxes can help improve roads AS LONG AS that money is allocated toward roads.  Bringing up examples of taxes not paying for roads does nothing to prove your original point, that higher taxes won't help the quality of a road network.

[The Ghostbuster]

Sure you can raise taxes to pay for roads, but what guarantee do you have that those tax dollars will go to roads, and not be diverted to other purposes?

[SEWIGuy]

Sure you can raise taxes to pay for roads, but what guarantee do you have that those tax dollars will go to roads, and not be diverted to other purposes?

The state budget process.

[kalvado]

Sure you can raise taxes to pay for roads, but what guarantee do you have that those tax dollars will go to roads, and not be diverted to other purposes?

The state budget process.

Given our state lawmakers voted for the budget without getting a chance to look inside before vote, I wouldn't hold my breath.

[SEWIGuy]

Sure you can raise taxes to pay for roads, but what guarantee do you have that those tax dollars will go to roads, and not be diverted to other purposes?

The state budget process.

Given our state lawmakers voted for the budget without getting a chance to look inside before vote, I wouldn't hold my breath.

Well then that's our fault as the voters then.  Unless there is a state constitutional amendment that requires that gas taxes go to roads, it can change at anytime and most people don't really care.

[merrycilantro]

I think Ghostbuster (and others in this thread) are onto something, HOT or possibly Tolls, especially in the Milwaukee/Madison area. Maybe even GB, on 172. You want a shortcut across the south side? You're gonna have to pay...I'd even say maybe even toll US-45 from I-41 to US-10. even up to I-39. A LOT of people use that new highway to get up north, it cuts drive time down to as little as 4 hours (from my area at least).

[GeekJedi]

I think Ghostbuster (and others in this thread) are onto something, HOT or possibly Tolls, especially in the Milwaukee/Madison area. Maybe even GB, on 172. You want a shortcut across the south side? You're gonna have to pay...I'd even say maybe even toll US-45 from I-41 to US-10. even up to I-39. A LOT of people use that new highway to get up north, it cuts drive time down to as little as 4 hours (from my area at least).

The problem with your thinking on this is that it's crazy to add tolls to existing roads. They're already built, and therefore done. Any tolling needs to be done on new roads, or roads that have improvements paid for by bonds backed by tolls. That's the thing that's forgotten - tolls aren't used to pay for infrastructure across a geographical area (that's not fair to the toll payers) - they're used to finance the improvements to the road that you're paying the toll on.

[Joe The Dragon]

I think Ghostbuster (and others in this thread) are onto something, HOT or possibly Tolls, especially in the Milwaukee/Madison area. Maybe even GB, on 172. You want a shortcut across the south side? You're gonna have to pay...I'd even say maybe even toll US-45 from I-41 to US-10. even up to I-39. A LOT of people use that new highway to get up north, it cuts drive time down to as little as 4 hours (from my area at least).

The problem with your thinking on this is that it's crazy to add tolls to existing roads. They're already built, and therefore done. Any tolling needs to be done on new roads, or roads that have improvements paid for by bonds backed by tolls. That's the thing that's forgotten - tolls aren't used to pay for infrastructure across a geographical area (that's not fair to the toll payers) - they're used to finance the improvements to the road that you're paying the toll on.

There are tolling the both the old and new parts of the EOE

[jakeroot]

I think Ghostbuster (and others in this thread) are onto something, HOT or possibly Tolls, especially in the Milwaukee/Madison area. Maybe even GB, on 172. You want a shortcut across the south side? You're gonna have to pay...I'd even say maybe even toll US-45 from I-41 to US-10. even up to I-39. A LOT of people use that new highway to get up north, it cuts drive time down to as little as 4 hours (from my area at least).

The problem with your thinking on this is that it's crazy to add tolls to existing roads. They're already built, and therefore done. Any tolling needs to be done on new roads, or roads that have improvements paid for by bonds backed by tolls. That's the thing that's forgotten - tolls aren't used to pay for infrastructure across a geographical area (that's not fair to the toll payers) - they're used to finance the improvements to the road that you're paying the toll on.

We're not talking about toll roads. We're talking about toll lanes, which provide a relief lane for travellers willing to pay a premium to bypass traffic.

[kalvado]

I think Ghostbuster (and others in this thread) are onto something, HOT or possibly Tolls, especially in the Milwaukee/Madison area. Maybe even GB, on 172. You want a shortcut across the south side? You're gonna have to pay...I'd even say maybe even toll US-45 from I-41 to US-10. even up to I-39. A LOT of people use that new highway to get up north, it cuts drive time down to as little as 4 hours (from my area at least).

The problem with your thinking on this is that it's crazy to add tolls to existing roads. They're already built, and therefore done. Any tolling needs to be done on new roads, or roads that have improvements paid for by bonds backed by tolls. That's the thing that's forgotten - tolls aren't used to pay for infrastructure across a geographical area (that's not fair to the toll payers) - they're used to finance the improvements to the road that you're paying the toll on.

We're not talking about toll roads. We're talking about toll lanes, which provide a relief lane for travellers willing to pay a premium to bypass traffic.

Still that require building that extra lane first.

[jakeroot]

I think Ghostbuster (and others in this thread) are onto something, HOT or possibly Tolls, especially in the Milwaukee/Madison area. Maybe even GB, on 172. You want a shortcut across the south side? You're gonna have to pay...I'd even say maybe even toll US-45 from I-41 to US-10. even up to I-39. A LOT of people use that new highway to get up north, it cuts drive time down to as little as 4 hours (from my area at least).

The problem with your thinking on this is that it's crazy to add tolls to existing roads. They're already built, and therefore done. Any tolling needs to be done on new roads, or roads that have improvements paid for by bonds backed by tolls. That's the thing that's forgotten - tolls aren't used to pay for infrastructure across a geographical area (that's not fair to the toll payers) - they're used to finance the improvements to the road that you're paying the toll on.

We're not talking about toll roads. We're talking about toll lanes, which provide a relief lane for travellers willing to pay a premium to bypass traffic.

Still that require building that extra lane first.

If no such infrastructure precedes it, yes, you'll need to build it. Around here, more and more freeways have HOV lanes, so converting those to toll lanes are a little easier.

[GeekJedi]

I think Ghostbuster (and others in this thread) are onto something, HOT or possibly Tolls, especially in the Milwaukee/Madison area. Maybe even GB, on 172. You want a shortcut across the south side? You're gonna have to pay...I'd even say maybe even toll US-45 from I-41 to US-10. even up to I-39. A LOT of people use that new highway to get up north, it cuts drive time down to as little as 4 hours (from my area at least).

The problem with your thinking on this is that it's crazy to add tolls to existing roads. They're already built, and therefore done. Any tolling needs to be done on new roads, or roads that have improvements paid for by bonds backed by tolls. That's the thing that's forgotten - tolls aren't used to pay for infrastructure across a geographical area (that's not fair to the toll payers) - they're used to finance the improvements to the road that you're paying the toll on.

We're not talking about toll roads. We're talking about toll lanes, which provide a relief lane for travellers willing to pay a premium to bypass traffic.

There is no need for toll lanes on US 45 between I-41 and I-39, which is what I was referencing. In that case, that would be a toll road in place of an existing road.

[jakeroot]

I think Ghostbuster (and others in this thread) are onto something, HOT or possibly Tolls, especially in the Milwaukee/Madison area. Maybe even GB, on 172. You want a shortcut across the south side? You're gonna have to pay...I'd even say maybe even toll US-45 from I-41 to US-10. even up to I-39. A LOT of people use that new highway to get up north, it cuts drive time down to as little as 4 hours (from my area at least).

The problem with your thinking on this is that it's crazy to add tolls to existing roads. They're already built, and therefore done. Any tolling needs to be done on new roads, or roads that have improvements paid for by bonds backed by tolls. That's the thing that's forgotten - tolls aren't used to pay for infrastructure across a geographical area (that's not fair to the toll payers) - they're used to finance the improvements to the road that you're paying the toll on.

We're not talking about toll roads. We're talking about toll lanes, which provide a relief lane for travellers willing to pay a premium to bypass traffic.

There is no need for toll lanes on US 45 between I-41 and I-39, which is what I was referencing. In that case, that would be a toll road in place of an existing road.

Ahh, my mistake. Misread merrycilantro's post. That said, the idea that toll roads exist entirely to fund maintenance is a little, uhh, 20th century. Nothing wrong with implementing tolls to encourage the use of another route.

[johndoe780]

I think Ghostbuster (and others in this thread) are onto something, HOT or possibly Tolls, especially in the Milwaukee/Madison area. Maybe even GB, on 172. You want a shortcut across the south side? You're gonna have to pay...I'd even say maybe even toll US-45 from I-41 to US-10. even up to I-39. A LOT of people use that new highway to get up north, it cuts drive time down to as little as 4 hours (from my area at least).

The problem with your thinking on this is that it's crazy to add tolls to existing roads. They're already built, and therefore done. Any tolling needs to be done on new roads, or roads that have improvements paid for by bonds backed by tolls. That's the thing that's forgotten - tolls aren't used to pay for infrastructure across a geographical area (that's not fair to the toll payers) - they're used to finance the improvements to the road that you're paying the toll on.

There are tolling the both the old and new parts of the EOE

Which the feds signed off on. It was as much as a fed issue as it was a state issue.

However, after driving on it, it's worth the $0.90 cent toll IMO. Traffic on the eastern end of EOE during rush hour was maddening.