Donald Trump's Secretary of Transportation

[mvak36]

I think she is into boats

I mean, I'm not gonna judge...

Motorboats?

[sparker]

She's a career bureaucrat; I wouldn't expect her or her subordinates to take much initiative toward any extensive developmental programs nor drastic policy changes (although CA's high-speed rail is probably toast!).  Instead, policy will most likely be more or less "imported" from interest groups who have --or get -- Trump's ear.  Actually, Ms. Chao's selection is a bit of a relief from D.T.'s recent "put a really hungry fox in the henhouse" approach to Cabinet and other bureau appointments; at least he didn't select someone who is openly "toll-happy" -- if anything, the well-documented and well-publicized bankruptcies and other revenue-raising shortcomings of toll facilities (TX & CA) may mitigate against the incoming administrations' stated favoritism for 3P ventures. 

[paulthemapguy]

I think she is into boats

I mean, I'm not gonna judge...

Motorboats?

But I do hope that the new executive branch is as dedicated to infrastructure as Trump said he would be.  At the same time, I hope the money spent on transportation, among all things, is spent responsibly and according to a balanced set of priorities.

[US 41]

I doubt too much will change honestly. I think if our highways are going to improve it's going to have to be the states that do it.

[Rothman]

I doubt too much will change honestly. I think if our highways are going to improve it's going to have to be the states that do it.

O.o

How on Earth would the states be able to do that?  State budgets are already taxed to the limits.  Federal funding is more flexible.

[US 41]

I doubt too much will change honestly. I think if our highways are going to improve it's going to have to be the states that do it.

O.o

How on Earth would the states be able to do that?  State budgets are already taxed to the limits.  Federal funding is more flexible.

Hmm, Texas seems to have no problems maintaining, improving, and building new highways. The states just have to make it a priority.

[Rothman]

I doubt too much will change honestly. I think if our highways are going to improve it's going to have to be the states that do it.

O.o

How on Earth would the states be able to do that?  State budgets are already taxed to the limits.  Federal funding is more flexible.

Hmm, Texas seems to have no problems maintaining, improving, and building new highways. The states just have to make it a priority.

Texas uses plenty of federal funds to do so.

[jbnv]

Considering that the federal money has no money of its own but what it takes from individuals and corporations, cutting taxes is a good first step. Then each state can figure out a formula that best fits its own needs and revenue sources.

There's also the good old T-word. Let states toll their segments of the Interstate system. So that the people who, you know, use them are the ones who are paying for them.

[US 41]

Considering that the federal money has no money of its own but what it takes from individuals and corporations, cutting taxes is a good first step. Then each state can figure out a formula that best fits its own needs and revenue sources.

There's also the good old T-word. Let states toll their segments of the Interstate system. So that the people who, you know, use them are the ones who are paying for them.

The T-word is what I think should happen. It's crazy that very populated states like New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Delaware can have toll roads, but yet it's illegal for states like Tennessee to have tolled interstates. I think each state should be able to decide whether or not they want to toll their interstates and which ones they want to toll. I don't see the problem with that. And it's not like there aren't toll free options available. If you can read a map, you can find a different way to go. I just drove US 54 and US 50 across NM, TX, and KS two days ago to avoid the OK Turnpikes and the KS Turnpike and you don't hear me crying about it.

[vdeane]

The old turnpikes are grandfathered in because they were built before the interstate system was conceived of.  Personally, I've always felt that they should all be de-tolled (this is even a statutory requirement in Massachusetts, but it has a loophole that allows MA to issue new bonds and extend the length of the toll if it's not in good repair when the bonds will be paid off; consequently, MassDOT deliberately does not fully maintain the road so that it will not become free).  Why should people who don't want to pay twice (gas tax + toll) be forced to use a lesser quality road?

[jbnv]

Why should people who don't want ... be forced to ...

Well, there's your choice. You can pay to use the fast, good way or not pay and use the slow, not-so-good way.

[J N Winkler]

Besides the double-charging issue, there are further problems with tolls as the preferred financing method:

*  Traffic diverts to less safe routes.

*  Appropriation of consumer's surplus means toll facilities are less used and thus road user costs are higher overall.

*  Tolls as bypass of political sclerosis tends to result in deals seriously disadvantageous to the public interest, especially in the long term.

[vdeane]

One other point: tolling is significantly less efficient than the gas tax, requiring a much higher overhead to collect the toll and there are people that don't pay despite the penalties for nonpayment.  That's in addition to the paying twice and the trips that would be more expensive (if not shunpiked) being completely arbitrary.  IMO, just raise the gas tax to what it needs to be and slap an electricity tax on electric charging stations to cover the electric cars (heck, with a special outlet and computer chips, we could even collect tax directly on users utility bill for charging at home!).  Do we really want to be driving traffic to roads that have lower capacity and are less safe?  PA is already starting to see traffic divert to US 30 thanks to the sky high tolls on the Turnpike!

[Rick Powell]

I doubt too much will change honestly. I think if our highways are going to improve it's going to have to be the states that do it.

O.o

How on Earth would the states be able to do that?  State budgets are already taxed to the limits.  Federal funding is more flexible.

In IL, our programming people showed us that the state got the biggest bump from state capital spending programs, with a lesser bump from the feds. If the political will is there (as in IA's latest 10c gas tax raise) it usually means more than the federal TIGER programs, earmarks, etc. in the grand scheme of things.

[Brandon]

Besides the double-charging issue, there are further problems with tolls as the preferred financing method:

*  Traffic diverts to less safe routes.

*  Appropriation of consumer's surplus means toll facilities are less used and thus road user costs are higher overall.

*  Tolls as bypass of political sclerosis tends to result in deals seriously disadvantageous to the public interest, especially in the long term.

Based on my observations here hear Chicago, I sincerely doubt your conclusions.

* Traffic usually seems to go to the tollways as the better routes, as they are better maintained and tend to be improved more often.  Outside of Chicago (city limits), the only freeways with more than six lanes are a 7 mile stretch of I-290 (Schaumburg to Itasca) and at the Poplar Street Bridge in East Saint Louis.  The tollways outside the City of Chicago with more than six lanes include all of the Tri-State Tollway (I-80, I-94, I-294), the East-West Tollway from IL-59 to I-294, the North-South Tollway from I-55 to I-88, and the Northwest Tollway (being built as I type) from the Elgin area to O'Hare.  ISTHA also tends to plow and salt better than IDOT.

* Again, based on the traffic I've seen, I call this one bunk.  The toll facilities are very well used, even I-88 west of I-39.  If you place the toll route in the right place, traffic will use it and prefer it.

* I sincerely doubt your third point as well.

[Rothman]

Considering that the federal money has no money of its own but what it takes from individuals and corporations, cutting taxes is a good first step.

Um...same goes for state taxes.  Not going to happen.

There's also the good old T-word. Let states toll their segments of the Interstate system. So that the people who, you know, use them are the ones who are paying for them.

We tried this before.  The toll gates everywhere and lack of willingness of private entities to fulfill the public good caused us to turn to public funding of roads in the first place.

[US 41]

Besides the double-charging issue, there are further problems with tolls as the preferred financing method:

*  Traffic diverts to less safe routes.

*  Appropriation of consumer's surplus means toll facilities are less used and thus road user costs are higher overall.

*  Tolls as bypass of political sclerosis tends to result in deals seriously disadvantageous to the public interest, especially in the long term.

Based on my observations here hear Chicago, I sincerely doubt your conclusions.

* Traffic usually seems to go to the tollways as the better routes, as they are better maintained and tend to be improved more often.  Outside of Chicago (city limits), the only freeways with more than six lanes are a 7 mile stretch of I-290 (Schaumburg to Itasca) and at the Poplar Street Bridge in East Saint Louis.  The tollways outside the City of Chicago with more than six lanes include all of the Tri-State Tollway (I-80, I-94, I-294), the East-West Tollway from IL-59 to I-294, the North-South Tollway from I-55 to I-88, and the Northwest Tollway (being built as I type) from the Elgin area to O'Hare.  ISTHA also tends to plow and salt better than IDOT.

* Again, based on the traffic I've seen, I call this one bunk.  The toll facilities are very well used, even I-88 west of I-39.  If you place the toll route in the right place, traffic will use it and prefer it.

* I sincerely doubt your third point as well.

To add to this I have taken US 60 / OK 66 from Missouri to OKC numerous times to avoid the tolls on I-44 and there is always a ton of traffic on I-44 and hardly any traffic on OK 66.

I also don't think most people avoid toll roads. Most people are willing to pay the extra money to use the better and faster roads.

I am against private toll roads. I think toll roads should only be run and operated by the state government. The money collected on a toll road should be strictly used for the toll road only. I don't think a toll road should be a money maker for a company, which is why I am against private toll roads. The money should be put into an account to pay employees of the toll road (toll collectors if you have them) and to maintain / improve the toll road.

[US71]

Considering that the federal money has no money of its own but what it takes from individuals and corporations, cutting taxes is a good first step. Then each state can figure out a formula that best fits its own needs and revenue sources.

There's also the good old T-word. Let states toll their segments of the Interstate system. So that the people who, you know, use them are the ones who are paying for them.

Arkansas would have to rewrite their highway laws since they do not allow toll roads... except if Wal-Mart wants to build it and pocket the tolls themselves.

[jbnv]

I've driven toll roads in Texas, Florida, Chicagoland, Indiana and Ohio. In general, my experience with the roads has been positive. The roads are high-quality. The traffic is bearable at worse. I second Brandon's and US 41's observations.

The "but toll gates" argument is largely moot in urban situations with electronic tolling. In a rural setting, a large toll gate in the middle of nowhere isn't that big of a deal if it has enough lanes to handle the traffic.

Vis-a-vis taxes, the general attitude I've seen here is that the people who oppose tolls on the Causeway and CCC are the same conservative types (like me) who want taxes slashed across the board. I stick with my argument that tolls make sure the people who use the facility are the ones paying for it.

Based on my observations here hear Chicago, I sincerely doubt your conclusions.

* Traffic usually seems to go to the tollways as the better routes, as they are better maintained and tend to be improved more often.  Outside of Chicago (city limits), the only freeways with more than six lanes are a 7 mile stretch of I-290 (Schaumburg to Itasca) and at the Poplar Street Bridge in East Saint Louis.  The tollways outside the City of Chicago with more than six lanes include all of the Tri-State Tollway (I-80, I-94, I-294), the East-West Tollway from IL-59 to I-294, the North-South Tollway from I-55 to I-88, and the Northwest Tollway (being built as I type) from the Elgin area to O'Hare.  ISTHA also tends to plow and salt better than IDOT.

* Again, based on the traffic I've seen, I call this one bunk.  The toll facilities are very well used, even I-88 west of I-39.  If you place the toll route in the right place, traffic will use it and prefer it.

* I sincerely doubt your third point as well.

To add to this I have taken US 60 / OK 66 from Missouri to OKC numerous times to avoid the tolls on I-44 and there is always a ton of traffic on I-44 and hardly any traffic on OK 66.

I also don't think most people avoid toll roads. Most people are willing to pay the extra money to use the better and faster roads.

[cl94]

Generally, at least my portion of the industry is cautiously optimistic. A lot of us don't like Foxx regardless of political leaning because he had zero transportation experience, so that's one advantage she has. If anything, her freight focus would help me 

[J N Winkler]

Traffic usually seems to go to the tollways as the better routes, as they are better maintained and tend to be improved more often.  Outside of Chicago (city limits), the only freeways with more than six lanes are a 7 mile stretch of I-290 (Schaumburg to Itasca) and at the Poplar Street Bridge in East Saint Louis.  The tollways outside the City of Chicago with more than six lanes include all of the Tri-State Tollway (I-80, I-94, I-294), the East-West Tollway from IL-59 to I-294, the North-South Tollway from I-55 to I-88, and the Northwest Tollway (being built as I type) from the Elgin area to O'Hare.  ISTHA also tends to plow and salt better than IDOT.

The expressways and the tollways serve different travel markets.

Again, based on the traffic I've seen, I call this one bunk.  The toll facilities are very well used, even I-88 west of I-39.  If you place the toll route in the right place, traffic will use it and prefer it.

The comparison is not between a tollway and an untolled facility of equivalent standard that may not be in the same corridor (I-88 versus I-80 in Illinois) or an untolled facility that is in nearly the same corridor but not of equivalent standard (I-44 versus SH 66 in Oklahoma).  It is between the same facility, with and without tolls.  By clawing back some of the user's savings in tolls, you are making the tolled facility less attractive compared to the untolled one, unless charging toll by itself reduces traffic to a level that the resulting travel time savings offset the toll (as in the usual urban road-pricing scenario).

There are some corridors where there is an excellent argument for charging tolls at variable rates to improve travel time reliability.  But for rural corridors capable of maintaining excellent LOS without tolls, charging toll is a recipe for underuse.

I sincerely doubt your third point as well.

It has already happened--SH 130 in Texas, SR 895 in Virginia, etc.

I am against private toll roads. I think toll roads should only be run and operated by the state government. The money collected on a toll road should be strictly used for the toll road only. I don't think a toll road should be a money maker for a company, which is why I am against private toll roads. The money should be put into an account to pay employees of the toll road (toll collectors if you have them) and to maintain / improve the toll road.

This is how public toll authorities are supposed to work, and by and large they have delivered the infrastructure without spending too much in financing charges.  But even they have some drawbacks:

*  With tolls of any kind, you are spending money to collect money.  The traditional rule of thumb with cash-only tolls is that 33% of the toll revenue goes to collection expenses.  With electronic tolling this amount is somewhat lower, but it is still not insignificant because, in addition to having to install (expensive) tolling infrastructure, there are running back-office costs for individualized billing and enforcement.  In comparison, the cost of collecting fuel tax off the rack (the preferred method because it minimizes evasion) is about 1% of revenue.  (Just finding credit card processing for under 1% is nontrivial, even for large toll agencies--a casual Google search suggests as low as 0.2% is possible but comes with volume requirements and fixed per-transaction charges.)

*  With the federal-aid highway program, there are up to two layers of audit.  Besides any audit mechanisms the state may have, the USDOT Inspector General has jurisdiction, so any highway project in which the federal government participates has guaranteed access to independent audit.  Toll agencies are subject at most to audit at the state level and mechanisms for this are often weak.  In the case of Pennsylvania, for example, they have been ineffective in preventing unqualified personnel from receiving patronage appointments at the PTC.

The overriding point is that, notwithstanding their having a track record that is much better than that of privately financed toll roads, expansion of networks belonging to public toll agencies is not the plan that is actually on the table.  It is more private toll finance, through P3 deals, many of which have created perverse incentives by allowing certain parties to "make money by losing money":

http://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/11/19/how-macquarie-makes-money-by-losing-money-on-toll-roads/

[Brandon]

Traffic usually seems to go to the tollways as the better routes, as they are better maintained and tend to be improved more often.  Outside of Chicago (city limits), the only freeways with more than six lanes are a 7 mile stretch of I-290 (Schaumburg to Itasca) and at the Poplar Street Bridge in East Saint Louis.  The tollways outside the City of Chicago with more than six lanes include all of the Tri-State Tollway (I-80, I-94, I-294), the East-West Tollway from IL-59 to I-294, the North-South Tollway from I-55 to I-88, and the Northwest Tollway (being built as I type) from the Elgin area to O'Hare.  ISTHA also tends to plow and salt better than IDOT.

The expressways and the tollways serve different travel markets.

Um, not quite.  A commuter going from Naperville to the Loop uses both a tollway and an expressway.  And that's not as uncommon as you might think.

[GeauxLSU]

Before the mods get lock-happy, I'd like to point out the rule on political discussions:

Political discussion is discouraged. Since discussion of roads will always involve politics to some degree, it is not outright banned

Lock it if you want. But only if it gets really divisive or off-topic (as the rules dictate).

Your not an moderator so shut your pie hole.

[myosh_tino]

Before the mods get lock-happy, I'd like to point out the rule on political discussions:

Political discussion is discouraged. Since discussion of roads will always involve politics to some degree, it is not outright banned

Lock it if you want. But only if it gets really divisive or off-topic (as the rules dictate).

Your not an moderator so shut your pie hole.

... and it's comments like that that would cause a discussion like this to descend into a flame war and eventually get locked.  It's *not* appreciated.

[GeauxLSU]

Your not an moderator so shut your pie hole.

... and it's comments like that that would cause a discussion like this to descend into a flame war and eventually get locked.  It's *not* appreciated.

It's a thread about President Trump. We are allowed to act like Him when we are talking about Him. What would Donny do? He would tell jackroot to shut his pie hole.