Toll Roads Are Bad

[kernals12]

Toll roads are not per se "bad".  It is a valid way to build more roads more quickly.  However, poor government can lead to toll roads that do bad things.

- Of course, the only morally legitimate purpose of a toll is to pay for construction.  Use of tolls to force people to make life decisions other than those they wish, such as use communal transit or live in urban slums, is just as invalid as the use of any other tax to force anyone to do anything.  The J O B of government is to create the society that its citizens want.  If people want a suburban lifestyle then build more suburbs and more highways. 

- Toll agencies can be very profitable.  This leads to many paying above market wages for their employees, to triple featherbeded executive offices, and to diversion of money to boondoggle projects. 

- Many states use toll roads to create special sections of traffic cops.  Often made up of those who failed at serious police work and who should be fired. 

As to a VMT.  This could work, but really only if EVERY state, and perhaps even every province totally replaced the current fuel tax model with one.  Since governments cannot be trusted to do that, it cannot work and would thus be not a replacement tax but an additional tax, and taxation is theft. 

As to Indiana and trucking, this is an old wives' tale.  While you can drive a normal car or light truck anywhere in North America on a single jurisdiction's plates due to an international agreement, this does not apply to large commercial trucking.  Trucks must have "apportioned" plates.  While issued by a single jurisdiction, the fees are split between each jurisdiction in which the vehicle is authorized to operate.  Also these vehicles must have a IFTA sticker and file quarterly IFTA (International Fuel Tax Agreement) reports that shift fuel taxes from the collecting states where the fuel was purchased to where the truck was actually driven based on mileage.

If we need new roads, we should pay for them through gas taxes and registration fees (or a VMT fee in the future when cars are electric).

[Chris19001]

If we need new roads, we should pay for them through gas taxes and registration fees (or a VMT fee in the future when cars are electric).

Why?  Do you never want to see new roads built again?

[kernals12]

If we need new roads, we should pay for them through gas taxes and registration fees (or a VMT fee in the future when cars are electric).

Why?  Do you never want to see new roads built again?

We have built and widened many highways without resorting to tolls. And as a matter of fact, with telecommuting, the slowdown in population growth, driverless cars, and possibly VTOL aircraft, it's highly possible that we will be seeing very few new roads in the future.

[hbelkins]

In most cases, Toll Roads are a means for states to raise revenue from residents of other states.

That's certainly not the case in Kentucky. I don't know the history of the Kentucky Turnpike, or why the first toll road built in the state was between E-town and Louisville instead of another corridor -- say, Lexington to Frankfort to Louisville -- but for the rest of them, they were built to connect far-flung areas of the state.

And to our credit, tolls were removed as the construction bonds were paid off (or when federal appropriations paid off the bonds early) and they didn't keep tolls indefinitely as has been done in most other states.

[Max Rockatansky]

If we need new roads, we should pay for them through gas taxes and registration fees (or a VMT fee in the future when cars are electric).

Why?  Do you never want to see new roads built again?

We have built and widened many highways without resorting to tolls. And as a matter of fact, with telecommuting, the slowdown in population growth, driverless cars, and possibly VTOL aircraft, it's highly possible that we will be seeing very few new roads in the future.

VTOL aircraft?  What is this 1950s pie in the sky future fantasy again?

Anyways you're missing the point about how a lot of limited access roads were funded which was through the Federal Highway Aid Act.  Getting legislation on that level for infrastructure isn't likely to happen again and wouldn't garner a ton of public support.  Even on more localized levels the only way limited access roads tend to be built at times is via tolled facilities.  Selling the general public on needing more high capacity often isn't a dead bang winner like you want it to be. 

[1995hoo]

Regarding a VMT tax, I don't see why it couldn't be a federal tax that is distributed back to states based upon miles driven on their states.

Doesn't that more or less pose the same problem I noted earlier, though? How do you determine how many miles are driven in a respective state unless you have some way to track where vehicles are driven?

Doesn't US 1 in New Jersey have massive traffic problems because of people avoiding the Pike's tolls?

Why would a road in New Jersey have traffic problems because of tolls in Massachusetts (the state where people call their turnpike "the Pike")? 

No wonder taxes in Jersey are so high if they're wasting so much money on superfluous letters like that.

What in the world are you talking about?

[odditude]

I'm going to argue with the premise specifically in the case of the NJ Turnpike, which, for those of you who don't know, is a completely self-sufficient road that draws no tax money but uses its tolls for maintenance, policing, and construction. Also, it was originally planned that the Turnpike become "added to the state highways"  (in other words, go toll free) when the bonds were paid off, but that never occurred.

Because the NJ Turnpike (and yes, now the Garden State Parkway figures in, but for simplicity in making my case, I'll just refer to the Turnpike) is self-sufficient, the only people who pay for it are the people who use it.
Is that not ideal? NJ taxes are outrageous as they are - if only other public works could be so self-sufficient so as to decrease our tax burden! And, as many are pointing out, it's not just New Jerseyans who are feeling the hit - the out of state drivers are bringing THEIR money into the state and helpfully paying for the Turnpike's maintenance and construction etc etc.

So, I don't know if we can paint that broad a stroke against tolls. I'd love to know the story of the highway robbery on I-95 on the Delaware/Maryland border. You know; the one everyone famously shunpikes using 896 and by sneaking into Elkton? Far as I know, that stretch is as federally funded as any other generic interstate. They'd have to be funding therapeutic puppy camps for disabled children for me to feel anything but disdain for that particular toll!

Doesn't US 1 in New Jersey have massive traffic problems because of people avoiding the Pike's tolls?

i'm assuming the "massive traffic problems" you're referring to are the daily jams for commuter traffic. the Somerset Freeway (original planned routing of I-95 north from the Trenton area to I-287) would've taken the majority of that traffic burden. the Turnpike, on the other hand, is far out of the way for anyone using US 1.

[kernals12]

Regarding a VMT tax, I don't see why it couldn't be a federal tax that is distributed back to states based upon miles driven on their states.

Doesn't that more or less pose the same problem I noted earlier, though? How do you determine how many miles are driven in a respective state unless you have some way to track where vehicles are driven?

Doesn't US 1 in New Jersey have massive traffic problems because of people avoiding the Pike's tolls?

Why would a road in New Jersey have traffic problems because of tolls in Massachusetts (the state where people call their turnpike "the Pike")? 

No wonder taxes in Jersey are so high if they're wasting so much money on superfluous letters like that.

What in the world are you talking about?

It's called sarcasm

[kernals12]

I'm going to argue with the premise specifically in the case of the NJ Turnpike, which, for those of you who don't know, is a completely self-sufficient road that draws no tax money but uses its tolls for maintenance, policing, and construction. Also, it was originally planned that the Turnpike become "added to the state highways"  (in other words, go toll free) when the bonds were paid off, but that never occurred.

Because the NJ Turnpike (and yes, now the Garden State Parkway figures in, but for simplicity in making my case, I'll just refer to the Turnpike) is self-sufficient, the only people who pay for it are the people who use it.
Is that not ideal? NJ taxes are outrageous as they are - if only other public works could be so self-sufficient so as to decrease our tax burden! And, as many are pointing out, it's not just New Jerseyans who are feeling the hit - the out of state drivers are bringing THEIR money into the state and helpfully paying for the Turnpike's maintenance and construction etc etc.

So, I don't know if we can paint that broad a stroke against tolls. I'd love to know the story of the highway robbery on I-95 on the Delaware/Maryland border. You know; the one everyone famously shunpikes using 896 and by sneaking into Elkton? Far as I know, that stretch is as federally funded as any other generic interstate. They'd have to be funding therapeutic puppy camps for disabled children for me to feel anything but disdain for that particular toll!

Doesn't US 1 in New Jersey have massive traffic problems because of people avoiding the Pike's tolls?

i'm assuming the "massive traffic problems" you're referring to are the daily jams for commuter traffic. the Somerset Freeway (original planned routing of I-95 north from the Trenton area to I-287) would've taken the majority of that traffic burden. the Turnpike, on the other hand, is far out of the way for anyone using US 1.

The Somerset Freeway was opposed by the New Jersey Turnpike Authority because it would've offered a toll free competitor to the Jersey Turnpike

[hotdogPi]

Regarding a VMT tax, I don't see why it couldn't be a federal tax that is distributed back to states based upon miles driven on their states.

Doesn't that more or less pose the same problem I noted earlier, though? How do you determine how many miles are driven in a respective state unless you have some way to track where vehicles are driven?

Doesn't US 1 in New Jersey have massive traffic problems because of people avoiding the Pike's tolls?

Why would a road in New Jersey have traffic problems because of tolls in Massachusetts (the state where people call their turnpike "the Pike")? 

No wonder taxes in Jersey are so high if they're wasting so much money on superfluous letters like that.

What in the world are you talking about?

It's called sarcasm

It doesn't look like sarcasm (meaning the opposite of what you say) to me. The way I interpreted it, "Pike" is fewer letters than "Turnpike", and it's as if each letter costs money.

[kernals12]

Regarding a VMT tax, I don't see why it couldn't be a federal tax that is distributed back to states based upon miles driven on their states.

Doesn't that more or less pose the same problem I noted earlier, though? How do you determine how many miles are driven in a respective state unless you have some way to track where vehicles are driven?

Doesn't US 1 in New Jersey have massive traffic problems because of people avoiding the Pike's tolls?

Why would a road in New Jersey have traffic problems because of tolls in Massachusetts (the state where people call their turnpike "the Pike")? 

No wonder taxes in Jersey are so high if they're wasting so much money on superfluous letters like that.

What in the world are you talking about?

It's called sarcasm

It doesn't look like sarcasm (meaning the opposite of what you say) to me. The way I interpreted it, "Pike" is fewer letters than "Turnpike", and it's as if each letter costs money.

That's the joke

[J3ebrules]

....

So, I don't know if we can paint that broad a stroke against tolls. I'd love to know the story of the highway robbery on I-95 on the Delaware/Maryland border. You know; the one everyone famously shunpikes using 896 and by sneaking into Elkton? Far as I know, that stretch is as federally funded as any other generic interstate. They'd have to be funding therapeutic puppy camps for disabled children for me to feel anything but disdain for that particular toll!

Delaware originally financed the road by issuing bonds because if they had waited for the standard federal funding to make it a free Interstate, it was estimated to be at least another four years before the road would have been completed. Maryland likewise financed I-95 northeast of Baltimore via bonds because most of their highway funding had been consumed by other construction. The Delaware Turnpike, and the portion of I-95 in Maryland to which it connects, was dedicated by President Kennedy and the two states' governors on November 14, 1963, and the roads opened at midnight that night. That helps explain why the highway is now named for the President, given a certain event that occurred in Dallas a week later.

Thank you for that insight - it does explain the original tolling, but not the continuation about 60 years later. Why do they continue to toll if presumably the bonds were paid back and that portion of I95 is now just another part of the Interstate system?

[J3ebrules]

I'm going to argue with the premise specifically in the case of the NJ Turnpike, which, for those of you who don't know, is a completely self-sufficient road that draws no tax money but uses its tolls for maintenance, policing, and construction. Also, it was originally planned that the Turnpike become "added to the state highways"  (in other words, go toll free) when the bonds were paid off, but that never occurred.

Because the NJ Turnpike (and yes, now the Garden State Parkway figures in, but for simplicity in making my case, I'll just refer to the Turnpike) is self-sufficient, the only people who pay for it are the people who use it.
Is that not ideal? NJ taxes are outrageous as they are - if only other public works could be so self-sufficient so as to decrease our tax burden! And, as many are pointing out, it's not just New Jerseyans who are feeling the hit - the out of state drivers are bringing THEIR money into the state and helpfully paying for the Turnpike's maintenance and construction etc etc.

So, I don't know if we can paint that broad a stroke against tolls. I'd love to know the story of the highway robbery on I-95 on the Delaware/Maryland border. You know; the one everyone famously shunpikes using 896 and by sneaking into Elkton? Far as I know, that stretch is as federally funded as any other generic interstate. They'd have to be funding therapeutic puppy camps for disabled children for me to feel anything but disdain for that particular toll!

Doesn't US 1 in New Jersey have massive traffic problems because of people avoiding the Pike's tolls?

i'm assuming the "massive traffic problems" you're referring to are the daily jams for commuter traffic. the Somerset Freeway (original planned routing of I-95 north from the Trenton area to I-287) would've taken the majority of that traffic burden. the Turnpike, on the other hand, is far out of the way for anyone using US 1.

According to my grandfather, US 1 was a mess in north/central Jersey long before the Turnpike. Probably not as far down as the mess is now, though, as I'd imagine New Brunswick to Princeton was much less developed.
And I do disagree that US 1 is out of the way as an alternative to the Turnpike - my father and I have taken it down to avoid nasty accidents that backed up the Southbound lanes for miles. Sometimes we don't get off til New Brunswick and then take 1 down to 295, but still there is a possible shunpiking opportunity there.

[kernals12]

....

So, I don't know if we can paint that broad a stroke against tolls. I'd love to know the story of the highway robbery on I-95 on the Delaware/Maryland border. You know; the one everyone famously shunpikes using 896 and by sneaking into Elkton? Far as I know, that stretch is as federally funded as any other generic interstate. They'd have to be funding therapeutic puppy camps for disabled children for me to feel anything but disdain for that particular toll!

Delaware originally financed the road by issuing bonds because if they had waited for the standard federal funding to make it a free Interstate, it was estimated to be at least another four years before the road would have been completed. Maryland likewise financed I-95 northeast of Baltimore via bonds because most of their highway funding had been consumed by other construction. The Delaware Turnpike, and the portion of I-95 in Maryland to which it connects, was dedicated by President Kennedy and the two states' governors on November 14, 1963, and the roads opened at midnight that night. That helps explain why the highway is now named for the President, given a certain event that occurred in Dallas a week later.

Thank you for that insight - it does explain the original tolling, but not the continuation about 60 years later. Why do they continue to toll if presumably the bonds were paid back and that portion of I95 is now just another part of the Interstate system?

The same reason why they still toll the Jersey Turnpike in your state and the MassPike in mine. The state doesn't want to pay for the maintenance.

[sprjus4]

....

So, I don't know if we can paint that broad a stroke against tolls. I'd love to know the story of the highway robbery on I-95 on the Delaware/Maryland border. You know; the one everyone famously shunpikes using 896 and by sneaking into Elkton? Far as I know, that stretch is as federally funded as any other generic interstate. They'd have to be funding therapeutic puppy camps for disabled children for me to feel anything but disdain for that particular toll!

Delaware originally financed the road by issuing bonds because if they had waited for the standard federal funding to make it a free Interstate, it was estimated to be at least another four years before the road would have been completed. Maryland likewise financed I-95 northeast of Baltimore via bonds because most of their highway funding had been consumed by other construction. The Delaware Turnpike, and the portion of I-95 in Maryland to which it connects, was dedicated by President Kennedy and the two states' governors on November 14, 1963, and the roads opened at midnight that night. That helps explain why the highway is now named for the President, given a certain event that occurred in Dallas a week later.

Thank you for that insight - it does explain the original tolling, but not the continuation about 60 years later. Why do they continue to toll if presumably the bonds were paid back and that portion of I95 is now just another part of the Interstate system?

The same reason why they still toll the Jersey Turnpike in your state and the MassPike in mine. The state doesn't want to pay for the maintenance.

Perhaps Maryland should use money towards widening I-95 to 8 lanes between Baltimore and Delaware.

[paulthemapguy]

"We build toll highways to encourage the use of non-tolled highways" has to be one of the stupidest arguments I've heard about roads.

[kernals12]

"We build toll highways to encourage the use of non-tolled highways" has to be one of the stupidest arguments I've heard about roads.

It is a stupid argument, or it would be if anyone made it.

[skluth]

- Of course, the only morally legitimate purpose of a toll is to pay for construction.  Use of tolls to force people to make life decisions other than those they wish, such as use communal transit or live in urban slums, is just as invalid as the use of any other tax to force anyone to do anything.  The J O B of government is to create the society that its citizens want.  If people want a suburban lifestyle then build more suburbs and more highways. 

There is so much wrong with this paragraph, I don't know where to begin. I am not going to argue about the moral purpose of tolls. I'm arguing against pretty much everything else.

Urban slums? There's a whole lot of urban area that is not slum. In fact, a lot of currently growing cities from DC to LA have huge areas of expensive land with expensive homes within the city limits. I would guess your opinion of cities is that they are nothing but crime-ridden, violent areas. Some cities may be mostly slum (Detroit, East St Louis), but it's wrong to characterize all cities as urban slums. They might not be areas you want to live, but that doesn't make them slums.

"The J O B of government is to create the society that its citizens want." Which citizens? Not all citizens want to live in far-flung suburbs. I currently live in Palm Springs, but my career was mostly in St Louis and I never lived more than 12 miles from downtown. Most of the time I was about half that or less. I never lived in a bad crime area, and I always had a nice yard and home. Why should my taxes go to subsidize your need for a highway to commute 30 or more miles? It's certainly not the life I or many of my friends wanted. Most people live in cities or near suburbs. Your definition of most people is not your and your friends, or me and my friends who never wanted the suburban lifestyle. A country's citizens includes a large group of people with different ideas of a utopian society. The trick is in balancing that. It seems a lot harder today than 40 years ago, but a large part of that is we're listening to more people now.

The truth is there is only so much land around major cities, so the land is more expensive due to increased demand. If you absolutely have to have a half-acre lot with a three-car garage, it's going to cost you. That's capitalism. (Frankly, I thought a quarter-acre lot was too much work and prefer a yard small enough to cut with a push mower or weed-whacker.) Most people want something they can call their own. That's about the only truth I know. That something can be a condo, a mobile home in a senior park (like me), or something much larger. But your lifestyle will cost you more if you want more, and it's tremendously unfair for taxpayers like me to foot the bill for ever-expanding free highways. I'm not footing the bill for 16 lane freeways and other infrastructure into LA so everyone can have a half-acre in the LA metro with a solid ring of subdivisions from Blythe/ Barstow/ Bakersfield to the coast. I certainly don't want Palm Springs to have even more commuters than it currently does. It's bad enough that Del Webb is subdividing any available property in Rancho Mirage and La Quinta.

Building more freeway lanes works in smaller metros. But once you start approaching a half-million people, it starts becoming impractical. At that point, you start needing transit just to cut down on the number of cars on the road. I saw in another thread recently where someone called commuting by train indignant. I'm guessing that poster never actually commuted on the train, but I and many people I know like and prefer it. It was far easier to take the Red Line from my hotel in Bethesda to the Navy Yard when my TDY training was there, and I got on the subway at the height of rush hour both ways.

I have mixed feelings about tolls. The best tolls are on roads that have a lot of out-of-state drivers - especially trucks - to pay for the road; toll roads from Chicago to Philly are a good example (and being a toll probably saved I-80's usefulness around Cleveland or it would be as bad as I-270 north of STL), as is the Will Rogers Turnpike. They're also good when you need a toll to build something that otherwise wouldn't be built; CA 241 would be an excellent example if the north end connected to the HOT lanes on CA 91 instead of the main road, but it's still a good example. I'm not a fan most other places.

You get the government you pay for. Nothing is free, though a lot of people with every political viewpoint think Uncle Sugar should only pay for what they want and not anyone else. New Urbanists want to remove freeways, build bike lanes everywhere, and massive transit subsidies. Developers want new highways and infrastructure (treatment plants, utility lines, schools, etc) built for them on farmland and hillsides far from urban job centers. It's a lot harder to strike a balance (and balance is needed) rather than satisfy one side at the expense of the other.

[kphoger]

"The J O B of government is to create the society that its citizens want."

Which citizens? Not all citizens want to live in far-flung suburbs. I currently live in Palm Springs, but my career was mostly in St Louis and I never lived more than 12 miles from downtown. Most of the time I was about half that or less. I never lived in a bad crime area, and I always had a nice yard and home. Why should my taxes go to subsidize your need for a highway to commute 30 or more miles? It's certainly not the life I or many of my friends wanted. Most people live in cities or near suburbs. Your definition of most people is not your and your friends, or me and my friends who never wanted the suburban lifestyle. A country's citizens includes a large group of people with different ideas of a utopian society. The trick is in balancing that. It seems a lot harder today than 40 years ago, but a large part of that is we're listening to more people now.

All citizens.

Why shouldn't your tax dollars go to fund the transportation needs of other citizens?  Our tax dollars fund all sorts of transportation needs in places we never go.  Your tax dollars fund the transportation needs of people in other neighborhoods of the city you live in.  Drivers' tax dollars fund public transit networks they never use.  Etc, etc.

Isn't that the whole point of taxes? to indirectly fund programs and projects that are larger than just your own sphere?

I don't care if your "idea of a utopian society" includes commuting 90 minutes through suburban sprawl or if it includes commuting 20 minutes on light rail:  your transportation needs should be met.  This shouldn't be an either/or scenario.

[odditude]

I'm going to argue with the premise specifically in the case of the NJ Turnpike, which, for those of you who don't know, is a completely self-sufficient road that draws no tax money but uses its tolls for maintenance, policing, and construction. Also, it was originally planned that the Turnpike become "added to the state highways"  (in other words, go toll free) when the bonds were paid off, but that never occurred.

Because the NJ Turnpike (and yes, now the Garden State Parkway figures in, but for simplicity in making my case, I'll just refer to the Turnpike) is self-sufficient, the only people who pay for it are the people who use it.
Is that not ideal? NJ taxes are outrageous as they are - if only other public works could be so self-sufficient so as to decrease our tax burden! And, as many are pointing out, it's not just New Jerseyans who are feeling the hit - the out of state drivers are bringing THEIR money into the state and helpfully paying for the Turnpike's maintenance and construction etc etc.

So, I don't know if we can paint that broad a stroke against tolls. I'd love to know the story of the highway robbery on I-95 on the Delaware/Maryland border. You know; the one everyone famously shunpikes using 896 and by sneaking into Elkton? Far as I know, that stretch is as federally funded as any other generic interstate. They'd have to be funding therapeutic puppy camps for disabled children for me to feel anything but disdain for that particular toll!

Doesn't US 1 in New Jersey have massive traffic problems because of people avoiding the Pike's tolls?

i'm assuming the "massive traffic problems" you're referring to are the daily jams for commuter traffic. the Somerset Freeway (original planned routing of I-95 north from the Trenton area to I-287) would've taken the majority of that traffic burden. the Turnpike, on the other hand, is far out of the way for anyone using US 1.

The Somerset Freeway was opposed by the New Jersey Turnpike Authority because it would've offered a toll free competitor to the Jersey Turnpike

the Somerset Freeway went unbuilt because of NIMBYs, not because of any supposed opposition by NJTA.

[Rothman]

Regarding a VMT tax, I don't see why it couldn't be a federal tax that is distributed back to states based upon miles driven on their states.

Doesn't that more or less pose the same problem I noted earlier, though? How do you determine how many miles are driven in a respective state unless you have some way to track where vehicles are driven?

States already estimate VMT, so there's no issue there.

[GaryV]

Regarding a VMT tax, I don't see why it couldn't be a federal tax that is distributed back to states based upon miles driven on their states.

Doesn't that more or less pose the same problem I noted earlier, though? How do you determine how many miles are driven in a respective state unless you have some way to track where vehicles are driven?

States already estimate VMT, so there's no issue there.

The issue there would be the incentive to estimate high.

[Rothman]

Regarding a VMT tax, I don't see why it couldn't be a federal tax that is distributed back to states based upon miles driven on their states.

Doesn't that more or less pose the same problem I noted earlier, though? How do you determine how many miles are driven in a respective state unless you have some way to track where vehicles are driven?

States already estimate VMT, so there's no issue there.

The issue there would be the incentive to estimate high.

Federal allocations have had it as a factor before, so no biggie.

[jeffandnicole]

I'm going to argue with the premise specifically in the case of the NJ Turnpike, which, for those of you who don't know, is a completely self-sufficient road that draws no tax money but uses its tolls for maintenance, policing, and construction. Also, it was originally planned that the Turnpike become "added to the state highways"  (in other words, go toll free) when the bonds were paid off, but that never occurred.

Because the NJ Turnpike (and yes, now the Garden State Parkway figures in, but for simplicity in making my case, I'll just refer to the Turnpike) is self-sufficient, the only people who pay for it are the people who use it.
Is that not ideal? NJ taxes are outrageous as they are - if only other public works could be so self-sufficient so as to decrease our tax burden! And, as many are pointing out, it's not just New Jerseyans who are feeling the hit - the out of state drivers are bringing THEIR money into the state and helpfully paying for the Turnpike's maintenance and construction etc etc.

So, I don't know if we can paint that broad a stroke against tolls. I'd love to know the story of the highway robbery on I-95 on the Delaware/Maryland border. You know; the one everyone famously shunpikes using 896 and by sneaking into Elkton? Far as I know, that stretch is as federally funded as any other generic interstate. They'd have to be funding therapeutic puppy camps for disabled children for me to feel anything but disdain for that particular toll!

Doesn't US 1 in New Jersey have massive traffic problems because of people avoiding the Pike's tolls?

i'm assuming the "massive traffic problems" you're referring to are the daily jams for commuter traffic. the Somerset Freeway (original planned routing of I-95 north from the Trenton area to I-287) would've taken the majority of that traffic burden. the Turnpike, on the other hand, is far out of the way for anyone using US 1.

The Somerset Freeway was opposed by the New Jersey Turnpike Authority because it would've offered a toll free competitor to the Jersey Turnpike

Not only is that not true, but please explain how I-295 got built alongside 60 miles of the NJ Turnpike.

Regarding US 1, much of the congestion is basically on a corridor nowhere near the Turnpike.  A lot of congestion is in a stretch of roadway which is only 2 lanes wide per direction.  NJDOT recently permitted shoulder running during rush hour to make it 3 lanes during those times.  If the Turnpike had their say, they'll be against that, or any other improvement NJDOT wanted to make to US 1 and any other potential alternative route to the Turnpike.

[skluth]

"The J O B of government is to create the society that its citizens want."

Which citizens? Not all citizens want to live in far-flung suburbs. I currently live in Palm Springs, but my career was mostly in St Louis and I never lived more than 12 miles from downtown. Most of the time I was about half that or less. I never lived in a bad crime area, and I always had a nice yard and home. Why should my taxes go to subsidize your need for a highway to commute 30 or more miles? It's certainly not the life I or many of my friends wanted. Most people live in cities or near suburbs. Your definition of most people is not your and your friends, or me and my friends who never wanted the suburban lifestyle. A country's citizens includes a large group of people with different ideas of a utopian society. The trick is in balancing that. It seems a lot harder today than 40 years ago, but a large part of that is we're listening to more people now.

All citizens.

Why shouldn't your tax dollars go to fund the transportation needs of other citizens?  Our tax dollars fund all sorts of transportation needs in places we never go.  Your tax dollars fund the transportation needs of people in other neighborhoods of the city you live in.  Drivers' tax dollars fund public transit networks they never use.  Etc, etc.

Isn't that the whole point of taxes? to indirectly fund programs and projects that are larger than just your own sphere?

I don't care if your "idea of a utopian society" includes commuting 90 minutes through suburban sprawl or if it includes commuting 20 minutes on light rail:  your transportation needs should be met.  This shouldn't be an either/or scenario.

Yes, paying for infrastructure and other taxpayer needs is the point of taxes. It doesn't mean you end up with an unlimited bucket of funds. There is far more cost to building further out in lost land, utility infrastructure, and higher water usage than just more lanes. The environmental cost alone is huge and often hard to mitigate. I don't mind people moving out of the city; I had coworkers in St Louis commute from two hours away (e.g., DuQuoin IL, Rolla, Mark Twain Lake, Fredericktown) to be closer to family and it was the best decision for them. But it is not the government's responsibility to build all the infrastructure wanted, whether multilane highways to everywhere or a subway grid under every major urban street unless the people are willing to tax themselves to provide sufficient funds to afford them. And everybody thinks more of the money should go to their needs, including me. That's human nature.