Indiana looking to add tolls to all Interstate Highways

[SectorZ]

A few years ago an idiot legislator in my state filled a bill to ban microwave ovens. I never went to any forum to scream about it or start shaming people for how they vote.

[hbelkins]

If they need to rebuild their highways, they should raise their fuel sales tax. A half of 1 percent would be  plenty to get started, or do what Illinois did and firewall transporation dollars from general revenue.

if that's the case, then why do I hear so much grumbling about the recent Indiana fuel tax increase?

[The Ghostbuster]

More fuel-efficient vehicles have limited the usefulness of the gas tax (not to mention a lot of gas tax money is siphoned to non-transportation purposes). The country needs to find a new way to fund transportation projects and should phase out the gas tax entirely.

[kalvado]

More fuel-efficient vehicles have limited the usefulness of the gas tax (not to mention a lot of gas tax money is siphoned to non-transportation purposes). The country needs to find a new way to fund transportation projects and should phase out the gas tax entirely.

In general, multiple routes of tax collection make evading (or legally working around) then more difficult. That's way income tax and sales tax often  coexist.
So expect gas tax, charging tax, mileage fees, and tolls to coexist in some form. 

[jnewkirk77]

House Bill 1461, after amendments, has passed the House and is now in the hands of the Senate.

Some of the major elements still in it include Interstate tolls, requiring counties to impose a wheel tax to remain eligible for Community Crossings funding, and taking "surplus" dollars from township governments to fund county road upkeep.

Story at the Daily Journal.

[Rothman]

Hm.  Interesting that a Republican-majority state wants new taxes.

[NWI_Irish96]

Hm.  Interesting that a Republican-majority state wants new taxes.

They want new regressive taxes so they can reduce the rates of progressive taxes.

[kalvado]

Hm.  Interesting that a Republican-majority state wants new taxes.

They want new regressive taxes so they can reduce the rates of progressive taxes.

Everyone should pay the fair* share!

_{*It is considered fair if I am not paying.}

[Scott5114]

For those reporting this thread: the "no politics" rule explicitly does NOT apply to road-related topics. Just keep it civil (which so far everyone's been doing for the most part).

[Bobby5280]

I think the state of Indiana is jumping the gun with this proposal. Sales of electric vehicles are starting to slow down, even with prices of the vehicles falling to more affordable levels. I think it's going to be a long time before the majority of vehicles on the road are all-electric.

People are getting turned off by the very high replacement cost of the vehicle batteries. Many are choosing to simply trade in those vehicles for something else rather than replace the batteries. So there's a glut of used EVs filling up lots. Sales of new Telsas have dropped off seriously, partly over some very obvious public image reasons.

I personally have no desire at all to buy an EV. The limited travel range is the deal breaker. I regularly make some long road trips, particularly between Oklahoma and Colorado. I don't feel like being stuck in some place like Dumas, TX waiting to get access to a charger and then waiting for however long it takes to recharge the vehicle. Screw that. I can fill up my pickup truck with gasoline in just a few minutes.

I think the auto industry has to develop a better battery technology than Lithium-Ion. The world has only so much lithium. I think the cost and limitations of the technology just do not work as a long term solution.

[PColumbus73]

In general, I'm fine with toll roads IF there is an option to pay cash / card at a toll booth.

Regarding the idea of tolling existing Interstates, whether it's Indiana, Missouri, or North Carolina, proposing to toll an existing non-tolled highway always ends up as a political non-starter. The against argue that the state is taking something that was previously free to use away.

But also, considering that the states are having to fund new projects and maintenance themselves for the most part, what is stopping the state from doing it? Maybe with the core Interstate system, It might be harder for a state to 'buy-back' those routes, but new projects like I-69 are largely state-funded so it might be easier to toll those routes.

But if governments would actually fund and carry out routine maintenance, rather than letting an Interstate sit for 50-70 years, then bellyache about how our roads are crumbling, maybe it would never have to come down to trying to toll an existing highway. But that would involve restructuring their tax codes and maybe having state DOTs do more of their projects in-house and using fewer contractors.

[Sykotyk]

More fuel-efficient vehicles have limited the usefulness of the gas tax (not to mention a lot of gas tax money is siphoned to non-transportation purposes). The country needs to find a new way to fund transportation projects and should phase out the gas tax entirely.

Depends on your motives. If you want to see people switch more to electric, then just keep the gas/diesel tax and no tax on electric for roads.

Figure HOW MUCH you need to spend for the year, and how many gallons of gas/diesel will be bought by drivers in the state, and tax accordingly.

You will push people to electric vehicles. As the price per gallon rises as people switch, the burden becomes higher and higher on gas/diesel drivers.

And commercial vehicles would still be paying IFTA/IRP/HUT regardless of fuel type. A per-mile cost based on mileage would still work for them and figure the cost of the items people buy at the store would be priced accordingly for the cost of transportation.

If your idea is to punish EV drivers, then institute a $200/year 'EV Tax' at registration, even though that would be more than most gas/diesel drivers would pay in fuel taxes for the average number of miles.

[ilpt4u]

More fuel-efficient vehicles have limited the usefulness of the gas tax (not to mention a lot of gas tax money is siphoned to non-transportation purposes). The country needs to find a new way to fund transportation projects and should phase out the gas tax entirely.

Depends on your motives. If you want to see people switch more to electric, then just keep the gas/diesel tax and no tax on electric for roads.

Figure HOW MUCH you need to spend for the year, and how many gallons of gas/diesel will be bought by drivers in the state, and tax accordingly.

You will push people to electric vehicles. As the price per gallon rises as people switch, the burden becomes higher and higher on gas/diesel drivers.

And commercial vehicles would still be paying IFTA/IRP/HUT regardless of fuel type. A per-mile cost based on mileage would still work for them and figure the cost of the items people buy at the store would be priced accordingly for the cost of transportation.

If your idea is to punish EV drivers, then institute a $200/year 'EV Tax' at registration, even though that would be more than most gas/diesel drivers would pay in fuel taxes for the average number of miles.

Exactly that policy is used for FCC/Communications funding. Telecom tax/FCC surcharges are billed on Landlines and only Landlines by Federal law, and that "Universal Service Fund" pays mostly for Fiber Optic internet deployments, which are *NOT* taxed by Federal law

The number of people with a traditional Plain Old Telephone Service Landline decreases each year, and I'm sure the demographics skew older for those that have still have them. Basically a tax on the elderly now...A tax that increases per subscriber each year as the FCC has a budget that must be met each year and part of its funding comes from that USF tax on Landlines

[kalvado]

More fuel-efficient vehicles have limited the usefulness of the gas tax (not to mention a lot of gas tax money is siphoned to non-transportation purposes). The country needs to find a new way to fund transportation projects and should phase out the gas tax entirely.

Depends on your motives. If you want to see people switch more to electric, then just keep the gas/diesel tax and no tax on electric for roads.

Figure HOW MUCH you need to spend for the year, and how many gallons of gas/diesel will be bought by drivers in the state, and tax accordingly.

You will push people to electric vehicles. As the price per gallon rises as people switch, the burden becomes higher and higher on gas/diesel drivers.

And commercial vehicles would still be paying IFTA/IRP/HUT regardless of fuel type. A per-mile cost based on mileage would still work for them and figure the cost of the items people buy at the store would be priced accordingly for the cost of transportation.

If your idea is to punish EV drivers, then institute a $200/year 'EV Tax' at registration, even though that would be more than most gas/diesel drivers would pay in fuel taxes for the average number of miles.

Average US car burns roughly 500 gallons a year, for $90 of federal tax and some local taxes. I pay roughly $250 of fuel taxes a year. So $200 for EV doesn't seem unreasonable.
That is before grid upgrades which get right into my electric bill, and before saying that much heavier EVs are much rougher on small streets (highways built for trucks are probably OK).
So fair taxation is a must (fair meaning tax someone else, not me).

[kphoger]

The number of people with a traditional Plain Old Telephone Service Landline decreases each year, and I'm sure the demographics skew older for those that have still have them. Basically a tax on the elderly now...

Not only have the elderly benefited from the POTS Lifeline program, but there has also been the potential for detriment to them when eMTA (phone modem) models stopped having slots for battery backup.  Back during the NIU and battery-backup eMTA days, if the power went out, you could still make a landline phone call in an emergency.  IIRC, the battery life was eight hours, and some models had slots for two batteries.  Telecom providers might still provide batteries at an additional charge to the customer if they'd like, but that doesn't mean the device has a slot for one to begin with anymore.

[wriddle082]

Regarding the idea of tolling existing Interstates, whether it's Indiana, Missouri, or North Carolina, proposing to toll an existing non-tolled highway always ends up as a political non-starter. The against argue that the state is taking something that was previously free to use away.

They tolled at least one existing facility in the Hampton Roads region of Virginia.

In 2011, the only tolls in the area were the Chesapeake Bay Bridge/Tunnel (not heavily used by local commuters), VA 168 in Chesapeake, and I think the Coleman Bridge on US 17 connecting Yorktown to Gloucester Point.

Then around 2013 or 2014 they implemented tolls on the I-264 Downtown Tunnel (no upgrades) and the US 58 Midtown Tunnel (a second bore was constructed).  Also the US 17 Dominion Blvd Bridge was built in Chesapeake and the Jordan Bridge was built to connect South Norfolk to South Portsmouth.  Both tolled.

Most recently, they converted existing HOV/express lanes on I-64 to HOT lanes, and extended them to the end of I-64 at Bowers Hill (with questionable results with regards to traffic relief).  And they're also finally expanding the I-64 Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel by adding two new bores (each direction will have a free tunnel and a tolled tunnel), and they're in the process of converting yet more HOV lanes to HOT lanes on 64 through Newport News (which are expected to make traffic worse).

So lots of tolls implemented in a relatively short period of time.  The only facility that has had no return on the tolls is the I-264 Downtown Tunnel, which has seen no capacity upgrades (though there is no room for any such upgrades).  I suppose they had no choice but to toll it simply because they had to add the second bore to the US 58 Midtown Tunnel and they needed to ensure equal usage of both facilities.  The end result of tolling those tunnels is that Downtown Portsmouth is struggling because nearly every crossing into Portsmouth from Norfolk is tolled (after being toll free for years), and now Downtown Norfolk is mostly regentrified and thriving, so not much of an incentive to visit Portsmouth unless you're into casino gambling.

The only tolls that have been removed are the US 17 Coleman Bridge, which just happened I think at the beginning of this month.  But plenty of new tolls have been or will be implemented to make up for the loss of the cheapest toll facility in the area.

[74/171FAN]

The only tolls that have been removed are the US 17 Coleman Bridge, which just happened I think at the beginning of this month.  But plenty of new tolls have been or will be implemented to make up for the loss of the cheapest toll facility in the area.

Spending time on Google indicates that they will go away by the end of the year, but nothing stating that they have been removed yet.

[wriddle082]

The only tolls that have been removed are the US 17 Coleman Bridge, which just happened I think at the beginning of this month.  But plenty of new tolls have been or will be implemented to make up for the loss of the cheapest toll facility in the area.

Spending time on Google indicates that they will go away by the end of the year, but nothing stating that they have been removed yet.

Ok I could have sworn that they were already gone, but half the time I don't recall what the local news says since I don't live there, but I've been traveling there frequently for work for the past ~8 years, and I didn't feel like looking it up.

But anyway, removing the tolls from that bridge will be the only toll relief they've had in that metro area for some time, and it only affects a specific part of the area that has few other viable alternative routes.

[Henry]

As the current rules state that all new toll roads will need to be 75 miles apart at minimum, I thought of one that would easily fit this criteria, and that's I-70. Apart from being outside the 75-mile buffer, I can see the state charging tolls for drivers to use it. As for the other free east-west routes (I-64 and I-74), I'm not as certain, as they'd be too close for comfort. North-south, either I-65 or I-69 would be a good candidate for tolls, but not both. If it were up to me, I'd charge the tolls on I-65 and leave I-69 alone.

Also, I like the ability to use cash/card for paying tolls, although ORT is drastically diminishing that option. Plus, I'm not thrilled with the whole thing about getting a bill sent in the mail either, be it from E-ZPass or some other similar agency.

[Life in Paradise]

As the current rules state that all new toll roads will need to be 75 miles apart at minimum, I thought of one that would easily fit this criteria, and that's I-70. Apart from being outside the 75-mile buffer, I can see the state charging tolls for drivers to use it. As for the other free east-west routes (I-64 and I-74), I'm not as certain, as they'd be too close for comfort. North-south, either I-65 or I-69 would be a good candidate for tolls, but not both. If it were up to me, I'd charge the tolls on I-65 and leave I-69 alone.

Also, I like the ability to use cash/card for paying tolls, although ORT is drastically diminishing that option. Plus, I'm not thrilled with the whole thing about getting a bill sent in the mail either, be it from E-ZPass or some other similar agency.

I-64 would be far enough south to not be within the 75 mile distance, but I-64 does not have heavy traffic that would bring in big revenue for a toll road.  I-69 in Southern Indiana does not either.  Your heavy hitters are I-65 and I-70 of which both are basically screaming to be made 6 lanes through the state.  I-74 from Indianapolis to Cincinnati has a good amount of traffic as well, and I-69 to Fort Wayne is nothing to sneeze at.  I'm not too familiar with I-74 west.

[I-55]

As the current rules state that all new toll roads will need to be 75 miles apart at minimum, I thought of one that would easily fit this criteria, and that's I-70. Apart from being outside the 75-mile buffer, I can see the state charging tolls for drivers to use it. As for the other free east-west routes (I-64 and I-74), I'm not as certain, as they'd be too close for comfort. North-south, either I-65 or I-69 would be a good candidate for tolls, but not both. If it were up to me, I'd charge the tolls on I-65 and leave I-69 alone.

Also, I like the ability to use cash/card for paying tolls, although ORT is drastically diminishing that option. Plus, I'm not thrilled with the whole thing about getting a bill sent in the mail either, be it from E-ZPass or some other similar agency.

I-64 would be far enough south to not be within the 75 mile distance, but I-64 does not have heavy traffic that would bring in big revenue for a toll road.  I-69 in Southern Indiana does not either.  Your heavy hitters are I-65 and I-70 of which both are basically screaming to be made 6 lanes through the state.  I-74 from Indianapolis to Cincinnati has a good amount of traffic as well, and I-69 to Fort Wayne is nothing to sneeze at.  I'm not too familiar with I-74 west.

I think part of the reason for limiting tolling to the selected interstates is that those are the interstates that demonstrate immediate need for improvement. I-65 and I-70 have been on the table for widening for some time now, and the most recent projects near Richmond and Henryville have seen significant cuts to the extent of the widening. Tolls would fund widening of I-65 and I-70, as well as any improvements to I-94. I-69, I-64, and I-74 are all adequate as 4-lane interstates and will likely only require routine pavement preservation and bridge maintenance over the next 20+ years, which will be assigned funding from the existing budget. Most of the big capital projects are in the Indy area, with several current and future widening and interchange projects on I-465, the completion of I-69, and improvements to US-31.

[thenetwork]

As the current rules state that all new toll roads will need to be 75 miles apart at minimum, I thought of one that would easily fit this criteria, and that's I-70. Apart from being outside the 75-mile buffer, I can see the state charging tolls for drivers to use it. As for the other free east-west routes (I-64 and I-74), I'm not as certain, as they'd be too close for comfort. North-south, either I-65 or I-69 would be a good candidate for tolls, but not both. If it were up to me, I'd charge the tolls on I-65 and leave I-69 alone.

Also, I like the ability to use cash/card for paying tolls, although ORT is drastically diminishing that option. Plus, I'm not thrilled with the whole thing about getting a bill sent in the mail either, be it from E-ZPass or some other similar agency.

I-64 would be far enough south to not be within the 75 mile distance, but I-64 does not have heavy traffic that would bring in big revenue for a toll road.  I-69 in Southern Indiana does not either.  Your heavy hitters are I-65 and I-70 of which both are

As the current rules state that all new toll roads will need to be 75 miles apart at minimum, I thought of one that would easily fit this criteria, and that's I-70. Apart from being outside the 75-mile buffer, I can see the state charging tolls for drivers to use it. As for the other free east-west routes (I-64 and I-74), I'm not as certain, as they'd be too close for comfort. North-south, either I-65 or I-69 would be a good candidate for tolls, but not both. If it were up to me, I'd charge the tolls on I-65 and leave I-69 alone.

Also, I like the ability to use cash/card for paying tolls, although ORT is drastically diminishing that option. Plus, I'm not thrilled with the whole thing about getting a bill sent in the mail either, be it from E-ZPass or some other similar agency.

Cincinnati has a good amount of traffic as well, and I-69 to Fort Wayne is nothing to sneeze at.  I'm not too familiar with I-74 west.

Coming into the Quad Cities from the west on I-80, I-74 is more or less promoted as a bypass around Chicagoland for those heading to Indy and points east and south, so that stretch of I-74 would likely be a candidate for tolling as well.