Tolling I-80 Not Dead Yet

[mightyace]

I'll let the article speak for itself...

Gov Rendell says all of Pennsylvania's transit agencies will get I-80 toll $s

[PAHighways]

Thompson Hesitant of Federal Mandate to Stop I-80 Tolling

[Chris]

I'll let the article speak for itself...

Gov Rendell says all of Pennsylvania's transit agencies will get I-80 toll $s

Imagine it the other way round... transit users have to pay higher fares to be spend on highway maintenance. All hell would break loose...

[PAHighways]

Tolling I-80 a Riddle With No Easy Answers

[mightyace]

Tolling I-80 a Riddle With No Easy Answers

On the other side of the job coin is John Pocius, vice president of Ceco Associates Inc. Consulting Engineers of Scranton. His company is involved in road construction.

"Act 44 is the only solution to the transportation problems in Pennsylvania," Pocius said. "The impact on the average traveling public will be non-existent on most days. I believe it will be a boon to Pennsylvania in the long run."

What arrogance!!!! 

There is rarely only one solution to a problem.   As those of us who have discussed this issue have said, there are many options, and each has it's pluses and minuses.  But, remember the person who said this is in road construction so he stands to benefit from tolling I-80, so he's hardly an unbiased observer.

[Duke87]

Imagine it the other way round... transit users have to pay higher fares to be spend on highway maintenance. All hell would break loose...

The politician's answer: we're taxing what's not green to fund what is. It's good for the environment!

The reality: most roads are "free" in that you just need to pay to put gas in your car to use them, supplemented by the occasional toll. On the other hand, there are precious few situations where you can ride a bus or train without paying a fare, and it's always more than gas to drive an equivalent distance. So, really, the drivers are still ahead of the game most of the time. It's only when you have to go though tolls and/or have to pay to park that driving will ever be more expensive. 
Besides, both highways and transit have O&M costs which are subsidized by tax dollars. Saying "revenue from this source goes to that purpose" is all just a matter of show. Money is moved out of one "account" into another all the time for various reasons.
When money from highway tolls is used to fund transit, other money intended for transit is now freed up to go elsewhere. What's really being accomplished is an increase in the total state budget. It's just another tax hike. Nothing more, nothing less.

[PAHighways]

Transportation Secretary Says I-80 Decision to Come Soon

[mightyace]

^^^

Regardless of the outcome, I'd like to see the decision soon.

Plus, I'd like to see the decision be "final."  In other words, if the request is turned down, the Pennsylvania state government can't apply again under the current legislation.  If it is approved, the opponents will accept it (not like it) and move on.

But, what will probably happen is if it is turned down, the state will try to find a way to try again.  If it is approved, I see one or more lawsuits coming.

[PAHighways]

Congressmen Get No Assurances on Tolling of I-80

[mightyace]

^^^

I don't think anyone should be surprised that Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood made no commitment either way.  IMHO It was the Williamsport Sun Gazette that was expecting a preliminary inkling of the decision.

I doubt those Congressmen were surprised.  Disappointed maybe.

Politicians and bureaucrats have a hard time committing to anything!  

I would find it hard to read any insight into the decision from the report of this meeting.

[yanksfan6129]

I took the I-80 discussion from the Turnpike thread and put it in it's own brand new thread regarding the tolling of I-80 in PA.

[Nexis4Jersey]

Anyway where was i , oh yes.  I-80 Tolling is needed for Major Railway and Transit projects across the State.  I don't know why your so against it, PA needs these projects to survive as it gets more populated.  The Toll revenue would be split half would go the highway Mantience costs & the other half to Transit and Railway restoration and expansion costs.  It wouldn't help the Lackawanna Project which is already funded.  But numerous other projects.  I know Septa gives railways a bad name in PA , but there tons of other places that i'm sure that wouldn't. Septa might be sized down or split up soon.

~Corey

[njroadhorse]

Anyway where was i , oh yes.  I-80 Tolling is needed for Major Railway and Transit projects across the State.  I don't know why your so against it, PA needs these projects to survive as it gets more populated.  The Toll revenue would be split half would go the highway Mantience costs & the other half to Transit and Railway restoration and expansion costs.  It wouldn't help the Lackawanna Project which is already funded.  But numerous other projects.  I know Septa gives railways a bad name in PA , but there tons of other places that i'm sure that wouldn't. Septa might be sized down or split up soon.

~Corey

I'm not totally faulting you for your info, but the point is that the money would generally be funnelled into areas miles and miles away from I-80.  While some of the money would probably go to maintainance, it totally defeats the purpose of tolling in the first place.  Light rail is nice and all, but unless there is a corridor pretty close to 80, I see no point in funding the railways with I-80 revenue.

[mightyace]

Anyway where was i , oh yes.  I-80 Tolling is needed for Major Railway and Transit projects across the State.  I don't know why your so against it, PA needs these projects to survive as it gets more populated.
~Corey

PA becoming more populated?

The population has been stagnant for decades:
(http://www.census.gov/population/cencounts/pa190090.txt)

   1990           1980           1970          1960
11,881,643  11,863,895  11,793,909  11,319,366 Pennsylvania

2000
Total population
12,281,054

2008 Estimate
12,418,756

We're talking less than a 10% increase in nearly 50 years!

As for why I'm against it, it's simple.  Why should people from the poorer, rural regions of northern PA pay for transit in the richer southern regions of PA.  Or, why should a person in a trailer in Bloomsburg pay for a Septa train to take someone from his million dollar house in Downingtown to Philly?

Or to put it another way?  In New Jersey, would you consider it fair if tolls on the Atlantic City Expressway paid for public transit in Hoboken?

[PAHighways]

Or, why should a person in a trailer in Bloomsburg pay for a Septa train to take someone from his million dollar house in Downingtown to Philly?

The same could be said of me paying a gasoline tax to maintain roads the Amish use.

When I travel east or west, I have to pay a toll and once I'm on the Turnpike there is no escaping payment.  The I-80 plan sets them at 30 mile intervals, which means locals can drive 20-25 miles and not pay a toll, and if there is a gantry between the two points, they probably know a back way or were using the back way in the first place.  However, as I have said numerous times, I don't believe the plan will pass considering this is the 40th year of the Keystone Shortway and for just as long the idea to toll it has been discussed.

[mightyace]

The I-80 plan sets them at 30 mile intervals, which means locals can drive 20-25 miles and not pay a toll, and if there is a gantry between the two points, they probably know a back way or were using the back way in the first place.

Despite my loud opinion on whether is should take place, I would have to say that the "tolling points" on the I-80 plan are a poor design.  Generally, open systems with a barrier and no ramp plazas are most effective for short distances.  Longer "open" systems like Illinois tollways have ramp plazas to make sure that most travelers pay a toll.  If I was designing it, I'd put gantries on all ramps like the 407 ETR in Toronto and have it operate like a closed ticket system.

Now this is just a guess, but I wonder if the reason for the loopholes and the proposed "first barrier free" for locals are attempts to make it more palatable to the locals.  IMHO, from what I've read, these loopholes/back road diversions are part of the reason it's been turned down.

However, as I have said numerous times, I don't believe the plan will pass considering this is the 40th year of the Keystone Shortway and for just as long the idea to toll it has been discussed.

You're probably right especially since for reasons mentioned here and others, the state of PA has not done a good PR job in making this look like more than a just a money grab.

[PAHighways]

Now this is just a guess, but I wonder if the reason for the loopholes and the proposed "first barrier free" for locals are attempts to make it more palatable to the locals.

That is the reason they chose this plan rather than something like the mainline has or closer-spaced mainline barriers with ramp barriers like the extensions.

[vdeane]

You're probably right especially since for reasons mentioned here and others, the state of PA has not done a good PR job in making this look like more than a just a money grab.

I don't know if they care about having good PR for it.  On the official site for the idea, you can watch videos about the barrier placement and they are explicitly placing the barriers in such a way so that taking back roads will be infeasible.

[mightyace]

I don't know if they care about having good PR for it.  On the official site for the idea, you can watch videos about the barrier placement and they are explicitly placing the barriers in such a way so that taking back roads will be infeasible.

Yes, I've watched a few of those as well on the possible barrier (gantry) locations.  But, if they don't care about positive PR, then they shouldn't be surprised when people complain.

The Rendell's behavior in pushing I-80 tolling is similar to that of former Governor Don Sundquist (Republican) of Tennessee, who in his last term, pushed for a general state income tax with the same fervor and lack of concern for public opinion that Rendell is going after I-80.

(As an aside, Tennessee only has an income tax on certain investment income.)

Both, Sundquist then and Rendell now are lame ducks due to term limits, so personally they have nothing to lose.  Now, granted, Sundquist was risking more for the Republicans in TN than Rendell is for the Democrats in PA as opposition for Rendell's proposal is more regionally based.

But, when the next election came here in TN, pretty much anyone who supported the Income Tax was thrown out.  Now, I doubt that anyone in PA will get thrown out of office on this issue.  However, IMHO, it will heighten regional tensions within the state.

If Rendell, PennDOT and the PTC were more concerned about public opinion, the backlash could be minimized.

[mightyace]

I found this searching around.  I have no idea as to the accuracy of the report (or lack thereof)

I-80 Toll Plan Dead say Federal Sources

Of course, the only announcement that really counts is the one from DOT Secretary LaHood.

[Nexis4Jersey]

No they should , as long as the transit project will serve and help revive traffic on key corridors it shouldn't , what do you suppose we do raise the gas tax?  I don't care if you say this project is useless Chris , when's the last time you actually drove any the highways over here?  1990s?

[Nexis4Jersey]

Toll is the only option unless you want raise taxes , which many people don't want , the PA turnpike is already paying for some projects in PA already , just like the NJ TPK & GSP.  Personally , i don't see the problem with restoring key rail corridors in PA that really don't cost much and repay themshevls quickly.  Like the restoration of Septa to Bethlehem , which seems to be gaining traction , it would re leave traffic on the congested PA-309 and the restoration of Septa to West Chester,PA, the Lackawanna Cut-off looks like is about to get federal funding, alot of local support for that project.  Corridor 1 & 2 in Harrisburg i think will be paided by the TPK tolls.  The Restoration of Septa to reading to help releave traffic on US -422 might get some Toll funding.

~Corey

[Chris]

to help releave traffic

Yeah, for like 4 years. After that, everything is back to normal... Except that you still pay tolls. Due to the growth of urban areas, the short drop in traffic volumes by constructing transit is quickly offset in a few years due to the growth of traffic.

So the sweet for 4 years, but the sour until the end of time.

By the way, it would be better if you improve your spelling, to make the posts easier to read. I know I'm not flawless, as I'm not a native English speaker, but you are.

[exit322]

When there are options between legitimately being able to drive and taking the bus/rail/whatever, most people drive.  Public transit in this country (except in cities like New York and Chicago where there just isn't any way to drive for the most part) is for the more unsavory types.

The only way to get people to take public transit downtown in most cities would be to remove all of the highways and parking facilities.  I know that if I have the option, I'll drive.  And I want good roads to drive on.  Couldn't care less about high-speed rail that I'm still going to have to drive a long ways to get to a depot.

[agentsteel53]

I've split off the roads and rails discussion to here:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=2377.0