Electronic toll roads envisioned for nation

[theline]

The Future I-69 Facebook page pointed out an interesting new article written by Rick Barrett of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. The Milwaukee-based Association of Equipment Manufacturers has endorsed nationwide tolls on interstate highways, "collected via electronic monitoring devices built directly into their vehicles." They propose a three-tier system, with highest tolls on the heaviest-traveled roads, and lowest in rural areas.

Under one proposal discussed by the group, people using the highway system would pay a fee that would be collected through an "E-ZPass"-like system similar to the one used on Illinois toll roads - but collected entirely electronically, with no tollbooths.

The revenue would be used exclusively to restore, maintain and expand the interstate highway system.

Fees would be set annually by an independent group of experts and users of the system, and they would not be used to control the level of traffic or to "price out" drivers from using the highway system.

[cpzilliacus]

The Future I-69 Facebook page pointed out an interesting new article written by Rick Barrett of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. The Milwaukee-based Association of Equipment Manufacturers has endorsed nationwide tolls on interstate highways, "collected via electronic monitoring devices built directly into their vehicles." They propose a three-tier system, with highest tolls on the heaviest-traveled roads, and lowest in rural areas.

Under one proposal discussed by the group, people using the highway system would pay a fee that would be collected through an "E-ZPass"-like system similar to the one used on Illinois toll roads - but collected entirely electronically, with no tollbooths.

The revenue would be used exclusively to restore, maintain and expand the interstate highway system.

Fees would be set annually by an independent group of experts and users of the system, and they would not be used to control the level of traffic or to "price out" drivers from using the highway system.

The idea of not diverting toll revenues to other things is certainly sound.

As far as "pricing out" drivers from the highway system, well, that is what the idea of congestion pricing or value pricing is all about.  Having a tolled highway system that is heavily congested would seem to defeat the whole idea (though I admit that there are more than a few tolled crossings in the  New York City metropolitan area that are routinely congested).  And significant percentages of the toll revenues collected there are diverted to spending that does not benefit the users of those crossings.

Would the fees (tolls) be set on a state-by-state basis?

[roadman65]

Funny that this is all happening, considering that some politician once proposed charging a tax on miles driven on our vehicles.  If that ever happened, and all the toll roads tear down plazas, then there would be no distinction between a toll and a tax except the fact one agency is the state's official road agency while the other is a bureaucracy.

[vdeane]

In many places the official road agency is more bureaucratic than the toll agency.

[cpzilliacus]

Funny that this is all happening, considering that some politician once proposed charging a tax on miles driven on our vehicles.  If that ever happened, and all the toll roads tear down plazas, then there would be no distinction between a toll and a tax except the fact one agency is the state's official road agency while the other is a bureaucracy.

Not just "some politician" that suggested VMT taxes.  Oregon has studied the concept - a lot. 

There are private groups that are in favor of VMT taxes also.

Germany imposed one in 2005 on commercial vehicles (but not buses) called Toll Collect that use its autobahn network (and certain parts of the German arterial highway network).

[mgk920]

We already pay a toll based on how much one uses his or her vehicle and how heavy it is - the 'gas tax'.

Mike

[AsphaltPlanet]

^ Agreed, fuel taxes serve a very similar purpose as vehicle per mile tolling.

While electronic toll infrastructure is (in my opinion) vastly superior to toll booths, electronic toll collection itself carries a significant cost, at probably a considerable increase over the cost of collecting fuel taxes from gas station operations.

Further, fully electronic tolling as proposed above introduces some privacy issues, as vehicles could be tracked pretty well at all times.

[Compulov]

I'd be okay with the expansion of toll roads so long as funds aren't diverted. In my experience, toll roads tend to be the best upgraded, best maintained roads in the network. I'd also be in favor of higher gas taxes, though a better idea is probably a VMT because we're reaching the point where increases in fuel economy are hurting the revenues brought in via gas taxes pretty significantly. I just wonder how they'd implement it. I hate paperwork, and I'm not too keen on the idea of having some sort of big brother device reporting my mileage to the authorities for bookkeeping purposes (though I guess EZ-Pass is being used in that fashion here in PA for figuring out travel times).

Or... we could just pay for our roads out of general tax dollars. After all, unless you live in a shack in the woods, grow (and hunt) your own food, clean your own water, and chop down your own trees for fires to keep you warm, you benefit from our road network in this country. Even if you don't own a car, chances are you shop at stores where goods were brought in via the highway network. You probably take public transportation which uses this road network (busses anyone?) or was subsidized by tax dollars in one form or another. So, we just need to get over this whole notion that highway spending only benefits those use actively use the roads, since it's far from the truth.

[Duke87]

We already pay a toll based on how much one uses his or her vehicle and how heavy it is - the 'gas tax'.

To some degree. But not all cars are equal in efficiency and we now have cars on the road that don't use gas at all. And the number of hybrids and alternative fuel vehicles is only going to go up as time marches on, throwing a monkey wrench into the traditional idea of the gas tax being a fair use tax.

Of course, the other problem is that as growth in VMT has stagnated and cars have become more efficient, gas sales have declined. And at the same time, gas itself has become more expensive, so people are complaining about the price more than they used to. As such, raising the gas tax to compensate for the shortfalls is politically problematic. And therefore, governments are starting to seek alternate streams of revenue which are more palatable to the public.

[roadman65]

The question is what comes next?  No matter how much money they get from us, it never fulfills and it seems like its more behind we end up at, so either another raise or another charge of something.

[Compulov]

Of course, the other problem is that as growth in VMT has stagnated and cars have become more efficient, gas sales have declined. And at the same time, gas itself has become more expensive, so people are complaining about the price more than they used to. As such, raising the gas tax to compensate for the shortfalls is politically problematic. And therefore, governments are starting to seek alternate streams of revenue which are more palatable to the public.

Which is why I think we should just bite the bullet and decide as a country that the roads need to be funded from the general budgets of our governments (federal all the way down to local). It spreads the burden for maintaining the roads across the entire tax base, rather than just a subset of people (those who buy gas). Roads are one of the few things (short of utilities, which are more easily metered) where the users of the infrastructure are expected to bear the cost of it. By the same logic, only those people with kids in school should pay the school tax. Since I've never had the need to call the police in my current residence, maybe I shouldn't have to pay for the police. It just doesn't make sense.

[cpzilliacus]

We already pay a toll based on how much one uses his or her vehicle and how heavy it is - the 'gas tax'.

That is true - but - in many parts of the United States, there is an irresistible desire to divert enormous  amounts of fuel tax revenues to non-highway uses.  Uses that are usually not of any benefit to the people and businesses that pay  those taxes.

On the flipside, motor fuel taxes are cheap to collect and administer.  Not even all-electronic tolling is (yet) as cheap.

[cpzilliacus]

To some degree. But not all cars are equal in efficiency and we now have cars on the road that don't use gas at all. And the number of hybrids and alternative fuel vehicles is only going to go up as time marches on, throwing a monkey wrench into the traditional idea of the gas tax being a fair use tax.

Of course, the other problem is that as growth in VMT has stagnated and cars have become more efficient, gas sales have declined. And at the same time, gas itself has become more expensive, so people are complaining about the price more than they used to. As such, raising the gas tax to compensate for the shortfalls is politically problematic. And therefore, governments are starting to seek alternate streams of revenue which are more palatable to the public.

The above are all valid points.

[cpzilliacus]

Which is why I think we should just bite the bullet and decide as a country that the roads need to be funded from the general budgets of our governments (federal all the way down to local). It spreads the burden for maintaining the roads across the entire tax base, rather than just a subset of people (those who buy gas). Roads are one of the few things (short of utilities, which are more easily metered) where the users of the infrastructure are expected to bear the cost of it. By the same logic, only those people with kids in school should pay the school tax. Since I've never had the need to call the police in my current residence, maybe I shouldn't have to pay for the police. It just doesn't make sense.

But on the  other hand, how about railroads, which maintain most of their own rolling stock and rights-of-way out of their own revenues?

Highway use is easy enough now to measure, though the opportunity for misuse by state and perhaps especially local governments, by charging excessive per-mile charges (in the same style that some places run abusive speed traps) could be a problem, since there is significant potential for the elected leaders of smaller units of governments to try to finance their operations by non-residents.

[mgk920]

Which is why I think we should just bite the bullet and decide as a country that the roads need to be funded from the general budgets of our governments (federal all the way down to local). It spreads the burden for maintaining the roads across the entire tax base, rather than just a subset of people (those who buy gas). Roads are one of the few things (short of utilities, which are more easily metered) where the users of the infrastructure are expected to bear the cost of it. By the same logic, only those people with kids in school should pay the school tax. Since I've never had the need to call the police in my current residence, maybe I shouldn't have to pay for the police. It just doesn't make sense.

I've mused the same thing, too - the utility that one receives from the transport network (all modes) is very directly proportionate to the level of his or her overall taxable economic activity.  A very powerful, IMHO, argument for making such a conversion.

But on the  other hand, how about railroads, which maintain most of their own rolling stock and rights-of-way out of their own revenues?

Highway use is easy enough now to measure, though the opportunity for misuse by state and perhaps especially local governments, by charging excessive per-mile charges (in the same style that some places run abusive speed traps) could be a problem, since there is significant potential for the elected leaders of smaller units of governments to try to finance their operations by non-residents.

I've mused this many times, too, including in these forvms - perhaps it is time to find a way to convert North American railroads to operate much like how nearly all of the other transport modes (ie, highways, civil aviation, seaports and increasingly, electric power distribution, etc) now operate - where the infrastructure and transport operations are separately owned.  Anyone can go anywhere they want to as long as the operating crews are qualified and licensed, the equipment meets minimum technical standards and they are willing and able to pay the necessary fees and tolls.

Maybe I am dreaming.

Mike

[Compulov]

But on the  other hand, how about railroads, which maintain most of their own rolling stock and rights-of-way out of their own revenues?

Highway use is easy enough now to measure, though the opportunity for misuse by state and perhaps especially local governments, by charging excessive per-mile charges (in the same style that some places run abusive speed traps) could be a problem, since there is significant potential for the elected leaders of smaller units of governments to try to finance their operations by non-residents.

I've mused this many times, too, including in these forvms - perhaps it is time to find a way to convert North American railroads to operate much like how nearly all of the other transport modes (ie, highways, civil aviation, seaports and increasingly, electric power distribution, etc) now operate - where the infrastructure and transport operations are separately owned.  Anyone can go anywhere they want to as long as the operating crews are qualified and licensed, the equipment meets minimum technical standards and they are willing and able to pay the necessary fees and tolls.

I agree with this, too. For the same reasons I stated for taxpayer funding of the road network, we should be funding our rail infrastructure (and perhaps even air, too, though that's a whole other long discussion). Even though I very rarely take a train, I, as a member of our society, take advantage of items shipped cheaply via rail. The fact that commuter rail reduces the number of cars on the road is a direct benefit to me, too. Maintaining and expanding our transport infrastructure should be a huge priority in this country, but everyone seems to take it for granted until it fails. It's the reason we grew so fast in the 19th and 20th centuries, and it'll be our downfall if we don't keep up on it. We just don't have our priorities straight, and it's frustrating.

[mgk920]

But on the  other hand, how about railroads, which maintain most of their own rolling stock and rights-of-way out of their own revenues?

Highway use is easy enough now to measure, though the opportunity for misuse by state and perhaps especially local governments, by charging excessive per-mile charges (in the same style that some places run abusive speed traps) could be a problem, since there is significant potential for the elected leaders of smaller units of governments to try to finance their operations by non-residents.

I've mused this many times, too, including in these forvms - perhaps it is time to find a way to convert North American railroads to operate much like how nearly all of the other transport modes (ie, highways, civil aviation, seaports and increasingly, electric power distribution, etc) now operate - where the infrastructure and transport operations are separately owned.  Anyone can go anywhere they want to as long as the operating crews are qualified and licensed, the equipment meets minimum technical standards and they are willing and able to pay the necessary fees and tolls.

I agree with this, too. For the same reasons I stated for taxpayer funding of the road network, we should be funding our rail infrastructure (and perhaps even air, too, though that's a whole other long discussion). Even though I very rarely take a train, I, as a member of our society, take advantage of items shipped cheaply via rail. The fact that commuter rail reduces the number of cars on the road is a direct benefit to me, too. Maintaining and expanding our transport infrastructure should be a huge priority in this country, but everyone seems to take it for granted until it fails. It's the reason we grew so fast in the 19th and 20th centuries, and it'll be our downfall if we don't keep up on it. We just don't have our priorities straight, and it's frustrating.

Actually, nearly all of the 'infrastructure' of civil aviation is government owned and operated - airports and the ATC system.  Yes, the airlines are privately owned and operated and the airlines' own terminal areas are either leased from the airports or outright owned by the carriers (ditto general aviation), but the taxiways, runways, air traffic control and so forth are not.  They are nearly all government operations funded with tolls and general taxes.

----------------

An interesting item with regards to rails - up until they were taken over by Canadian National in late 2001, Wisconsin Central operated a very popular intermodal (trailers and containers) service between several terminals in Wisconsin (Neenah, Stevens Point and Green Bay) and Chicago.  The trains out of Green Bay were LOOOOOOONG, often requiring the railroad to run second sections to meet the customer demand.  I figure that that service took 300-400 big-rig trucks off of I-94, US(I)-41 and I-43 every day.  Within a couple of weeks after CN took over WC, CN dropped that service because even though it was operating at a profit, it was not profitable enough for CN's beancounters.

Since then, there has been considerable interest in many local circles towards restarting that service and I am a bit surprised that WisDOT isn't one of those taking a greater interest in it due to reduced wear and tear on those roads with the potential for reduced big-rig traffic.  Unfortunately, because of the lack of access to intercity rails with the current North American rail ownership structure, it has not been possible due to resistance from CN.



Mike

[kkt]

The trouble (I should say, one of the troubles) with funding the roads out of general revenues is that it prevents free competition between different modes of transport.  Railroads use significantly less fuel and much less labor per ton-mile than trucks, and are also safer.  Trucks do have advantages, like door to door service and usually fewer delays along the way.  In a capitalist society, we are supposed to be making decisions based on the actual cost of different ways of doing things, but if trucks and planes enjoy a large subsidy that rails don't get those decisions don't get made in the optimum way.  The same applies for private cars vs. bicycles, trucks vs. barges, etc.  I'd prefer the basic cost to be paid by user taxes when appropriate.  Then subsidies from the general fund stick out as exceptions, to be examined closely, rather than the rule.

[mgk920]

The trouble (I should say, one of the troubles) with funding the roads out of general revenues is that it prevents free competition between different modes of transport.  Railroads use significantly less fuel and much less labor per ton-mile than trucks, and are also safer.  Trucks do have advantages, like door to door service and usually fewer delays along the way.  In a capitalist society, we are supposed to be making decisions based on the actual cost of different ways of doing things, but if trucks and planes enjoy a large subsidy that rails don't get those decisions don't get made in the optimum way.  The same applies for private cars vs. bicycles, trucks vs. barges, etc.  I'd prefer the basic cost to be paid by user taxes when appropriate.  Then subsidies from the general fund stick out as exceptions, to be examined closely, rather than the rule.

Thus the points in my above posts about trying to find a way to separate the ownership of railroad infrastructure from the train operations - it would then be much easier for the rail operating companies to compete on a level field with the other modes, especially trucks, and more politically possible to use general tax revenues to fund rail infrastructure upgrades.  (Like with civil aviation, train dispatching would be with the infrastructure.)

(Yes, this is a serious bit of thread drift, but it all ties together in the subject of transport infrastructure funding.)

Mike