Toll Road within a Toll Road

[roadman65]

In Orlando, Florida, like many other cities the HOT lanes are starting to be built charging you extra to use them to avoid the general use lanes.  However, on two already tolled facilities those same HOT lanes will be added to charge extra tolls in addition to the ones being paid already.

One being the Central Florida Greeneway (FL 417) north of the University Mainline Plaza and the other (which may be arguably by some on here to not be a toll road at the point of HOT lane addition) which is the western 5 miles of FL 528 that maybe considered by some on here as a free road due to its lack of ramp tolls west of the mainline plaza and east of its western terminus.  However, officially its all funded by toll revenue and not by taxes even though from Exits 1 to 4 you can go from one interchange to another and not pay anything there.

Nonetheless, I thought the 1 to 4 widening on FL 528 was to make it a six lane freeway as that was in the plans for well over a decade.  When I heard of this by flaroads on his facebook page it nearly blew my mind!  I, of course,heard of the plans for FL 417 earlier this year from Channel 9 News in Orlando which did a full report on the whole project!

I know its to the point of no return now.  The unthinkable once is now the norm and like Pete said in another post to another who was thinking out of place being that the post (and the poster) he directed at was 40 years ago mentality.  Well, I am not debating the conservative verses liberal or the old ways verses present, but accepting finally more unusual things happening to the roads that we do not think about now, will be front and center for our young kids of today when they reach the age to run this nation.

[AlexandriaVA]

I know its to the point of no return now.  The unthinkable once is now the norm and like Pete said in another post to another who was thinking out of place being that the post (and the poster) he directed at was 40 years ago mentality.  Well, I am not debating the conservative verses liberal or the old ways verses present, but accepting finally more unusual things happening to the roads that we do not think about now, will be front and center for our young kids of today when they reach the age to run this nation.

#1: What 40-year-old mentality are you referring to? If toll roads or majority toll roads are "unthinkable", I find that silly. The Northeast has survived fine with a plethora of tolls roads for decades now.

#2 I say, as someone in my 20s, that I presume that any highway/expressway/freeway built in the Northeast in the future will be tolled. And, that tolls will be retrofitted onto exisiting freeways/highways/expressways as the opportunity presents itself.

#3 The sky won't fall, the world won't end.

[bzakharin]

I know its to the point of no return now.  The unthinkable once is now the norm and like Pete said in another post to another who was thinking out of place being that the post (and the poster) he directed at was 40 years ago mentality.  Well, I am not debating the conservative verses liberal or the old ways verses present, but accepting finally more unusual things happening to the roads that we do not think about now, will be front and center for our young kids of today when they reach the age to run this nation.

#1: What 40-year-old mentality are you referring to? If toll roads or majority toll roads are "unthinkable", I find that silly. The Northeast has survived fine with a plethora of tolls roads for decades now.

#2 I say, as someone in my 20s, that I presume that any highway/expressway/freeway built in the Northeast in the future will be tolled. And, that tolls will be retrofitted onto exisiting freeways/highways/expressways as the opportunity presents itself.

#3 The sky won't fall, the world won't end.

I'm not at all sure that there is actually a trend in the Northeast toward more toll roads. Connecticut has long done away with their tolls on I-95. Several proposals to toll various segments of I-80 (outside the already tolled areas which are not in the Northeast anyway) have failed. I-86, which is currently being built, is and will remain free for the foreseeable future.

[vdeane]

A couple points:
-Tolling I-80 actually passed the PA legislature and got written into law.  It failed only because the FHWA didn't allow it.
-I-86 isn't exactly a new build interstate, but rather an upgrade of NY 17, which is mostly freeway already, and forward progress has essentially stalled.  Unless something changes, once the current construction in Binghamton is finished, nothing else will be done; the remaining projects were removed from the STIP.

[roadman65]

I know its to the point of no return now.  The unthinkable once is now the norm and like Pete said in another post to another who was thinking out of place being that the post (and the poster) he directed at was 40 years ago mentality.  Well, I am not debating the conservative verses liberal or the old ways verses present, but accepting finally more unusual things happening to the roads that we do not think about now, will be front and center for our young kids of today when they reach the age to run this nation.

#1: What 40-year-old mentality are you referring to? If toll roads or majority toll roads are "unthinkable", I find that silly. The Northeast has survived fine with a plethora of tolls roads for decades now.

#2 I say, as someone in my 20s, that I presume that any highway/expressway/freeway built in the Northeast in the future will be tolled. And, that tolls will be retrofitted onto exisiting freeways/highways/expressways as the opportunity presents itself.

#3 The sky won't fall, the world won't end.

Years ago we never thought of extra tolling an existing toll road or doing many other things road or non related like we did now.   That was unthinkable! Not tolling the roads as we did have the NJ Turnpike, the NYS Thruway, or how about this one: The PA Turnpike built in 1940!

However, we kept the amount of the tolls reasonable and not like now charging near 10 bucks to transit the Hudson River and Arthur Kill crossings in NYC or those 7 dollar tolls that the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority charge nowadays.

Yes salaries were less back in the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's, but a quarter back in 1971 to use the Queens-Midtown Tunnel was not a major hardship to your wallet like the current tolls are on it!  The tolls went up much more than the average paycheck percentage wise!  When I say that I mean not CNN's or Fox's survey of the what the average pay is, but what I hear people feel about using the bridges and tunnels of the NYC area.

[jeffandnicole]

A couple points:
-Tolling I-80 actually passed the PA legislature and got written into law.  It failed only because the FHWA didn't allow it.

The hardheads at PennDOT and/or the PA Politicians screwed that one up. They wanted the toll money to go to mass transit and other non-road related causes, even though it was clearly stated that toll road money could only be used for the road which was being told.  When the FHWA told them, slowly, syllable by syllable, that the money could only be used for maintenance and other road related expenditures related to I-80, PennDOT and the PA Politicians said...OK, we'll use it for mass transit purposes.  The FHWA collectively smacked their palms against their heads, and told PennDOT forget it.

[hotdogPi]

However, we kept the amount of the tolls reasonable and not like now charging near 10 bucks to transit the Hudson River and Arthur Kill crossings in NYC or those 7 dollar tolls that the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority charge nowadays.

Yes salaries were less back in the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's, but a quarter back in 1971 to use the Queens-Midtown Tunnel was not a major hardship to your wallet like the current tolls are on it!  The tolls went up much more than the average paycheck percentage wise!  When I say that I mean not CNN's or Fox's survey of the what the average pay is, but what I hear people feel about using the bridges and tunnels of the NYC area.

The Mass Pike is still about $3 for the part outside I-495 (100 miles), and less than a dollar from I-84 to I-290 (a common entrance-exit pair, both directions).

[1995hoo]

Going back to the original topic, I believe there is also a proposal to put HO/T lanes on a portion of the Homestead Extension somewhere south of the junction with I-75.

[roadman65]

Shh, do not give the NJTA in NJ ideas to find that way to toll the 129 to 140 section they made the deal with the state not toll any of it when they bought the road from them.  Just join the trend and build new lanes and charge them instead.

[jakeroot]

Warning: Rant ahead...

Presuming cities continue to grow, I have a hard time believing that freeways will be able to keep up with population growth. Given this, I suspect that tolling will become more common in the future as transportation agencies seek to find ways to mitigate traffic levels. Within cities at least, I don't see a future where freeways are the dominant form of transport.

Before anyone gets up in arms about transportation agencies making it easy for the rich guy to get along, it's pretty clear that freeways will become a form of transport that only some of the population can afford. Freeways simply can't be 30 lanes wide to accommodate for 800,000 cars. In some areas, like Seattle, freeways have reached their limit, and now we are just trying to control the congestion. In the future, people will not be able to drive to work. They will be forced to use public transportation. I know that's a slightly grim prospect, but it's more than likely what will happen.

As has been said before, driving is not a right. It is a privilege.

[Rothman]

As has been said before, driving is not right. It is a privilege.

You say that as if it's fact.  I disagree.  It's a right.

[jakeroot]

As has been said before, driving is not right. It is a privilege.

You say that as if it's fact.  I disagree.  It's a right.

I found this quote on Google:

"Driving is not a constitutional right. You get your drivers license based on the skills you have and the rules you agree to follow. After you get your driving license you must continue to demonstrate your ability to drive safely on the road"

[Rothman]

As has been said before, driving is not right. It is a privilege.

You say that as if it's fact.  I disagree.  It's a right.

I found this quote on Google:

"Driving is not a constitutional right. You get your drivers license based on the skills you have and the rules you agree to follow. After you get your driving license you must continue to demonstrate your ability to drive safely on the road"

Right.  As long as I get a license, I have a right to drive.

[jeffandnicole]

As has been said before, driving is not right. It is a privilege.

You say that as if it's fact.  I disagree.  It's a right.

I found this quote on Google:

"Driving is not a constitutional right. You get your drivers license based on the skills you have and the rules you agree to follow. After you get your driving license you must continue to demonstrate your ability to drive safely on the road"

Which state requires you to take a test to continually demonstrate your ability to drive? 

[AlexandriaVA]

Isn't the issue the right to drive on public roads (versus private roads)? That is, as the builder and owner of roads, the government can compel drivers to be licensed, no different than a railroad company such as CSX or Norfolk Southern can require that train engineers must be licensed and qualified to operate on their tracks?

Also, the right to drive doesn't necessary mean at all the right to drive without fees. People often conflate those two things.

[roadman65]

Warning: Rant ahead...

Presuming cities continue to grow, I have a hard time believing that freeways will be able to keep up with population growth. Given this, I suspect that tolling will become more common in the future as transportation agencies seek to find ways to mitigate traffic levels. Within cities at least, I don't see a future where freeways are the dominant form of transport.

Before anyone gets up in arms about transportation agencies making it easy for the rich guy to get along, it's pretty clear that freeways will become a form of transport that only some of the population can afford. Freeways simply can't be 30 lanes wide to accommodate for 800,000 cars. In some areas, like Seattle, freeways have reached their limit, and now we are just trying to control the congestion. In the future, people will not be able to drive to work. They will be forced to use public transportation. I know that's a slightly grim prospect, but it's more than likely what will happen.

As has been said before, driving is not a right. It is a privilege.

Some of what you say is correct.  We have too many people now and our society makes it where you must drive.  Without getting too political, we need to invest in other transportation methods other than freeway, but we will not because the oil companies do not want Washington to invest in it for fear of losing their revenue.

The bottom line is we need to stop developing, but we won't.  That just spreads the population around causing more roads to become overcrowded.  New developments, if they build, should build their own rapid transit to the nearest job markets themselves and push for it harder.  If you move into a community that has an established light rail or other rail system, you would be willing to use it to and from work. However, you build one after you move in, you will not as you are already too comfortable with your own car and freedom that you would not give it up.

Driving is not a right its a privilege and are abusing it a little too much.

[AlexandriaVA]

Warning: Rant ahead...

Presuming cities continue to grow, I have a hard time believing that freeways will be able to keep up with population growth. Given this, I suspect that tolling will become more common in the future as transportation agencies seek to find ways to mitigate traffic levels. Within cities at least, I don't see a future where freeways are the dominant form of transport.

Before anyone gets up in arms about transportation agencies making it easy for the rich guy to get along, it's pretty clear that freeways will become a form of transport that only some of the population can afford. Freeways simply can't be 30 lanes wide to accommodate for 800,000 cars. In some areas, like Seattle, freeways have reached their limit, and now we are just trying to control the congestion. In the future, people will not be able to drive to work. They will be forced to use public transportation. I know that's a slightly grim prospect, but it's more than likely what will happen.

As has been said before, driving is not a right. It is a privilege.

Some of what you say is correct.  We have too many people now and our society makes it where you must drive.  Without getting too political, we need to invest in other transportation methods other than freeway, but we will not because the oil companies do not want Washington to invest in it for fear of losing their revenue.

The bottom line is we need to stop developing, but we won't.  That just spreads the population around causing more roads to become overcrowded.  New developments, if they build, should build their own rapid transit to the nearest job markets themselves and push for it harder.  If you move into a community that has an established light rail or other rail system, you would be willing to use it to and from work. However, you build one after you move in, you will not as you are already too comfortable with your own car and freedom that you would not give it up.

Driving is not a right its a privilege and are abusing it a little too much.

Society is a made-up concept. The blame lies on transportation engineers and construction crews for designing and building our roadways and cities in such a manner. Get to the root cause of things.

[jakeroot]

Which state requires you to take a test to continually demonstrate your ability to drive?

States that take your license away when you screw up too many times. I believe almost all states do this. A point system is an example of a state keeping tabs on its drivers, making sure they are driving safely and not mucking up too often. Too many muck-ups, and you lose your privilege to drive.

Right.  As long as I get a license, I have a right to drive.

No. A "right" is a legal entitlement. You are not legally entitled to a driver's license. A driver's license is afforded only to those with demonstrable skills. If driving was a right, the DMV wouldn't be legally allowed to withhold a license from someone. The problem, of course, is that they do this all the time: those without the proper skills to maneuver a vehicle are not afforded the privilege of driving.

You seem to think that being given the privilege of something means being given the right. I fundamentally disagree with that definition, but if that's how you want to see it, so be it.

[vdeane]

I prefer to think of driving as a right that's conditional on the ability to safely operate a motor vehicle.

Society is a made-up concept. The blame lies on transportation engineers and construction crews for designing and building our roadways and cities in such a manner. Get to the root cause of things.

The root cause is that towns don't bother to enforce their zoning codes.  If the towns zoned for transit oriented development and stuck to it, new development would be FORCED to change.  But no, instead towns bend over backwards to accommodate the developers.  Whenever there's some proposal, the question always is "how can the town change their zoning laws to accommodate it", not "how can the developer change their proposal to comply with the zoning laws".

In Europe, the transit operators work in tandem with developers to put the development near transit stops.  Around here, transit is largely a footnote in this process if it's even considered at all, and nothing is put in with consideration as to how it affects the transportation network as a whole.  Traffic accommodations are VERY local, at best.

No. A "right" is a legal entitlement. You are not legally entitled to a driver's license. A driver's license is afforded only to those with demonstrable skills. If driving was a right, the DMV wouldn't be legally allowed to withhold a license from someone. The problem, of course, is that they do this all the time: those without the proper skills to maneuver a vehicle are not afforded the privilege of driving.

You seem to think that being given the privilege of something means being given the right. I fundamentally disagree with that definition, but if that's how you want to see it, so be it.

If states did that, 90% of current drivers wouldn't have a licence.

[AlexandriaVA]

I prefer to think of driving as a right that's conditional on the ability to safely operate a motor vehicle.

Society is a made-up concept. The blame lies on transportation engineers and construction crews for designing and building our roadways and cities in such a manner. Get to the root cause of things.

The root cause is that towns don't bother to enforce their zoning codes.  If the towns zoned for transit oriented development and stuck to it, new development would be FORCED to change.  But no, instead towns bend over backwards to accommodate the developers.  Whenever there's some proposal, the question always is "how can the town change their zoning laws to accommodate it", not "how can the developer change their proposal to comply with the zoning laws".

In Europe, the transit operators work in tandem with developers to put the development near transit stops.  Around here, transit is largely a footnote in this process if it's even considered at all, and nothing is put in with consideration as to how it affects the transportation network as a whole.  Traffic accommodations are VERY local, at best.

No. A "right" is a legal entitlement. You are not legally entitled to a driver's license. A driver's license is afforded only to those with demonstrable skills. If driving was a right, the DMV wouldn't be legally allowed to withhold a license from someone. The problem, of course, is that they do this all the time: those without the proper skills to maneuver a vehicle are not afforded the privilege of driving.

You seem to think that being given the privilege of something means being given the right. I fundamentally disagree with that definition, but if that's how you want to see it, so be it.

If states did that, 90% of current drivers wouldn't have a licence.

Whatever, you get the government you vote for. Around here in Alexandria, Arlington, DC, they definitely focus development on existing and planned transit corridors.

[jakeroot]

I prefer to think of driving as a right that's conditional on the ability to safely operate a motor vehicle.

You're not the only person who views it that way. The problem is that, because so many people have a driver's license, the ability for one to drive feels like it might actually be a God-given right. But it's not; it's still a privilege. It's just been given to so many people, that it comes across that way.

If states did that, 90% of current drivers wouldn't have a licence.

You are allowed to screw up from time to time. This is why the term "repeat offender" exists, I presume.

[vdeane]

I prefer to think of driving as a right that's conditional on the ability to safely operate a motor vehicle.

You're not the only person who views it that way. The problem is that, because so many people have a driver's license, the ability for one to drive feels like it might actually be a God-given right. But it's not; it's still a privilege. It's just been given to so many people, that it comes across that way.

If states did that, 90% of current drivers wouldn't have a licence.

You are allowed to screw up from time to time. This is why the term "repeat offender" exists, I presume.

The problem is, if you view driving as a privilege, then it's at the charity of the government that you can drive at all, and it can be removed for reasons other than safety, which IMO is NOT OK.  Imagine if the national security state could disable your car because your driving patterns looked "suspicious".  Now stop imagining, because it is my prediction that this will actually happen within a decade or two.  Or imagine private vehicle ownership and driving outlawed entirely, as a small number of people have actually advocated for (such as the Venus Project).

If the screw-ups were only from time to time, why is traffic gridlocked on the Northway every day in tourist season because people don't know how to merge properly and constantly get into accidents?  If people only knew basic things like "the purpose of the ramp and acceleration lane is to get up to the speed of traffic and merge into an open gap" and didn't constantly crash into each other (there was a week where there was an accident every single day), traffic would flow a LOT smoother.

[jeffandnicole]

Which state requires you to take a test to continually demonstrate your ability to drive?

States that take your license away when you screw up too many times. I believe almost all states do this. A point system is an example of a state keeping tabs on its drivers, making sure they are driving safely and not mucking up too often. Too many muck-ups, and you lose your privilege to drive.

You referred to penalties assessed if you make too many mistakes, which occurs after the fact.  Your statement isn't referring to that.  Your statement refers to something someone must do in order to continue to drive.  As long as I don't get accessed too many points, I can continue to hold a drivers license.   Even in your example, in most states, you pay a reinstatement fee to get your license back, but you don't have to take a take to demonstrate your ability to drive.  Many states may require you to take an eye exam, but being able to see isn't the same as being able to demonstrate your ability to drive.

A real example would be many professional licenses, such as a CPA license.  You have to take continuing education courses (along with other requirements) in order to retain your CPA license.  But again, you do that in order to keep the license.  You don't do anything (other than pay a fee) to keep a driver's license.

[jakeroot]

The problem is, if you view driving as a privilege, then it's at the charity of the government that you can drive at all, and it can be removed for reasons other than safety, which IMO is NOT OK.  Imagine if the national security state could disable your car because your driving patterns looked "suspicious".  Now stop imagining, because it is my prediction that this will actually happen within a decade or two.  Or imagine private vehicle ownership and driving outlawed entirely, as a small number of people have actually advocated for (such as the Venus Project).

I see your point, but I don't think the "national security state" is a credible threat. You sound like a bit of a conspiracy theorist, to be honest.

If the screw-ups were only from time to time, why is traffic gridlocked on the Northway every day in tourist season because people don't know how to merge properly and constantly get into accidents?  If people only knew basic things like "the purpose of the ramp and acceleration lane is to get up to the speed of traffic and merge into an open gap" and didn't constantly crash into each other (there was a week where there was an accident every single day), traffic would flow a LOT smoother.

That's New York's problem, not mine.

You referred to penalties assessed if you make too many mistakes, which occurs after the fact.  Your statement isn't referring to that.  Your statement refers to something someone must do in order to continue to drive.  As long as I don't get accessed too many points, I can continue to hold a drivers license.   Even in your example, in most states, you pay a reinstatement fee to get your license back, but you don't have to take a take to demonstrate your ability to drive.  Many states may require you to take an eye exam, but being able to see isn't the same as being able to demonstrate your ability to drive.

Not necessarily. All the statement is saying is that "you must continue to demonstrate your ability to drive safely". I think there's an "innocent until proven guilty" clause in there.

[vdeane]

If someone isn't regularly being retested on how to drive, to whom are they demonstrating an ability to drive safely?  Just because someone hasn't gotten a ticket or in a reported accident doesn't mean they're a safe driver.  They could just be lucky.

A lot of the drivers around here seem to think that it is the responsibility of traffic to let them in when they want to merge onto the highway or make a lane change (or even pull out of a driveway).  That probably causes quite a few accidents, but it's not something one would get a ticket for.